11–24–09 Tuesday Vol. 74 No. 225 Nov. 24, 2009
Pages 61259–61500
VerDate Nov 24 2008 17:50 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4710 Sfmt 4710 E:\FR\FM\24NOWS.LOC 24NOWS sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with FRONTMATTER II Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009
The FEDERAL REGISTER (ISSN 0097–6326) is published daily, SUBSCRIPTIONS AND COPIES Monday through Friday, except official holidays, by the Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records PUBLIC Administration, Washington, DC 20408, under the Federal Register Subscriptions: Act (44 U.S.C. Ch. 15) and the regulations of the Administrative Paper or fiche 202–512–1800 Committee of the Federal Register (1 CFR Ch. I). The Assistance with public subscriptions 202–512–1806 Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402 is the exclusive distributor of the official General online information 202–512–1530; 1–888–293–6498 edition. Periodicals postage is paid at Washington, DC. Single copies/back copies: The FEDERAL REGISTER provides a uniform system for making Paper or fiche 202–512–1800 available to the public regulations and legal notices issued by Assistance with public single copies 1–866–512–1800 Federal agencies. These include Presidential proclamations and (Toll-Free) Executive Orders, Federal agency documents having general FEDERAL AGENCIES applicability and legal effect, documents required to be published by act of Congress, and other Federal agency documents of public Subscriptions: interest. Paper or fiche 202–741–6005 Documents are on file for public inspection in the Office of the Assistance with Federal agency subscriptions 202–741–6005 Federal Register the day before they are published, unless the issuing agency requests earlier filing. For a list of documents currently on file for public inspection, see www.federalregister.gov. The seal of the National Archives and Records Administration authenticates the Federal Register as the official serial publication established under the Federal Register Act. Under 44 U.S.C. 1507, the contents of the Federal Register shall be judicially noticed. The Federal Register is published in paper and on 24x microfiche. It is also available online at no charge as one of the databases on GPO Access, a service of the U.S. Government Printing Office. The online edition of the Federal Register www.gpoaccess.gov/ nara, available through GPO Access, is issued under the authority of the Administrative Committee of the Federal Register as the official legal equivalent of the paper and microfiche editions (44 U.S.C. 4101 and 1 CFR 5.10). It is updated by 6 a.m. each day the Federal Register is published and includes both text and graphics from Volume 59, Number 1 (January 2, 1994) forward. For more information about GPO Access, contact the GPO Access User Support Team, call toll free 1-888-293-6498; DC area 202- 512-1530; fax at 202-512-1262; or via e-mail at [email protected]. The Support Team is available between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday–Friday, except official holidays. The annual subscription price for the Federal Register paper edition is $749 plus postage, or $808, plus postage, for a combined Federal Register, Federal Register Index and List of CFR Sections Affected (LSA) subscription; the microfiche edition of the Federal Register including the Federal Register Index and LSA is $165, plus postage. Six month subscriptions are available for one-half the annual rate. The prevailing postal rates will be applied to orders according to the delivery method requested. The price of a single copy of the daily Federal Register, including postage, is based on the number of pages: $11 for an issue containing less than 200 pages; $22 for an issue containing 200 to 400 pages; and $33 for an issue containing more than 400 pages. Single issues of the microfiche edition may be purchased for $3 per copy, including postage. Remit check or money order, made payable to the Superintendent of Documents, or charge to your GPO Deposit Account, VISA, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover. Mail to: U.S. Government Printing Office—New Orders, P.O. Box 979050, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000; or call toll free 1- 866-512-1800, DC area 202-512-1800; or go to the U.S. Government Online Bookstore site, see bookstore.gpo.gov. There are no restrictions on the republication of material appearing in the Federal Register. How To Cite This Publication: Use the volume number and the page number. Example: 74 FR 12345. Postmaster: Send address changes to the Superintendent of Documents, Federal Register, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402, along with the entire mailing label from the last issue received.
.
VerDate Nov 24 2008 17:50 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4710 Sfmt 4710 E:\FR\FM\24NOWS.LOC 24NOWS sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with FRONTMATTER III
Contents Federal Register Vol. 74, No. 225
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Agricultural Marketing Service Commodity Futures Trading Commission RULES NOTICES Domestic Dates Produced or Packed in Riverside County, Joint Order Modifying the Listing Standards Requirements CA: under Section 6(h) of the Securities Exchange Act of Changes to Nomination Procedures and a Reporting Date, 1934, etc., 61380–61383 61265–61267 Onions Grown in South Texas; Decreased Assessment Rate, Defense Department 61263–61265 NOTICES NOTICES Federal Acquisition Regulation: Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 61317–61318 Submissions, and Approvals, 61354–61355 FY 2010 Grant Competition: Promoting Student Achievement at Schools Impacted by Agriculture Department Military Force Structure Changes, 61335–61337 See Agricultural Marketing Service Meetings: See Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service DoD Task Force on the Prevention of Suicide by See Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Members of the Armed Forces, 61337–61338 See Forest Service Department of Transportation Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service See Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety NOTICES Administration Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Oral Rabies Vaccine Program, 61319–61321 Drug Enforcement Administration International Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standard-Setting NOTICES Activities, 61321–61328 Revocation of Registration: Harrell E. Robinson, M.D., 61370–61377 Mohammed F. Abdel-Hameed, M.D., 61366–61370 Arts and Humanities, National Foundation See National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Election Assistance Commission NOTICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, NOTICES Submissions, and Approvals, 61338–61339 Charter Renewals: Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning Energy Department Prevention, 61357 See Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Meetings: PROPOSED RULES Energy Conservation Program: Tribal Consultation Advisory Committee; 4th Biannual Energy Conservation Standards for Small Electric Motors, Tribal Consultation Session, 61358 61410–61500
Children and Families Administration Environmental Protection Agency NOTICES NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Access to Confidential Business Information by Science Submissions, and Approvals, 61356–61357 Applications International Corp., 61346–61347 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 61347–61348 Coast Guard Pesticide Experimental Use Permits; Receipt of RULES Applications; Comment Requests, 61348–61349 Safety and Security Zones: Tentative Approval and Solicitation of Request for a Public Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Romeoville, IL, 61278– Hearing: 61283 Public Water Supply Supervision Program Revision for PROPOSED RULES the U.S. Virgin Islands, 61349–61351 Security Zones: Brazos River, Freeport, TX, 61305–61308 Executive Office of the President See Presidential Documents Commerce Department See Industry and Security Bureau Federal Aviation Administration See International Trade Administration PROPOSED RULES See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Stamford, TX, NOTICES 61289–61290 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Proposed Amendment of Restricted Area R–2204 High and Submissions, and Approvals, 61328–61329 R–2204 Low; Oliktok Point, AK, 61291–61292
VerDate Nov<24>2008 17:51 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\24NOCN.SGM 24NOCN sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with FRONTMATTER IV Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Contents
Federal Communications Commission See Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office PROPOSED RULES Empowering Parents and Protecting Children in an Internal Revenue Service Evolving Media Landscape, 61308–61316 RULES Notice Requirements for Certain Pension Plan Amendments Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Significantly Reducing the Rate of Future Benefit PROPOSED RULES Accrual, 61270–61277 Common Crop Insurance Regulations: PROPOSED RULES Stonefruit Crop Provisions, 61286–61289 Information Reporting for Payments Made in Settlement of Payment Card and Third Party Network Transactions, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 61294–61305 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, International Boundary and Water Commission, United Submissions, and Approvals, 61351–61354 States and Mexico NOTICES Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: NOTICES Flood Control Improvements and Partial Levee Applications: Relocation, Presidio Flood Control Project, Presidio, Crane & Co., 61339–61340 TX, 61366 Haida Corp. et al., 61339 Combined Notice of Filings, 61340–61345 International Trade Administration Initial Market-Based Rate Filings: NOTICES Major Energy Electric Services, LLC, 61346 Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Results of the Forest Service Second Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: NOTICES Certain Activated Carbon from the People’s Republic of Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: China, 61330–61331 Black Hills National Forest, Northern Hills Ranger District, South Dakota, Nautilus Project, 61318–61319 Justice Department New Fee Site: See Drug Enforcement Administration Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, (Title VIII, Pub. L. 108–447); Cancellation, 61328 Land Management Bureau NOTICES General Services Administration Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, NOTICES Submissions, and Approvals, 61362–61363 Federal Acquisition Regulation: Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Proposed Tonopah Solar Energy, LLC Crescent Dunes Submissions, and Approvals, 61354–61355 Solar Energy Project, Nye County, NV, 61364–61365 Federal Management Regulation Bulletin: Reestablishment of Arizona Resource Advisory Council, Redesignations of Federal Buildings, 61355–61356 61365
Health and Human Services Department Mexico and United States, International Boundary and See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Water Commission See Children and Families Administration See International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico Homeland Security Department See Coast Guard Millennium Challenge Corporation See U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services NOTICES See U.S. Customs and Border Protection Meetings; Sunshine Act, 61377 Indian Affairs Bureau Minerals Management Service NOTICES Reservation Proclamation: NOTICES Nottawaseppi Huron Band of Potawatomi Indians of Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Michigan; Correction, 61365–61366 Submissions, and Approvals, 61360–61362
Industry and Security Bureau National Aeronautics and Space Administration NOTICES NOTICES Meetings: Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Emerging Technology and Research Advisory Committee, Submissions, and Approvals, 61377–61378 61333 Federal Acquisition Regulation: Materials Technical Advisory Committee, 61332–61333 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 61354–61355 Interior Department See Indian Affairs Bureau National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities See Land Management Bureau NOTICES See Minerals Management Service Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, See Reclamation Bureau Submissions, and Approvals, 61378–61379
VerDate Nov<24>2008 17:51 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\24NOCN.SGM 24NOCN sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with FRONTMATTER Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Contents V
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Joint Order Modifying the Listing Standards Requirements Submissions, and Approvals, 61404–61406 under Section 6(h) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, etc., 61380–61383 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: RULES Boston Stock Exchange Clearing Corp., 61390–61391 Fisheries of Northeastern United States: Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 61395–61397 Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries; International Securities Exchange, LLC, 61393–61395, Closure of Directed Butterfish Fishery, 61283–61284 61398–61402 Fisheries Off West Coast States: Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, 61402–61403 Modifications of the West Coast Commercial and NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc., 61397–61398 Recreational Salmon Fisheries; Inseason Actions NYSE Arca, Inc., 61383–61389 (Nos. 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12), 61284–61285 Stock Clearing Corp. of Philadelphia, 61391–61393 NOTICES Endangered and Threatened Species; Recovery Plans, Small Business Administration 61329–61330 NOTICES Marine Mammals; File No. 14791; Application, 61331 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Meetings: Submissions, and Approvals, 61380 Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 61332 Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 61333 Social Security Administration Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 61333–61334 PROPOSED RULES New England Fishery Management Council, 61331–61332 Withdrawal of Certain Proposed Rules, 61292 Public Workshops: Catch Accounting in the Longline Catcher/Processor State Department Pacific Cod Fishery, 61334–61335 PROPOSED RULES Amendment to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations: National Transportation Safety Board Section 125.4(b)(9) Export Exemption for Technical Data, NOTICES 61292–61294 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 61379 Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Meetings; Sunshine Act, 61379 Submissions, and Approvals, 61363–61364
Transportation Department Personnel Management Office See Federal Aviation Administration RULES See National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Examining System, 61263 See Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration NOTICES Treasury Department Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, See Internal Revenue Service Submissions, and Approvals, 61403–61404 RULES Meetings: Electronic Payment and Refund of Quarterly Harbor Technical Pipeline Safety Standards and Technical Maintenance Fees, 61267–61270 Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Standards NOTICES Committees, 61406–61407 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 61407–61408
Postal Regulatory Commission U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services NOTICES NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 61380 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 61358–61360 Presidential Documents PROCLAMATIONS U.S. Customs and Border Protection Special Observances: RULES National Entrepreneurship Week (Proc. 8454), 61259– Electronic Payment and Refund of Quarterly Harbor 61260 Maintenance Fees, 61267–61270 National Farm–City Week (Proc. 8455), 61261–61262
Reclamation Bureau Separate Parts In This Issue NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Part II Delta–Mendota Canal/California Aqueduct Intertie, Energy Department, 61410–61500 Alameda County, CA, 61364
VerDate Nov<24>2008 17:51 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\24NOCN.SGM 24NOCN sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with FRONTMATTER VI Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Contents
Reader Aids To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this page for LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http:// phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list and notice of recently enacted public laws. archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
VerDate Nov<24>2008 17:51 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\24NOCN.SGM 24NOCN sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with FRONTMATTER Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Contents VII
CFR PARTS AFFECTED IN THIS ISSUE
A cumulative list of the parts affected this month can be found in the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue.
3 CFR Proclamations: 8454...... 61259 8455...... 61261 5 CFR 337...... 61263 7 CFR 959...... 61263 987...... 61265 Proposed Rules: 457...... 61286 10 CFR Proposed Rules: 431...... 61410 14 CFR Proposed Rules: 71...... 61289 73...... 61291 19 CFR 24...... 61267 20 CFR Proposed Rules: 404...... 61292 416...... 61292 22 CFR Proposed Rules: 125...... 61292 26 CFR 1...... 61270 54...... 61270 Proposed Rules: 1...... 61294 31...... 61294 301...... 61294 33 CFR 165...... 61278 Proposed Rules: 165...... 61305 47 CFR Proposed Rules: 73...... 61308 50 CFR 648...... 61283 660...... 61284
VerDate Nov 24 2008 17:51 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4711 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\24NOLS.LOC 24NOLS sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with FRONTMATTER 61259
Federal Register Presidential Documents Vol. 74, No. 225
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Title 3— Proclamation 8454 of November 19, 2009
The President National Entrepreneurship Week, 2009
By the President of the United States of America
A Proclamation
Throughout our history, American entrepreneurs have been an effective force for innovation at home and around the world. From the airplane to the Internet search engine to new tractors, they have pioneered technologies, products, and processes that have improved lives and shaped the course of our future. Today, they are fueling our economy with their creativity, tireless work ethic, and risk-taking spirit. During National Entrepreneurship Week, we renew our commitment to supporting American entrepreneurs, including social entrepreneurs, who are spreading opportunity and prosperity across our Nation. Entrepreneurs are the engine of job creation in America, generating millions of good jobs. Many begin with nothing more than a good idea, and translate new products and services into vibrant businesses. To secure our Nation’s future prosperity, we must ensure that our entrepreneurs have the tools they need to survive and thrive. My Administration is working to provide opportunities and conditions for entrepreneurs to succeed. We are supporting the flow of credit by increasing loan guarantees and reducing borrowing fees to help more Americans start businesses. We also made the Research and Experimentation Tax Credit permanent to help burgeoning companies afford the high costs of developing new products and technologies. The recently formed Office of Innovation and Entrepreneurship at the Department of Commerce is building on these efforts with new policies and initiatives to unleash creativity and innovation, as well as turn inspired ideas into new employment-generating businesses. Our Nation led the world’s economies in the 20th century because we led the world in innovation. To strengthen our position in the 21st century, we must rededicate ourselves to harnessing the creative spirit that has made America great. NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim November 16 through November 22, 2009, as National Entrepreneurship Week. I call upon all Americans to recognize the important contributions of entrepreneurs to our economy.
VerDate Nov<24>2008 08:05 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4705 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\24NOD0.SGM 24NOD0 erowe on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with RULES5 61260 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Presidential Documents
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this nineteenth day of November, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independ- ence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-fourth.
[FR Doc. E9–28313 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] Billing code 3195–W0–P
VerDate Nov<24>2008 08:05 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4705 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\24NOD0.SGM 24NOD0 erowe on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with RULES5 OB#1.EPS Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Presidential Documents 61261 Presidential Documents
Proclamation 8455 of November 20, 2009
National Farm-City Week, 2009
By the President of the United States of America
A Proclamation Our Nation’s farm and ranch families supply many of the basic necessities of our daily life. They manage a large portion of our country’s fertile land base, and they are caretakers of our valuable natural resources and diverse ecosystems. Their connections with urban and suburban communities are critical to our economy and to the nourishment of our people. During National Farm-City Week, we express gratitude for the contributions of our Nation’s farmers and ranchers, and we rededicate ourselves to providing all Americans with access to healthy food, and thus, a healthy future. Pioneered by Native Americans, agriculture was our Nation’s first industry. For agriculture to thrive in the 21st century, we must continue to cultivate the relationships between farmers and rural businesses and their partners and customers in cities and towns. American farmers and ranchers are proud to grow the food, feed, fuel, and fiber that enhance our national security and prosperity, and remain steadfast stewards of the land they love. We must ensure that farming is maintained as an economically, socially, and environmentally sustainable way of life for future generations. This Thanksgiving season, we celebrate farms of every size that produce fruits, vegetables, dairy, and livestock indispensable to the health of our families. We also recognize the vital ties between our urban and suburban communities and their local farmers through regional food systems, farmers markets, and community gardens. During National Farm-City Week, we cele- brate the bounty of America, and we honor the commitment of those who grow, harvest, and deliver agricultural goods to feed our country and grow our economy. NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim the week ending on Thanksgiving Day of each year as National Farm-City Week. I call on Americans as they gather with their families and friends to reflect on the accomplishments of all who dedicate their lives to promoting our Nation’s agricultural abundance and environmental stewardship.
VerDate Nov<24>2008 08:03 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4790 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\24NOD1.SGM 24NOD1 erowe on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with RULES6 61262 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Presidential Documents
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twentieth day of November, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independ- ence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-fourth.
[FR Doc. E9–28315 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] Billing code 3195–W0–P
VerDate Nov<24>2008 08:03 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4790 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\24NOD1.SGM 24NOD1 erowe on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with RULES6 OB#1.EPS 61263
Rules and Regulations Federal Register Vol. 74, No. 225
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER a. Update the legal authority citation qualified candidates exists for certain contains regulatory documents having general for section 337.204(c) with section Federal acquisition positions (covered applicability and legal effect, most of which 1413(a) of Public Law 108–136, as under section 433(g)(1)(A) of title 41, are keyed to and codified in the Code of amended by section 853 of Public Law United States Code). To make such a Federal Regulations, which is published under 110–181; determination, the deciding agency 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510. b. Update section 337.206(d) to official must use the supporting The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by provide that agencies may not make evidence prescribed in 5 CFR the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of new appointments under this authority 337.204(b)(1)–(8) and must maintain a new books are listed in the first FEDERAL after September 30, 2012; and file of the supporting evidence for REGISTER issue of each week. c. Remove the reporting requirements documentation and reporting purposes. for this authority currently contained in ■ 3. Revise paragraph (d) of § 337.206 to 5 CFR 337.206(e). read as follows: OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT Comments § 337.206 Terminations, modification, OPM received no comments on the extensions, and reporting. 5 CFR Part 337 proposed rule. * * * * * (d) No new appointments may be RIN 3206–AL51 E.O. 12866, Regulatory Review made under the provisions of section Examining System This rule has been reviewed by the 1413 of Public Law 108–136 after Office of Management and Budget in September 30, 2012. AGENCY: U.S. Office of Personnel accordance with Executive Order 12866. Management. § 337.206(e) [Removed] Regulatory Flexibility Act ACTION: Final rule. ■ 4. Remove paragraph (e) of § 337.206. I certify that this regulation will not SUMMARY: The U.S. Office of Personnel have a significant economic impact on [FR Doc. E9–28209 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] Management (OPM) is issuing final a substantial number of small entities BILLING CODE 6325–39–P regulations pertaining to direct hire because it applies only to Federal authority for certain acquisition agencies and employees. positions. The purpose of this change is DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE to conform OPM’s regulations with Lists of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 337 recent changes in law. Government employees. Agricultural Marketing Service DATES: March 24, 2010. U.S. Office of Personnel Management. 7 CFR Part 959 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Berry, [Doc. No. AMS–FV–09–0044; FV09–959–2 Darlene Phelps by telephone at (202) Director. 606–0830; by fax at (202) 606–2329; by FIR] ■ Accordingly, OPM is amending part TTY at (202) 418–3134; or by e-mail at Onions Grown in South Texas; [email protected]. 337 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: Decreased Assessment Rate SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, November 24, 2008, OPM published a PART 337—EXAMINING SYSTEM proposed rule at 73 FR 70915, to USDA. incorporate a statutory extension of ■ 1. Revise the authority citation for part ACTION: Affirmation of interim final rule direct-hire authority for certain 337 to read as follows: as final rule. acquisition positions. In the National Authority: 5 U.S.C. 1104(a)(2), 1302, 2302, SUMMARY: The Department of Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 3301, 3302, 3304, 3319, 5364; E.O. 10577, 3 Year 2008 (NDAA 2008), Public Law CFR 1954–1958 Comp., p. 218; 33 FR 12423, Agriculture (USDA) is adopting, as a 110–181, Congress extended the direct- Sept. 4, 1968; 45 FR 18365, Mar. 21, 1980; final rule, without change, an interim hire authority for acquisition positions 116 Stat. 2290, sec. 1413 of Public Law 108– final rule that decreased the assessment under section 1413 of Public Law 108– 136 (117 Stat. 1665), as amended by sec. 853 rate established for the South Texas 136 through September 30, 2012. This of Public Law 110–181 (122 Stat. 250). Onion Committee (Committee) for the 2009–10 and subsequent fiscal periods statutory change permits department Subpart B—Direct Hire Authority and agency heads (other than the from $0.03 to $0.025 per 50-pound equivalent of onions handled. The Secretary of Defense) to determine, ■ 2. Revise paragraph (c) of § 337.204 to Committee locally administers the under regulations prescribed by OPM, read as follows: when certain Federal acquisition marketing order which regulates the positions are shortage positions for § 337.204 Severe shortage of candidates. handling of onions grown in South purposes of direct-hire authority. The * * * * * Texas. The interim final rule was Federal acquisition positions covered by (c) A department or agency head necessary to reduce the Committee’s section 1413 are listed in section (other than the Secretary of Defense) reserve fund to a desirable level. 433(g)(1)(A) of title 41, United States may determine, pursuant to section DATES: Effective Date: Effective Code. 1413(a) of Public Law 108–136, as November 25, 2009. OPM proposed to modify 5 CFR part amended by section 853 of Public Law FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 337, subpart B, to: 110–181, that a shortage of highly Belinda G. Garza, Regional Manager,
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:13 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24NOR1.SGM 24NOR1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES 61264 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Texas Marketing Field Office, Marketing considered the economic impact of this This rule continues in effect the Order Administration Branch, Fruit and rule on small entities. Accordingly, action that decreased the assessment Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA; AMS has prepared this final regulatory rate established for the Committee and Telephone: (956) 682–2833, Fax: (956) flexibility analysis. collected from handlers for the 2009–10 682–5942, or E-mail: The purpose of the RFA is to fit and subsequent fiscal periods from [email protected]. regulatory actions to the scale of $0.03 to $0.025 per 50-pound equivalent Small businesses may obtain business subject to such actions in order of onions. The Committee unanimously information on complying with this and that small businesses will not be unduly recommended 2009–10 expenditures of other marketing order regulations by or disproportionately burdened. $184,705.12 and an assessment rate of viewing a guide at the following Web Marketing orders issued pursuant to the $0.025 per 50-pound equivalent. The site: http://www.ams.usda.gov/ Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are assessment rate of $0.025 is $0.005 AMSv1.0/ams.fetchTemplateData.do? unique in that they are brought about lower than the rate previously in effect. template=TemplateN& through group action of essentially The quantity of assessable onions for the page=MarketingOrders small entities acting on their own 2009–10 fiscal period is estimated at 6 SmallBusinessGuide; or by contacting behalf. million 50-pound equivalents. Thus, the Jay Guerber, Marketing Order There are approximately 84 producers $0.025 rate should provide $150,000 in Administration Branch, Fruit and of onions in the production area and assessment income. Income derived Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 approximately 31 handlers who are from handler assessments, along with Independence Avenue, SW., STOP subject to regulation under the order. interest income and funds from the 0237, Washington, DC 20250–0237; Small agricultural producers are defined Committee’s authorized reserve will be Telephone: (202) 720–2491, Fax: (202) by the Small Business Administration adequate to cover budgeted expenses. 720–8938, or E-mail: (SBA) (13 CFR 121.201) as those having The major expenditures [email protected]. annual receipts less than $750,000, and recommended by the Committee for the small agricultural service firms are 2009–10 fiscal period include $73,705 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule defined as those whose annual receipts for management, administrative, and is issued under Marketing Order No. are less than $7,000,000. rent expenses; $45,000 for promotion 959, as amended (7 CFR part 959), Most of the South Texas handlers are expenses; and $44,000 for compliance. regulating the handling of onions grown vertically integrated corporations Budgeted expenses for these items in in South Texas, hereinafter referred to involved in producing, shipping, and 2008–09 (previous year) were $66,695, as the ‘‘order.’’ The order is effective marketing onions. For the 2007–08 $45,000, and $48,000, respectively. under the Agricultural Marketing marketing year, the industry’s 31 The Committee reviewed and Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 handlers shipped onions produced on unanimously recommended 2009–10 U.S.C. 601–674), hereinafter referred to 10,978 acres with the average and expenditures of $184,705.12, which as the ‘‘Act.’’ median volume handled being 202,245 included a decrease in compliance USDA is issuing this rule in and 176,551 fifty-pound equivalents, expenses due to a shortened regulatory conformance with Executive Order respectively. In terms of production period. The assessment rate of $0.025 12866. value, total revenues for the 31 handlers per 50-pound equivalent of assessable Under the order, South Texas onion were estimated to be $174.7 million, onions recommended by the Committee handlers are subject to assessments, with average and median revenues was determined by considering which provide funds to administer the being $5.64 million and $4.92 million, anticipated expenses and production order. Assessment rates issued under respectively. levels of South Texas onions. As stated the order are intended to be applicable The South Texas onion industry is earlier, the Committee utilized an to all assessable onions for the entire characterized by producers and estimate of 6 million 50-pound fiscal period, and continue indefinitely handlers whose farming operations equivalents of assessable onions for the until amended, suspended, or generally involve more than one 2009–10 fiscal period, which, if realized terminated. The Committee’s fiscal commodity, and whose income from will provide estimated assessment period begins on August 1 and ends on farming operations is not exclusively revenue of $150,000 from all handlers. July 31. dependent on the production of onions. In addition, it is anticipated that In an interim final rule published in Alternative crops provide an $34,705 will be provided by interest the Federal Register on August 4, 2009, opportunity to utilize many of the same income and reserve funds. When and effective on August 5, 2009 (74 FR facilities and equipment not in use combined, revenue from these sources 38505, Doc. No. AMS–FV–09–0044; when the onion production season is will be adequate to cover budgeted FV09–959–2 IFR), § 959.237 was complete. For this reason, typical onion expenses. amended by decreasing the assessment producers and handlers either produce The Committee discussed alternative rate established for the Committee for multiple crops or alternate crops within expenditure levels, but determined that the 2009–10 and subsequent fiscal a single year. the recommended expenses were periods from $0.03 to $0.025 per 50- Based on the SBA’s definition of reasonable and necessary to adequately pound equivalent of onions handled. small entities, the Committee estimates cover program operations. Other The decrease in the per-unit assessment that all of the 31 handlers regulated by assessment rates were not considered rate was possible due to a higher than the order would be considered small because the Committee believed desired reserve fund coupled with entities if only their onion revenues are decreasing the rate by $0.005 was adequate anticipated assessment considered. However, revenues from sufficient to reduce their current reserve revenue and interest income. other farming enterprises could result in fund to a desirable level. a number of these handlers being above A review of historical information and Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis the $7,000,000 annual receipt threshold. preliminary information pertaining to Pursuant to requirements set forth in All of the 84 producers may be the upcoming fiscal period indicates the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 classified as small entities based on the that the season average f.o.b. price for U.S.C. 601–612), the Agricultural SBA definition if only their revenue the 2009–10 fiscal period could range Marketing Service (AMS) has from onions is considered. between $10.00 and $28.00 per 50-
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:13 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24NOR1.SGM 24NOR1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 61265
pound equivalent of onions. Therefore, PART 959—ONIONS GROWN IN DC 20250–0237; Telephone: (202) 720– the estimated assessment revenue for SOUTH TEXAS 2491, Fax: (202) 720–8938, or E-mail: the 2009–10 fiscal period as a [email protected]. ■ Accordingly, the interim final rule percentage of total f.o.b. revenue could SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final amending 7 CFR part 959, which was range between 0.1 and 0.25 percent. rule is issued under Marketing published at 74 FR 38505 on August 4, This rule continues in effect the Agreement and Order No. 987, both as 2009, is adopted as a final rule, without action that decreased the assessment amended (7 CFR part 987), regulating change. obligation imposed on handlers. the handling of domestic dates Assessments are applied uniformly on Dated: November 17, 2009. produced or packed in Riverside all handlers, and some of the costs may Rayne Pegg, County, California, hereinafter referred be passed on to producers. However, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing to as the ‘‘order.’’ The order is effective decreasing the assessment rate reduces Service. under the Agricultural Marketing the burden on handlers, and may reduce [FR Doc. E9–28144 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 the burden on producers. In addition, BILLING CODE 3410–02–P U.S.C. 601–674), hereinafter referred to the Committee’s meeting was widely as the ‘‘Act.’’ publicized throughout the South Texas The Department of Agriculture onion production area and all interested DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (USDA) is issuing this rule in persons were invited to attend the conformance with Executive Order Agricultural Marketing Service meeting and participate in Committee 12866. This final rule has been reviewed deliberations on all issues. Like all 7 CFR Part 987 Committee meetings, the June 9, 2009, under Executive Order 12988, Civil meeting was a public meeting and all [Doc. No. AMS–FV–09–0035; FV09–987–1 Justice Reform. This rule is not intended entities, both large and small, were able FR] to have retroactive effect. to express views on this issue. The Act provides that administrative Domestic Dates Produced or Packed in proceedings must be exhausted before This action imposes no additional Riverside County, CA; Changes to parties may file suit in court. Under reporting or recordkeeping requirements Nomination Procedures and a section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any on either small or large South Texas Reporting Date handler subject to an order may file onion handlers. As with all Federal with USDA a petition stating that the AGENCY: marketing order programs, reports and Agricultural Marketing Service, order, any provision of the order, or any forms are periodically reviewed to USDA. obligation imposed in connection with reduce information requirements and ACTION: Final rule. the order is not in accordance with law duplication by industry and public and request a modification of the order sector agencies. SUMMARY: This rule revises the nomination procedures and changes a or to be exempted therefrom. A handler USDA has not identified any relevant reporting date under the California date is afforded the opportunity for a hearing Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or marketing order (order). The order on the petition. After the hearing, USDA conflict with this rule. regulates the handling of domestic dates would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the Comments on the interim final rule produced or packed in Riverside United States in any district in which were required to be received on or County, California, and is administered the handler is an inhabitant, or has his before October 5, 2009. No comments locally by the California Date or her principal place of business, has were received. Therefore, for the reasons Administrative Committee (CDAC or jurisdiction to review USDA’s ruling on given in the interim final rule, we are Committee). This rule changes the the petition, provided an action is filed adopting the interim final rule as a final method of polling for nominees to the not later than 20 days after the date of rule, without change. Committee and the date on which CDAC Form 6 is due. These changes will assist the entry of the ruling. To view the interim final rule, go to This rule revises the nomination in the administration of the order by http://www.regulations.gov/search/ procedures and changes a reporting date updating and streamlining Committee Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R= under the order. This rule changes the program operations. 0900006480a0086c. method of polling for nominees to the DATES: Effective Date: November 25, Committee and the date on which CDAC This action also affirms information 2009. contained in the interim final rule Form 6 is due for the California Date concerning Executive Orders 12866 and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Administration Committee. These 12988, the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 Smutny, Marketing Specialist, or Kurt J. changes will assist in the administration U.S.C. Chapter 35), and the E-Gov Act Kimmel, Regional Manager, California of the order by updating and (44 U.S.C. 101). Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order streamlining Committee program Administration Branch, Fruit and operations. This final rule permits the After consideration of all relevant Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA; Committee to conduct nominations for material presented, it is found that Telephone: (559) 487–5901, Fax: (559) member and alternate member positions finalizing the interim final rule, without 487–5906, or E-mail: on the Committee through the mail or change, as published in the Federal [email protected] or equivalent electronic means (including, Register (74 FR 38505, August 4, 2009) [email protected]. but not limited to fax, or other will tend to effectuate the declared Small businesses may request technology, as available) rather than policy of the Act. information on complying with this limit balloting to in-person polling on a List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 959 regulation by contacting Jay Guerber, specific date or absentee balloting. Marketing Order Administration This final rule also changes the date Marketing agreements, Onions, Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, on which CDAC Form 6 is due to the Reporting and recordkeeping AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Committee. Currently, the form is due requirements. Avenue, SW., STOP 0237, Washington, by the 10th day of each month, but this
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:13 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24NOR1.SGM 24NOR1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES 61266 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
final rule relaxes the reporting Committee to conduct nominations via producers could be considered small requirement by changing the due date to mail or equivalent electronic means entities. According to data from the the 16th day of each month or such could result in greater industry Committee, the majority of handlers of other date as the Committee may participation in the nomination process, California dates may also be considered prescribe. These changes were with the possible result being greater small entities. recommended unanimously by the Committee outreach and diversity of This final rule authorizes the Committee at a meeting on October 30, Committee representation. Committee to conduct nominations via 2008. A meeting of the Marketing Order In their deliberations regarding the mail or equivalent electronic means, Policy Review Subcommittee was held due date for CDAC Form 6, the and revises the due date for CDAC Form on October 21, 2008. At that meeting, Committee discussed the confusion 6 from the 10th day each month to the the subcommittee discussed various created by the State and Federal 16th day of each month or such other proposals for improving Committee programs’ differing due dates. Handlers date as the Committee may prescribe. operations, including these two report to the Committee on the 10th day The Committee unanimously changes. of the month and to the commission on recommended these changes at their Section 987.24 of the order specifies the 16th day of the month. By making meeting on October 30, 2008. At the that nominations shall be made no later both reports due the same day, handlers meeting, the Committee discussed the than June 15 of every other year, and can report more conveniently, and impact of these changes on handlers and establishes procedures for nominations Committee and commission operations producers in terms of cost. Handlers and for membership on the Committee by will be coordinated and streamlined. producers will be positively impacted requiring the Committee to establish a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis by mail balloting, as they will not have polling day for receiving Committee to set aside time to drive to the Pursuant to requirements set forth in nominations, and procedures for Committee offices to vote for Committee the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 requesting and returning absentee members and alternate members, nor U.S.C. 601–612), the Agricultural ballots. This section also provides will they have to plan ahead to request authority for the Committee, with the Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this absentee ballots. approval of the Secretary, to recommend Handlers will also be positively rules and regulations on the manner in action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory impacted by the change in the due date which nominees may be obtained. of the CDAC Form 6, since changing the Section 987.124 of the order’s rules flexibility analysis. due date of the Committee form brings and regulations further specifies the The purpose of the RFA is to fit the requirement into line with the due date, time, and procedure for polling, as regulatory actions to the scale of date of the commission form, which well as for obtaining and casting business subject to such actions in order seeks identical information. Handlers absentee ballots. that small businesses will not be unduly will simply be able to file the forms on At its meeting on October 30, 2008, or disproportionately burdened. the same day. Committee and the Committee recommended that Marketing orders issued pursuant to the commission operations will, thus, be nominations be permitted through the Act, and rules issued thereunder, are streamlined. mail or by other electronic means unique in that they are brought about equivalent to the mail. When the order through group action of essentially The benefits for this final rule are not was promulgated, there were a number small entities acting on their own expected to be disproportionately of absentee date garden owners, and the behalf. greater or less for small handlers or advent of the polling day permitted the There are approximately 85 producers producers than for larger entities. owners to travel to the area to vote on of dates in the production area and 9 The Committee discussed alternatives nominees to the Committee. handlers subject to regulation under the to these changes, including not Section 987.62 of the date order marketing order. The Small Business conducting mail balloting or changing provides authority for the Committee to Administration (13 CFR 121.201) the due date of the CDAC Form 6. require reports of dates shipped from defines small agricultural producers as However, mail balloting provides the handlers. In § 987.162 of the order’s those having annual receipts of less than industry with increased flexibility, rules and regulations, CDAC Form 6 is $750,000, and small agricultural service outreach, and convenience by offering specified as the handler acquisition and firms are defined as those having annual an opportunity for polling on more than disposition report, and is currently due receipts of less than $7,000,000. just one day. Changing the due date for by the 10th day of each month. According to the National the CDAC Form 6 will also increase the There also is a California State Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), reporting handlers’ convenience. Both marketing program, administered by the data for the most-recently revised crop changes improve the administration of California Date Commission year, 2008, indicates that about 3.57 the program and keep informational (commission). Under that program, the tons of dates were produced per acre. data filing uniform between the due date for the same type of The 2008 grower price published by Committee and the commission. For information is the 16th of each month. NASS was $1,580 per ton. Thus, the those reasons, the changes are Changing the due date of the CDAC value of date production in 2008 advantageous to all entities, as well as Form 6 will simplify reporting by averaged about $5,640 per acre (3.57 to the Committee staff. As a result, the handlers as well as coordinate the tons per acre times $1,580 per ton). At Committee members unanimously operations of the Committee and that average price, a producer would agreed that these changes should be commission, since the Committee staff have to have over 133 acres to receive recommended and should be in effect is also the commission staff. an annual income from dates of for the 2009–10 crop year, beginning on $750,000 ($750,000 divided by $5,640 October 1, 2009. Deliberations on the Changes per acre equals 133 acres). According to A meeting of the Marketing Order In its deliberations on mail balloting, Committee staff, the majority of Policy Review Subcommittee was held the Committee commented that the California date producers farm fewer on October 21, 2008. At that meeting, current system is outmoded and than 133 acres. Thus, it can be the subcommittee discussed various cumbersome. Authorizing the concluded that the majority of date proposals for improving Committee
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:13 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24NOR1.SGM 24NOR1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 61267
operations, including these two should be sent to Jay Guerber at the (2) The names of other persons changes. previously mentioned address in the willing and eligible to serve; This final rule provides more FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT (3) Instructions on how voters may flexibility on Committee polling section. add write-in candidates; procedures and changes the due date for After consideration of all relevant (4) The date on which the ballot is CDAC Form 6 under the date marketing matters presented, including the due to the committee or its agent; and order. Accordingly, this action will not information and recommendation (5) How and where to return ballots. impose any additional reporting or submitted by the Committee and other * * * * * recordkeeping requirements on either available information, it is hereby found ■ 3. Section 987.162 is revised to read small or large date handlers. that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, as follows: In accordance with the Paperwork will tend to effectuate the declared Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. policy of the Act. § 987.162 Handler acquisition and Chapter 35), the information collection It is further found that good cause disposition. requirements contained in this rule have exists for not postponing the effective (a) Handlers shall file CDAC Form No. been previously approved by the Office date of this rule until 30 days after 6 with the committee by the 16th of of Management and Budget (OMB) and publication in the Federal Register (5 each month or such other date as the assigned OMB No. 0581–0178, U.S.C. 553) because handlers are already committee may prescribe, reporting at Vegetable and Specialty Crops. As with shipping dates for the 2009–2010 crop. least the following for the preceding all Federal marketing order programs, Therefore, this rule should be month: reports and forms are periodically implemented as soon as possible. (1) Their acquisitions of field run reviewed to reduce information Further, handlers are aware of this rule, dates; requirements and duplication by which was recommended at a public (2) Their shipments of marketable industry and public sector agencies. As meeting. Also, a 30-day comment period dates in each outlet category; noted in the initial regulatory flexibility was provided for in the proposed rule. (3) Their shipments of free dates and analysis, USDA has not identified any disposition of restricted dates, whenever List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 987 relevant Federal rules that duplicate, applicable; and overlap, or conflict with this rule. Dates, Marketing agreements, (4) Their purchases from other AMS is committed to complying with Reporting and recordkeeping handlers of DAC, export, product, the E-Government Act, to promote the requirements. graded, and field run dates. use of the Internet and other ■ For the reasons set forth in the (b) In addition, this report shall information technologies to provide preamble, 7 CFR part 987 is amended as include the names and addresses of any increased opportunities for citizen follows: producers not previously identified access to Government information and pursuant to § 987.38, the quantity of services, and for other purposes. PART 987—DOMESTIC DATES dates acquired from each producer, the In addition, the Committee’s meeting PRODUCED OR PACKED IN location of such producer’s date garden, was widely publicized throughout the RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA the acreage of that garden, and the date industry, and all interested persons estimated current season’s production ■ 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR from that garden. were invited to attend the meeting and part 987 continues to read as follows: encouraged to participate in Committee Dated: November 17, 2009. deliberations on all issues. Like all Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674. Rayne Pegg, Committee meetings, the October 30, ■ 2. In § 987.124, paragraph (a) is Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 2008, meeting was a public meeting and revised to read as follows: Service. all entities, both large and small, were [FR Doc. E9–28153 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] § 987.124 Nomination and polling. able to express views on this issue. BILLING CODE 3410–02–P A proposed rule concerning this (a) Date producers and producer- action was published in the Federal handlers shall be provided an Register on September 15, 2009 (74 FR opportunity to nominate and vote for DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 47124). The proposed regulatory text individuals to serve on the Committee. SECURITY that was published in the Federal For this purpose, the Committee shall, Register contained incorrect references no later than June 15 of each even- Bureau of Customs and Border that have been corrected in this final numbered year, provide date producers Protection rule. Copies of the rule were mailed or and producer-handlers nomination and sent via facsimile to all Committee balloting material by mail or equivalent DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY members and date handlers. Finally, the electronic means, upon which rule was made available through the producers and producer-handlers may 19 CFR Part 24 Internet by USDA and the Office of the nominate candidates and cast their [CBP Dec. 09–44; Docket No. USCBP 2007– Federal Register. A 30-day comment votes for members and alternate 0111] period ending October 15, 2009, was members of the Committee in provided to allow interested persons to accordance with the requirements in RIN 1505–AB97 respond to the proposal. No comments paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this were received. section, respectively. All ballots are Electronic Payment and Refund of A small business guide on complying subject to verification. Balloting Quarterly Harbor Maintenance Fees with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop material should be provided to voters at AGENCIES: Customs and Border marketing agreements and orders may least 2 weeks before the due date and Protection, Department of Homeland be viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/ should contain, at least, the following Security; Department of the Treasury. AMSv1.0/ams.fetchTemplateData.do? information: ACTION: Final rule. template=TemplateN&page=Marketing (1) The names of incumbents who are OrdersSmallBusinessGuide. Any willing to continue to serve on the SUMMARY: This document amends title questions about the compliance guide committee; 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations by
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:13 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24NOR1.SGM 24NOR1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES 61268 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
prescribing an alternative procedure by HMF quarterly payment, whether paper provides an expanded electronic which payers of the quarterly harbor or electronic, be accompanied by a CBP payment/refund option for quarterly maintenance fee (HMF) may submit Form 349 (HMF Quarterly Summary HMF payments and do not require small payments or refund requests to Customs Report). The proposed amendments entities to change their business and Border Protection (CBP) were intended to provide the trade with practices, pursuant to the provisions of electronically via an Internet account an expanded electronic payment/refund the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. established by the payer and located at option for quarterly HMFs and to 601 et seq., it is certified that, if http://www.pay.gov. CBP will continue modernize and enhance CBP’s port use adopted, the amendments will not have to accept quarterly HMF payments or fee collection efforts. a significant economic impact on a refund requests via mail. These changes CBP solicited public comment on the substantial number of small entities. are intended to provide the trade with proposed amendments in the August 5, Further, these amendments do not meet expanded electronic payment/refund 2008, Federal Register document. CBP the criteria for a ‘‘significant regulatory options and to modernize and enhance received no comments. action’’ as specified in E.O. 12866. CBP’s port use fee collection efforts. Conclusion This document also clarifies the Paperwork Reduction Act regulations to reflect that both HMF After further review of the matter, and The collections of information in the supplemental payments and refund in light of the fact that no comments current regulations have already been requests must be accompanied by the were submitted in response to CBP’s approved by the Office of Management requisite CBP Form 350 (HMF Amended solicitation of public comment, CBP has and Budget (OMB) in accordance with Quarterly Summary Report) and CBP determined to adopt as final, with minor the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Form 349 (HMF Quarterly Summary technical changes and clarifications, the (44 U.S.C. 3507) and assigned OMB Report). This clarification is necessary proposed rule published in the Federal control number 1651–0055 (harbor to remove any ambiguity as to what Register (73 FR 45364) on August 5, maintenance fee). This rule does not forms are required in conjunction with 2008. Specifically, CBP is making involve any material change to the such payments. technical changes to §§ 24.24(e)(2)(ii) existing approved information and (h)(3) that replace references to DATES: Effective Date: December 24, collection. An agency may not conduct 2009. ‘‘Customs’’ with the term ‘‘CBP’’ and, in or sponsor, and a person is not required the ‘‘For Further Information Contact’’ FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim to respond to, a collection of section of this document, is identifying information unless the collection of Cochenour, Office of Finance, Revenue a new CBP contact to whom questions Division, Collections, Refunds and information displays a valid control regarding HMF may be directed. In number assigned by OMB. Analysis Branch, (317) 614–4598 or at addition, this document restructures the [email protected]. regulatory text in §§ 24.24(c)(8)(i), Signing Authority SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: (e)(1)(ii), (e)(2)(iii), (e)(3)(ii), (e)(4)(iii), This document is being issued in (e)(4)(iv)(A), and (g) to clarify CBP’s accordance with 19 CFR 0.1(a)(1). Background preference that certain payments and The harbor maintenance fee (HMF) refund requests be made electronically List of Subjects in 19 CFR Part 24 was created by the Water Resources and, in the alternative, via mail to a CBP Accounting, Claims, Customs duties Development Act of 1986 (Pub. L. 99– address located on Forms.CBP.gov. By and inspection, Exports, Imports, 622, 26 U.S.C. 4461 et seq.). The removing references to a specific CBP Interest, Reporting and recordkeeping purpose of the fee is to require those address and referring to a Web site requirements, Taxes, User fees, Wages. who benefit from the maintenance of which is updated regularly, CBP will U.S. ports and harbors to share in the avoid having to amend these regulations Amendments to the Regulations associated costs of such maintenance. in the event the mailing address is ■ For the reasons set forth in the The HMF is assessed based on 0.125 changed. Sections 24.24 (e)(1)(ii), preamble, part 24 of title 19 of the CFR percent of the value of commercial cargo (e)(2)(iii), (e)(3)(ii), and (e)(4)(iii) are (19 CFR Part 24) is amended as follows: loaded or unloaded at certain identified also clarified to state that each CBP ports or, in the case of passengers, on Form 349 or 350 that is mailed to CBP PART 24—CUSTOMS FINANCIAL AND the value of the actual charge paid for must be accompanied by a single ACCOUNTING PROCEDURE the transportation. payment. Lastly, CBP is of the view that The HMF implementing regulations a clarification of the proposed ■ 1. The authority citation for part 24 are set forth in § 24.24 of title 19 of the amendments to §§ 24.24(c)(8)(i) and continues to read in part as follows: Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR (e)(4)(iii) in 73 FR 45364 is necessary to Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 58a–58c, 24.24). reflect that both CBP Form 350 and CBP 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i), Harmonized On August 5, 2008, CBP published in Form 349 are required to be submitted Tariff Schedule of the United States), 1505, the Federal Register (73 FR 45364) a to CBP with supplemental payments 1520, 1624; 26 U.S.C. 4461, 4462; 31 U.S.C. proposal to amend title 19 of the Code and refund requests. This clarification is 9701; Public Law 107–296, 116 Stat. 2135 (6 of Federal Regulations (19 CFR) by necessary to remove any ambiguity as to U.S.C. 1 et seq.). prescribing an alternative procedure by what forms are required in conjunction * * * * * which payers of the quarterly harbor with such payments and to reconcile the ■ 2. In § 24.24: maintenance fee (HMF) may submit proposed new language with the ■ a. The introductory text to paragraph their payments or refund requests to existing text in paragraph (e)(4)(iii) (c)(8) is amended by removing the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) which requires that both forms be words ‘‘the U.S. Customs Service’’ and electronically via an Internet account submitted in such instances. adding in their place the term ‘‘CBP’’; established by the payer and located at ■ b. Paragraph (c)(8)(i) is revised; http://www.pay.gov. CBP would also The Regulatory Flexibility Act and ■ c. Paragraph (c)(8)(ii) is amended by: continue to accept quarterly HMF Executive Order 12866 removing the word ‘‘shall’’ each place it payments or refund requests via mail. Because these amendments appears and adding in its place the The proposal also required that each implement an alternative procedure that word ‘‘must’’; and removing the word
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:13 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24NOR1.SGM 24NOR1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 61269
‘‘Customs’’ and adding in its place the word ‘‘Customs’’ each place it appears summary of the intended use of the term ‘‘CBP’’; and adding in its place the term ‘‘CBP’’; goods, if such use in not reflected in the ■ d. The introductory text to paragraph ■ r. Paragraph (e)(4)(iv)(C) is amended documents, are acceptable evidence for (d)(3) is amended by removing the word by removing the word ‘‘Customs’’ each certification purposes. Approved HMF ‘‘shall’’ and adding in its place the word place it appears and adding in its place refund payments will be made via ACH ‘‘will’’; the term ‘‘CBP’’; to those payers who are enrolled in the ■ e. Paragraph (e)(1)(ii) is revised; ■ s. Paragraph (g) is amended: in the ACH refund program; all others will ■ f. Paragraph (e)(2)(i) is amended: in first, second, and fifth sentences, by receive HMF refund payments via mail. the second sentence, by removing the removing the word ‘‘shall’’ each place it * * * words ‘‘U.S. Customs’’ and adding in appears and adding in its place the * * * * * their place the term ‘‘CBP’’; and in the word ‘‘must’’, and by removing the (e) * * * third sentence, by removing the word word ‘‘Customs’’ each place it appears (1) * * * ‘‘shall’’ and adding in its place the word and adding in its place the term ‘‘CBP’’; (ii) Fee payment. The shipper whose ‘‘will’’; and by revising the third and fourth ■ name appears on the Vessel Operation g. Paragraph (e)(2)(ii) is amended: in sentences; Report must pay all accumulated fees ■ the first sentence, by removing the word t. Paragraph (h)(1) is amended by for which he is liable on a quarterly ‘‘shall’’ and adding in its place the word removing the word ‘‘shall’’ each place it basis in accordance with paragraph (f) of ‘‘must’’ and by removing the word appears and adding in its place the this section by submitting to CBP a ‘‘Customs’’ and adding in its place the word ‘‘will’’; Harbor Maintenance Fee Quarterly ■ u. Paragraph (h)(2) is amended by term ‘‘CBP’’; in the second sentence, by Summary Report, CBP Form 349. The removing the word ‘‘shall’’ each place it removing the language ‘‘U.S. Customs CBP Form 349 must either be submitted appears and adding in its place the Entry Summary Form (Customs’’ and electronically to CBP using the word ‘‘must’’; and adding in its place ‘‘CBP Entry Automated Clearinghouse (ACH) via an ■ v. Paragraph (h)(3) is amended by: Summary Form (CBP’’; in the third Internet account established by the removing the word ‘‘shall’’ each place it sentence, by removing the word ‘‘shall’’ payer and located at http://www.pay.gov appears and adding in its place the and adding in its place the word or, alternatively, mailed with a single word ‘‘will’’; and removing the word ‘‘must’’; and in the fourth sentence, by check or money order payable to U.S. ‘‘Customs’’ and adding in its place the removing the word ‘‘shall’’ and adding Customs and Border Protection to the term ‘‘CBP’’. in its place the word ‘‘must’’ and by Office of Finance, Revenue Division, removing the word ‘‘Customs’’ and The revisions and additions read as follows: Customs and Border Protection, using adding in its place the term ‘‘CBP’’. the current address posted at ■ h. Paragraph (e)(2)(iii) is revised; § 24.24 Harbor maintenance fee. ■ i. Paragraph (e)(3)(ii) is revised; Forms.CBP.gov. ■ j. Paragraph (e)(4)(i) is amended by * * * * * (2) * * * removing the fourth and fifth sentences; (c) * * * (iii) Foreign Trade Zones. In cases ■ k. Paragraph (e)(4)(ii) is amended by (8) * * * where imported cargo is unloaded from removing the word ‘‘Customs’’ each (i) The donated cargo is required to be a commercial vessel at a port within the place it appears and adding in its place certified as intended for use in definition of this section and admitted the term ‘‘CBP’’; humanitarian or development assistance into a foreign trade zone, the applicant ■ l. Paragraph (e)(4)(iii) is amended by: overseas by CBP. Subsequent to for admission (the person or corporation removing the word ‘‘Customs’’ each payment of the fee, a refund request responsible for bringing merchandise place it appears and adding in its place may be made by electronically into the zone) who becomes liable for the term ‘‘CBP’’; and adding three new submitting to CBP the Harbor the fee at the time of unloading sentences after the last sentence; Maintenance Fee Amended Quarterly pursuant to paragraph (e)(3)(i) of this ■ m. The introductory text to paragraph Summary Report (CBP Form 350), as section, must pay all fees for which he (e)(4)(iv) is amended by removing the well as the Harbor Maintenance Fee is liable on a quarterly basis in word ‘‘Customs’’ and adding in its place Quarterly Summary Report (CBP Form accordance with paragraph (f) of this the term ‘‘CBP’’; 349) for the quarter covering the section by submitting to CBP a Harbor ■ n. Paragraph (e)(4)(iv)(A) is amended payment to which the refund request Maintenance Fee Quarterly Summary by adding two new sentences after the relates, using the Automated Report, CBP Form 349. The CBP Form last sentence; Clearinghouse (ACH) via an Internet 349 must either be submitted ■ o. Paragraphs (e)(4)(iv)(B)(1), (2), and account established by the payer and electronically to CBP using the (3) are amended by removing the word located at http://www.pay.gov. In the Automated Clearinghouse (ACH) via an ‘‘Customs’’ each place it appears and alternative, the requisite forms may be Internet account established by the adding in its place the term ‘‘CBP’’; mailed to the Office of Finance, payer and located at http://www.pay.gov ■ p. Paragraph (e)(4)(iv)(B)(4) is Revenue Division, Customs and Border or, alternatively, mailed with a single amended by: removing the word Protection, using the current address check or money order payable to U.S. ‘‘Customs’’ and adding in its place the posted at Forms.CBP.gov. Upon request Customs and Border Protection to the term ‘‘CBP’’; and removing the number by CBP, the party requesting the refund Office of Finance, Revenue Division, ‘‘90’’ each place it appears and adding must also submit to CBP, via mail, any Customs and Border Protection, using in its place the number ‘‘180’’; supporting documentation deemed the current address posted at ■ q. Paragraph (e)(4)(iv)(B)(5) is necessary by CBP to certify that the Forms.CBP.gov. Fees must be paid for amended: in the second sentence, by entity donating the cargo is a nonprofit all shipments unloaded and admitted to removing the words ‘‘by Customs’’ and organization or cooperative and that the the zone, or in the case of direct adding in their place the words ‘‘by cargo was intended for humanitarian or deliveries under §§ 146.39 and 146.40 of CBP’’, and by removing the words ‘‘and development assistance overseas this chapter, unloaded and received in Customs’’ and adding in their place the (including contiguous countries). A the zone under the bond of the foreign words ‘‘and CBP’s’’; and in the fourth description of the cargo listed in the trade zone operator. and fifth sentences, by removing the shipping documents and a brief (3) * * *
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:13 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24NOR1.SGM 24NOR1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES 61270 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
(ii) Fee payment. The operator of the Revenue Division, must be promptly Treasury decision (TD 9052), relating to passenger-carrying vessel must pay the notified of any changes in the Notice of Significant Reduction in the accumulated fees for which he is liable identifying information submitted. Rate of Future Benefit Accrual, on a quarterly basis in accordance with *** published on April 9, 2003 in the paragraph (f) of this section by * * * * * Federal Register (68 FR 17277). There submitting to CBP a Harbor are no proposals for substantive changes Maintenance Fee Quarterly Summary Jayson P. Ahern, to this collection of information. Report, CBP Form 349. The CBP Form Acting Commissioner, U.S. Customs and An agency may not conduct or 349 must either be submitted Border Protection. sponsor, and a person is not required to electronically to CBP using the Approved: November 19, 2009. respond to, a collection of information Automated Clearinghouse (ACH) via an Timothy E. Skud, unless it displays a valid control Internet account established by the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury. number assigned by the Office of payer and located at http://www.pay.gov [FR Doc. E9–28132 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] Management and Budget. Books or records relating to a or, alternatively, mailed with a single BILLING CODE 9111–14–P check or money order payable to U.S. collection of information must be Customs and Border Protection to the retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration Office of Finance, Revenue Division, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Customs and Border Protection, using of any internal revenue law. Generally, the current address posted at Internal Revenue Service tax returns and tax return information Forms.CBP.gov. are confidential, as required by 26 (4) * * * 26 CFR Parts 1 and 54 U.S.C. 6103. (iii) * * * Supplemental payments Background and HMF refund requests, accompanied [TD 9472] Overview by the requisite CBP Forms 350 and 349 RIN 1545–BG48 and, if applicable, supporting This document contains amendments documentation, must be submitted Notice Requirements for Certain to 26 CFR parts 1 and 54 under sections electronically to CBP using the Pension Plan Amendments 411(d)(6) and 4980F of the Internal Automated Clearinghouse (ACH) via an Significantly Reducing the Rate of Revenue Code (Code). This Treasury Internet account established by the Future Benefit Accrual decision amends § 54.4980F–1 of the payer and located at http://www.pay.gov Treasury regulations to reflect changes AGENCY: or, alternatively, mailed to the Office of Internal Revenue Service (IRS), made to section 4980F by the Pension Finance, Revenue Division, Customs Treasury. Protection Act of 2006, Public Law 109– and Border Protection, using the current ACTION: Final regulation. 280 (120 Stat. 780) (PPA ’06). In address posted at Forms.CBP.gov. If a addition, this Treasury decision amends SUMMARY: This document contains final supplemental payment is mailed, a § 1.411(d)–3 to reflect changes to section regulations providing guidance relating single check or money order payable to 411(d)(6) made by section 1107 of PPA to the application of the section 204(h) U.S. Customs and Border Protection ’06. notice requirements to a pension plan must be attached to each CBP Form 350. amendment that is permitted to reduce Section 411(d)(6) Protected Benefits Approved HMF refund payments will benefits accrued before the plan be made via ACH to those payers who Section 401(a)(7) of the Code provides amendment’s applicable amendment are enrolled in the ACH refund program; that a trust does not constitute a date. These regulations also reflect all others will receive HMF refund qualified trust unless the plan under certain amendments made to the section payments via mail. which the trust is established and 204(h) notice requirements by the (iv) * * * maintained satisfies the requirements of Pension Protection Act of 2006. These (A) * * * Refund requests must either section 411 (relating to minimum final regulations generally affect be submitted electronically to CBP using vesting standards). Section 411(d)(6)(A) sponsors, administrators, participants, the Automated Clearinghouse (ACH) via and § 1.411(d)–3(a)(1) provide that a and beneficiaries of pension plans. plan is treated as not satisfying the an Internet account established by the requirements of section 411 if the payer and located at http://www.pay.gov DATES: Effective date: These regulations accrued benefit of a participant is or, alternatively, mailed to the Office of are effective on November 24, 2009. decreased by an amendment of the plan, Finance, Revenue Division, Customs Applicability date: For dates of other than an amendment described in and Border Protection, using the current applicability of these regulations, see section 412(d)(2) (formerly section address posted at Forms.CBP.gov. Q&A–18, § 54.4980F–1 of these 412(c)(8)), section 4281 of the Employee Approved HMF refund payments will regulations. Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 be made using the ACH to those payers FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (ERISA), as amended, or any other who are enrolled in the ACH refund Pamela R. Kinard at (202) 622–6060 (not applicable law. Applicable law includes program; all others will receive HMF a toll-free number). sections 418D and 418E of the Code and refund payments via mail. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: section 1541(a)(2) of the Taxpayer Relief * * * * * Paperwork Reduction Act Act of 1997, Public Law 105–34 (111 (g) * * * The affected parties must Stat. 788, 1085). Section 204(g) of ERISA advise the Director, Revenue Division, The collection of information contains parallel rules to section U.S. Customs and Border Protection, at contained in these final regulations 411(d)(6) of the Code. the current address posted at were previously reviewed and approved Forms.CBP.gov, of the name, address, by the Office of Management and Notice Requirements for Significant email and telephone number of a Budget in accordance with the Reduction in the Rate of Future Benefit responsible officer who is able to verify Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 Accruals any records required to be maintained U.S.C. 3507(d)) under control number Section 4980F imposes an excise tax under this paragraph. The Director, 1545–1780, in conjunction with the when a plan administrator fails to
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:13 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24NOR1.SGM 24NOR1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 61271
provide timely notice of a plan amendment, any employer with an benefits 4 (where the plan’s AFTAP is or amendment that provides for a obligation to contribute to the plan would be below 60 percent), certain significant reduction in the rate of receive a section 204(h) notice. This plan amendments which would increase future benefit accrual. For this purpose, new disclosure requirement is effective liabilities of the plan by reason of an the elimination or reduction of an early for plan years beginning after December increase in benefits (where the plan’s retirement benefit or retirement-type 31, 2007. AFTAP is or would be below 80 subsidy is treated as having the effect of Section 1107 of PPA ’06 provides that percent), and prohibited payments reducing the rate of future benefit any plan amendment made pursuant to (where the plan’s AFTAP is below 60 accrual. Section 4980F(e)(3) provides a PPA ’06 change may be retroactively percent or is at least 60 percent but that, except as provided in regulations, effective and, except as provided by the below 80 percent, or during a period in the notice must be provided within a Secretary of the Treasury, does not which the plan sponsor is a debtor in a ‘‘reasonable time’’ before the effective violate the anti-cutback rules of section case under title 11 U.S.C. or similar date of the plan amendment. Section 411(d)(6) of the Code (or section 204(g) federal or State law and the plan actuary 204(h) of ERISA contains parallel rules of ERISA) if, in addition to satisfying the has not certified that the plan’s AFTAP to section 4980F of the Code, and a conditions specified in section is at least 100 percent for the plan year), notice required under section 4980F of 1107(b)(2) of PPA ’06, the amendment is and a cessation of benefit accruals the Code or section 204(h) of ERISA is made on or before the last day of the (where the plan’s AFTAP is below 60 5 generally referred to as a ‘‘section 204(h) first plan year beginning on or after percent). notice.’’ January 1, 2009 (January 1, 2011, with Section 101(j) of ERISA requires the The Secretary of the Treasury has respect to governmental plans). plan administrator to provide a written interpretive authority over sections notice to plan participants and 411(d)(6) and 4980F of the Code as well Notice Requirements Relating to Plan beneficiaries, generally within 30 days as sections 204(g) and 204(h) of ERISA, Amendments Affecting Previously after the plan becomes subject to the including the subject matter addressed Accrued Benefits benefit limitations in section 206(g)(1), (3), or (4) of ERISA (which are parallel in these regulations. See section 101(a) In addition to the section 204(h) of Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1978, 29 to the benefit limitations in Code notice requirement, both the Code and section 436(b), (d), or (e)) relating to U.S.C. 1001nt (under which the ERISA include a number of other Secretary of the Treasury generally has unpredictable contingent event benefits, requirements to provide information to prohibited payments, and cessation of the authority to issue regulations under certain parties (such as participants, parts 2 and 3 of subtitle B of title I of benefit accruals. Section 101(c)(1)(A)(ii) beneficiaries, and contributing of the Worker, Retiree, and Employer ERISA, including sections 204(g) and employers) regarding the potential effect 204(h) of ERISA).1 Thus, these Treasury Recovery Act of 2008, Public Law 110– of a plan amendment that is permitted 458 (122 Stat. 5092) (WRERA), amended regulations under sections 411(d)(6) and to reduce or eliminate previously 4980F of the Code also apply for section 101(j) of ERISA to authorize the accrued benefits. Secretary of the Treasury, in purposes of sections 204(g) and 204(h) Section 412(d)(2) of the Code provides of ERISA. consultation with the Secretary of special rules relating to retroactive plan Labor, to prescribe rules applicable to Provisions of the Pension Protection Act amendments. Rev. Proc. 94–42 (1994–1 the notice requirements under section of 2006 CB 717), see § 601.601(d)(2)(ii) (b), sets 101(j) of ERISA. forth procedures under which a plan Section 402 of PPA ’06 provides Section 418D of the Code (and the sponsor may file notice with and obtain special funding rules for plans parallel provision at section 4244A of approval from the Secretary of the ERISA) provides that a multiemployer maintained by an employer that is a Treasury for a retroactive amendment plan in reorganization is permitted to commercial passenger airline or the described in former section 412(c)(8) adopt an amendment reducing or principal business of which is providing (now section 412(d)(2)) that reduces eliminating accrued benefits attributable catering services to a commercial prior accrued benefits. Section 4 of Rev. to employer contributions under the passenger airline. Section 402(h)(4) of Proc. 94–42 provides guidance relating plan. Under section 418D(b), an PPA ’06 provides that, in the case of a to the written notice that must be amendment is not permitted to reduce plan amendment adopted in order to provided to affected parties (employee or eliminate benefits unless notice is comply with the rules in section 402 of organizations, participants, given to plan participants, beneficiaries, PPA ’06, any notice required under beneficiaries, and alternate payees) and other affected persons at least 6 section 4980F(e) of the Code (or section regarding the application for approval of months before the first day of the plan 204(h) of ERISA) must be provided a retroactive plan amendment to reduce year in which the amendment reducing within 15 days of the effective date of accrued benefits under section benefits is adopted. The notice must the plan amendment. Section 402 of 412(d)(2). include certain information, including PPA ’06 generally applies to an explanation of the rights and amendments made pursuant to section Section 113(a)(1)(B) of PPA ’06 added remedies of participants and 402 of PPA ’06 for plan years ending Code section 436 which provides rules beneficiaries under the plan and after the date of enactment of PPA ’06 limiting benefits and benefit accruals for notification that, if contributions under (August 17, 2006). single-employer plans with certain 2 the plan are not increased, accrued Section 502(c) of PPA ’06 amended funding shortfalls. In general, these benefits under the plan for certain section 4980F(e)(1) of the Code (and limits are based on a plan’s adjusted participants and beneficiaries will be section 204(h) of ERISA) to add a funding target attainment percentage 3 requirement that, if a section 204(h) (AFTAP) and include limits on unpredictable contingent event 4 For a definition of unpredictable contingent notice is required with respect to an event benefit, see section 436(b)(3). 5 These provisions are reflected in sections 1 In addition, sections 204(g) and 204(h) of ERISA 2 Section 103(a) of PPA ’06 added section 206(g) 436(b)(1), (c)(1), (d)(1), (d)(2), and (d)(3), and (e)(1) include provisions authorizing the Secretary of the of ERISA, the parallel provision to section 436 of (and the parallel provisions at sections 206(g)(1)(A), Treasury to issue guidance with respect to specific the Code. (g)(2)(A), (g)(3)(A), (g)(3)(B), and (g)(3)(C), and issues. 3 For a definition of AFTAP, see section 436(j)(2). (g)(4)(A) of ERISA).
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:13 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24NOR1.SGM 24NOR1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES 61272 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
reduced or an excise tax will be in critical status. Adjustable benefits, adopted, as amended by this Treasury imposed on contributing employers. defined in section 432(e)(8)(A)(iv), decision. The revisions are discussed in Section 418E of the Code (and the include certain section 411(d)(6) this preamble. parallel provision at section 4245 of protected benefits such as early Summary of Comments and ERISA) provides rules relating to retirement benefits and retirement-type Explanation of Revisions suspension of benefits under an subsidies. insolvent multiemployer plan. If Section 432(e)(8)(C) requires a plan to PPA ’06 Revisions to Section 204(h) payments of basic benefits under the provide notice of a plan amendment Notice Requirements plan exceed the resource benefit level or reducing adjustable benefits to affected This Treasury decision amends the the level of basic benefits of the plan for parties (including plan participants, regulations under section 4980F of the the plan year, the payment of benefits beneficiaries, and contributing Code to reflect provisions in PPA ’06. must be suspended to the extent employers) at least 30 days before the Section 502(c) of PPA ’06 amended necessary to reduce such payments to general effective date of the reduction. section 204(h) of ERISA and section the greater of the resource benefit level The notice must include information 4980F of the Code to require that section of the plan or the level of basic benefits. that is sufficient for participants and 204(h) notice be provided to any Section 418E of the Code provides that beneficiaries to understand the effect of employer that has an obligation to plans in reorganization that may become any reduction on their benefits, a contribute to the plan. A contributing insolvent must provide notice to the description of the possible rights and employer is defined in the regulations Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation remedies of plan participants and as an employer that has an obligation to (PBGC), contributing employers, beneficiaries, and information on how contribute to a plan (within the meaning employee organizations, plan to contact the Department of Labor and of section 4212(a) of ERISA). A participants, and beneficiaries that, the PBGC. See sections 102(b)(1)(C), commentator suggested that the final certain non-basic benefit payments will 102(b)(1)(E)(iv), 102(b)(2)(B), regulations clarify that the requirement be suspended if insolvency occurs. 102(b)(2)(D)(iv)(III), and that section 204(h) notice be given to Section 4281 of ERISA provides rules 102(b)(2)(D)(iv)(IV) of WRERA for contributing employers applies only to relating to the reduction of benefits or provisions authorizing the Secretary of employers in a multiemployer plan, not the suspension of benefit payments the Treasury, in consultation with the to employers in a single employer plan. under certain terminated multiemployer Secretary of Labor, to issue guidance These regulations include this plans. Section 4281(c) of ERISA relating to the notice requirements in suggestion. provides that, if the value of section 305(b)(3)(D) of ERISA (and the These final regulations retain from the nonforfeitable benefits under a parallel provision at section 432(b)(3)(D) proposed regulations a special timing terminated plan exceeds the value of a of the Code) and section 305(e)(8)(C)(iii) rule to reflect section 402 of PPA ’06. plan’s assets, the plan must be amended of ERISA (and the parallel provision at Section 402 of PPA ’06 provides special to reduce benefits under the plan to the section 432(e)(8)(C) of the Code). funding rules for plans maintained by extent necessary to ensure that the Section 432(f)(2) of the Code also an employer that is a commercial plan’s assets are sufficient to meet its restricts a plan from making certain passenger airline or the principal obligations. The regulations at 29 CFR accelerated benefit payments, effective business of which is providing catering 4281.32 provide that a plan sponsor on the date a notice of certification of services to a commercial passenger must notify the PBGC and plan a multiemployer plan’s critical status is airline. Section 402(h)(4) of PPA ’06 participants and beneficiaries of a plan provided, which include single sum provides that, in the case of a plan amendment reducing benefits pursuant distributions. On March 18, 2008, amendment adopted in order to comply to section 4281(c) of ERISA. proposed regulations (REG–151135–07) with the rules in section 402 of PPA ’06, Section 212(a) of PPA ’06 added under section 432 of the Code (432 any notice required under section section 432 of the Code (and section proposed regulations) were published in 4980F(e) of the Code (or section 204(h) 202(a) of PPA ’06 added the parallel the Federal Register (73 FR 14417). of ERISA) must be provided within 15 provision at section 305 of ERISA), Under § 1.432(b)–1(e)(2) of the 432 days of the effective date of the plan which provides rules relating to proposed regulations, if a plan in amendment. The proposed regulations multiemployer plans that are in critical status provides benefits that are provided that, for certain plans endangered or critical status. Under restricted under section 432(f)(2), then maintained by an employer that is a certain circumstances, a plan may adopt the notice of critical status described in commercial passenger airline or the a plan amendment that reduces section 432(b)(3)(D) must include an principal business of which is providing previously accrued benefits. Section explanation that the plan cannot pay catering services to a commercial 432(b)(3)(D) of the Code provides that, such restricted benefits, to the extent the passenger airline, section 204(h) notice within 30 days after a certification by a benefits exceed the monthly amount must be provided at least 15 days before plan actuary that a plan is in paid under a single life annuity (plus the effective date of the amendment. endangered or critical status, the plan social security supplements described This is consistent with the Joint sponsor must notify plan participants in section 411(a)(9)). and beneficiaries, the bargaining parties, On March 21, 2008, proposed Committee on Taxation’s Technical the PBGC, and the Secretary of Labor of regulations (REG–110136–07) under Explanation to section 402 of PPA ’06 the plan’s endangered or critical status. sections 411(d)(6) and 4980F of the which states that the section 204(h) If the plan is certified to be in critical Code (2008 proposed regulations) were notice ‘‘allows the notice to be provided status, the notice must provide an published in the Federal Register (73 at least 15 days before the effective date 6 explanation of the possibility that (1) FR 15101). On July 10, 2008, the IRS of the plan amendment.’’ No adjustable benefits may be reduced and held a public hearing on the 2008 comments were received on this (2) such reductions may apply to proposed regulations. Written proposed rule and the final regulations participants and beneficiaries whose comments responding to the notice of 6 See Joint Committee on Taxation, Technical benefit commencement date is on or proposed rulemaking were also Explanation of H.R. 4, the ‘‘Pension Protection Act after the date the notice is provided for received. After consideration of the of 2006’’ (JCX–38–06), August 3, 2006, 109th Cong., the first plan year in which the plan is comments, the proposed regulations are 2nd Sess. 87 (2006) at 87.
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:13 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24NOR1.SGM 24NOR1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 61273
retain the rule from the proposed reduces benefits accrued before the under § 1.411(d)–3 or § 1.411(d)–4, regulations. applicable amendment date, a number Q&A–2(a) or (b), is not taken into of statutory exceptions apply. These account in determining whether an Plan Amendments Reflecting a Change exceptions include amendments in Statutorily Mandated Minimum amendment is a section 204(h) permitted under sections 412(d)(2), Present Value Rules amendment. This cross-reference to 418D, and 418E of the Code, section § 1.411(d)–3 was added to the Section 417(e)(3) of the Code provides 4281 of ERISA, and section 1107 of PPA regulations in 2005 with the intent to that, in distributing the present value of ’06. The prior regulations under section address amendments that reduce or an accrued benefit to a plan participant, 411(d)(6) of the Code listed these eliminate benefits or subsidies that the present value of the benefit is not exceptions, other than the exception create significant burdens or permitted to be less than the present under section 1107 of PPA ’06. The final complexities for the plan and plan value calculated using the applicable regulations provide a conforming participants unless the amendment mortality table and the applicable amendment to § 1.411(d)–3(a)(1) to adversely affects the rights of any interest rate under section 417(e)(3). include section 1107 of PPA ’06 as a participant in more than a de minimis Section 302(b) of PPA ’06 amended statutory exception to the general anti- manner, not to address amendments section 417(e)(3) of the Code to provide cutback rule in section 411(d)(6) of the implementing changes in applicable new actuarial assumptions for Code. law. Similarly, the cross-reference to calculating the minimum present value In the case of an amendment that is § 1.411(d)–4, Q&A–2(a) or (b) was not of a participant’s accrued benefit. Plan permitted to be adopted retroactively, intended to apply to amendments sponsors have asked whether a plan the proposed regulations stated that the implementing future changes in amendment to reflect the change in effective date of the amendment, for applicable law. In order to reflect this these section 417(e)(3) actuarial purposes of section 4980F, is the date assumptions would trigger the intent, the final regulations revise the the amendment is put into effect on an cross-references in Q&A–7(b) to provide requirement to provide a section 204(h) operational basis under the plan, so that notice. Revenue Ruling 2007–67 (2007– that any plan amendment that is a section 204(h) notice must generally permitted to eliminate or reduce a 2 CB 1047), see § 601.601(d)(2)(ii)(b), be provided at least 45 days before the which includes guidance on plan section 411(d)(6) protected benefit date the amendment is put into effect on under § 1.411(d)–3(c), (d), or (f), or amendments regarding the new an operational basis (15 days for applicable mortality table and under § 1.411(d)–4, Q&A–2(a)(2), (a)(3), multiemployer plans). (b)(1), or (b)(2)(ii) through (b)(2)(xi), is applicable interest rate under section A commentator suggested that the 417(e)(3), states that certain not an amendment for which section final regulations clarify that there is no 204(h) notice is required. amendments to reflect the new specific time limit on how far in applicable mortality table and advance of the effective date of a section The final regulations retain a special applicable interest rate for distributions 204(h) amendment 7 a section 204(h) transitional rule which provides that, in with an annuity starting date in 2008 or notice may be provided. The the case of an amendment that is later would not violate the anti-cutback commentator argued that while the permitted to reduce benefit accruals and rules of section 411(d)(6). The final notice requirements under section is made to a plan that is a statutory regulations retain the rule in the 2008 4980F only restrict how late a notice can hybrid to which section 411(a)(13)(C) proposed regulations that no section be provided, other notice requirements, applies, a section 204(h) notice must be 204(h) notice is required if a defined such as the notice required under provided at least 30 days before the benefit plan is amended to reflect section 417(a)(6), provide a timeframe in amendment is effective. No changes to the applicable interest or which the notice must be provided. The commentators objected to this rule in mortality assumptions in section commentator argued that notification far the proposed regulations. Accordingly, 417(e)(3) made by PPA ’06. For in advance of the effective date should the final regulations provide that for any example, a reduced single-sum be permitted on the grounds that notice section 204(h) notice that is required to distribution resulting from an any time in advance of the effective date be provided in connection with an amendment to a traditional defined would satisfy the statute, and would amendment to a statutory hybrid plan benefit plan that timely substitutes the provide a practical solution to the under section 411(a)(13)(C) that is first prescribed actuarial assumptions under administrative challenges of providing effective before January 1, 2009, and section 417(e)(3), as amended by PPA notice for a large plan with many that limits the amount of a distribution ’06, for the pre-PPA ’06 actuarial contributing employers and with a to the account balance as permitted assumptions under section 417(e)(3) variety of different amendment effective under section 411(a)(13)(A), section does not require a section 204(h) notice. dates. No change has been made to the 204(h) notice does not fail to be timely Interaction of the Section 204(h) Notice proposed regulations to reflect these if the notice is provided at least 30 days Timing Rules With Plan Amendments comments. before the date the amendment is first That Have a Retroactive Effective Date Another commentator requested effective. This special timing rule clarification on whether section 204(h) reflects the 30-day timing rule described Section 1.411(d)–3(a)(1) of the current in Notice 2007–6 (2007–3 CB 272), see Treasury regulations generally provides notice is required in the case of a plan amendment that is permitted to reduce § 601.601(d)(2)(ii)(b), which provides that a plan is not a qualified plan if a transitional guidance on the plan amendment decreases the accrued prior benefit accruals. The commentator cited to Q&A–7(b) of § 54.4980F–1, requirements of sections 411(a)(13) and benefit of any plan participant. These 411(b)(5).8 The final regulations, like the rules are generally based on the which provides that any section 411(d)(6) protected benefit that may be ‘‘applicable amendment date,’’ which is 8 Section B.4 of Notice 2007–6 provides that, in defined in § 1.411(d)–3(g)(4) as the later eliminated or reduced as permitted the case of a plan amendment that is permitted to of the effective date of the amendment reduce benefit accruals, a section 204(h) notice 7 A section 204(h) amendment is defined in Q&A– must be provided at least 30 days before the or the date the amendment is adopted. 4(b) of § 54.4980F–1 of the Treasury regulations as amendment is effective. This rule would require the While § 1.411(d)–3(a)(1) generally an amendment for which section 204(h) notice is notice to be provided at least 30 days before the prohibits a plan amendment that required. Continued
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:13 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24NOR1.SGM 24NOR1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES 61274 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
proposed regulations, permit the use of the plan were to fail to satisfy the and, if so, whether such reduction will this transitional timing rule through the requirements of the other applicable be significant. A plan would still be end of 2008. Thereafter, the general 45- notice. For example, a commentator required to provide notice under section day timing rule applies to such suggested that if the notice requirements 101(j) of ERISA when a benefit amendments. under section 101(j) of ERISA are not limitation is triggered under the rules of satisfied for an amendment adopted to section 436 of the Code. The provision Interaction of Section 204(h) Notice comply with section 436 of the Code (or in these final regulations under which Requirements With Other Notice section 206(g) of ERISA), the plan providing timely section 101(j) notice Requirements Relating to Plan should still be treated as having satisfies any section 204(h) notice Amendments provided section 204(h) notice even requirement for a section 436 As stated in the background portion of though participants receive no notice of amendment has the effect of mooting this preamble, the Code and ERISA the amendment. However, there is no questions such as when and whether an include a number of other notice statutory basis for this suggestion, and amendment to comply with section 436 requirements relating to plan the final regulations do not make this requires section 204(h) notice. amendments that are permitted to change. Thus, in any case in which Accordingly, no special rules have been reduce or eliminate accrued benefits. To notice is required to be given under adopted to address these comments. eliminate the need for a plan to provide section 101(j) of ERISA and, in addition, A conforming change was made to multiple notices at different dates and section 204(h) notice is required for the Q&A–8 of the regulation for plan with substantially the same function related plan amendment under section amendments with retroactive effective and information to affected persons, the 4980F of the Code (and section 204(h) dates. The final regulations provide that proposed regulations stated that, with of ERISA), the plan sponsor either could whether an amendment reducing the respect to an amendment that triggers a provide two notices—at the times and in rate of future benefit accrual provides section 204(h) notice requirement as the manner required under each such for a reduction that is significant is well as another statutory notice section—or could provide a notice determined based on reasonable requirement, if a plan provides the latter under section 101(j) of ERISA at the expectations taking into account the notice in accordance with the applicable time and in the manner required under relevant facts and circumstances at the standards for such a notice, the plan is section 101(j). In this respect, providing time the amendment is adopted, or treated as having timely complied with section 101(j) notice constitutes a safe earlier, at the time of the effective date the requirement to provide a section harbor for purposes of any requirement of the amendment. 204(h) notice with respect to the section to provide section 204(h) notice. As stated earlier, a plan is treated as 204(h) amendment. Under the proposed However, in general (and depending on having timely complied with the requirements to provide a section 204(h) regulations, this treatment would apply the facts and circumstances), the failure notice if the plan satisfies the to the following notices: to provide notice under both section • requirements for providing one of the A notice required under Rev. Proc. 101(j) of ERISA and section 4980F of the notices listed earlier in this section. 94–42 relating to retroactive plan Code (and section 204(h)) of ERISA), Note that this special treatment does not amendments that reduce accrued where required, would violate section apply if a plan is amended to implement benefits described in section 412(d)(2) 101(j) of ERISA and, separately, Code benefit reductions independent of the of the Code; section 4980F (as well as section 204(h) • reductions permitted under the relevant A notice required under section of ERISA). 101(j) of ERISA if an amendment is notice requirement. Thus, if a plan that With respect to amendments made in adopted to comply with the benefit is subject to the requirements of section order to comply with the benefit limitation requirements of section 436 436 of the Code (section 206(g) of limitations provided by section 436 of of the Code (section 206(g) of ERISA); ERISA) is amended to cease all benefit • A notice required under section the Code, some commentators asked accruals independent of the amendment 418D of the Code (section 4244A(b) of that the rules in the final regulations be implementing the limitations required ERISA) for an amendment that reduces clarified to provide explicitly that a plan under section 436(e) (section 206(g)(4) or eliminates accrued benefits that is never required to provide a of ERISA) (for example, an amendment attributable to employer contributions notice under ERISA section 101(j) (or is implementing a permanent cessation of with respect to a multiemployer plan in not required to do so for a long period benefit accruals), the section 204(h) reorganization; of time) is not treated as failing to satisfy notice is required if the plan • A notice required under section ERISA section 204(h) or Code section amendment provides for a significant 418E of the Code (section 4245(e) of 4980F. Commentators asserted that this reduction in the rate of future benefit ERISA), relating to the effects of the should be the case even though a accrual (treating elimination or insolvency status for a multiemployer section 204(h) notice was not sent when reduction of an early retirement benefit plan; and the plan adopted general conditional or retirement-type subsidy as a • A notice required under section language authorizing the benefit reduction in the rate of future benefit 4281 of ERISA and 29 CFR 4281.32 for restrictions to become effective if and accrual). A section 101(j) notice, an amendment of a multiemployer plan when required. Under the standards set however, is not required to be provided reducing benefits pursuant to section forth in the existing regulations at as a result of such an independent plan 4281(c) of ERISA. § 54.4980F–1, A–5(a) and A–6, whether amendment. In general, commentators did not an amendment to comply with section 436 requires section 204(h) notice Timing and Content Rules for object to this treatment under the 2008 Multiemployer Plans in Critical Status proposed regulations. However, some depends on whether it is reasonably commentators argued that the expected that the amendment will result Section 432 of the Code, relating to regulations should not apply the excise in a reduction, taking into account facts multiemployer plans that are in tax under section 4980F of the Code if and circumstances at the time of the endangered or critical status (as defined amendment (in either the rate of future in section 432(b)), permits a plan earliest date on which the plan is operated in benefit accrual or early retirement amendment to be adopted that reduces accordance with the amendment. benefits or retirement-type subsidies) prior accruals under certain
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:13 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24NOR1.SGM 24NOR1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 61275
circumstances. With respect to any such amendment, the plan is treated as a section 204(h) notice applies to such amendment for a plan that is in critical having complied with any requirement amendments effective on or after status, section 432(e)(8)(C) requires that to provide a section 204(h) notice with December 21, 2006, and no later than notice be provided to participants, respect to the amendment. December 31, 2008. The Treasury beneficiaries, contributing employers, Delegation of Authority to the Department and the IRS anticipate and certain employee organizations of Commissioner issuing guidance in the near future any reduction in adjustable benefits. relating to the application of section The 2008 proposed regulations included Like the 2008 proposed regulations, 4980F to plan amendments that are a rule under which the timing and these final regulations delegate adopted, in accordance with section content of a notice under 432(e)(8)(C) authority to the Commissioner of the 1107 of PPA ’06, to comply with the also satisfies the timing and content Internal Revenue Service to publish requirements of section 411(b)(5)(B)(i), requirements for a section 204(h) notice. revenue rulings, notices, or other relating to market rates of return. As As a result, under the proposed guidance published in the Internal provided in Announcement 2009–82 regulations, any notice for a Revenue Bulletin (see (available on the IRS Web site at http:// multiemployer plan in critical status § 601.601(d)(2)(ii)(b) of this chapter) www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/a-09-82.pdf), under section 4980F of the Code (which that satisfies the timing and content this future guidance may provide a would also apply to section 204(h) of requirements under section 432(e)(8)(C) special timing rule for when section ERISA) that the Commissioner would satisfy the timing and content 204(h) notice must be provided. requirements of a section 204(h) notice. determines to be necessary or The regulations also reflect special Currently, the IRS and the Treasury appropriate for a section 204(h) statutory effective dates for provisions Department are establishing amendment that applies with respect to in PPA ’06. Section 402 of PPA ’06 requirements for a notice required under benefits accrued before the applicable applies to section 204(h) amendments section 432(e)(8)(C), including the amendment date but that does not adopted in plan years ending after content requirements. The interaction of violate section 411(d)(6) of the Code. August 17, 2006. Section 4980F(e)(1) of the section 432(e)(8)(C) notice with the This delegation of authority provides the Code, as amended by section 502(c) requirements for a section 204(h) notice the Commissioner with greater will be addressed as part of the section flexibility to develop special rules to of PPA ’06, applies to section 204(h) 432 regulation project. address special circumstances in the amendments adopted in plan years future, such as future statutory changes. beginning after December 31, 2007. The final regulations add the notice This delegation of authority also required under section 432(b)(3)(D) to extends to circumstances in which a Special Analyses the list of similarly situated benefit section 204(h) amendment may require reduction notices discussed in the It has been determined that this another notice in addition to a section Treasury decision is not a significant preamble to these regulations under the 204(h) notice, as long as the amendment heading, ‘‘Interaction of the Section regulatory action as defined in is permitted to reduce accrued benefits, Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a 204(h) Notice Requirements with Other regardless of whether that amendment Notice Requirements Relating to Plan regulatory assessment is not required. It actually reduces benefits accrued before has also been determined that section Amendments.’’ As mentioned in the the adoption date of the amendment. background section of the preamble to 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure This delegation would permit the Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply these regulations, section 432(b)(3)(D) Commissioner to treat plans providing to this regulation. Pursuant to the generally requires notice to plan other notices with timing and content Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. participants and beneficiaries, within 30 requirements similar to a section 204(h) chapter 6), it is hereby certified that the days after a plan receives its annual notice as having complied with the collection of information in this certification, on whether the plan is in requirement to provide a section 204(h) regulation would not have a significant endangered or critical status. If the plan notice. is in critical status, section 432(b)(3)(D) impact on a substantial number of small provides that the notice must provide Effective/Applicability Dates entities. This certification is based on certain information to participants and These rules in these final regulations the fact that this regulation only beneficiaries, including the possibility are generally applicable to section provides guidance on how to satisfy that adjustable benefits may be reduced 204(h) amendments that are effective on existing collection of information and a description of who might be or after January 1, 2008. With respect to requirements. Accordingly, a Regulatory subject to the reductions. Section the timing rules on providing a section Flexibility Analysis is not required. 432(f)(2)(A) generally states that, 204(h) notice for a plan amendment that Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, effective on the date that notice is has a retroactive effective date and the the notice of proposed rulemaking provided that a plan is in critical status, clarification of the cross-references in preceding this regulation was submitted the plan must not pay any payment in Q&A–7(b), these special rules apply to to the Small Business Administration excess of the monthly amount paid section 204(h) amendments adopted in for comment on its impact on small under a single-life annuity plan years beginning after July 1, 2008. business. (notwithstanding the anti-cutback rule With respect to any section 204(h) Drafting Information in section 411(d)(6)). Thus, the payment amendment to a lump sum-based of single-sum distributions would not be benefit formula (or any amendment The principal author of these permitted under section 432(f)(2)(A) adopted pursuant to section 701 of PPA regulations is Pamela R. Kinard of the after a plan provides notification that ’06), the special rules under the Office of the Division Counsel/Associate the plan is in critical status. The final regulations relating to an amendment Chief Counsel (Tax Exempt and regulations provide that if a plan that applies with respect to benefits Government Entities), Internal Revenue provides the notice under section accrued before the applicable Service. However, personnel from other 432(b)(3)(D) in accordance with the amendment date apply to amendments offices of the Internal Revenue Service applicable timing and content standards adopted after December 21, 2006. The and Treasury Department participated for such a notice with respect to an special 30-day timing rule for providing in their development.
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:13 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24NOR1.SGM 24NOR1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES 61276 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
List of Subjects ■ 7. Revising paragraph A–11(a)(1). to which the minimum present value ■ 8. Adding paragraphs A–18(a)(4) and rules of section 417(e)(3) apply (other 26 CFR Part 1 A–18(a)(5). than a payment to which section Income taxes, Reporting and ■ 9. Revising paragraph A–18(b)(1) and 411(a)(13)(A) applies) and the plan is recordkeeping requirements. adding paragraphs A–18(b)(3)(i), A– amended to reflect the changes to the 18(b)(3)(ii), and A–18(b)(3)(iii). 26 CFR Part 54 applicable interest rate and applicable The additions and revisions read as mortality table in section 417(e)(3) made Excise taxes, Pensions, Reporting and follows: by the Pension Protection Act of 2006, recordkeeping requirements. § 54.4980F–1 Notice requirements for Public Law 109–780 (120 Stat. 780) Amendments to the Regulations certain pension plan amendments (PPA ’06) (and no change is made in the significantly reducing the rate of future dates on which the payment will be ■ Accordingly, 26 CFR parts 1 and 54 benefit accrual. made), no section 204(h) notice is are amended as follows: * * * * * required to be provided. PART 1—INCOME TAXES A–1. (a) * * * The notice is required * * * * * to be provided to plan participants and A–9. (a) 45-day general rule. Except as ■ Paragraph 1. The authority citation alternate payees who are applicable otherwise provided in this Q&A–9, for part 1 continues to read in part as individuals (as defined in Q&A–10 of section 204(h) notice must be provided follows: this section), to certain employee at least 45 days before the effective date Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * organizations, and to contributing of any section 204(h) amendment. * * * employers under a multiemployer plan (b) 15-day rule for small plans. Except ■ Par. 2. Section 1.411(d)–3 is amended (as described in Q&A–10(a) of this for amendments described in by revising the first sentence of section). * * * paragraphs (d)(2) and (g) of this Q&A– paragraph (a)(1). * * * * * 9, section 204(h) notice must be The revision reads as follows: A–7. * * * provided at least 15 days before the § 1.411(d)–3 Section 411(d)(6) protected (b) Plan provisions not taken into effective date of any section 204(h) benefits. account—(1) In general. Plan provisions amendment in the case of a small plan. (a) Protection of accrued benefits—(1) that do not affect the rate of future *** General rule. Under section benefit accrual of participants or (c) 15-day rule for multiemployer 411(d)(6)(A), a plan is not a qualified alternate payees are not taken into plans. Except for amendments described plan (and a trust forming a part of such account in determining whether there in paragraphs (d)(2) and (g) of this plan is not a qualified trust) if a plan has been a reduction in the rate of future Q&A–9, section 204(h) notice must be amendment decreases the accrued benefit accrual. provided at least 15 days before the benefit of any plan participant, except (2) Interaction with section 411(d)(6). effective date of any section 204(h) as provided in section 412(d)(2) (section Any benefit that is not a section amendment in the case of a 412(c)(8) for plan years beginning before 411(d)(6) protected benefit as described multiemployer plan. * * * January 1, 2008), section 4281 of the in §§ 1.411(d)–3(g)(14) and 1.411(d)–4, (d) Special timing rule for business Employee Retirement Income Security Q&A–1(d) of this chapter, or that is a transactions—(1) 15-day rule for section Act of 1974 as amended (ERISA), or section 411(d)(6) protected benefit that 204(h) amendment in connection with other applicable law (see, for example, may be eliminated or reduced as an acquisition or disposition. Except for sections 418D and 418E of the Internal permitted under § 1.411(d)–3(c), (d), or amendments described in paragraphs Revenue Code, and section 1107 of the (f), or under § 1.411(d)–4, Q&A–2(a)(2), (d)(2) and (g) of this Q&A–9, if a section Pension Protection Act of 2006, Public (a)(3), (b)(1), or (b)(2)(ii) through 204(h) amendment is adopted in Law 109–280 (120 Stat. 780, 1063)). (b)(2)(xi) of this chapter, is not taken connection with an acquisition or *** into account in determining whether an disposition, section 204(h) notice must amendment is a section 204(h) be provided at least 15 days before the * * * * * amendment. Thus, for example, effective date of the section 204(h) PART 54—PENSION EXCISE TAXES provisions relating to the right to make amendment. after-tax deferrals are not taken into * * * * * ■ Par. 3. The authority citation for part account. (f) Special timing rule for certain 54 continues to read in part as follows: * * * * * plans maintained by commercial Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * A–8. (a) General rule. Whether an airlines. See section 402 of PPA ’06 for amendment reducing the rate of future a special rule that applies to certain Section 54.4980F–1 also issued under 26 benefit accrual or eliminating or U.S.C. 4980F. * * * plans maintained by an employer that is reducing an early retirement benefit or a commercial passenger airline or the ■ Par. 4. Section 54.4980F–1 is retirement-type subsidy provides for a principal business of which is providing amended by: reduction that is significant for purposes ■ 1. Revising the second sentence of catering services to a commercial of section 4980F (and section 204(h) of paragraph A–1(a). passenger airline. Under this special ■ 2. Revising paragraph A–7(b). ERISA) is determined based on rule, section 204(h) notice must be ■ 3. Revising paragraph A–8(a) and reasonable expectations taking into provided at least 15 days before the redesignating paragraph A–8(d) as A– account the relevant facts and effective date of the amendment. 8(e) and adding new paragraph A–8(d). circumstances at the time the (g) Special timing rules relating to ■ 4. Revising the first sentence of amendment is adopted, or, if earlier, at certain section 204(h) amendments that paragraphs A–9(a), A–9(b), and A–9(c), the effective date of the amendment. reduce section 411(d)(6) protected and revising paragraph A–9(d)(1). * * * * * benefits—(1) Plan amendments ■ 5. Adding paragraphs A–9(f) and A– (d) Plan amendments reflecting a permitted to reduce prior accruals. This 9(g). change in statutorily mandated paragraph (g) generally provides special ■ 6. Revising the first sentence of minimum present value rules. If a rules with respect to a plan amendment paragraph A–10(a). defined benefit plan offers a distribution that would not violate section 411(d)(6)
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:13 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24NOR1.SGM 24NOR1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 61277
even if the amendment were to reduce eliminates accrued benefits attributable 402 of PPA ‘06 applies to section 204(h) section 411(d)(6) protected benefits, to employer contributions with respect amendments adopted in plan years which are limited to accrued benefits to a multiemployer plan in ending after August 17, 2006. that are attributable to service before the reorganization; (5) Special effective date for rule applicable amendment date. For (E) A notice required under section relating to contributing employers. example, this paragraph (g) applies to 418E, or section 4245(e) of ERISA, Section 502(c) of PPA ’06, which amendments that are permitted to be relating to the effects of the insolvency amended section 4980F(e)(1) of the effective retroactively under section status for a multiemployer plan; and Internal Revenue Code, applies to 412(d)(2) of the Code (section 412(c)(8) (F) A notice required under section section 204(h) amendments adopted in for plan years beginning before January 4281 of ERISA for an amendment of a plan years beginning after December 31, 1, 2008), section 418D of the Code, multiemployer plan reducing benefits 2007. section 418E of the Code, section 4281 pursuant to section 4281(c) of ERISA. of ERISA, or section 1107 of PPA ’06. (4) Delegation of authority to (b) Regulatory effective date—(1) See, generally, § 1.411(d)–3(a)(1). Commissioner. The Commissioner may General effective date. Except as (2) General timing rule for provide special rules under section otherwise provided in this paragraph (b) amendments to which this paragraph (g) 4980F, in revenue rulings, notices, or of this section, Q&A–1 through Q&A–18 applies. For an amendment to which other guidance published in the Internal of this section apply to amendments this paragraph (g) applies, the Revenue Bulletin (see with an effective date that is on or after amendment is effective on the first date § 601.601(d)(2)(ii)(b) of this chapter), September 1, 2003. on which the plan is operated as if the that the Commissioner determines to be * * * * * amendment were in effect. Thus, except necessary or appropriate with respect to (3) Effective dates for Q&A–9(g)(1), as otherwise provided in this paragraph a section 204(h) amendment— (g)(3), and (g)(4)—(i) General effective (g), a section 204(h) notice for an (A) That applies to benefits accrued date. Except as otherwise provided in amendment to which paragraph (a) of before the applicable amendment date Q&A–18(b)(3)(ii) or (b)(3)(iii) of this this section applies that is adopted after but that does not violate section section, Q&A–9(g)(1), (g)(3), and (g)(4) of the effective date of the amendment 411(d)(6); or this section apply to amendments that must be provided, with respect to any (B) For which there is a required are effective on or after January 1, 2008. applicable individual, at least 45 days notice relating to a reduction in benefits (ii) Effective dates for Q&A–9(g)(2) before (or such other date as may apply and such notice has timing and content and Q&A–7(b). Except as otherwise under paragraph (b), (c), (d), or (f) of this requirements similar to a section 204(h) provided in Q&A–18(b)(3)(iii) of this Q&A–9) the date the amendment is put notice with respect to a significant section, Q&A–9(g)(2) and Q&A–7(b) of into operational effect. reduction in the rate of future benefit this section apply to section 204(h) (3) Special rules for section 204(h) accruals. amendments adopted in plan years notices provided in connection with * * * * * beginning after July 1, 2008. other disclosure requirements—(i) In A–10. (a) In general. Section 204(h) (iii) Special rules for section 204(h) general. Notwithstanding the notice must be provided to each requirements in this Q&A–9 and Q&A– amendments to an applicable defined applicable individual, to each employee benefit plan. Except as otherwise 11 of this section, if a plan provides one organization representing participants of the notices in paragraph (g)(3)(ii) of provided in paragraph (b)(3)(i) or who are applicable individuals, and, for (b)(3)(ii) of this Q&A–18, with respect to this Q&A–9, in accordance with the plan years beginning after December 31, applicable timing and content rules for any section 204(h) notice provided in 2007, to each employer that has an connection with a section 204(h) such notice, the plan is treated as timely obligation to contribute (within the providing a section 204(h) notice with amendment to an applicable defined meaning of section 4212(a) of ERISA) to benefit plan within the meaning of respect to a section 204(h) amendment. a multiemployer plan. * * * (ii) Notice requirements. The notices section 411(a)(13)(C)(i) to limit in this paragraph (g)(3)(ii) are— * * * * * distributions as permitted under section (A) A notice required under any A–11. (a) Explanation of notice 411(a)(13)(A) for distributions made revenue ruling, notice, or other requirement—(1) In general. Section after August 17, 2006, that is made guidance published under the authority 204(h) notice must include sufficient pursuant to section 701 of PPA ’06, of the Commissioner in the Internal information to allow applicable paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of Q&A–9 of Revenue Bulletin to affected parties in individuals to understand the effect of this section apply to amendments that connection with a retroactive plan the plan amendment. In order to satisfy are effective after December 21, 2006. amendment described in section this rule, a plan administrator providing For such an amendment that is effective 412(d)(2) (section 412(c)(8) for plan section 204(h) notice must generally not later than December 31, 2008, years beginning before January 1, 2008); satisfy paragraphs (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4), section 204(h) notice does not fail to be (B) A notice required under section (a)(5), and (a)(6) of this Q&A–11. See timely if the notice is provided at least 101(j) of ERISA if an amendment is paragraph (g)(3) of Q&A–9 of this 30 days, rather than 45 days, before the adopted to comply with the benefit section for special rules relating to date that the amendment is first limitation requirements of section section 204(h) notices provided in effective. 206(g) of ERISA (section 436 of the connection with certain other written Steve T. Miller, Code); notices. See also paragraph (g)(4) of (C) A notice required under section Q&A–9 of this section for a delegation Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement. 432(b)(3)(D) of the Code for an of authority to the Commissioner to amendment adopted to comply with the provide special rules. Approved: November 12, 2009. benefit restrictions under section * * * * * Michael Mundaca, 432(f)(2); A–18. (a) * * * Acting Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (D) A notice required under section (4) Special effective date for certain (Tax Policy). 418D, or section 4244A(b) of ERISA, for section 204(h) amendments made by [FR Doc. E9–28078 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] an amendment that reduces or plans of commercial airlines. Section BILLING CODE 4830–01–P
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:13 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24NOR1.SGM 24NOR1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES 61278 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND notice and opportunity to comment possibly be granted upon the review of SECURITY pursuant to authority under section 4(a) COTP Sector Lake Michigan. of the Administrative Procedure Act Rotenone has potential for adverse Coast Guard (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision effects on humans. As such, delaying authorizes an agency to issue a rule this rule would be contrary to the public 33 CFR Part 165 without prior notice and opportunity to interest of ensuring the safety and security of waterway users and vessels [Docket No. USCG–2009–1004] comment when the agency for, good cause, finds that those procedures are during the preparations, application and RIN 1625–AA11 ‘‘impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary clean-up from the use of rotenone. to the public interest.’’ Under 5 U.S.C. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Safety and Security Zone, Chicago 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that Guard finds that good cause exists for Sanitary and Ship Canal, Romeoville, good cause exists for not publishing a making this rule effective less than 30 IL notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) days after publication in the Federal AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. because the USACE made the decision, Register because of the safety and security risk to the waters, commercial ACTION: Temporary final rule. without time for a proper notice period, to permanently increase the voltage of vessels and recreational boaters who SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is the fish barrier to two-volts per inch in transit the area. The following establishing temporary safety and response to data which indicates that discussion and the Background and security zones on the Chicago Sanitary Asian carp are closer to the Great Lakes Purpose section below provide and Ship Canal (CSSC) near Romeoville, waterway system than originally additional support of the Coast Guard’s IL. This temporary final rule is intended thought. The electric current in the determination that good cause exists for to restrict all vessels from transiting the water created by the electrical dispersal not publishing a NPRM and for making navigable waters of the CSSC. The safety barriers coupled with the uncertainty of this rule effective less than 30 days after and security zones are necessary to the effects of the increased voltage poses publication. In 2002, the USACE energized a protect the waters, waterway users and a safety risk to commercial vessels and demonstration electrical dispersal vessels from hazards associated with the recreational boaters who transit the area. barrier located in the Chicago Sanitary U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) As such, a safety and security zone is and Ship Canal. The demonstration electrical dispersal barrier and for the being enacted to ensure the safety of barrier, commonly referred to as preparation and safe application of a vessels operating in the vicinity of the ‘‘Barrier I,’’ generates a low-voltage fish toxicant during a period of time electrical dispersal barrier. electric field (one-volt per inch) across when the barrier will be disabled to In addition, the emergent planning conduct maintenance. the canal, which connects the Illinois and execution of maintenance to Barrier River to Lake Michigan. Barrier I was DATES: This temporary final rule is IIA by the USACE and the preventative built to block the passage of aquatic effective from 5 p.m. on November 24, application of the fish toxicant nuisance species, such as Asian carp, 2009, until 5 p.m. on December 18, (rotenone), under the direction of the and prevent them from moving between 2009. This temporary final rule is Illinois Department of Natural the Mississippi River basin and Great enforceable with actual notice by Coast Resources (IDNR) and the Federal Lakes via the canal. Guard personnel beginning November coordination of the U.S. Environmental In 2006, the USACE completed 16, 2009. Protection Agency (EPA) resulted in construction of a new barrier, ‘‘Barrier ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this good cause for not publishing an NPRM IIA.’’ Because of its design, Barrier IIA preamble as being available in the as there was insufficient time for proper can generate a more powerful electric docket are part of docket USCG–2009– notice. During IDNR’s deployment of field (up to four-volts per inch), over a 1004 and are available online by going rotenone, the Coast Guard will enact a larger area within the Chicago Sanitary to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting safety and security zone to provide for and Ship Canal, than Barrier I. Testing USCG–2009–1004 in the ‘‘Keyword’’ the safety and security of the waters, the was conducted by the USACE which box, and then clicking ‘‘Search.’’ They waterway facilities and the vessels indicated that two-volts per inch is the are also available for inspection or operating between the Lockport Lock optimal voltage to deter aquatic copying at the Docket Management and Dam and the electrical dispersal nuisance species. The USACE’s original Facility (M–30), U.S. Department of barrier. plan was to perform testing on the Transportation, West Building Ground The application of rotenone to the effects of the increased voltage on Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey CSSC will ensure Asian carp do not vessels passing through the fish barrier Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, transit across the fish barrier when prior to permanently increasing the between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday Barrier IIA is taken off line and Barrier voltage. However, after receiving data through Friday, except Federal holidays. I, which only operates at one volt per that the Asian carp were closer to the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If inch, is the sole prophylactic from Great Lakes than expected, the decision you have questions on this temporary preventing the Asian carp from entering was made to immediately energize the final rule, call CDR Tim Cummins, the Great Lakes. The effective barrier to two-volts per inch without Deputy Prevention Division, Ninth application of rotenone is essential in prior testing. Coast Guard District, telephone 216– preventing the Asian carp from A comprehensive, independent 902–6045. If you have questions on surviving the application. IDNR reports analysis of Barrier IIA, conducted in viewing the docket, call Renee V. indicate that vessels moored along the 2008 by the USACE at the one-volt per Wright, Program Manager, Docket Canal wall could create pockets or inch level, found a serious risk of injury Operations, telephone 202–366–9826. eddies where the fish toxicant is not or death to persons immersed in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: able to reach all of the Asian Carp water located adjacent to and over the necessitating the Captain of the Port barrier. Additionally, sparking between Regulatory Information (COTP) Sector Lake Michigan to order barges transiting the barrier (a risk to The Coast Guard is issuing this their immediate removal from the safety flammable cargoes) occurred at the one- temporary final rule without prior and security zone. Exceptions may volt per inch level. The Coast Guard and
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:13 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24NOR1.SGM 24NOR1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 61279
USACE developed regulations and Sector Lake Michigan will re-open approximately seven weeks in safety guidelines, with stakeholder certain portions of the waterways in an September and October 2008, while input, which addressed the risks and effort to minimize commerce disruption. Barrier I was taken down for hazards associated with operating the Prior to December 2, 2009, vessels maintenance. Construction on a third barriers at the one-volt per inch level. that comply with the regulations as set barrier (Barrier IIB) is in the initial These regulations were published in 33 forth in this temporary rule may transit stages; Barrier IIB will augment the CFR 165.923, 70 FR 76692 (Dec 28, through the safety and security zones. capabilities of Barriers I and IIA. 2005) and in a series of temporary final After December 2, 2009, all vessels In the spring of 2004, a commercial rules: 71 FR 4488 (Jan 27, 2006); 71 FR desiring to enter the safety and security towboat operator reported an electrical 19648 (Apr 17, 2006); 73 FR 33337 (Jun zones must receive permission from the arc between a wire rope and timberhead 12, 2008); 73 FR 37810 (Jul 2, 2008); 73 Captain of the Port Sector Lake while making up a tow in the vicinity FR 45875 (Aug 7, 2008); and 73 FR Michigan to do so and must follow all of the Barrier I. During subsequent 63633 (Oct 27, 2008). A temporary orders from the Captain of the Port USACE safety testing in January 2005, interim rule was issued on February 9, Sector Lake Michigan or her designated sparking was observed at points where 2009 (74 FR 6352). Finally, an NPRM on-scene representative while in the metal-to-metal contact occurred was issued on May 26, 2009 (74 FR zone. As soon as the rotenone clean-up between two barges in the barrier field. 24722). efforts are complete, the security and The electric current in the water also In October of 2009, the USACE safety zone from the Lockport Lock and poses a safety risk to commercial and notified the Coast Guard that barrier IIA Dam to the electric dispersal barrier will recreational boaters transiting the area. needed to be shut-down for required be removed. Upon completion of the The Navy Experimental Diving Unit maintenance. As a result, the IDNR, in rotenone clean-up efforts, the safety and (NEDU) was tasked with researching the coordination of the EPA, will apply security zone encompassing the electric how the electric current from the rotenone to the CSSC to ensure Asian dispersal barrier will remain in place; barriers would affect a human body if Carp do not transit through the CSSC however, the Captain of the Port Sector immersed in the water. The NEDU while Barrier IIA is disabled. The Coast Lake Michigan will permit vessels concluded that the possible effects to a Guard’s understanding is that the complying with the regulations set forth human body if immersed in the water application of the rotenone will take in this rule to transit through the zone. include paralysis of body muscles, approximately fifteen (15) hours The Captain of the Port Sector Lake inability to breathe, and ventricular followed by neutralizing and clean-up. Michigan maintains a live radio watch fibrillation. The application, neutralizing and clean- on VHF–FM Channel 16 and a Based on the safety hazards associated up is expected to take a minimum of telephone line that is manned 24 hours with electric current flowing through five days and a maximum of ten (10) a day, seven days a week. The public navigable waterways and the days. For any questions related to the can obtain information concerning uncertainty of the effects of higher application of rotenone, please contact enforcement of the safety zone by voltage on people and vessels that pass Mr. Bill Bolen, U.S. Environmental contacting the Captain of the Port Sector over and adjacent to the barriers, the Protection Agency, Senior Advisor, Lake Michigan via the Coast Guard Coast Guard implemented a safety zone Great Lakes National Program Office, 77 Sector Lake Michigan Command Center restricting use of the waterway until W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604, at at 414–747–7182. proper testing and analysis of such testing can be completed by the USACE. (312) 353–6316. Background and Purpose Until Barrier IIA is shut-down, the As the testing results were, and risks to persons and vessels are on-going The Non-indigenous Aquatic continue to be analyzed, the Coast and immediate action is needed to Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of Guard has permitted, on a case by case prevent injury to the people, vessels and 1990, as amended by the National basis, vessel transits so long as the waters. When the electrical power to Invasive Species Act of 1996, authorized vessels met certain operational Barrier IIA is secured for maintenance the USACE to conduct a demonstration restrictions. and rotenone is applied to the CSSC, the project to identify an environmentally As soon as safety testing and analysis risk to persons and vessels continues to sound method for preventing and are completed, the Coast Guard plans on exist although now from an alternative reducing the dispersal of non- publishing a new temporary interim source. The timing of the decision to use indigenous aquatic nuisance species rule (TIR) with requests for comments. rotenone during the maintenance did through the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Although the Coast Guard anticipates not provide an opportunity for full Canal. The USACE selected an electric being able to continue to permit some notice and comment period. Until on- barrier because it is a non-lethal vessels to transit through the fish barrier scene preparations begin on December deterrent with a proven history, which after testing is complete, it is currently 2, 2009, for the application of rotenone, does not overtly interfere with anticipated that any subsequent TIR will the Captain of the Port Sector Lake navigation in the canal. continue to place restrictions on vessels Michigan will make every effort to A demonstration dispersal barrier including prohibiting some vessels from permit vessels to pass over the fish (Barrier I) was constructed and has been transiting through the fish barrier barrier while it is operating at the two in operation since April 2002. It is entirely. The Coast Guard will then volt per inch level. Once preparations located approximately 30 miles from likely follow with a supplemental notice begin on December 2, 2009, until clean- Lake Michigan and creates an electric of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) in up is complete which at the earliest will field in the water by pulsing low voltage order to provide a complete notice and be December 7 but may last until DC current through steel cables secured comment period for interested parties. December 14, no vessels, except those to the bottom of the canal. A second Until on-scene preparations begin on being used for the rotenone application barrier, Barrier IIA, was constructed 800 December 2, 2009, for the application of and clean-up, will be permitted to enter to 1300 feet downstream of the Barrier rotenone, the Captain of the Port Sector or remain in the safety and security I. The potential field strength for Barrier Lake Michigan will make every effort to zones. As areas become neutralized and IIA will be up to four times that of the permit vessels to pass over the fish the necessary clean up action has been Barrier I. Barrier IIA was successfully barrier while it is operating at the two completed, the Captain of the Port operated for the first time for volt per inch level. Once preparations
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:13 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24NOR1.SGM 24NOR1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES 61280 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
begin on December 2, 2009, until clean- (4) Vessels engaged in commercial The Captain of the Port Sector Lake up is complete which at the earliest will service, as defined in 46 U.S.C 2101(5), Michigan will cause notice of the Coast be December 7 but may last until may not pass (meet or overtake) in the Guard again permitting vessels to transit December 14, no vessels except those safety zone and must make a SECURITE the electrical dispersal barrier safety being used for the rotenone application call when approaching the safety and zone by all appropriate means to affect and clean-up will be permitted to enter security zone to announce intentions the widest publicity among the affected or remain in the safety and security and work out passing arrangements on segments of the public. Such means of zone. The Captain of the Port Sector either side; notification will include, but is not Lake Michigan will cause notice of the (5) Commercial tows transiting the limited to, Broadcast Notice to Mariners Coast Guard again permitting vessels on safety and security zone must be made and Local Notice to Mariners. In a case by case basis, or those complying up with wire rope to ensure electrical addition, Captain of the Port Sector Lake with this regulation set forth in this connectivity between all segments of the Michigan maintains a telephone line rule, to transit the safety zone to be tow; that is manned 24 hours a day, seven made by all appropriate means to affect (6) All vessels are prohibited from days a week. The public can obtain the widest publicity among the affected loitering in the safety and security zone; information concerning enforcement of segments of the public. (7) Vessels may enter the safety zone the safety and security zones by for the sole purpose of transiting to the contacting the Captain of the Port Sector Discussion of Rule other side and must maintain headway Lake Michigan via the Coast Guard This temporary final rule removes 33 throughout the transit. All vessels and Sector Lake Michigan Command Center CFR 165.T09–0942. This rule suspends persons are prohibited from dredging, at 414–747–7182. laying cable, dragging, fishing, 33 CFR 65.923 until 5 p.m. on December Regulatory Analyses 18, 2009. This rule places a safety and conducting salvage operations, or any security zone on all waters of the other activity, which could disturb the We developed this rule after Chicago Sanitary Ship Canal from mile- bottom of the safety zone; considering numerous statutes and marker 291 (Lockport Lock and Dam) to (8) All personnel in the safety zone on executive orders related to rulemaking. mile-marker 296. The rule also placed a open decks must wear a Coast Guard Below we summarize our analyses safety and security zone from mile- approved Type I personal flotation based on thirteen (13) of these statutes marker 296 to mile-marker 297.7 which device; or executive orders. (9) Vessels may not moor or lay up on is located adjacent to and over the the right or left descending banks of the Regulatory Planning and Review electrical dispersal barriers on the safety zone; and, This rule is not a significant Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. (10) Towboats may not make or break regulatory action under section 3(f) of The electrical dispersal barrier safety tows if any portion of the towboat or Executive Order 12866, Regulatory and security zone will be in effect at all tow is located in the safety zone. Planning and Review, and does not times the USACE operates the electrical With respect to the safety and security require an assessment of potential costs dispersal barrier. The Coast Guard has zone from the Lockport Lock and Dam and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that deemed this safety and security zone to the electrical dispersal barrier (from Order. The Office of Management and necessary from November 16, 2009, mile-marker 291 to 296), until December Budget has not reviewed it under that until December 18, 2009, because safety 2, 2009, all up-bound and down-bound Order. testing and analysis is still being vessels engaged in commercial service, We expect the economic impact of conducted on vessels to determine as defined in 46 U.S.C. 2101(5), are this rule to be minimal. This whether and under what conditions permitted to transit through safety and determination is based the following: (1) vessels can safely pass adjacent to and security zone. Vessels may not moor or Initial test results at the current over the electrical dispersal barriers. In lay up in the safety and security zone operating parameters of two volts per addition, the safety and security zone is unless preparing to, or engaging in, inch indicate that the majority of necessary to protect the waters, loading or unloading operations. Any commercial and recreational vessels that commercial vessels and recreational vessel not actively preparing to, or regularly transit the Chicago Sanitary boaters who transit the area during the currently engaged in, loading and and Ship Canal will be permitted to preparation, application and clean-up of unloading operations must ask for enter the safety zone under certain the rotenone application. permission for the Captain of the Port to conditions; and, (2) every effort will be Until 8 a.m. on December 2, 2009, remain in the safety and security zone. made to reduce the closure time of the vessels that comply with the following On December 2, 2009, preparations canal following the shutdown of Barrier restrictions are permitted to transit the will begin for the application of IIA for maintenance and rotenone electrical dispersal barrier safety and rotenone at which time the Captain of application. security zone: the Port Sector Lake Michigan will Because these safety and security (1) Vessels must be greater than prohibit all vessels from transiting zones must be implemented twenty feet in length; either safety and security zone. As soon immediately without a full notice and (2) Vessel must not be a personal as the rotenone clean-up efforts are comment period, the full economic watercraft of any kind (i.e., jet skis, complete, the security and safety zone impact of this rule is difficult to wave runners, kayak, etc.); from the Lockport Lock and Dam to the determine at this time. The Coast Guard (3) All up-bound and down-bound electric dispersal barrier will be urges interested parties to submit tows that consist of barges carrying removed. Upon completion of the comments that specifically address the flammable liquid cargos (grade A rotenone clean-up efforts, the safety and economic impacts of permanent or through C, flashpoint below 140 degrees security zone encompassing the electric temporary closures of the Chicago Fahrenheit, or heated to within 15 dispersal barrier will remain in place; Sanitary and Ship Canal. Comments can degrees Fahrenheit of flash point) must however, the Captain of the Port Sector be made online by going to http:// engage the services of a bow boat at all Lake Michigan will permit vessels www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG– times until the entire tow is clear of the complying with the regulations set forth 2009–0942 in the ‘‘Keyword’’ box, and safety and security zone; in this rule to transit through the zone. then clicking ‘‘Search.’’
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:13 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24NOR1.SGM 24NOR1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 61281
Small Entities determined that it does not have Energy Effects The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) implications for federalism. We have analyzed this rule under (5 U.S.C. 601–612) requires agencies to Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Executive Order 13211, Actions consider whether regulatory actions Concerning Regulations That would have a significant economic The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Significantly Affect Energy Supply, impact on a substantial number of small of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires Distribution, or Use. We have entities. The term ‘‘small entities’’ Federal agencies to assess the effects of determined that it is not a ‘‘significant comprises small businesses, not-for- their discretionary regulatory actions. In energy action’’ under that order because profit organizations that are particular, the Act addresses actions it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ independently owned and operated and that may result in the expenditure by a under Executive Order 12866 and is not are not dominant in their fields, and State, local, or Tribal government, in the likely to have a significant adverse effect governmental jurisdictions with aggregate, or by the private sector of on the supply, distribution, or use of populations of less than 50,000. An RFA $100,000,000 or more in any one year. energy. The Administrator of the Office analysis is not required when a rule is Though this rule will not result in such of Information and Regulatory Affairs exempt from notice and comment expenditure, we do discuss the effects of has not designated it as a significant rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553(b). The this rule elsewhere in this preamble. energy action. Therefore, it does not Coast Guard determined that this rule is Taking of Private Property require a Statement of Energy Effects exempt from notice and comment under Executive Order 13211. rulemaking pursuant to 5 U.S.C. This rule will not effect a taking of Technical Standards 553(b)(B). Therefore, an RFA analysis is private property or otherwise have not required for this rule. The Coast taking implications under Executive The National Technology Transfer Guard, nonetheless, expects that this Order 12630, Governmental Actions and and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 temporary final rule will not have a Interference with Constitutionally U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use significant economic impact on a Protected Property Rights. voluntary consensus standards in their substantial number of small entities. Civil Justice Reform regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Assistance for Small Entities This rule meets applicable standards Management and Budget, with an Under section 213(a) of the Small in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive explanation of why using these Business Regulatory Enforcement Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to standards would be inconsistent with Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), minimize litigation, eliminate applicable law or otherwise impractical. we offer to assist small entities in ambiguity, and reduce burden. Voluntary consensus standards are understanding the rule so that they can Protection of Children technical standards (e.g., specifications better evaluate its effects on them and of materials, performance, design, or participate in the rulemaking process. We have analyzed this rule under operation; test methods; sampling Small businesses may send comments Executive Order 13045, Protection of procedures; and related management on the actions of Federal employees Children from Environmental Health systems practices) that are developed or who enforce, or otherwise determine Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not adopted by voluntary consensus compliance with, Federal regulations to an economically significant rule and standards bodies. the Small Business and Agriculture does not create an environmental risk to This rule does not use technical Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman health or risk to safety that may standards. Therefore, we did not and the Regional Small Business disproportionately affect children. consider the use of voluntary consensus Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Indian Tribal Governments standards. Ombudsman evaluates these actions Environment annually and rates each agency’s The Coast Guard recognizes the treaty responsiveness to small business. If you rights of Native American Tribes. We have analyzed this rule under wish to comment on actions by Moreover, the Coast Guard is committed Department of Homeland Security employees of the Coast Guard, call 1– to working with Tribal Governments to Management Directive 023–01 and 888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). The implement local policies and to mitigate Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, Coast Guard will not retaliate against Tribal concerns. We have determined which guide the Coast Guard in small entities that question or complain that these regulations and fishing rights complying with the National about this rule or any policy or action protection need not be incompatible. Environmental Policy Act of 1969 of the Coast Guard. We have also determined that this rule (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and does not have Tribal implications under have concluded that this action is one Collection of Information Executive Order 13175, Consultation of the category of actions which do not This rule calls for no new collection and Coordination with Indian Tribal individually or cumulatively have of information under the Paperwork Governments, because it does not have significant effect on the human Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501– a substantial direct effect on one or environment. Therefore, this rule is 3520). more Indian Tribes, on the relationship categorically excluded, under section between the Federal Government and 2.B.2 Figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(g), of Federalism Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of the Instruction and neither an A rule has implications for federalism power and responsibilities between the environmental assessment nor an under Executive Order 13132, Federal Government and Indian Tribes. environmental impact statement is Federalism, if it has a substantial direct Nevertheless, Indian Tribes that have required. This rule involves the effect on State or local governments and questions concerning the provisions of establishing, disestablishing, or would either preempt State law or this rule or options for compliance are changing of a security or safety zone. An impose a substantial direct cost of encouraged to contact the point of environmental analysis checklist and a compliance on them. We have analyzed contact listed under FOR FURTHER categorical exclusion determination are this rule under that Order and have INFORMATION CONTACT. available in the docket where indicated
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:13 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24NOR1.SGM 24NOR1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES 61282 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
under ADDRESSES. The Coast Guard’s (ii) The ‘‘on-scene representative’’ of mile north of the electrical dispersal environmental responsibilities extend the Captain of the Port is any Coast barrier). only to the creation of a safety and Guard commissioned, warrant or petty (2) Enforcement Period. The safety security zone and do not address the officer who has been designated by the zone will be enforced from 5 p.m. on application of rotenone. Any questions Captain of the Port Sector Lake November 16, 2009, until 5 p.m. on regarding the rotenone operation should Michigan to act on her behalf. The on- December 18, 2009. Beginning be addressed to Mr. Bill Bolen, U.S. scene representative of the Captain of November 16, 2009, the Coast Guard Environmental Protection Agency, the Port Sector Lake Michigan will be will use actual notice to enforce this Senior Advisor, Great Lakes National aboard a Coast Guard, Coast Guard safety zone until this rule is published Program Office, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Auxiliary, or other designated vessel or in the Federal Register. Chicago, IL 60604, at (312) 353–6316. will be on shore and will communicate (3) Definitions. The following with vessels via VHF–FM radio, definitions apply to paragraph (b) of this List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 loudhailer, or by phone. The Captain of section: Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation the Port Sector Lake Michigan or her on- Bow boat means a towing vessel (water), Reporting and recordkeeping scene representative may be contacted capable of providing positive control of requirements, Security measures, via VHF–FM radio Channel 16 or the the bow of a tow containing one or more Waterways. Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan barges, while transiting the regulated ■ For the reasons discussed in the Command Center at 414–747–7182. navigation area. The bow boat must be preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 (iii) Vessel operators desiring to enter capable of preventing a tow containing CFR part 165 as follows: or operate within the safety and security one or more barges from coming into zone must comply with the provisions contact with the shore and other moored PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION of paragraph (a)(4)(iv) or contact the vessels. AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS Captain of the Port Sector Lake (4) Regulations. (i) In accordance with the general regulations in section 165.23 ■ Michigan or her on-scene representative 1. The authority citation for part 165 to obtain permission to do so. Vessel of this part, entry into, transiting, or continues to read as follows: operators given permission to enter or anchoring within this safety zone is Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. operate in the safety and security zone prohibited unless authorized by the Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; must comply with all directions given to Captain of the Port Sector Lake 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; them by the Captain of the Port Sector Michigan, or her representative. Public Law 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; (ii) The ‘‘representative’’ of the Department of Homeland Security Delegation Lake Michigan or her on-scene No. 0170.1. representative. Captain of the Port is any Coast Guard (iv) Until 8 a.m. on December 2, 2009, commissioned, warrant or petty officer § 165.T09–0942 [Removed] all up-bound and down-bound vessels who has been designated by the Captain ■ 2. Remove § 165.T09–0942. engaged in commercial service, as of the Port Sector Lake Michigan to act defined in 46 U.S.C. 2101(5), are on her behalf. The representative of the § 165.923 [Suspended] permitted to transit through the safety Captain of the Port Sector Lake ■ 3. Section 165.923 is suspended until zone. Vessels may not moor or lay up Michigan will be aboard a Coast Guard, December 18, 2009. in the safety and security zone unless Coast Guard Auxiliary, or other ■ 4. A new temporary section 165.T09– preparing to, or engaging in, loading or designated vessel or will be on shore 1004 is added as follows: unloading operations. Any vessel not and will communicate with vessels via actively preparing to, or currently VHF–FM radio, loudhailer, or by phone. § 165.T09–1004 Safety and Security Zone, engaged in, loading and unloading The Captain of the Port Sector Lake Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, operations must ask for permission for Michigan or her representative may be Romeoville, IL. the Captain of the Port to remain in the contacted via VHF–FM radio Channel (a) Lockport Lock to Electrical safety and security zone. 16 or the Coast Guard Sector Lake Dispersal Barrier Safety and Security (v) Starting at 8 a.m. on December 2, Michigan Command Center at 414–747– Zone. (1) The following area is a 2009, this safety zone and security zone 7182. temporary safety and security zone: All is closed to all vessel traffic, except as (iii) Vessel operators desiring to enter waters of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship may be permitted by the Captain of the or operate within the safety and security Canal located between mile marker Port Sector Lake Michigan or her on- zone must comply with the provisions 291.0 (Lockport Lock and Dam) and scene representative. As soon as clean- of paragraph (b)(4)(iv) or shall contact mile marker 296.0 (approximately 958 up efforts from the rotenone application the Captain of the Port Sector Lake feet south of the Romeo Road Bridge). are complete, the Captain of the Port Michigan or her representative to obtain (2) Enforcement Period. The safety will cause notice of the enforcement of permission to do so. Vessel operators and security zone will be enforced from the safety and security zone being given permission to enter or operate in 5 p.m. on November 16, 2009, until 5 removed by all appropriate means to the safety and security zone must p.m. on December 18, 2009. Beginning effect the widest publicity among the comply with all directions given to November 16, 2009, the Coast Guard affected segments of the public. Such them by the Captain of the Port Sector will use actual notice to enforce this means of notification include but are Lake Michigan or her representative. safety and security zone until this rule not limited to, Broadcast Notice to (iv) Until 8 a.m. on December 2, 2009, is published in the Federal Register. Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners. vessels that comply with the following (3) Regulations. (i) In accordance with (b) Electrical Dispersal Barrier Safety restrictions are permitted to transit the the general regulations in section 165.23 and Security Zone. (1) The following safety and security zone and the of this part, entry into, transiting, or area is a temporary safety and security following regulations apply: anchoring within this safety and zone: All waters of the Chicago Sanitary (A) Vessels must be greater than security zone is prohibited unless and Ship Canal located between mile twenty feet in length. authorized by the Captain of the Port marker 296.0 (approximately 958 feet (B) Vessel must not be a personal Sector Lake Michigan, or her on-scene south of the Romeo Road Bridge) and watercraft of any kind (i.e., jet skis, representative. mile marker 297.7 (approximately one wave runners, kayak, etc.).
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:13 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24NOR1.SGM 24NOR1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 61283
(C) All up-bound and down-bound to, Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Squid, and Butterfish Fishery tows that consist of barges carrying Local Notice to Mariners. Management Plan (FMP). The flammable liquid cargos (grade A (vi) Persons on board any vessel procedures for setting the annual initial through C, flashpoint below 140 degrees transiting this safety and security zone specifications are described in § 648.21. Fahrenheit, or heated to within 15 in accordance with this rule or The 2009 specification of DAH for degrees Fahrenheit of flash point) must otherwise are advised they do so at their butterfish was set at 500 mt (74 FR 6244, engage the services of a bow boat at all own risk. February 6, 2009). Section 648.22 requires NMFS to times until the entire tow is clear of the Dated: November 16, 2009. close the directed butterfish fishery in safety and security zone. D.R. Callahan, (D) Vessels engaged in commercial the EEZ when 80 percent of the total Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, annual DAH has been harvested. If 80 service, as defined in 46 U.S.C. 2101(5), Ninth Coast Guard District, Acting. may not pass (meet or overtake) in the percent of the butterfish DAH is [FR Doc. E9–28183 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] safety zone and must make a SECURITE projected to be landed prior to October call when approaching the safety zone BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 1, a 250–lb (0.11–mt) incidental to announce intentions and work out butterfish possession limit is put in passing arrangements on either side. effect for the remainder of the year, and (E) Commercial tows transiting the DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE if 80 percent of the butterfish DAH is safety zone must be made up with wire projected to be landed on or after National Oceanic and Atmospheric October 1, a 600–lb (0.27–mt) incidental rope to ensure electrical connectivity Administration between all segments of the tow. butterfish possession limit is put in effect for the remainder of the year. (F) All vessels are prohibited from 50 CFR Part 648 loitering in the safety and security zone. NMFS is further required to notify, in advance of the closure, the Executive (G) Vessels may enter the safety and [Docket No. 0808041043–9036–02] Directors of the Mid-Atlantic, New security zone for the sole purpose of RIN 0648–XS77 England, and South Atlantic Fishery transiting to the other side and must Management Councils; mail notification maintain headway throughout the Fisheries of the Northeastern United of the closure to all holders of butterfish transit. All vessels and persons are States; Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and permits at least 72 hr before the effective prohibited from dredging, laying cable, Butterfish Fisheries; Closure of the date of the closure; provide adequate dragging, fishing, conducting salvage Directed Butterfish Fishery notice of the closure to recreational operations, or any other activity, which participants in the fishery; and publish could disturb the bottom of the safety AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and notification of the closure in the Federal and security zone. Register. (H) If a vessel is permitted by the Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. The Administrator, Northeast Region, Captain of the Port Sector Lake NMFS, based on dealer reports and ACTION: Temporary rule; closure. Michigan or her representative to transit other available information, has the safety and security zone, all SUMMARY: NMFS announces that the determined that 80 percent of the DAH personnel should remain on open decks directed fishery for butterfish in the for butterfish in 2009 fishing year will inside the cabin, or as inboard as Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) will be be harvested. Therefore, effective 0001 practicable and wear a Coast Guard closed effective 0001 hours, November hours, November 25, 2009, the directed approved Type I personal flotation 25, 2009. Vessels issued a Federal fishery for butterfish fishery is closed device. Alternatively, personnel on permit to harvest butterfish may not and vessels issued Federal permits for recreational vessels may wear a Coast retain or land more than 600 lb (0.27– butterfish may not retain or land more Guard approved personal flotation mt) of butterfish per trip for the than 600 lb (0.27 mt) of butterfish device under 33 CFR Part 175 while in remainder of the year (through during a calendar day. The directed the safety zone. December 31, 2009). This action is fishery will reopen effective 0001 hours, (I) Vessels may not moor or lay up on necessary to prevent the fishery from January 1, 2010, when the 2010 DAH the right or left descending banks of the exceeding its domestic annual harvest becomes available. safety zone. (DAH) of 500 mt and to allow for (J) Towboats may not make or break Classification effective management of this stock. tows if any portion of the towboat or This action is required by 50 CFR part DATES: Effective 0001 hours, November tow is located in the safety zone. 648 and is exempt from review under 25, 2009, through 2400 hours, December (v) Starting at 8 a.m. on December 2, Executive Order 12866. 2009, this safety and security zone is 31, 2009. The Assistant Administrator for closed to all vessel traffic, except as may FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause be permitted by the Captain of the Port Lindsey Feldman, Fishery Management pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive Sector Lake Michigan or her Specialist, 978–675–2179, Fax 978–281– prior notice and the opportunity for representative. As soon as clean-up 9135. public comment because it would be efforts from the rotenone application are SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: contrary to the public interest. This complete, the Captain of the Port will Regulations governing the butterfish action closes the butterfish fishery until cause notice of the safety and security fishery are found at 50 CFR part 648. December 31, 2009, under current zone being open to vessel transits, so The regulations require specifications regulations. The regulations at § 648.21 long as the vessels comply with for maximum sustainable yield, initial require such action to ensure that regulations described in paragraph optimum yield, allowable biological butterfish vessels do not exceed the (b)(4)(iv) of this section, by all catch, domestic annual harvest (DAH), 2009 TAC. Data indicating the butterfish appropriate means to effect the widest domestic annual processing, joint fleet will have landed at least 80 percent publicity among the affected segments venture processing, and total allowable of the 2009 TAC have only recently of the public. Such means of levels of foreign fishing for the species become available. If implementation of notification include but are not limited managed under the Atlantic Mackerel, this closure if delayed to solicit prior
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:13 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24NOR1.SGM 24NOR1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES 61284 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
public comment, the quota for this year Instructions: No comments will be Inseason action #9 closed the will be exceeded, thereby undermining posted for public viewing until after the recreational fishery in the Columbia the conservation objectives of the FMP. comment period has closed. All River subarea (Leadbetter Point, The AA further finds, pursuant to 5 comments received are a part of the Washington to Cape Falcon, Oregon). U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause to waive public record and will generally be This action was taken to prevent the 30-day delayed effectiveness period posted to http://www.regulations.gov exceeding the subarea coho quota. On for the reasons stated above. without change. All Personal Identifying August 26, 2009 the states Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Information (for example, name, recommended this action and the RA address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by concurred; inseason action #9 took Dated: November 18, 2009. the commenter may be publicly effect on August 31, 2009, and will Alan D. Risenhoover, accessible. Do not submit Confidential remain in effect until it is modified by Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, Business Information or otherwise any subsequent inseason actions; National Marine Fisheries Service. sensitive or protected information. otherwise, regulations are consistent [FR Doc. E9–28155 Filed 11–19–09; 4:15 pm] NMFS will accept anonymous with 2009 annual management BILLING CODE 3510–22–S comments (enter N/A in the required measures for ocean salmon fisheries (74 fields, if you wish to remain FR 20610, May 5, 2009). Modification in quota and/or fishing seasons is DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE anonymous). You may submit attachments to electronic comments in authorized by regulations at 50 CFR 660.409 (b)(1)(i). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Inseason action #10 modified the Administration Adobe PDF file formats only. commercial and recreational quotas in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: the area from the Cape Falcon, Oregon 50 CFR Part 660 Peggy Busby, by phone at 206–526– to the Oregon/California Border by [Docket No. 090324366–9371–01] 4323. transferring unutilized coho salmon quota from the June-August recreational RIN 0648–XS52 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 2009 annual management measures for fishery to the September commercial Fisheries Off West Coast States; ocean salmon fisheries (74 FR 20610, and recreational quotas; 10,240 coho Modifications of the West Coast May 5, 2009), NMFS announced the were transferred to the non-mark- Commercial and Recreational Salmon commercial and recreational fisheries in selective commercial fishery in the area Fisheries; Inseason Actions #8, #9, the area from the U.S./Canada Border to from Cape Falcon, Oregon to Humbug #10, #11, and #12 the U.S./Mexico Border, beginning May Mountain, Oregon; 2,560 coho were 1, 2009. transferred to the mark-selective AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries recreational fishery in the area from The Regional Administrator (RA) Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Cape Falcon, Oregon to the Oregon/ consulted with representatives of the Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), California Border. This action was taken Pacific Fishery Management Council, Commerce. to utilize available coho salmon quota Washington Department of Fish and ACTION: Modification of fishing seasons, south of Cape Falcon, Oregon. On Wildlife and Oregon Department of Fish gear restrictions, and landing and September 3, the states recommended and Wildlife on August 26 and possession limits; request for comments. this action and the RA concurred; September 3, 2009. The information inseason action #10 took effect on SUMMARY: NOAA Fisheries announces considered related to catch to date and September 3, 2009, and will remain in five inseason actions in the ocean Chinook and coho catch rates compared effect until it is modified by any salmon fisheries. Inseason actions #8, to quotas and other management subsequent inseason actions; otherwise, #9, and #11 modified the recreational measures established preseason. regulations are consistent with 2009 fishery in the area from the U.S./Canada Inseason action #8 modified the annual management measures for ocean Border to Cape Falcon, Oregon. Inseason recreational quota in the area from the salmon fisheries (74 FR 20610, May 5, action #10 modified the commercial and U.S./Canada Border to Cape Falcon, 2009). Modification in quota and/or recreational fisheries in the area from Oregon by transferring quota among fishing seasons is authorized by Cape Falcon, Oregon to the Oregon/ subareas; 1,000 coho were transferred regulations at 50 CFR 660.409 (b)(1)(i). California Border. Inseason action #12 from the quota of the Neah Bay subarea Inseason action #11 reopened the modified the commercial fishery in the (U.S./Canada Border to Cape Alava, recreational fishery in the Columbia area from the U.S./Canada Border to Washington) to the quota for the LaPush River subarea (Leadbetter Point, Cape Falcon, Oregon. subarea (Cape Alava, Washington to Washington to Cape Falcon, Oregon), DATES: See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Queets River, Washington). This action previously closed by inseason action #9. for effective dates of inseason actions was taken to distribute remaining quota This action was taken to utilize #8, #9, #10, #11, and #12. Comments among the subareas to allow fishing to remaining quota in the Columbia River will be accepted through December 9, continue in the LaPush subarea. On subarea. On September 3, 2009, the 2009. August 26, the states recommended this states recommended this action and the ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, action and the RA concurred; inseason RA concurred; inseason action #11 took identified by 0648–XS52, by any one of action #8 took effect on August 26, effect on September 7, 2009, and will the following methods: 2009, and will remain in effect until it remain in effect until it is modified by • Electronic Submissions: Submit all is modified by any subsequent inseason any subsequent inseason actions; electronic public comments via the actions; otherwise, regulations are otherwise, regulations are consistent Federal eRulemaking Portal http:// consistent with 2009 annual with 2009 annual management www.regulations.gov management measures for ocean salmon measures for ocean salmon fisheries (74 • Fax: 206–526–6736, Attn: Peggy fisheries (74 FR 20610, May 5, 2009). FR 20610, May 5, 2009). Modification in Busby Modification in quota and/or fishing quota and/or fishing seasons is • Mail: 7600 Sand Point Way NE, seasons is authorized by regulations at authorized by regulations at 50 CFR Building 1, Seattle, WA, 98115 50 CFR 660.409 (b)(1)(i). 660.409 (b)(1)(i).
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:13 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24NOR1.SGM 24NOR1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 61285
Inseason action #12 modified the with these Federal actions. As provided comment was impracticable because commercial fishery in the area from the by the inseason notice procedures of 50 NMFS and the state agencies had U.S./Canada Border to Cape Falcon, CFR 660.411, actual notice of the insufficient time to provide for prior Oregon by reducing the landing and described regulatory actions was given, notice and the opportunity for public possession limit from 200 coho per prior to the date the action was comment between the time the fishery opening to 100 coho per opening. This effective, by telephone hotline number catch and effort data were collected to action was taken to avoid exceeding the 206–526–6667 and 800–662–9825, and determine the extent of the fisheries, coho quota while keeping the fishery by U.S. Coast Guard Notice to Mariners and the time the fishery modifications open as scheduled. On September 3, broadcasts on Channel 16 VHF-FM and had to be implemented in order to allow 2009, the states recommended this 2182 kHz. These actions do not apply to fishers access to the available fish at the action and the RA concurred; inseason other fisheries that may be operating in time the fish were available. The AA action #11 took effect on September 5, other areas. 2009, and will remain in effect until it also finds good cause to waive the 30– Classification is modified by any subsequent inseason day delay in effectiveness required actions; otherwise, regulations are The Assistant Administrator for under U.S.C. 553(d)(3), as a delay in consistent with 2009 annual Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds that good effectiveness of these actions would management measures for ocean salmon cause exists for this notification to be allow fishing at levels inconsistent with fisheries (74 FR 20610, May 5, 2009). issued without affording prior notice the goals of the Salmon Fishery Modification in quota and/or fishing and opportunity for public comment Management Plan and the current seasons is authorized by regulations at under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) because such management measures. 50 CFR 660.409 (b)(1)(i). notification would be impracticable. As These actions are authorized by 50 previously noted, actual notice of the All other restrictions and regulations CFR 660.409 and 660.411 and are regulatory actions was provided to remain in effect as announced for the exempt from review under Executive 2009 Ocean Salmon Fisheries and fishers through telephone hotline and Order 12866. previous inseason actions. radio notification. These actions comply The RA determined that the best with the requirements of the annual Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. available information indicated that the management measures for ocean salmon Dated: November 19, 2009. catch and effort data, and projections, fisheries (73 FR 23971, May 1, 2008; 74 Alan D. Risenhoover, supported the above inseason actions FR 20610, May 5, 2009), the West Coast recommended by the states. The states Salmon Plan, and regulations Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, manage the fisheries in state waters implementing the West Coast Salmon National Marine Fisheries Service. adjacent to the areas of the U.S. Plan 50 CFR 660.409 and 660.411. Prior [FR Doc. E9–28160 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] exclusive economic zone in accordance notice and opportunity for public BILLING CODE 3510–22–S
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:13 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24NOR1.SGM 24NOR1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES 61286
Proposed Rules Federal Register Vol. 74, No. 225
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER • E-mail: [email protected]. Federalism, that this rule does not have contains notices to the public of the proposed • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// sufficient implications to warrant issuance of rules and regulations. The www.regulations.gov. Follow the consultation with the States. The purpose of these notices is to give interested instructions for submitting comments. provisions contained in this rule will persons an opportunity to participate in the A copy of each response will be rule making prior to the adoption of the final not have a substantial direct effect on rules. available for public inspection and States, or on the relationship between copying from 7 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., CST, the national government and the States, Monday through Friday, except or on the distribution of power and DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE holidays, at the above address. responsibilities among the various FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: levels of government. Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Claire White, Economist, Product Management, Product Administration Regulatory Flexibility Act 7 CFR Part 457 and Standards Division, Risk FCIC certifies that this regulation will Management Agency, at the Kansas City, RIN 0563–AC14 not have a significant economic impact MO address listed above, telephone (816) 926–7730. on a substantial number of small Common Crop Insurance Regulations; entities. Program requirements for the Stonefruit Crop Provisions SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Federal crop insurance program are the AGENCY: Federal Crop Insurance Executive Order 12866 same for all producers regardless of the Corporation, USDA. The Office of Management and Budget size of their farming operation. For ACTION: Proposed rule. (OMB) has determined that this rule is instance, all producers are required to non-significant for the purpose of submit an application and acreage SUMMARY: The Federal Crop Insurance Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, it report to establish their insurance Corporation (FCIC) proposes to amend has not been reviewed by OMB. guarantees and compute premium the Common Crop Insurance amounts, and all producers are required Regulations, Stonefruit Crop Insurance Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 to submit a notice of loss and Provisions to allow coverage for plums Pursuant to the provisions of the production information to determine the under the Stonefruit Crop Insurance Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 amount of an indemnity payment in the Provisions and to make other changes to U.S.C. chapter 35), the collections of event of an insured cause of crop loss. clarify policy provisions. The proposed information in this rule have been Whether a producer has 10 acres or rule will also remove the Plum Crop approved by OMB under control 1,000 acres, there is no difference in the Insurance Provisions from the Code of number 0563–0053 through March 31, kind of information collected. To ensure Federal Regulations. The intended effect 2012. crop insurance is available to small of this action is to provide policy E-Government Act Compliance entities, the Federal Crop Insurance Act changes, to clarify existing policy authorizes FCIC to waive collection of provisions to better meet the needs of FCIC is committed to complying with the E-Government Act of 2002, to administrative fees from limited the producers, and to reduce resource farmers. FCIC believes this vulnerability to program fraud, waste, promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to waiver helps to ensure that small and abuse. The changes will apply for entities are given the same opportunities the 2011 and succeeding crop years. provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government as large entities to manage their risks DATES: Written comments and opinions information and services, and for other through the use of crop insurance. A on this proposed rule will be accepted purposes. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has not until close of business January 25, 2010 been prepared since this regulation does and will be considered when the rule is Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of not have an impact on small entities, to be made final. 1995 and therefore, this regulation is exempt ADDRESSES: Interested persons are Title II of the Unfunded Mandates from the provisions of the Regulatory invited to submit written comments, Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) establishes Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605). titled ‘‘Stonefruit Crop Provisions’’, by requirements for Federal agencies to any of the following methods: assess the effects of their regulatory Federal Assistance Program • By Mail to: Director, Product actions on State, local, and tribal This program is listed in the Catalog Administration and Standards Division, governments and the private sector. of Federal Domestic Assistance under Risk Management Agency, United States This rule contains no Federal mandates No. 10.450. Department of Agriculture, Beacon (under the regulatory provisions of title Facility, Stop 0812, Room 421, PO Box II of the UMRA) for State, local, and Executive Order 12372 419205, Kansas City, MO 64141–6205. tribal governments or the private sector. • By Express Mail to: Director, Therefore, this rule is not subject to the This program is not subject to the Product Administration and Standards requirements of sections 202 and 205 of provisions of Executive Order 12372, Division, Risk Management Agency, UMRA. which require intergovernmental United States Department of consultation with State and local Agriculture, Beacon Facility, Stop 0812, Executive Order 13132 officials. See the Notice related to 7 CFR 9240 Troost Avenue, Kansas City, MO It has been determined under section part 3015, subpart V, published at 48 FR 64131–3055. 1(a) of Executive Order 13132, 29115, June 24, 1983.
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:14 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP1.SGM 24NOP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 61287
Executive Order 12988 ‘‘The picking of mature stonefruit either type’’ and is used throughout the Crop This proposed rule has been reviewed by hand or machine.’’ The proposed Provisions. ‘‘Type’’ is also defined. in accordance with Executive Order definition says ‘‘The physical removal However, the context in which ‘‘varietal 12988 on civil justice reform. The of mature stonefruit from the tree either group’’ is used is synonymous with provisions of this rule will not have a by hand or machine.’’ Use of the term ‘‘type.’’ Therefore, the term ‘‘varietal ‘‘picking’’ created an ambiguity which is group’’ is not needed. retroactive effect. The provisions of this eliminated with the use of the term 2. Section 3—FCIC proposes to rule will preempt State and local laws ‘‘physical removal.’’ redesignate paragraph (c) as paragraph to the extent such State and local laws FCIC proposes to revise the table in (d) and designate the undesignated are inconsistent herewith. With respect the definition of ‘‘lug’’ to include plums paragraph following paragraph (b)(4)(iii) to any direct action taken by FCIC or and provide a weight for plums per lug. as paragraph (c). FCIC proposes to revise action by FCIC to require the insurance FCIC also proposes to revise the table in redesignated section 3(c) to add provider to take specific action under the definition of ‘‘lug’’ to change the provisions to specify if the insured fails the terms of the crop insurance policy, unit weight measurement for fresh to notify the insurance provider by the the administrative appeal provisions freestone peaches from 22 pounds per production reporting date of an event or published at 7 CFR part 11 must be lug to 25 pounds per lug. Data indicates action that may reduce the yield exhausted before any action against the peach industry now uses 25, rather potential, any loss of production from FCIC for judicial review may be brought. than 22, pounds per lug. FCIC also such acreage will result in an appraisal Environmental Evaluation proposes to revise the definition of for uninsured causes. The yield used to ‘‘lug’’ to allow the flexibility to change establish the insured’s production This action is not expected to have a the weight measurement through the guarantee will also be reduced for the significant economic impact on the Special Provisions, if necessary. This subsequent crop year. FCIC also quality of the human environment, will eliminate the administrative burden proposes to revise redesignated section health, or safety. Therefore, neither an of revising the regulation when a simple 3(c) to remove the list of possible effects Environmental Assessment nor an numerical change is necessary because on yield potential and instead cross- Environmental Impact Statement is of a change in industry practices. reference section 3(b)(1)–(4), which needed. FCIC proposes to revise the definition currently contains the possible effects Background of ‘‘marketable.’’ The current definition on yield potential. This will eliminate states ‘‘Stonefruit production acceptable the current redundancy. FCIC proposes to revise 7 CFR part for processing or other human 3. Section 4—FCIC proposes to revise 457, Common Crop Insurance consumption, even if it fails to meet the section 4 to add language to allow Regulations, by removing and reserving State Department of Food and additional contract change dates to be § 457.157 and revising § 457.159 Agriculture minimum grading specified in the Special Provisions. This (Stonefruit Crop Insurance Provisions). standard.’’ The proposed definition provides additional flexibility to adjust Plums, along with apricots, nectarines, states ‘‘Stonefruit production that meets the dates or add new dates as needed. and peaches, are a member of the or exceeds the quality standards for U.S. 4. Section 5—FCIC proposes to revise stonefruit family. Coverage under the No. 1 in accordance with the applicable section 5 to add language to allow Plum Crop Insurance Provisions is grade standards or other standards additional cancellation and termination similar to the coverage under the specified in the Special Provisions or is dates to be specified in the Special Stonefruit Crop Insurance Provisions. accepted by a packer, processor or other Provisions. This provides additional Several requests have been made to handler.’’ The new definition clarifies flexibility to adjust the dates or add new combine the Plum Crop Insurance that the grade standards will first be dates as needed. Provisions and the Stonefruit Crop applied to determine whether the 5. Section 6—FCIC proposes to revise Insurance Provisions to consolidate the stonefruit is marketable. If the stonefruit paragraph (b)(1) to allow insurance for Crop Provisions, underwriting does not make grade, it is not trees that become commercially procedures, and loss adjustment considered marketable unless a packer, available after set out. Currently, standards. Several requests also have handler or processor accepts the insurance only attaches to trees that are been made for changes to improve the production not making grade. If commercially available at set out. coverage offered, address program accepted, it will be considered However, there are situations where integrity issues, and improve clarity of marketable. trees may become commercially the Stonefruit Crop Insurance FCIC proposes to revise the definition available after they have been set out, Provisions. The provisions will be of ‘‘stonefruit’’ to include plums. FCIC such as trees that were set out for effective for the 2011 and succeeding also proposes to revise the definition of experimental purposes. In some cases crop years. ‘‘stonefruit’’ to allow other stonefruit these experimental trees become The proposed changes to § 457.159 crops to be added via the Special commercially acceptable and available are as follows: Provisions, if such crops can be added after set out. According to the current 1. Section 1—FCIC proposes to without making any other changes to provisions, these trees would not be remove the definition of ‘‘grading the Crop Provisions. eligible for insurance because they were standards’’ and replace it with a FCIC proposes to revise the definition not commercially available when they definition of ‘‘grade standards.’’ The of ‘‘type’’ to remove the word ‘‘class’’ were set out. The proposed language term ‘‘grade standards,’’ rather than and replace it with the word ‘‘category.’’ allows these trees to be insurable. ‘‘grading standards,’’ is consistent with The proposed change is necessary due FCIC proposes to revise paragraph (b) terminology in other Crop Provisions to administrative system changes in the to include the provision currently in administered by FCIC. The term ‘‘grade near future. The definition of ‘‘type’’ is paragraphs (d), (e), (f), and (g) and standards’’ replaces the term ‘‘grading also revised to clarify the types are remove paragraphs (d), (e), (f), and (g). standards’’ everywhere it appears in the listed in the Special Provisions. Current paragraphs (b), (d), (e), (f), and Stonefruit Crop Insurance Provisions. FCIC proposes to remove the (g) refer to conditions of insurability of FCIC proposes to revise the definition definition of ‘‘varietal group.’’ ‘‘Varietal the stonefruit trees so it provides clarity of ‘‘harvest.’’ The current definition says group’’ is defined as ‘‘a subclass of to combine the provisions into one
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:14 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP1.SGM 24NOP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS 61288 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules
provision. However, currently, Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1506(1), 1506(o). standards specified in the Special paragraph (e) suggests that the trees Provisions. § 457.157 [Removed and Reserved] must be regulated by the state before Harvest. The physical removal of they are insurable. There are some states 2. Remove and reserve § 457.157. mature stonefruit from the tree either by where the trees are not regulated by the 3. Amend § 457.159 as follows: hand or machine. a. Amend the introductory text by state. Therefore, FCIC proposes to revise * * * * * removing ‘‘2001’’ and adding ‘‘2011’’ in the provisions of the new paragraph Lug. A container of fresh stonefruit of its place; (b)(4) to clarify that the trees must be specified weight. Lugs of varying sizes b. Remove the undesignated regulated by the state only if such will be converted to standard lug paragraph immediately preceding regulations exist. Further, FCIC also equivalents on the basis of the following proposes to revise the new paragraph section 1. c. Amend section 1 by: average net pounds of packed fruit, or (b)(5) to allow the stonefruit crop to be as specified in the Special Provisions: insurable if grown on trees that have 1. Adding a definition of ‘‘grade standards’’; produced a minimum amount of Crop Pounds production in at least one of the 2. Removing the definitions of per lug previous four, instead of the previous ‘‘grading standards’’ and ‘‘varietal three, actual production history crop group’’; and Fresh Apricots ...... 24 3. Revising the definitions of Fresh Nectarines ...... 25 years. This is consistent with the ‘‘harvest’’, ‘‘lug’’, ‘‘marketable’’, Fresh Freestone Peaches ...... 25 minimum production requirement in ‘‘stonefruit’’, ‘‘type’’. Fresh Plums ...... 28 other perennial crops such as apples d. Amend section 2(b) by removing and pears. the phrase ‘‘varietal group’’ in two Weight for Processing Apricots, FCIC proposes to remove paragraph places; Processing Cling Peaches, and (c), which states stonefruit is insurable e. Amend section 3 by: Processing Freestone Peaches is if grown on trees that are irrigated. 1. Revising paragraph (a) by removing specified in tons. Requirements for irrigation will be the phrase ’’ or varietal group’’ in all Marketable. Stonefruit production contained in the Special Provisions. three places; that meets or exceeds the quality Removing this paragraph makes the 2. Revising the introductory text of standards for U.S. No. 1 in accordance Stonefruit Crop Insurance Provisions paragraph (b) and (b)(4)(i); and with the applicable grade standards or consistent with other Crop Provisions 3. Redesignating paragraph (c) as other standards specified in the Special that include the insurable practices in paragraph (d), designating the Provisions or is accepted by a packer, the Special Provisions and actuarial undesignated paragraph following processor or other handler. documents. paragraph (b)(4)(iii) as paragraph (c), * * * * * 6. Section 8—FCIC proposes to revise and revising redesignated paragraph (c). Stonefruit. Any of the following crops paragraph (a)(2) to establish an end of f. Amend section 4 by adding the grown for fresh market or processing: insurance period of September 30 for phrase ‘‘, or as specified in the Special (a) Fresh Apricots, fresh plums in all states except Provisions’’ after the word ‘‘states’’. (b) Fresh Freestone Peaches, California and to establish an end of g. Amend section 5 by adding the (c) Fresh Nectarines, insurance period of October 20 for fresh phrase ‘‘, or as specified in the Special (d) Fresh Plums, plums in California only. Under the Provisions’’ after the word ‘‘states’’. (e) Processing Apricots, current Plum Crop Insurance h. Amend section 6 by: (f) Processing Cling Peaches, Provisions, which is currently only 1. Revising paragraph (b); and (g) Processing Freestone Peaches, and available in California, the end of the 2. Removing paragraphs (c), (d), (e), (f) (h) Other crops listed in the Special insurance period is September 30. and (g). Provisions. September 30 will remain the end of i. Amend section 8 by revising * * * * * insurance period for fresh plums in paragraphs (a)(2)(ii) and (a)(2)(iii) and Type. A category of a stonefruit crop other counties in other states where adding a new paragraph (a)(2)(iv). with similar characteristics that are insurance is available. However, j. Amend section 11 by: grouped for insurance purposes, as according to published data, plums can 1. Revising paragraph (b); listed in the Special Provisions. be harvested as late as October 20 in 2. Revising paragraph (c)(3)(ii) by California. Therefore, the end of the * * * * * removing the word ‘‘grading’’ and 3. Insurance Guarantees, Coverage insurance period is extended to allow adding the word ‘‘grade’’ in its place in for harvesting until October 20. Levels, and Prices for Determining both instances it is found; and Indemnities. 3. Revising paragraph (c)(4). List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 457 * * * * * The additions and revisions read as (b) You must report, by the Crop insurance, Stonefruit, Reporting follows: and recordkeeping requirements. production reporting date designated in § 457.159 Stonefruit crop insurance section 3 of the Basic Provisions, by Proposed Rule provisions. type, if applicable, for each stonefruit Accordingly, as set forth in the * * * * * crop: preamble, the Federal Crop Insurance 1. Definitions. * * * * * Corporation proposes to amend 7 CFR * * * * * (4) * * * part 457 effective for the 2010 and Grade standards. The United States (i) The age of the interplanted crop, succeeding crop years as follows: Standards for Grades of Peaches, the and type, if applicable; PART 457—COMMON CROP United States Standards for Grades of * * * * * INSURANCE REGULATIONS Nectarines, the United States Standards (c) We will reduce the yield used to for Grades of Apricots, and the United establish your production guarantee, as 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR States Standards for Grades of Fresh necessary, based on our estimate of such part 457 continues to read as follows: Plums and Prunes, or other such event or action of any of the items listed
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:14 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP1.SGM 24NOP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 61289
in section 3(b)(1) through (4) as (iv) In California only, October 20 for election = $45,000.00 value of guarantee indicated below. If the event or action all fresh plums; or for type B; occurred: (v) As otherwise provided for specific (3) $150,000.00 + $45,000.00 = (1) Before the beginning of the counties or types in the Special $195,000.00 total value of guarantee; insurance period, we will reduce the Provisions. (4) 5,000 harvested lugs type A × yield used to establish your production * * * * * $6.00 price election = $30,000.00 value guarantee for the current crop year as 11. Settlement of Claim. of production to count; and 3,000 × necessary. If you fail to notify us of any * * * * * harvested lugs type B $3.00 price circumstance that may reduce your (b) * * * election = $9,000.00 value of production yields from previous levels, we will (1) Multiplying the insured acreage to count; and reduce your production guarantee at any for each type by its respective (5) $30,000.00 + $9,000.00 = time we become aware of the production guarantee; $39,000.00 total value of production to circumstance; (2) Multiplying each result of section count; (6) $195,000.00 ¥ (2) Or may occur after the beginning 11(b)(1) by the respective price election $39,000.00 = of the insurance period and you notify for the type; $156,000.00 total loss; and (7) $156,000.00 loss × 1.000 share = us by the production reporting date, we (3) Totaling the results of section $156,000 indemnity payment. will reduce the yield used to establish 11(b)(2) (if there is only one type, the (c) your production guarantee for the result of (3) will be the same as the current crop year as necessary; or result of (2)); * * * * * (3) Or may occur after the beginning (4) Multiplying the total production to (4) Harvested fresh or processing of the insurance period and you fail to count (see section 11(c)), for each type, stonefruit production that is eligible for notify us by the production reporting by the respective price election; quality adjustment as specified in date, we will appraise your production (5) Totaling the results of section section 11(c)(3) will be reduced as in accordance with section 11(c)(1)(ii). 11(b)(4); follows: We will reduce the yield used to (6) Subtracting the result of section (i) When packed and sold as fresh establish your production guarantee for 11(b)(5) from the result of section fruit or when insured as a processing the subsequent crop year. 11(b)(3) (if there is only one type, the crop, by dividing the value per lug or * * * * * result of (6) will be the same as the ton of marketable production by the 6. Insured Crop. result of (5)); and highest price election and multiplying * * * * * (7) Multiplying the result of section the result (not to exceed 1.00) by the (b) That is grown on trees that: 11(b)(6) by your share. quantity of such production; or (1) Were commercially available when Scenario 1: (ii) For all other fresh stonefruit, by the trees were set out or have You select 75 percent coverage level multiplying the number of tons that subsequently become commercially and 100 percent of the price election on could be marketed by the value per ton available; 50 acres of type A stonefruit with 100 and dividing that result by the highest (2) Are adapted to the area; percent share in the unit. The guarantee price election available for that type. (3) are grown on root stock that is is 500 lugs per acre and the price * * * * * adapted to the area; election is $6.00 per lug. You are only Signed in Washington, DC, on (4) Are in compliance with the able to harvest 5,000 lugs. Your November 13, 2009. applicable State’s Tree Fruit Agreement indemnity would be calculated as William J. Murphy, or related crop advisory board for the follows: state (for each insured crop and type), × Manager, Federal Crop Insurance (1) 50.0 acres 500 lugs = 25,000 lug Corporation. when such regulations exist; guarantee; [FR Doc. E9–27988 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] (5) Have produced at least 200 lugs of (2) 25,000 lugs × $6.00 price election BILLING CODE 3410–08–P fresh market production per acre, or at = $150,000.00 value of guarantee; least 2.2 tons per acre for processing (4) 5,000 harvested lugs × $6.00 price crops, in at least one of the four most election = $30,000.00 value of DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION recent actual production history crop production to count; years, unless we inspect such acreage ¥ (6) $150,000.00 $30,000.00 = Federal Aviation Administration and give our approval in writing; $120,000.00 loss; and (6) Have reached at least the fifth × (7) 120,000.00 1.000 share = 14 CFR Part 71 growing season after set out. However, $120,000 indemnity payment. we may agree in writing to insure Scenario 2: [Docket No. FAA–2009–0876; Airspace acreage that has not reached this age if In addition to the above information Docket No. 09–ASW–24] it meets the requirements of 6(b)(5); and in Scenario 1, you have an additional 50 Proposed Amendment of Class E (7) Are grown in an orchard that, if acres of type B stonefruit with 100 Airspace; Stamford, TX inspected, is considered acceptable by percent share in the unit. The guarantee us. is 300 lugs per acre and the price AGENCY: Federal Aviation * * * * * election is $3.00 per lug. You are only Administration (FAA), DOT. 8. Insurance Period. able to harvest 3,000 lugs. Your ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (a) * * * indemnity would be calculated as (NPRM). * * * * * follows: (2) * * * (1) 50.0 acres × 500 lugs type A = SUMMARY: This action proposes to (i) * * * 25,000 lugs guarantee; and 50.0 acres × amend Class E airspace at Stamford, TX. (ii) September 30 for all nectarines 300 lugs type B = 15,000 lugs guarantee: Additional controlled airspace is and peaches; (2) 25,000 lugs × $6.00 price election necessary to accommodate new (iii) In all states except California, = $150,000.00 value of guarantee for Standard Instrument Approach September 30 for all fresh plums; type A; and 15,000 lugs × $3.00 price Procedures (SIAPs) at Arledge Field
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:14 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP1.SGM 24NOP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS 61290 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules
Airport, Stamford, TX. The FAA is Recently published rulemaking detail the scope of the agency’s taking this action to enhance the safety documents can also be accessed through authority. This rulemaking is and management of Instrument Flight the FAA’s Web page at http://www.faa. promulgated under the authority Rules (IFR) operations for SIAPs at gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/ described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Arledge Field Airport. publications/airspace_amendments/. Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that DATES: 0901 UTC. Comments must be Additionally, any person may obtain section, the FAA is charged with received on or before January 8, 2010. a copy of this notice by submitting a prescribing regulations to assign the use request to the Federal Aviation ADDRESSES: Send comments on this of airspace necessary to ensure the Administration (FAA), Office of Air proposal to the U.S. Department of safety of aircraft and the efficient use of Traffic Airspace Management, ATA– Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 airspace. This regulation is within the 400, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building scope of that authority as it would add Ground Floor, Room W12–140, Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267–8783. Communications must additional controlled airspace at Washington, DC 20590–0001. You must identify both docket numbers for this Arledge Field Airport, Stamford, TX. identify the docket number FAA–2009– notice. Persons interested in being 0876/Airspace Docket No. 09–ASW–24, List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 placed on a mailing list for future at the beginning of your comments. You NPRMs should contact the FAA’s Office Airspace, Incorporation by reference, may also submit comments through the of Rulemaking (202) 267–9677, to Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Navigation (Air). request a copy of Advisory Circular No. You may review the public docket 11–2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking The Proposed Amendment containing the proposal, any comments Distribution System, which describes received, and any final disposition in In consideration of the foregoing, the the application procedure. person in the Dockets Office between 9 Federal Aviation Administration a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through The Proposal proposes to amend 14 CFR Part 71 as Friday, except Federal holidays. The This action proposes to amend Title follows: Docket Office (telephone 1–800–647– 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 5527), is on the ground floor of the CFR), Part 71 by adding additional Class PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, building at the above address. E airspace extending upward from 700 B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: feet above the surface for SIAP TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND Scott Enander, Central Service Center, operations at Arledge Field Airport, REPORTING POINTS Operations Support Group, Federal Stamford, TX. Controlled airspace is Aviation Administration, Southwest needed for the safety and management 1. The authority citation for Part 71 Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort of IFR operations at the airport. continues to read as follows: Worth, TX 76137; telephone: (817) 321– Class E airspace areas are published Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 7716. in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959– SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 7400.9T, dated August 27, 2009, and 1963 Comp., p. 389. effective September 15, 2009, which is Comments Invited incorporated by reference in 14 CFR § 71.1 [Amended] Interested parties are invited to 71.1. The Class E airspace designation 2. The incorporation by reference in participate in this proposed rulemaking listed in this document would be 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9T, by submitting such written data, views, published subsequently in the Order. Airspace Designations and Reporting or arguments, as they may desire. The FAA has determined that this Points, signed August 27, 2009, and Comments that provide the factual basis proposed regulation only involves an effective September 15, 2009, is supporting the views and suggestions established body of technical presented are particularly helpful in regulations for which frequent and amended as follows: developing reasoned regulatory routine amendments are necessary to Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace areas decisions on the proposal. Comments keep them operationally current. It, extending upward from 700 feet or more are specifically invited on the overall therefore, (1) Is not a ‘‘significant above the surface of the earth. regulatory, aeronautical, economic, regulatory action’’ under Executive * * * * * environmental, and energy-related Order 12866; (2) is not a ‘‘significant aspects of the proposal. rule’’ under DOT Regulatory Policies ASW TX E5 Stamford, TX [Amended] Communications should identify both and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February Arledge Field Airport, TX docket numbers and be submitted in 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant (Lat. 32°54′33″ N., long. 99°44′10″ W.) triplicate to the address listed above. preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation That airspace extending upward from 700 Commenters wishing the FAA to as the anticipated impact is so minimal. feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile acknowledge receipt of their comments Since this is a routine matter that will radius of Arledge Field Airport, and within on this notice must submit with those only affect air traffic procedures and air 2 miles each side of the 180° bearing from the comments a self-addressed, stamped navigation, it is certified that this rule, airport extending from the 6.4-mile radius to postcard on which the following when promulgated, will not have a 11.5 miles south of the airport. statement is made: ‘‘Comments to significant economic impact on a * * * * * Docket No. FAA–2009–0876/Airspace substantial number of small entities Docket No. 09–ASW–24.’’ The postcard under the criteria of the Regulatory Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on November 10, will be date/time stamped and returned Flexibility Act. 2009. to the commenter. The FAA’s authority to issue rules Walter L. Tweedy, regarding aviation safety is found in Availability of NPRMs Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, ATO Central Service Center. An electronic copy of this document Section 106 describes the authority of [FR Doc. E9–28176 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] may be downloaded through the the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, BILLING CODE 4901–13–P Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Aviation Programs, describes in more
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:14 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP1.SGM 24NOP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 61291
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION regulatory, aeronautical, economic, Background environmental, and energy-related The DOE, Sandia National Federal Aviation Administration aspects of the proposal. Laboratories, is conducting arctic Communications should identify both climatology research on the North Slope 14 CFR Part 73 docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA– of Alaska. Their Adjacent Arctic Ocean [Docket No. FAA–2009–0693; Airspace 2009–0693 and Airspace Docket No. 09– site is providing data about cloud and Docket No. 09–AAL–14] AAL–14) and be submitted in triplicate radiative processes at high latitudes. to the Federal Docket Management The arctic area has been identified as RIN 2120–AA66 System (see ADDRESSES section for one of the most sensitive regions to address and phone number). You may Proposed Amendment of Restricted climate change. In 2004, the need to also submit comments through the operate an unlighted moored balloon in Area R–2204 High and R–2204 Low; Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Oliktok Point, AK clouds resulted in the establishment of Commenters wishing the FAA to R–2204 at Oliktok Point. That site was AGENCY: Federal Aviation acknowledge receipt of their comments selected because of its proximity to the Administration (FAA), DOT. on this action must submit with those Arctic Ocean, availability of ground comments a self-addressed, stamped ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking infrastructure to support the scientists, postcard on which the following (NPRM). and remoteness that lessens the impacts statement is made: ‘‘Comments to FAA to other instrument flight rules and SUMMARY: This action proposes to Docket No. FAA–2009–0693 and visual flight rules air traffic. amend R–2204 High and R–2204 Low at Airspace Docket No. 09–AAL–14.’’ The In addition to the current moored Oliktok Point, AK, by increasing the postcard will be date/time stamped and balloon activities, scientists are authorized times of designation and returned to the commenter. interested in testing the use of extending the duration of the restricted All communications received on or unmanned aircraft (UAS) over the areas beyond 2009, until they are no before the specified closing date for coastal waters (in clouds) of the Arctic longer needed by the Department of comments will be considered before Ocean and propose to launch and Energy (DOE). The DOE is continuing taking action on the proposed rule. The recover UAS aircraft at the Oliktok their study of rapid climate changes proposal contained in this action may station. A Certificate of Approval for occurring in the arctic. Continued be changed in light of comments flight outside of R–2204 would be access to R–2204 High and R–2204 Low received. All comments submitted will required by the FAA for UAS operations at Oliktok, AK, is required for current be available for examination in the not contained within R–2204. The DOE moored balloon and future climate- public docket both before and after the has stated that they are anticipating the related aviation activities. closing date for comments. A report development of Letters of Agreement DATES: Comments must be received on summarizing each substantive public with other aircraft operators using or before January 8, 2010. contact with FAA personnel concerned airspace in the vicinity of Oliktok to with this rulemaking will be filed in the ADDRESSES: ensure that access to airspace within R– Send comments on this docket. proposal to the U.S. Department of 2204 is available within the parameters Transportation, Docket Operations, Availability of NPRMs agreed upon by the parties involved. On May 28, 2004, the FAA published M–30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., An electronic copy of this document West Building Ground Floor, Room in the Federal Register a final rule to may be downloaded through the establish Restricted Area R–2204 (69 FR W12–140, Washington, DC 20590–0001; Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. telephone: (202) 366–9826. You must 30576). The rule stated that the ‘‘area Recently published rulemaking [would] be activated starting October identify FAA Docket No. FAA–2009– documents can also be accessed through 0693 and Airspace Docket No. 09–AAL– 2004 for approximately 30 days a year, the FAA’s Web page at http://www.faa. and be effective through the year 2009.’’ 14 at the beginning of your comments. _ _ gov/airports airtraffic/air traffic/ On April 21, 2008, the FAA published You may also submit comments through _ publications/airspace amendments/. in the Federal Register a final rule to the Internet at http:// You may review the public docket www.regulations.gov. amend R–2204 by changing the using containing the proposal, any comments agency and subdividing the area to FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken received, and any final disposition in create R–2204 High and R–2204 Low McElroy, Airspace and Rules Group, person in the Federal Docket (73 FR 21246). Office of System Operations Airspace Management System office (see and AIM, Federal Aviation ADDRESSES section for address and The Proposal Administration, 800 Independence phone number) between 9 a.m. and The FAA is proposing an amendment Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations telephone: (202) 267–8783. Federal holidays. An informal docket (14 CFR) part 73 to amend the time of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: may also be examined during normal designation to allow activation of business hours at the office of the R–2204 High and R–2204 Low by Comments Invited Western Service Center, Operations NOTAM 24 hours in advance for up to Interested parties are invited to Support Group, Federal Aviation 75 days per year. Special Use Airspace participate in this proposed rulemaking Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue, R–2204 High and R–2204 Low would by submitting such written data, views, SW., Renton, WA 98055. continue to be designated until it is no or arguments as they may desire. Persons interested in being placed on longer required by the DOE to conduct Comments that provide the factual basis a mailing list for future NPRMs should research. supporting the views and suggestions contact the FAA’s Office of Rulemaking, Section 73.22 of Title 14 CFR part 73 presented are particularly helpful in (202) 267–9677, for a copy of Advisory was republished in FAA Order 7400.8R, developing reasoned regulatory Circular No. 11–2A, Notice of Proposed effective February 16, 2009. decisions on the proposal. Comments Rulemaking Distribution System, which The FAA has determined that this are specifically invited on the overall describes the application procedure. proposed regulation only involves an
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:14 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP1.SGM 24NOP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS 61292 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules
established body of technical § 73.22 [Amended] proposed rulemaking (NPRMs) for regulations for which frequent and 2. § 73.22 is amended as follows: which we never issued final rules, and routine amendments are necessary to * * * * * we have decided not to pursue final keep them operationally current. rules on these NPRMs at this time. We Therefore, this proposed regulation: (1) R–2204 High, Oliktok Point, AK [Amended] have made some of the changes we Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ Under Time of Designation, remove the proposed in these NPRMs in the context under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not words ‘‘By NOTAM, 24 hours in advance, not of other rulemaking proceedings; in a ‘‘significant rule’’ under Department of to exceed 30 days annually’’ and insert Time other cases, we have decided not to Transportation (DOT) Regulatory of designation. By NOTAM, 24 hours in pursue the policy we proposed in the advance, not to exceed 75 days per year. Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; NPRM. Consequently, as part of a February 26, 1979); and (3) does not * * * * * comprehensive review of our regulatory warrant preparation of a regulatory R–2204 Low, Oliktok Point, AK [Amended] processes, we are withdrawing the evaluation as the anticipated impact is Under Time of Designation, remove the seven NPRMs listed below. so minimal. Since this is a routine words ‘‘By NOTAM, 24 hours in advance, not NPRMs Being Withdrawn matter that will only affect air traffic to exceed 30 days annually’’ and insert Time procedures and air navigation, it is of designation. By NOTAM, 24 hours in Supplemental Security Income for the certified that this proposed rule, when advance, not to exceed 75 days per year. Aged, Blind, and Disabled; Suspensions, promulgated, will not have a significant * * * * * Terminations, and Advance Notice of Unfavorable Determination (51 FR economic impact on a substantial Issued in Washington, DC, on November number of small entities under the 12, 2009. 17057, May 8, 1986) (SSA–31P). Disability Insurance and criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Edith V. Parish, Supplemental Security Income; The FAA’s authority to issue rules Manager, Airspace and Rules Group. regarding aviation safety is found in Nonpayment Policy for Consultative [FR Doc. E9–28194 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] Examination Appointments That Are Title 49 of the United States Code. BILLING CODE 4910–13–P Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the Not Kept (53 FR 39487, October 7, 1988) authority of the FAA Administrator. (SSA–181P). Reduction for Receipt of Government Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION describes in more detail the scope of the Pension (54 FR 51036, December 12, agency’s authority. 1989) (SSA–188P). 20 CFR Parts 404 and 416 Supplemental Security Income for the This rulemaking is promulgated [Docket No. SSA 2009–0075] Aged, Blind, and Disabled (55 FR 33922, under the authority described in August 20, 1990) (SSA–180P). Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section RIN 0960–AH15 Disability Insurance and 40103. Under that section, the FAA is Withdrawal of Certain Proposed Rules Supplemental Security Income for the charged with prescribing regulations to Aged, Blind, and Disabled; assign the use of the airspace necessary AGENCY: Social Security Administration. Determinations of Disability— to ensure the safety of aircraft and the ACTION: Proposed rules; withdrawal. Determining State Agency Substantial efficient use of airspace. This regulation Failure to Comply with Federal Rules is within the scope of that authority as SUMMARY: We are withdrawing seven (56 FR 11025, March 14, 1991) (SSA– it proposes to amend times of proposed rules we published in the 206P). designation for restricted area airspace Federal Register that we no longer plan Administrative Review Process; at Oliktok Point, Alaska. to pursue. Prehearing and Posthearing Conferences Environmental Review DATES: The proposed rules identified in (65 FR 38796, June 22, 2000) (SSA– this document are withdrawn as of 778P). This proposal will be subject to an November 24, 2009. New Disability Claims Process (66 FR environmental analysis in accordance FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 5494, January 19, 2001) (SSA–816P). with FAA Order 1050.1E, Richard Bresnick, Social Insurance Dated: October 26, 2009. ‘‘Environmental Impacts: Policies and Specialist, Office of Regulations, Social Michael J. Astrue, Procedures,’’ prior to any FAA final Security Administration, 6401 Security Commissioner of Social Security. regulatory action. Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235–6401. [FR Doc. E9–28140 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 73 Call (410) 965–1758 for information BILLING CODE 4191–02–P about this notice. For information on Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted eligibility or filing for benefits, call our areas. national toll-free number 1 (800) 772– DEPARTMENT OF STATE The Proposed Amendment 1213 or TTY 1 (800) 325–0778. You may also contact Social Security Online at 22 CFR Part 125 In consideration of the foregoing, the http://www.socialsecurity.gov. Federal Aviation Administration SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: [Public Notice 6338] proposes to amend 14 CFR part 73 as follows: Electronic Version RIN 1400–AC59 The electronic file of this document is Amendment to the International Traffic PART 73–SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE available on the date of publication in in Arms Regulations: Section the Federal Register at http:// 125.4(b)(9) Export Exemption for 1. The authority citation for part 73 www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html. continues to read as follows: Technical Data Background Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, AGENCY: Department of State. Over the years, we have published in 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959– ACTION: Proposed rule. 1963 Comp., p. 389. the Federal Register several notices of
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:14 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP1.SGM 24NOP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 61293
SUMMARY: The Department of State is will explicitly allow hand carrying summary impact statement. The proposing to amend the International technical data by a U.S. person regulations implementing Executive Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) employed by a U.S. corporation or a Order 12372 regarding regarding an exemption for technical U.S. Government agency to a U.S. intergovernmental consultation on data, to clarify that the exemption person employed by that U.S. Federal programs and activities do not covers technical data, regardless of corporation or to a U.S. Government apply to this amendment. media or format, sent or taken by a U.S. agency outside the United States as long person who is an employee of a U.S. as certain criteria in § 125.4(b)(9) and Executive Order 12866 corporation or a U.S. Government 125.4(b)(9)(i) through (iii) are met. The This proposed amendment is exempt agency to a U.S. person employed by word ‘‘overseas’’ will be replaced by from review under Executive Order that U.S. corporation or to a U.S. ‘‘outside the United States’’ at 12866 but has been reviewed internally Government agency outside the United § 125.4(b)(9), 125.4(b)(9)(i), by the Department of State to ensure States. 125.4(b)(9)(ii), and 125.4(b)(9)(iii). Also, consistency with the purposes thereof. § 125.4(b)(9)(iii) will be amended to add DATES: The Department of State will Executive Order 12988 accept comments on this proposed rule the words ‘‘or taken’’ after the word until January 25, 2010. ‘‘sent.’’ As stated in section 22 CFR The proposed Department of State has ADDRESSES: Interested parties may 125.4(a), this exemption does not apply reviewed the proposed regulations in submit comments within 60 days of the to exports to proscribed destinations light of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of date of the publication by any of the under 22 CFR 126.1. Executive Order 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish following methods: Regulatory Analysis and Notices • E-mail: clear legal standards, and reduce [email protected] with an Administrative Procedure Act burden. appropriate subject line. This proposed amendment involves a Paperwork Reduction Act • Mail: Department of State, foreign affairs function of the United Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, States and, therefore, is not subject to This proposed rule does not impose Office of Defense Trade Controls Policy, the procedures contained in 5 U.S.C. any new reporting or recordkeeping Attn: Regulatory Change, Section 125.4, 553 and 554. requirements subject to the Paperwork SA–1, 12th Floor, Washington, DC Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35. Regulatory Flexibility Act 20522–0112. List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 125 • Persons with access to the Internet Since this proposed amendment may also view this notice by going to involves a foreign affairs function of the Arms and munitions, Classified the U.S. Government regulations.gov United States, it does not require information, Exports. Web site at http://regulations.gov/ analysis under the Regulatory Accordingly, for the reasons set forth index.cfm. Flexibility Act. above, Title 22, Chapter I, Subchapter M, part 125 is proposed to be amended FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Director Charles Shotwell, Office of as follows: This proposed amendment does not Defense Trade Controls Policy, involve a mandate that will result in the PART 125—LICENSES FOR THE Department of State, Telephone (202) expenditure by State, local, and tribal EXPORT OF TECHNICAL DATA AND 663–2792 or Fax (202) 261–8199; E-mail governments, in the aggregate, or by the CLASSIFIED DEFENSE ARTICLES [email protected]. Attn: private sector, of $100 million or more Regulatory Change, Section 125.4. 1. The authority citation for part 125 in any year and it will not significantly SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION continues to read as follows: : The or uniquely affect small governments. proposed export exemption at 22 CFR Therefore, no actions were deemed Authority: Secs. 2 and 38, Public Law 90– 125.4(b)(9) is amended to allow necessary under the provisions of the 629, 90 Stat. 744 (22 U.S.C. 2752, 2778); E.O. technical data, including classified Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 11958, 42 FR 4311; 3 CFR, 1977 Comp. p. 79; information, and regardless of media or 1995. 22 U.S.C. 2651a. format, sent or taken by a U.S. person 2. Section 125.4 is amended by Small Business Regulatory Enforcement who is an employee of a U.S. revising paragraph (b)(9) to read as Fairness Act of 1996 corporation or a U.S. Government follows: agency to a U.S. person employed by This proposed amendment has been that U.S. corporation or to a U.S. found not to be a major rule within the § 125.4 Exemptions of general Government agency outside the United meaning of the Small Business applicability. States under certain specified Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of * * * * * circumstances reflected in 22 CFR 1996. (b) * * * 125.4(b)(9)(i) through (iii). This (9) Technical data, including amendment will add after the word Executive Orders 12372 and 13132 classified information, and regardless of ‘‘information’’ the words ‘‘and This proposed amendment will not media or format, sent or taken by a U.S. regardless of media or format.’’ Also, the have substantial direct effects on the person who is an employee of a U.S. words ‘‘sent by a U.S. corporation to a States, on the relationship between the corporation or a U.S. Government U.S. person employed by that national government and the States, or agency to a U.S. person employed by corporation overseas or to a U.S. on the distribution of power and that U.S. corporation or to a U.S. Government agency’’ has been replaced responsibilities among the various Government agency outside the United by ‘‘sent or taken by a U.S. person who levels of government. Therefore, in States. This exemption is subject to the is an employee of a U.S. corporation or accordance with Executive Order 13132, limitations of § 125.1(b) of this a U.S. Government agency to a U.S. it is determined that this amendment subchapter and may be used if: person employed by that corporation or does not have sufficient federalism (i) The technical data is to be used to a U.S. Government agency outside the implications to require consultations or outside the United States solely by U.S. United States.’’ Thus, the exemption warrant the preparation of a federalism persons;
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:14 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP1.SGM 24NOP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS 61294 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules
(ii) If the U.S. person outside the on these proposed amendments to the requirements. Section 3406(a)(1) United States is an employee of the U.S. regulations. requires certain payors to perform Government or is directly employed by DATES: Written or electronic comments backup withholding by deducting and the U.S. corporation and not by a must be received by January 25, 2010. withholding income tax from a foreign subsidiary; and Outlines of topics to be discussed at the reportable payment (as defined in (iii) The classified information is sent public hearing scheduled for February section 3406(b)(1)) if the payee fails to or taken outside the United States in 10, 2010, at 10 a.m. must be received by furnish the payee’s taxpayer accordance with the requirements of the January 27, 2010. identification number (TIN) to the payor on a required return, or if the Secretary Department of Defense National ADDRESSES: Send submissions to: notifies the payor that the TIN furnished Industrial Security Program Operating CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG–139255–08), room by the payee is incorrect. Backup Manual (unless such requirements are 5205, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. withholding for amounts reportable in direct conflict with guidance Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, under section 6050W applies to provided by the Directorate of Defense Washington, DC 20044. Submissions amounts paid after December 31, 2011. Trade Controls, in which case the latter may be hand-delivered Monday through Prior to making an information return, guidance must be followed). Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and * * * * * a payor may check the TIN furnished by 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG–139255– the payee against the name/TIN Dated: November 9, 2009. 08), Courier’s Desk, Internal Revenue combination contained in the IRS’s Ellen O. Tauscher, Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, database maintained for the program, Under Secretary, Arms Control and NW., Washington, DC, or sent and the IRS will inform the participant International Security, Department of State. electronically via the Federal whether or not the name/TIN [FR Doc. E9–28181 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] eRulemaking Portal at http:// combination furnished by the payee www.regulations.gov/ (IRS REG– BILLING CODE 4710–25–P matches a name/TIN combination in the 139255–08). database. The matching information FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: provided to participants will help avoid Concerning these proposed regulations, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY TIN errors and reduce the number of Barbara Pettoni, (202) 622–4910; backup withholding notices required Internal Revenue Service concerning submissions of comments or under section 3406(a)(1)(B) of the Code. the public hearing, Regina Johnson, A verified TIN/name match will also 26 CFR Parts 1, 31, and 301 (202) 622–7180 (not toll-free numbers). provide participants with reasonable SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: cause relief from penalties under section [REG–139255–08] Background 6724(a). The Act further provides that, RIN 1545–BI51 solely for purposes of carrying out TIN This document contains proposed matching under section 3406, section Information Reporting for Payments amendments to 26 CFR Part 1 relating 6050W is effective on the date of Made in Settlement of Payment Card to information reporting under sections enactment, July 30, 2008. The TIN and Third Party Network Transactions 6041, 6050W, and 6051 of the Internal matching program described in Rev. Revenue Code (Code). This document Proc. 2003–9, 2003–1 CB 516, permits AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), also contains proposed amendments to program participants to verify the payee Treasury. 26 CFR Part 31 relating to backup TINs required to be reported on ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking withholding under section 3406, and to information returns and payee and notice of public hearing. 26 CFR Part 301 relating to information statements. On February 6, 2009, the reporting penalties under sections 6721 IRS announced that persons who will be SUMMARY: This document contains and 6722. required to make returns under section proposed regulations relating to A new reporting requirement, section 6050W may match TINs under the information reporting requirements, 6050W, was added to the Code by procedures established by Rev. Proc. information reporting penalties, and section 3091(a) of the Housing 2003–9. See Announcement 2009–6, backup withholding requirements for Assistance Tax Act of 2008, Div. C of ‘‘Taxpayer Identification Number payment card and third party network Public Law 110–289, 122 Stat. 2654 (the (‘‘TIN’’) Matching Program is Available transactions. The proposed regulations Act), enacted on July 30, 2008. Section to Persons Required to Make Returns reflect the enactment of section 6050W 6050W requires merchant acquiring Under New Section 6050W of the and related changes in the law made by entities and third party settlement Internal Revenue Code’’ the Housing Assistance Tax Act of 2008 organizations to file an information (Announcement 2009–6, 2009–9 IRB that require payment settlement return for each calendar year reporting 643 (March 2, 2009)). See organizations to report payments in all payment card transactions and third § 601.601(d)(2)(ii)(b). settlement of payment card and third party network transactions with The Act also amended section 6724(d) party network transactions for each participating payees occurring in that by adding returns required by section calendar year. The proposed regulations calendar year. This requirement to file 6050W to the definition of information in this document will affect persons that information returns applies to returns return for purposes of penalties for make payment in settlement of payment for calendar years beginning after failure to comply with certain card and third party network December 31, 2010. This section also information reporting requirements. The transactions and the payees of these requires statements to be furnished to amendments to section 6724(d) apply to transactions. The proposed regulations participating payees on or before returns for calendar years beginning provide guidance to assist persons who January 31st of the year following the after December 31, 2010. will be required to make returns year for which the return is required. Notice 2009–19 invited public reporting payment card and third party The Act also amended section comments regarding guidance under network transactions and to the payees 3406(b)(3) to provide that amounts section 6050W. See Notice 2009–19, of those transactions. This document reportable under section 6050W are ‘‘Information Reporting of Payments also provides notice of a public hearing subject to backup withholding Made in Settlement of Payment Card
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:14 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP1.SGM 24NOP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 61295
and Third Party Network Transactions’’ transaction, a merchant acquiring entity; third party settlement organizations to (Notice 2009–19, 2009–10 IRB 660 and in the case of a third party network certain participating payees. Under the (March 9, 2009)). In particular, Notice transaction, a third party settlement proposed regulations, a third party 2009–19 requested comments on the organization. Section 6050W(b)(2) settlement organization must report interpretation of the statutory defines merchant acquiring entity as the payments made to a participating payee definitions of terms used in section bank or other organization with the only if its aggregate payments to that 6050W, how to administer the reporting contractual obligation to make payment payee from third party network requirements so as to prevent reporting to participating payees in settlement of transactions exceed $20,000 and the of the same transaction more than once, payment card transactions, and section aggregate number of those transactions and whether the ‘‘gross amount’’ of the 6050W(b)(3) defines third party with the payee exceeds 200. Several reportable payment transaction should settlement organization as the central commenters requested that the be defined as ‘‘gross receipts or sales’’ organization that has the contractual exception for de minimis payments be or whether adjustments should be made obligation to make payment to extended to include payments in for credits, cash equivalents, discounts, participating payees of third party settlement of payment card transactions. fees, refunds, or other amounts. Notice network transactions. The proposed The proposed regulations do not adopt 2009–19 also requested comments on regulations clarify that a ‘‘payment this suggestion. Further comments are how to address differences between settlement entity’’ may be a domestic or requested on the application of the de section 6050W reporting and payee foreign entity. minimis rule exception, including reporting on Form 1040, ‘‘U.S. A reportable payment transaction is whether the exception should be Individual Income Tax Return,’’ Form any transaction in which a payment mandatory or voluntary. 1065, ‘‘U.S. Return of Partnership card is accepted as payment and any Section 6050W(d)(1)(A) provides that Income,’’ or Form 1120, ‘‘U.S. transaction that is settled through a participating payee means: (i) In the Corporation Income Tax Return,’’ and third party payment network. See case of a payment card transaction, any whether the time, form and manner of section 6050W(c). The proposed person who accepts a payment card as reporting should conform to existing regulations provide guidance to payment; and (ii) in the case of a third practices for information reporting to interpret the meaning of this term in the party network transaction, any person the IRS under other provisions of the context of both payment card who accepts payment from a third party Code. transactions and third party network settlement organization in settlement of Comments were received in response transactions, and to determine the gross such transaction. Under section to Notice 2009–19, and the comments amount of the transaction to be 6050W(d)(1)(B), the term participating were taken into consideration in reported. Many commenters suggested payee excludes any person with a developing these proposed regulations. meanings for the term ‘‘gross amount.’’ foreign address, except as the Secretary The IRS and the Treasury Department Some commenters suggested defining may provide. The proposed regulations invite any additional comments on the ‘‘gross amount’’ as the total amount of provide that a payment settlement entity issues discussed in this preamble or on the transaction reduced by the fees that is a person described as a U.S. other issues relating to section 6050W. deducted by the merchant acquiring payor or U.S. middleman in § 1.6049– See § 601.601(d)(2)(ii)(b). entity. Other commenters suggested 5(c)(5) is not required to report defining ‘‘gross amount’’ as the total payments to participating payees with a Explanation of Provisions amount of the transaction reduced by foreign address as long as, prior to In General not only fees but also chargebacks and payment, the payee has provided the refunds. Commenters did not suggest, payment settlement entity with The proposed regulations provide however, that reporting a gross amount documentation upon which the guidance to interpret the definitions with no reductions for any amounts payment settlement entity may rely to used in the statute and examples to would be burdensome for payment treat the payment as made to a foreign illustrate the rules in the proposed settlement entities. The proposed person in accordance with § 1.1441– regulations. The new law requires any regulations provide that gross amount 1(e)(1)(ii). By contrast, a payment payment settlement entity making means the total dollar amount of settlement entity that is not a person payment to a participating payee in aggregate reportable payment described as a U.S. payor or U.S. settlement of reportable payment transactions for each participating payee middleman in § 1.6049–5(c)(5) is not transactions to make an annual return without regard to any adjustments for required to report payments to for each calendar year reporting the credits, cash equivalents, discount participating payees that do not have a gross amount of the reportable amounts, fees, refunded amounts, or any United States address as long as the transactions, and the name, address, and other amounts. payment settlement entity neither TIN of the participating payee. See The proposed regulations require knows nor has reason to know that the section 6050W(a). The law also requires reporting, with respect to each participating payee is a United States payment settlement entities to furnish participating payee, of the gross amount person. For purposes of this section, written statements to persons with of the aggregate reportable payment foreign address means any address that respect to whom such a return is transactions for the calendar year and is not within the United States, as required showing the name, address, the gross amount of the aggregate defined in section 7701(a)(9) (the States and telephone number of the reportable payment transactions for and the District of Columbia). United information contact of the person each month of the calendar year. The States address means any address that required to make the return and the inclusion of monthly amounts on the is within the United States. The IRS and gross amount of the reportable payment return filed with the IRS and on the the Treasury Department request transactions with respect to the person statement furnished to the payee will comments on the treatment of payment required to be shown on the return. See aid in reconciling payment card and settlement entities that are not U.S. section 6050W(f). third party network transaction receipts payors or U.S. middlemen within the Section 6050W(b) provides that the for fiscal year payees. meaning of § 1.6049–5(c)(5). term payment settlement entity means, Section 6050W(e) provides an Under section 6050W(d)(1)(C), the in the case of a payment card exception for de minimis payments by term ‘‘participating payee’’ includes any
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:14 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP1.SGM 24NOP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS 61296 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules
governmental unit and any agency or Commenters suggested adopting the HRA. Payments made for medical care instrumentality thereof. Accordingly, definition of ‘‘payment card’’ in under FSAs or HRAs will continue to be the proposed regulations do not provide § 31.3406(g)–1(f)(2)(i) for purposes of exempt from reporting under section for any exceptions to reporting for section 6050W. However, the definition 6041. payments made to governmental units. of ‘‘payment card’’ in section Stored-Value Cards and Gift Cards Payments to governmental units that are 6050W(d)(2) is broader than in made using transit cards and electronic § 31.3406(g)–1(f)(2)(i), which defines The proposed regulations provide that toll collection systems are included payment card as a card issued by a the term ‘‘stored-value card’’ means any within the scope of section 6050W if payment card organization (for example, card with a prepaid value, including such payments meet the other a credit card organization). The any gift card. Under the proposed requirements of section 6050W. proposed regulations reflect the broader regulations, a stored-value card is not a Comments were not received from statutory definition of ‘‘payment card’’ payment card within the meaning of governmental units regarding these under section 6050W. Accordingly, a section 6050W when the card is issues. Therefore, the IRS and the payment card is a card, issued to a accepted as payment by a person who Treasury Department request comments cardholder, that a network of unrelated is related to the issuer of the card. from governmental units and other persons has agreed to accept as payment Under these circumstances, the interested parties regarding the impact under an agreement that provides transaction is not a payment card of these proposed regulations on standards and mechanisms for settling transaction within the meaning of governmental units that accept the transactions between a merchant section 6050W and thus not a reportable payments made using transit cards, acquiring bank or similar entity and the transaction. However, if the stored-value electronic toll collection systems, and providers who accept the cards. Under card itself is purchased with a payment similar electronic payment mechanisms. the proposed regulations, a payment card issued by an unrelated entity, that card includes, but is not limited to, all purchase transaction is reportable under Payment Card Transactions credit cards, debit cards, and stored- section 6050W. A payment card transaction is any value cards (including gift cards), and In contrast, a stored-value card that a transaction in which a payment card is also includes the acceptance as payment network of persons unrelated to the accepted as payment. See section of any account number or other indicia issuer has agreed to accept as payment 6050W(c)(2). Under section associated with a payment card. (such as a stored-value card issued by a 6050W(d)(2), a payment card is a card college that may be used at various local issued pursuant to an agreement or Cards Issued in Connection With a merchants unrelated to the college) is a arrangement that provides for: (1) One Flexible Spending Account or a Health payment card when it is accepted as or more issuers of such cards; (2) a Reimbursement Arrangement payment in a transaction with an network of persons unrelated to each Several commenters requested that unrelated person. Under these other, and to the issuer, who agree to the definition of payment card be circumstances, the transaction is a accept the cards as payment; and (3) interpreted to exclude cards issued in payment card transaction within the standards and mechanisms for settling connection with flexible spending meaning of section 6050W that is the transactions between the merchant arrangements (FSAs) (as defined in reportable by the payment settlement acquiring entities and the persons who section 106(c)(2)) or health entity. Use of a stored-value card within agree to accept the cards as payment. reimbursement arrangements (HRAs) a network of both related persons and Funds generally do not pass directly that are treated as employer-provided unrelated persons is a reportable from the cardholder to the provider of coverage under an accident or health transaction only when it is accepted as goods or services for purchases made plan for purposes of section 106. The payment by an unrelated person. For with a payment card. For example, in commenters expressed concern that purposes of this section, unrelated the case of a credit card transaction, a section 6050W may be interpreted to means any person who is not related credit card organization may direct the override the exception to information within the meaning of section 267(b) transfer of funds from an issuing bank reporting under section 6041(f) for (providing a list of relationships), (the bank that issued the credit card) payments made for medical care (as including the application of section through the debit of the funds on defined in section 213(d)) under FSAs 267(c) and (e)(3) (providing rules account at an acceptable institution and HRAs. Other commenters indicated relating to constructive ownership), or (such as a Federal Reserve Bank) and a that it would be difficult for merchant section 707(b)(1) (relationships with credit of those funds to the merchant’s acquiring entities to identify FSA and partnerships). bank (the merchant acquiring bank), HRA card transactions and segregate which in turn pays the provider of them from other payment card Third Party Network Transactions goods or services. The cardholder transactions. In general, FSA and HRA Section 6050W(c)(3) provides that a frequently does not pay the issuing bank cards have the imprint of a credit card third party network transaction means until after receipt of the payment card association and function like credit or any transaction that is settled through a monthly billing statement. Thus, the debit cards. Therefore, merchant third party payment network. Section merchant acquiring bank makes the acquiring entities may have difficulty 6050W(d)(3) provides that third party payment to the provider of goods or distinguishing these transactions from payment network means any agreement services to settle the transaction, and the typical credit or debit card transactions. or arrangement that: (A) Involves the cardholder, who is the ultimate payor, In keeping with the broad interpretation establishment of accounts with a central generally does not make payment until of the definition of ‘‘payment card,’’ the organization by a substantial number of after the transaction occurs. The proposed regulations do not except persons who (i) are unrelated to such information reporting requirements payments for medical care using an FSA organization, (ii) provide goods or under section 6050W reflect that the or HRA card from reporting under services, and (iii) have agreed to settle merchant acquiring bank is in the best section 6050W. Therefore, under the transactions for the provision of such position to file the information return proposed regulations, the definition of goods or services pursuant to such reporting the payment to the provider of payment card encompasses a card agreement or arrangement; (B) provides goods or services. issued in connection with an FSA or for standards and mechanisms for
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:14 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP1.SGM 24NOP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 61297
settling such transactions; and (C) Healthcare Networks third party settlement organization of a guarantees persons providing goods or Several commenters expressed third party payment network because an services pursuant to such agreement or concern that the broad definition of in-house accounts payable department arrangement that those persons will be third party payment network will is not a ‘‘third party.’’ Rather, an in- paid for providing such goods or include health carriers that have house accounts payable department is services. Section 6050W(d)(3) provides contracts with a network of providers merely an accounting function of the that a third party payment network does who provide services to covered persons purchaser of goods and services by not include any agreement or under both insured and administrative which the purchaser makes payments arrangement that provides for the service contract healthcare directly to sellers on the purchaser’s own behalf. issuance of payment cards. arrangements. A typical healthcare The Joint Committee on Taxation In contrast, many purchasers network (sometimes referred to as a (JCT) technical explanation of section outsource their accounts payable ‘‘managed care’’ network) may include 6050W explains that, in the case of a function to a third party organization, third party network transaction, the ‘‘covered persons’’ (policyholders, sometimes referred to as a ‘‘shared- payment settlement entity is the third subscribers, enrollees or other service’’ organization. In a shared- party settlement organization, defined individuals participating in a health service business model, the shared- as a central organization with the benefit plan), a ‘‘health care provider’’ service organization acts as an contractual obligation to make payment or ‘‘participating provider’’ (a healthcare independent contractor with respect to to participating payees of third party professional or a facility that agrees the accounts payable of purchasers of payment networks. According to the under contract with a health carrier to goods and services. A shared-service technical explanation, the central provide services to covered persons arrangement allows purchasers to organization is a payment settlement with the expectation of receiving transfer funds to providers who have entity required to report under section payment directly from the health established accounts with the shared- 6050W if it provides ‘‘a network carrier), and a ‘‘health carrier’’ (an entity service organization and have agreed to enabling buyers to transfer funds to that enters into an agreement to provide, accept payment for their goods and sellers who have established accounts deliver, arrange for, pay for, or services from the shared-service with the organization and have a reimburse any of the cost of health care organization. Thus, the shared-service contractual obligation to accept services). Each of these parties may be business model consists of a central payments through the network.’’ See a primary party with respect to its organization that provides ‘‘a network ‘‘Technical Explanation of Division C of agreements with the other parties in the enabling buyers to transfer funds to H.R. 3221, the ‘Housing Assistance Act network. sellers who have established accounts of 2008’ as Scheduled for Consideration Under the proposed regulations, with the organization and have a by the House of Representatives on July health carriers operating a healthcare contractual obligation to accept 23, 2008’’ (JCX–63–08), Joint Committee network are outside the scope of section payments through the network.’’ JCT on Taxation, at 61 (July 23, 2008) (JCT 6050W because a healthcare network Technical Explanation at 61. Technical Explanation). Consistent with does not enable the transfer of funds Accordingly, under the proposed this explanation, the proposed from buyers to sellers. Health carriers do regulations, a shared-service regulations provide that the central not facilitate the transfer of payments organization is a third party settlement organization of a third party settlement from a covered person to a healthcare organization of a third party payment organization must provide a third party provider: the payments by covered network if: (1) A substantial number of payment network that enables persons to health carriers and the unrelated providers of goods and purchasers to transfer funds to providers payments by health carriers to services have established accounts with of goods and services. healthcare providers are separate and the shared-service organization, and (2) The JCT Technical Explanation also distinct. Health carriers collect this arrangement enables purchasers of gives an example of ‘‘substantial premiums from covered persons goods and services to transfer funds to number of persons’’ as that phrase is pursuant to a plan agreement between these providers, who are obligated by used in the definition of ‘‘third party the health carrier and the covered contract to accept guaranteed payments payment network’’ in section person for the cost of participation in from the shared-service organization in 6050W(d)(3). The JCT Technical the healthcare network. Separately, settlement of their transactions with the Explanation describes a ‘‘third party health carriers pay healthcare providers purchasers. The shared service payment network’’ as any agreement or to compensate providers for services organization must report these arrangement that, among other rendered to covered persons pursuant to transactions as third party network requirements, involves the provider agreements. Accordingly, transactions unless the de minimis establishment of accounts with a central because the purpose of a healthcare exception applies (that is, the aggregate organization by ‘‘a substantial number network is not to enable buyers to payments to each payee do not exceed of persons (e.g., more than 50).’’ JCT transfer funds to sellers, a healthcare $20,000 or the aggregate number of Technical Explanation at 61. Comments network is not a ‘‘third party payment transactions for each payee does not are requested on the interpretation of network’’ within the meaning of the exceed 200). ‘‘substantial number of persons’’ as used proposed regulations. in the definition of ‘‘third party Automated Clearing House (ACH) Accounts Payable Departments and payment network.’’ Networks Many comments were received Shared-Service Organizations As stated previously, the JCT requesting clarification on the meaning Many comments were received Technical Explanation states that an of third party payment network, in requesting guidance on the organization generally is required to particular with respect to healthcare interpretation of ‘‘third party payment report if it provides ‘‘a network enabling networks, accounts payable departments network’’ with respect to accounts buyers to transfer funds to sellers who and ‘‘shared-service’’ organizations, and payable departments. Under the have established accounts with the organizations that settle payment proposed regulations, an in-house organization and have a contractual transactions on behalf of others. accounts payable department is not a obligation to accept payment through
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:14 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP1.SGM 24NOP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS 61298 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules
the network.’’ JCT Technical Electronic Payment Facilitators Requiring reporting from both reporters Explanation at 61. The JCT Technical A payment settlement entity may will help ensure that the transaction is Explanation further states: ‘‘However, contract with a third party to settle reported even where one reporter fails an organization operating a network reportable payment transactions on to report. Second, information reporting under which merely processes electronic behalf of the payment settlement entity. other Code sections may provide payments (such as wire transfers, Section 6050W(b)(4)(B) provides a different information that may be useful electronic checks, and direct deposit special rule for such arrangements. In to the IRS. For example, section 6041 payments) between buyers and sellers, any case where an ‘‘electronic payment requires reporting of fixed or but does not have contractual facilitator’’ or other third party makes determinable gains, profits and income, agreements with sellers to use such payments in settlement of reportable network, is not required to report under whereas section 6050W requires payment transactions on behalf of the reporting of gross amounts. the provision.’’ JCT Technical payment settlement entity, the return Explanation at 61. Third, exceptions to information under section 6050W must be filed by reporting may apply under one Code Consistent with the JCT Technical the electronic payment facilitator or section but not the other, which makes Explanation, an example in the other third party in lieu of the payment rules to avoid reporting the same proposed regulations illustrates that settlement entity. transaction more than once difficult to payments settled through an automated Under the proposed regulations, any coordinate. For example, § 1.6041–3(p) clearing house (ACH) network are not person that has contracted with a provides that payments made to settled through a third party payment payment settlement entity to make corporations are generally exempt from network. An ACH merely processes payments on behalf of the payment reporting under section 6041, whereas electronic payments between payors settlement entity to a participating no corporate payee exception exists and payees, and does not itself have payee in settlement of reportable under section 6050W. Conversely, for contractual agreements with payees to payment transactions is subject to the third party network transactions under use the ACH network. Accordingly, the electronic payment facilitator rule. section 6050W, a de minimis exception proposed regulations reflect that an Because the electronic payment applies where the aggregate payments to ACH network is not a third party facilitator or other third party is each payee do not exceed $20,000 or the payment network, and an ACH is required by statute to file the return if aggregate number of transactions for therefore not required to report under it makes the payment on behalf of the each payee does not exceed 200, but no section 6050W. payment settlement entity, and because similar exception exists under section the electronic payment facilitator or 6041. Thus, there are compelling Aggregated Payees other third party files in lieu of the reasons to require reporting under both payment settlement entity, the payment Section 6050W(b)(4)(A) imposes Code sections. facilitator or other third party, not the special rules for persons who receive Nevertheless, for payment card payment settlement entity, is the party payments from a payment settlement transactions, relief from reporting under with the obligation to file the return entity on behalf of one or more section 6041 is warranted because under section 6050W in these cases. section 6050W reporting covers all participating payees and distribute such Therefore, the electronic payment payment card transactions and thus payments to one or more participating facilitator or other third party that effectively encompasses all payments payees. Under section 6050W(b)(4)(A), makes payment on behalf of the subject to section 6041 reporting made such persons are treated (i) as payment settlement entity is the party by payment card. Accordingly, the participating payees with respect to the that will be liable for any applicable proposed regulations amend section payment settlement entity, and (ii) as penalties for failure to comply with the § 1.6041–1 to provide that any payment payment settlement entities with respect information reporting requirements card transaction that otherwise would to the participating payees to whom the under section 6050W. be reportable under both sections 6041 person distributes payments. and 6050W must be reported under Duplicate Reporting of the Same For example, in the case of a section 6050W and not section 6041. corporation that receives payment from Transaction Relief from reporting under section a bank for credit card sales transacted at Section 6050W(g) grants authority to 6041 is not warranted, however, for corporate independently-owned the Secretary to issue guidance to third party network transactions franchise stores, the bank is required to implement the reporting requirement, because such transactions are not report the gross amount of the including rules to prevent the reporting subject to reporting unless the de reportable transactions settled through of the same transaction more than once. minimis thresholds are met. The payor the corporation even though the Numerous commenters requested relief with the obligation to report under corporation does not accept credit cards from reporting the same transaction section 6041 cannot determine with and would not otherwise be treated as under more than one Code section, in certainty whether a third party network a participating payee under this section. particular with respect to transactions transaction is required to be reported In turn, the corporation is required to that will be subject to reporting under under section 6050W. Additional report the gross amount of reportable both sections 6041 (relating to comments are requested regarding the transactions allocable to each franchise information at source) and 6050W. application of this rule to prevent the store. The bank has no obligation to Depending on the circumstances, reporting of the same transaction more report the payments allocated by the reporting of the same transaction more than once. corporation to the franchise stores. See than once may be warranted for several Commenters also requested relief Technical Explanation at 61–62. The reasons. First, the burden for reporting from reporting the same transaction proposed regulations provide an may fall on different persons. For under both sections 3402(t) (relating to example of persons that are aggregated example, under section 6041, the withholding on certain payments made payees for purposes of this section. This reporting person is the payor, whereas by Government entities) and 6050W. example is not meant to exclude other under section 6050W, the reporting Government entities frequently use aggregated payee arrangements. person is the payment settlement entity. payment cards for payments for
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:14 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP1.SGM 24NOP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 61299
property and services. Such payment The draft form is expected to require payee fails to furnish his TIN to the card transactions will be subject both to reporting, with respect to each payor or if the IRS notifies the payor information reporting under section participating payee, of the gross amount that the TIN furnished by the payee is 6050W and to withholding and of the aggregate reportable payment incorrect. information reporting under section transactions for the calendar year and Section 3091(c) of the Act amended 3402(t). the gross amount of the aggregate section 3406(b) by expanding the Information reporting under section reportable payment transactions for meaning of reportable payments subject 3402(t) and section 6050W serve each month of the calendar year. The to backup withholding to include different purposes, however. The inclusion of monthly amounts on the payments required to be shown on a purpose of information reporting under return filed with the IRS and on the return required under section 6050W, section 6050W is to encourage voluntary statement furnished to the payee will effective for amounts paid after compliance in the reporting of gross aid in reconciling payment card and December 31, 2011. Accordingly, the receipts. In contrast, the purpose of third party network transaction receipts proposed regulations amend the information reporting under section for fiscal year payees. Additionally, the regulations under section 3406 to 3402(t) is to report the amounts of tax proposed regulations provide that the provide that persons making withheld from payments and to furnish time and manner for reporting under information returns with respect to any this information to payees and to the section 6050W will follow the existing reportable payment under section IRS. Both payees and the IRS must have procedures for information reporting 6050W made after December 31, 2011 mechanisms in place to account for the under other Code sections. are included in the definition of income tax that has been withheld from Section 6050W(f) provides that payee ‘‘payors’’ obligated to backup withhold. payments. Therefore, reporting under statements may be furnished Several commenters expressed section 3402(t) cannot be eliminated for electronically. Commenters requested concern that when backup withholding transactions that will also be required to that the existing procedures for payee for reportable payments reportable be reported under section 6050W. statements be modified to eliminate the under section 6050W becomes effective, Further, an exception from reporting requirement for an affirmative consent duplicate backup withholding on the under section 6050W when the same to receive the payee statement under same payment could potentially occur. transaction will be reported under section 6050W electronically. Instead, The same reportable payment may be section 3402(t) is not feasible because commenters requested that merchants reportable under section 6050W and the payment settlement entity, such as already receiving business under another Code section, such as a merchant acquiring entity in the case communications electronically be section 6041 or 6041A, thus potentially of a payment card transaction, may not deemed to have consented to receive subjecting the payee to as much as 56- have access to the identity of the actual electronic payee statements under percent withholding for the same card user. Thus, the payment settlement section 6050W. Commenters also transaction. entity would not know whether the card suggested that reporting entities not be Because the proposed regulations user is a government entity required to required to send a separate provide relief from reporting under withhold on payments pursuant to communication to payees to inform section 6041 for payment card section 3402(t) and would not be able to them of their option to receive payee transactions that would otherwise be determine whether reporting under statements electronically; rather, the reportable under both sections 6041 and section 6050W is excepted. Also, the communication may be included in 6050W, the potential for duplicate proposed rules under section 3402(t) another business communication. backup withholding in such situations provide for a $10,000 payment Commenters also suggested that is eliminated. There continues, threshold amount, whereas section merchants receiving paper however, to be a potential for duplicate 6050W has no payment threshold communications who wish to receive backup withholding for reportable amount for payment card transactions. electronic payee statements be allowed payments made after December 31, 2011 See REG–158747–06, 2009–4 IRB 362 to consent to electronic payees that are reportable under section 6050W (73 FR 74,082) (Dec. 5, 2008). statements by logging onto a Web site to and another Code section. Also, in the Accordingly, the proposed regulations indicate their consent, with no further case of a payment for services using a do not provide relief from reporting the written consent required. The proposed third party payment network after same transaction under both sections regulations do not adopt these December 31, 2011, the payment 3402(t) and 6050W. suggestions to eliminate the existing potentially could be subject to backup consent procedures for furnishing withholding by the payor for these Time, Form and Manner for Reporting electronic statements to payees. services as a reportable payment under Many commenters recommended that Additional comments are requested on section 6041, and by the third party the IRS create a new form to be used whether the existing consent procedures settlement organization as a reportable solely for reporting under section should be modified. payment under section 6050W. 6050W. A draft form for this purpose, A payment settlement entity reporting Form 1099–K, ‘‘Merchant card and Backup Withholding under section 6050W is in a better third-party payments,’’ is expected to be The Act amended section 3406(b)(3) position to perform backup withholding released contemporaneously with these to provide that reportable payment for a third party network transaction proposed regulations. Draft Form transactions subject to information than the payor reporting under section 1099–K will be available for viewing reporting under section 6050W 6041. Backup withholding compliance and comment on the IRS Web site at generally are subject to backup is difficult for payors in third party http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-dft/f1099k- withholding requirements. Section 3406 network transactions because an invoice dft.pdf. Additional guidance regarding requires backup withholding in the case may not be issued, and the payor in the the proper form for reporting under this of any reportable payment if a condition transaction may not be in a position to section will be issued in time for filing for backup withholding, as set forth in backup withhold easily at the time of the first returns due under this section section 3406(a)(1), exists. In the case of the transaction. Backup withholding (returns for calendar year 2011 due in reportable payments, backup may also be difficult because the payor 2012). withholding generally applies if the does not make payment directly to the
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:14 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP1.SGM 24NOP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS 61300 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules
provider of services; rather, the third significant regulatory action as defined regulations. All comments will be party settlement organization makes in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a available for public inspection and payment to the provider. However, regulatory assessment is not required. It copying. relief from backup withholding for third also has been determined that section A public hearing has been scheduled party network transactions reportable 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure for February 10, 2010 at 10 am in room under both section 6050W and section Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply 2615, Internal Revenue Building, 1111 6041 is not warranted because such to these regulations. Pursuant to the Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, transactions are not subject to reporting Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. DC. Due to building security under section 6050W unless the de chapter 6), it is hereby certified that the procedures, visitors must enter at the minimis thresholds are met. Thus, the regulations will not have a significant Constitution Avenue entrance. In payor with the obligation to report economic impact on a substantial addition, all visitors must present photo under section 6041 cannot determine number of small entities. This identification to enter the building. with certainty whether a third party certification is based on the fact that the Because of access restrictions, visitors network transaction is required to be persons required to report under section will not be admitted beyond the reported under section 6050W. 6050W, payment settlement entities, immediate entrance area more than 30 For payments that are subject to will generally not be small businesses. minutes before the hearing starts. For withholding under both sections 3402(t) Merchant acquiring entities, the information about having your name and 6050W, the potential for duplicate payment settlement entities required to placed on the building access list to withholding is complicated by the 3- report payment card transactions, will attend the hearing, see the FOR FURTHER percent withholding requirement primarily be banks with over $175 INFORMATION CONTACT section of this contained within section 3402(t) itself. million in assets. Third party settlement preamble. Section 3402(t) expressly provides organizations, the payment settlement exceptions to the 3-percent withholding entities required to report third party The rules of 26 CFR 601.601(a)(3) requirement for payments that are network transactions, will generally not apply to the hearing. Persons who wish subject to backup withholding under be small entities by virtue of the to present oral comments at the hearing section 3406 if backup withholding is definition of a third party payment must submit written or electronic actually being deducted from the network, which requires the comments and an outline of the topics payment. Thus, where there is no 3- establishment of accounts with a central to be discussed and the time to be percent withholding on a government organization (the third party settlement devoted to each topic (a signed original payment card transaction, the organization) by a substantial number of and eight (8) copies) by January 27, transaction will be subject to the higher persons. Further, section 6050W(e) 2010. A period of 10 minutes will be 28-percent backup withholding under provides a de minimis exception that allotted to each person for making section 3406 instead of the 3-percent exempts third party settlement comments. An agenda showing the withholding under section 3402(t). organizations from reporting scheduling of the speakers will be However, a potential for duplicate transactions with respect to a payee if prepared after the deadline for receiving backup withholding may arise if the aggregate amount of such outlines has passed. Copies of the information reporting is required under transactions does not exceed $20,000 or agenda will be available free of charge both sections 3402(t) and 6050W but the aggregate number of such at the hearing. neither reporting requirement is transactions does not exceed 200. The Drafting Information satisfied. IRS and the Treasury Department also The proposed regulations do not request comments on the accuracy of The principal author of these eliminate the requirement for backup the statement that the regulations in this proposed regulations is Barbara Pettoni, withholding for transactions that are document will not have a significant Office of Associate Chief Counsel reportable under section 6050W and economic impact on a substantial (Procedure and Administration). another Code section. Comments are number of small entities. Pursuant to List of Subjects requested on the circumstances under section 7805(f) of the Code, this which relief for duplicate backup regulation has been submitted to the 26 CFR Part 1 Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small withholding is appropriate once backup Income taxes, Reporting and Business Administration for comment withholding under section 6050W recordkeeping requirements. becomes effective. on their impact on small business. 26 CFR Part 31 Proposed Effective/Applicability Dates Comments and Public Hearing The amendments to the regulations as Before these proposed regulations are Employment taxes, Income taxes, proposed will be effective on the date adopted as final regulations, Penalties, Pensions, Railroad retirement, they are published as final regulations consideration will be given to any Reporting and recordkeeping in the Federal Register. written (a signed original and eight (8) requirements, Social Security, With respect to the regulations under copies) or electronic comments that are Unemployment compensation. sections 6041, 6050W, 6051, 6721 and submitted timely to the IRS. The IRS 26 CFR Part 301 6722, the regulations are proposed to and the Treasury Department request apply to returns for calendar years comments on the clarity of the proposed Employment taxes, Estate taxes, beginning after December 31, 2010. regulations and how they can be made Excise taxes, Gift taxes, Income taxes, With respect to the regulations under easier to understand. Comments are Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping section 3406, the regulations are requested on the examples in the requirements. proposed to apply to amounts paid after proposed regulations, and Proposed Amendments to the December 31, 2011. commentators are specifically invited to Regulations suggest changes to these examples or to Special Analyses suggest new examples that they believe Accordingly, 26 CFR parts 1, 31 and It has been determined that this notice would better illustrate the principles 301 are proposed to be amended as of proposed rulemaking is not a that should be included in the final follows:
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:14 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP1.SGM 24NOP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 61301
PART 1—INCOME TAXES § 1.6050W–1 Information reporting for payment transactions for each payments made in settlement of payment participating payee without regard to Paragraph 1. The authority citation card and third party network transactions. any adjustments for credits, cash for part 1 continues to read in part as (a) In general—(1) General rule. Every equivalents, discount amounts, fees, follows: payment settlement entity, as defined in refunded amounts or any other paragraph (a)(3) of this section, must file Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * amounts. an information return for each calendar (b) Payment card transactions—(1) Par. 2. Section 1.6041–1 is amended year with respect to payments made in Definition. The term payment card by adding a sentence at the end of settlement of reportable payment transaction means any transaction in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) and adding transactions, as defined in paragraph which a payment card, or any account paragraphs (a)(1)(iv) and (a)(1)(v) to read (a)(2) of this section, setting forth the number or other indicia associated with as follows: following information: a payment card, is accepted as payment. (i) The name, address, and taxpayer § 1.6041–1 Return of information as to (2) Merchant acquiring entity. The payments of $600 or more. identification number (TIN) of each term merchant acquiring entity means participating payee, as defined in the bank or other organization that has (a) * * * paragraph (a)(4) of this section, to whom the contractual obligation to make (1) * * * one or more payments in settlement of payment to participating payees (as reportable payment transactions are defined in paragraph (a)(4)(i)(A) of this (ii) * * * For payment card made. section) in settlement of payment card transactions (as described in § 1.6050W– (ii) With respect to each participating transactions. 1(b)) required to be reported on payee, the gross amount, as defined in (3) Payment card. (i) The term information returns required under paragraph (a)(5) of this section, of— payment card means any card, section 6050W (relating to payment card (A) The aggregate reportable payment including any stored-value card as and third party network transactions), transactions for the calendar year; and defined in paragraph (b)(4) of this see special rules in § 1.6041–1(a)(1)(iv). (B) The aggregate reportable payment section, issued pursuant to an * * * * * transactions for each month of the agreement or arrangement that provides (iv) Information returns required calendar year. for— under section 6050W for calendar years (iii) Any other information required (A) One or more issuers of such cards; beginning after December 31, 2010. For by the form, instructions or current (B) A network of persons unrelated to payments made by payment card after revenue procedures. each other, and to the issuer, who agree December 31, 2010, that are required to (2) Reportable payment transaction. to accept such cards as payment; and be reported on an information return The term reportable payment (C) Standards and mechanisms for under section 6050W (relating to transaction means any payment card settling the transactions between the payment card and third party network transaction (as defined in paragraph merchant acquiring entities and the transactions), the following rule applies. (b)(1) of this section) and any third party persons who agree to accept the cards as Payment card transactions that are network transaction (as defined in payment. described in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this paragraph (c)(1) of this section). (ii) Persons who agree to accept such section that otherwise would be (3) Payment settlement entity. The cards as payment as described in this reportable under both sections 6041 and term payment settlement entity means a paragraph (b)(3) are participating payees 6050W are reported under section domestic or foreign entity that is— within the meaning of paragraph (i) In the case of a payment card 6050W and not section 6041. For (a)(4)(i)(A) of this section. transaction, a merchant acquiring entity (4) Stored-value cards. The term provisions relating to information (as defined in paragraph (b)(2) of this stored-value card means any card with reporting for payment card transactions, section); and a prepaid value, including any gift card. see § 1.6050W–1. (ii) In the case of a third party (c) Third party network transactions— (v) Example. The provisions of network transaction, a third party (1) Definition. The term third party paragraph (a)(1)(iv) are illustrated by the settlement organization (as defined in network transaction means any following example: paragraph (c)(2) of this section). transaction that is settled through a Example. Restaurant owner A, in the (4) Participating payee—(i) Definition. third party payment network. course of business, pays $600 of fixed or In general, the term participating payee (2) Third party settlement determinable income to B, a repairman, by means any person, including any organization. The term third party credit card. B is one of a network of unrelated governmental unit (and any agency or settlement organization means the persons that has agreed to accept A’s credit instrumentality thereof), who: central organization that has the card as payment under an agreement that (A) In the case of a payment card contractual obligation to make payments provides standards and mechanisms for transaction, accepts a payment card (as to participating payees (as defined in settling the transaction between a merchant defined in paragraph (b)(3) of this paragraph (a)(4)(i)(B) of this section) of acquiring bank and the persons who accept section) as payment; and third party network transactions. A the cards. Merchant acquiring bank Y is (B) In the case of a third party central organization is a third party responsible for making the payment to B. network transaction, accepts payment Under paragraph (a)(1)(iv) of this section, A, settlement organization if it provides a as payor, is not required to file an from a third party settlement third party payment network (as defined information return under section 6041 with organization (as defined in paragraph in paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section) that respect to the transaction because Y, as the (c)(2) of this section) in settlement of enables purchasers to transfer funds to payment settlement entity for the payment such transaction. providers of goods and services. card transaction, is required to file an (ii) Foreign payees. For special rules (3) Third party payment network. (i) information return under section 6050W. relating to foreign payees, see paragraph The term third party payment network * * * * * (d)(3) of this section. means any agreement or arrangement (5) Gross amount. For purposes of this that— Par. 3. Section § 1.6050W–1 is added section, gross amount means the total (A) Involves the establishment of to read as follows: dollar amount of aggregate reportable accounts with a central organization by
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:14 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP1.SGM 24NOP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS 61302 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules
a substantial number of providers of (3) Foreign payees—(i) In general. A section to report the payment made to settle goods or services who are unrelated to payment settlement entity that is a the transaction for the sale of goods from B the organization and who have agreed to person described as a U.S. payor or U.S. to A. settle transactions for the provision of middleman in § 1.6049–5(c)(5) is not Example 2. Third party settlement organization. (i) Merchant B is one of a the goods or services to purchasers required to make a return of information substantial number of persons selling goods according to the terms of the agreement for payments to a participating payee or services over the Internet that have an or arrangement; with a foreign address as long as, prior account with X, an Internet payment service (B) Provides standards and to payment, the payee has provided the provider. None of these persons, including B, mechanisms for settling the payment settlement entity with are related to X, and all have agreed to settle transactions; and documentation upon which the transactions for the sale of goods or services (C) Guarantees payment to the payment settlement entity may rely to to customers according to the terms of their persons providing goods or services in treat the payment as made to a foreign contracts with X. X has guaranteed payment to all of these persons, including B, for the settlement of transactions with person in accordance with § 1.1441– sale of goods or services to customers. purchasers pursuant to the agreement or 1(e)(1)(ii). For purposes of this Customer A purchases goods from B. A pays arrangement. paragraph (d)(3)(i), the provisions of X for the goods purchased from B. X, in turn, (ii) Persons who are providers of § 1.1441–1 shall apply by substituting makes payment to B in settlement of the goods and services as described in this the term payor for the term withholding transaction for the sale of goods from B to A. paragraph (c)(3) are participating payees agent and without regard to the (ii) X’s arrangement constitutes a third within the meaning of paragraph limitation to amounts subject to party payment network as defined in (a)(4)(i)(B) of this section. withholding under chapter 3 of the paragraph (c)(3) of this section because a substantial number of persons that are (4) Exception for de minimis Internal Revenue Code and the unrelated to X, including B, have established payments. A third party settlement regulations under that chapter. accounts with X, and X is contractually organization is required to report any (ii) Special rule. A payment obligated to settle transactions for the information under paragraph (a)(1) of settlement entity that is not a person provision of goods or services by these this section with respect to third party described as a U.S. payor or U.S. persons to purchasers. Thus, under network transactions of any middleman in § 1.6049–5(c)(5) is not paragraph (c)(2) of this section, X is a third participating payee only if— required to make a return of information party settlement organization and the (i) The amount that would otherwise for a payment to a participating payee transaction discussed in this example is a third party network transaction under be reported under paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of that does not have a United States address as long as the payment paragraph (c)(1) of this section. Therefore, X this section with respect to such must file the annual information return transactions exceeds $20,000; and settlement entity neither knows nor has required under paragraph (a)(1) of this (ii) The aggregate number of such reason to know that the participating section to report the payment made to B in transactions exceeds 200. payee is a United States person. settlement of the transaction with A provided (d) Special rules—(1) Aggregated (iii) Foreign address; United States that X’s aggregate payments to B from third payees. In any case where a person address. For purposes of this section, party network transactions exceed $20,000 receives payments from a payment foreign address means any address that and the aggregate number of X’s transactions settlement entity (as defined in is not within the United States, as with B exceeds 200 (as provided in paragraph defined in section 7701(a)(9) of the (c)(4) of this section). paragraph (a)(3) of this section) on Example 3. Automated clearinghouse behalf of one or more participating Internal Revenue Code (the States and the District of Columbia). United States network. A operates an automated payees and distributes such payments to clearinghouse (‘‘ACH’’) network that merely one or more participating payees (as address means any address that is processes electronic payments (such as wire defined in paragraph (a)(4) of this within the United States. transfers, electronic checks, and direct section), the person is treated as: (4) Unrelated persons. For purposes of deposit payments) between buyers and (i) The participating payee with this section, unrelated means any sellers. There are no contractual agreements respect to the payment settlement person who is not related to another between A and the sellers for the purpose of entity; and person within the meaning of section permitting the sellers to use the ACH network. Thus, A is not a third party (ii) The payment settlement entity 267(b) (providing a list of relationships), including the application of section settlement organization under paragraph with respect to the participating payees (c)(2) of this section, the ACH network is not to whom the person distributes 267(c) and (e)(3) (providing rules relating to constructive ownership), and a third party payment network under payments. paragraph (c)(3) of this section, and the (2) Electronic payment facilitator. If a section 707(b)(1) (relationships with electronic payment transactions are not third payment settlement entity (as defined in partnerships). party network transactions under paragraph (e) Examples. The following examples paragraph (a)(3) of this section) (c)(1) of this section. A is not required to file illustrate the provisions of this section: contracts with an electronic payment the annual information return required under Example 1. Merchant acquiring entity. paragraph (a)(1) of this section. facilitator or other third party to settle Example 4. Gross amount. Customer A reportable payment transactions on Customer A purchases goods from merchant B using a credit card issued by Bank X. B is uses a payment card to purchase $100 worth behalf of the payment settlement entity, one of a network of unrelated persons that of goods at merchant B. Bank X, the merchant the electronic payment facilitator or has agreed to accept credit cards issued by acquiring entity for B, is the party with the other third party must file the annual X as payment under an agreement that contractual obligation to make payment to B information return under this section in provides standards and mechanisms for in settlement of the transaction. X, after lieu of the payment settlement entity. settling the transaction between a merchant deducting fees of $2, makes payment of $98 The electronic payment facilitator or acquiring bank and the persons who accept to settle the transaction for the sale of goods other third party who makes payment the cards. Bank Z is the bank with the from B to A. Under paragraph (a)(5) of this section, X must report the amount of $100, on behalf of the payment settlement contractual obligation to make payment to B for goods provided to A in the above without any reduction for fees or any other entity is the party that will be liable for transaction. As defined in paragraph (b)(2) of amount, as the gross amount of this any applicable penalties for failure to this section, Z is the merchant acquiring reportable payment transaction on the annual comply with the information reporting entity that must file the annual information information return filed under paragraph requirements of section 6050W. return required under paragraph (a)(1) of this (a)(1) of this section.
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:14 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP1.SGM 24NOP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 61303
Example 5. Gift card. (i) Customer A telephone call must be reported in a return aggregate payments to that payee exceed purchases a gift card from Merchant X that of information required under paragraph $20,000 and the aggregate number of may be used only at X and its related (a)(1) of this section by the bank or other transactions with that payee exceeds 200 (as network of stores. A purchases the gift card organization that has the contractual provided in paragraph (c)(4) of this section). using cash. A gives the gift card to B. B uses obligation to make payment to the long Example 11. Toll collection network. State the gift card to purchase goods at one of X’s distance provider in settlement of the A charges a toll to vehicles that travel its stores. The purchase of the gift card by A transaction. state highways. The tolling agency for A using cash is not a payment card transaction Example 8. Transit card. City Z accepts a contracted with organization X to perform its described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section transit card as payment for use of its mass toll collection. X provides an electronic toll and, thus, is not required to be reported in transit system. The transit card is issued by collection system that allows the toll facility a return of information required under B, an organization unrelated to Z. A network to record the passage of a vehicle with a paragraph (a)(1) of this section. Under of persons, including Z, who are unrelated to transponder affixed to the vehicle. The paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the gift card each other and to B, have agreed to accept customer account associated with the is not a payment card because the gift card the transit card issued by B as payment for transponder is automatically debited for the is accepted as payment by a person who is transit and for other goods and services. amount of the toll. The customer funds a related to the issuer of the gift card. Transit rider X purchases a transit card and balance in the account, which is then Therefore, the use of the gift card by B is not uses the card to pay for travel on Z’s mass depleted as the toll transactions occur. X required to be reported in a return of transit system. Under paragraph (b)(3) of this periodically bills the customer to replenish information required under paragraph (a)(1) section, the transit card is a payment card the account. X then makes payment to A to of this section. because the card is accepted as payment by settle the toll transactions that are recorded (ii) The facts are the same as in paragraph a person who is one of a network of persons by the transponder. X also contracts with a (i), except that B adds value to the gift card that are unrelated to the issuer of the card substantial number of other entities unrelated using a credit card. The use of the credit card and that have agreed to accept the card as to X that have established accounts with X to add value to the gift card is a reportable payment. Therefore, the use of the transit and have agreed to accept payment using the payment transaction (as defined in paragraph card by X to pay for transit on Z’s mass electronic toll collection system provided by (a)(2) of this section) and must be reported transit system is a payment card transaction X. X guarantees payment to the entities for in a return of information under this section described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section all toll transactions that are recorded by the by the bank or other organization that has the that must be reported in a return of transponders, and the arrangement enables contractual obligation to make payment to X information required under paragraph (a)(1) customers to transfer funds to State A and in settlement of the transaction. of this section by the bank or other other entities that charge tolls. Under Example 6. Campus card. (i) Student A organization that has the contractual paragraph (c)(3) of this section, X’s electronic purchases a card issued by University Y that obligation to make payment to Z. Z is the toll collection system constitutes a third may be used on campus at various participating payee, described in paragraph party payment network, of which X is the university-owned merchants and at various (a)(4)(i)(A) of this section, of the payment third party settlement organization (as local merchants unrelated to Y. A uses the card transaction. defined in paragraph (c)(2) of this section). card in the university-owned cafeteria to Example 9. Healthcare network. Health For each payee, including A, X must file the purchase lunch. Under paragraph (b)(3) of carrier A operates healthcare network Y. A annual information return required under this section, the campus card is not a collects premiums from covered persons paragraph (a)(1) of this section to report payment card in this transaction because the pursuant to a plan agreement between A and payments made by X in settlement of toll card is accepted as payment by a person who the covered persons for the cost of transactions if X’s aggregate payments to that is related to the issuer of the card. Therefore, membership in Y. Separately, A pays payee exceed $20,000 and the aggregate the use of the campus-card by A in the healthcare providers pursuant to provider number of transactions with that payee university cafeteria is not required to be agreements to compensate these providers for exceeds 200 (as provided in paragraph (c)(4) reported in a return of information required services rendered to covered persons who are of this section). under paragraph (a)(1) of this section. members of Y. A is not a third party Example 12. Hotel kiosk. Under a ‘‘hotel (ii) The facts are the same as in paragraph settlement organization under paragraph kiosk’’ arrangement, Hotel B permits its (i), except that A uses the campus card to (c)(2) of this section because A does not customers to charge, to their room account, purchase lunch at a local restaurant, operate a third party payment network that transactions for goods and services at a unrelated to Y, that has agreed to accept the enables purchasers to transfer funds to substantial number of sellers unrelated to B campus card as payment. Under paragraph providers of goods and services. Therefore, A that operate on B’s premises and have (b)(3) of this section, the campus card is a is not required to file the annual information established accounts in B’s hotel kiosk payment card in this transaction because the return required under paragraph (a)(1) of this system. Customers settle their room account card is accepted as payment by a person that section. with B when they check out, and B in turn is unrelated to this issuer of the card Example 10. Third party accounts payable. settles the hotel kiosk transactions with the pursuant to an agreement. Therefore, the use X is a ‘‘shared-service’’ organization that unrelated sellers. B guarantees payment to of the card by A in the local restaurant for performs accounts payable services for the sellers for these transactions and the the purchase of lunch must be reported in a numerous purchasers that are unrelated to X. arrangement enables customers to transfer return of information required under A substantial number of providers of goods funds to the sellers by means of one payment paragraph (a)(1) of this section by the bank and services have established accounts with made to the hotel. Under paragraph (c)(3) of or other organization that has the contractual X and have agreed to accept payment from this section, B’s hotel kiosk system obligation to make payment to the restaurant X in settlement of their transactions with constitutes a third party payment network, of in settlement of the transaction. purchasers. The provider agreement with X which B is the third party settlement Example 7. Prepaid telephone card. A includes standards and mechanisms for organization (as defined in paragraph (c)(2) of purchases a prepaid telephone card from settling the transactions and guarantees this section). For each payee, B must file the Company X that may be used to make payment to the providers, and the annual information return required under telephone calls using various long-distance arrangement enables purchasers to transfer paragraph (a)(1) of this section to report providers unrelated to X that have agreed to funds to providers. Under paragraph (c)(3) of payments made by B in settlement of the accept the card as payment. A places a this section, X’s accounts payable services hotel kiosk transactions if B’s aggregate telephone call using the prepaid card as constitute a third party payment network, of payments to that payee exceed $20,000 and payment for the telephone call. Under which X is the third party settlement the aggregate number of transactions with paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the prepaid organization (as defined in paragraph (c)(2) of that payee exceeds 200 (as provided in telephone card is a payment card because the this section). For each payee, X must file the paragraph (c)(4) of this section). card is accepted as payment by a person that annual information return required under Example 13. Aggregated payee. is unrelated to the issuer of the card pursuant paragraph (a)(1) of this section to report Corporation A, acting on behalf of A’s to an agreement. Therefore, the use of the payments made by X in settlement of independently-owned franchise stores, prepaid card to make payment for the accounts payable to that payee if X’s receives payment from Bank X for credit card
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:14 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP1.SGM 24NOP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS 61304 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules
sales effectuated at these franchise stores. X, paragraph (h)(1) of this section must § 31.3406(g)–1 Exception for payments to the payment settlement entity (as defined in include the following information— certain payees and certain other payments. paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section), is required (i) The name, address, and phone * * * * * under paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section to number (or e-mail address if the (d) Reportable payments made to report the gross amount of the reportable payment transactions distributed to A statement is furnished electronically) of Canadian nonresident alien individuals. (notwithstanding the fact that A does not the information contact of the payment (e) Certain reportable payments made accept payment cards and would not settlement entity. outside the United States by foreign otherwise be treated as a participating payee). (ii) With respect to the participating persons, foreign offices of United States In turn, under paragraph (d)(1)(ii), A is payee, the gross amount of— banks and brokers, and others. required to report the gross amount of the (A) The aggregate reportable payment (f) Special rule for certain payment reportable payment transactions allocable to transactions for the calendar year; and card transactions. each franchise store. X has no reporting * * * * * obligation under this section with respect to (B) The aggregate reportable payment payments made by A to its franchise stores. transactions for each month of the Par. 6. Section 31.3406(a)–2 is Example 14. Electronic payment facilitator. calendar year. amended by revising paragraph (a) to Bank A is a merchant acquiring entity (as (iii) Any other information required read as follows: defined in paragraph (b)(2) of this section) by the form, instructions, or current § 31.3406(a)–2 Definition of payors with the contractual obligation to make revenue procedures. obligated to backup withhold. payments to participating merchants to settle (i) Cross-reference to penalties. For (a) In general. Payor means the person certain credit card transactions. X enters into provisions relating to the penalty for a contract with A to settle these credit card that is required to make an information failure to file timely a correct transactions electronically on behalf of A. return under sections 6041, 6041A(a), information return required under Under paragraph (d)(2) of this section, X is 6042, 6044, 6045, 6049, 6050A, 6050N, section 6050W, see § 301.6721–1 of this an electronic payment facilitator and must or 6050W with respect to any reportable chapter (Procedure and Administration file the information return required under payment (as described in section paragraph (a)(1) of this section with respect Regulations). For provisions relating to 3406(b)), or that is described in to A’s credit card transactions settled by X. the penalty for failure to furnish timely paragraph (b) of this section. A has no reporting obligation with respect to a correct payee statement required payments made by X on A’s behalf. under section 6050W(f), see § 301.6722– * * * * * (f) Prescribed form. The return 1 of this chapter. See § 301.6724–1 of Par. 7. Section 31.3406(b)(3)–5 is required by paragraph (a)(1) of this this chapter for the waiver of a penalty added to read as follows: section must be made according to the if failure is due to reasonable cause and § 31.3406(b)(3)–5 Reportable payments of forms and instructions published by the is not due to willful neglect. payment card and third party network IRS. (j) Effective/applicability date. The transactions. (g) Time and place for filing. Returns rules in this section apply to returns for (a) Payment card and third party made under this section for any calendar years beginning after December network transactions subject to backup calendar year must be filed on or before 31, 2010. The rules in this section are withholding. A payment of a kind, and February 28th (March 31st if filing effective on the date of publication of to a payee, that is required to be electronically) of the following year at the Treasury decision adopting these reported under section 6050W (relating the Internal Revenue Service Center rules as final regulations in the Federal to information reporting for payment location designated in the instructions Register. card and third party network to the relevant form. transactions) is a reportable payment for PART 31—EMPLOYMENT TAXES AND (h) Time and place for furnishing purposes of section 3406. See COLLECTION OF INCOME TAX AT statement—(1) In general. Every § 31.6051–4 for the requirement to SOURCE payment settlement entity required to furnish a statement to the payee if tax file a return under this section must also Par. 4. The authority citation for part is withheld under section 3406. furnish to each participating payee a 31 continues to read in part as follows: (b) Amount subject to backup written statement with the same withholding. In general, the amount Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * information (as described in paragraph described in paragraph (a) of this (h)(2) of this section). The statement Par. 5. Section 31.3406–0 is amended section that is subject to withholding must be furnished to the payee on or as follows: under section 3406 is the amount before January 31st of the year following 1. Entries for § 31.3406(b)(3)–5(a) and subject to reporting under section the calendar year in which the (b) are added. 6050W. reportable payment is made. If the 2. Entry for § 31.3406(g)–1 is amended (c) Effective/applicability date. The return of information is not made on by adding paragraphs (d), (e), and (f). provisions of this section apply to magnetic media, this requirement may The additions read as follows: amounts paid after December 31, 2011. be satisfied by furnishing to such person Par. 8. Section 31.3406(d)–1 is a copy of all Forms 1099–K, ‘‘Merchant § 31.3406–0 Outline of the backup amended by revising paragraph (d) to card and third-party payments,’’ or any withholding regulations. read as follows: successor form with respect to such * * * * * person filed with the Internal Revenue § 31.3406(d)–1 Manner required for Service Center. The statement will be § 31.3406(b)(3)–5 Reportable payments of furnishing a taxpayer identification number. considered furnished to the payee if it payment card and third party network * * * * * transactions. is mailed to the payee’s last known (d) Rents, commissions, nonemployee address. The payment settlement entity (a) Payment card and third party compensation, certain fishing boat may furnish the statement electronically network transactions subject to backup operators, and payment card and third with the prior consent of the payee. withholding. party network transactions, etc.— (2) Information to be shown on (b) Amount subject to backup Manner required for furnishing a statement furnished to payee. Each withholding. taxpayer identification number. For written statement furnished under * * * * * accounts, contracts, or relationships
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:14 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP1.SGM 24NOP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 61305
subject to information reporting under (vii) Section 6050W (relating to DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND section 6041 (relating to information information returns with respect to SECURITY reporting at source on rents, royalties, payments made in settlement of salaries, etc.), section 6041A(a) (relating payment card and third party network Coast Guard to information reporting of payments for transactions (effective for information nonemployee services), section 6050A returns required to be filed for calendar 33 CFR Part 165 (relating to information reporting by years beginning after December 31, certain fishing boat operators), section 2010)), or [Docket No. USCG–2009–0501] 6050N (relating to information reporting * * * * * of payments of royalties), or section RIN 1625–AA87 6050W (relating to information (3) * * * reporting for payment card and third (viii) Section 6050W (relating to Security Zones; Brazos River, party network transactions), the payee information returns with respect to Freeport, TX must furnish the payee’s taxpayer payments made in settlement of identification number to the payor payment card and third party network AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. either orally or in writing. Except as transactions (effective for information ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. provided in § 31.3406(d)–5, the payee is returns required to be filed for calendar not required to certify under penalties of years beginning after December 31, SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to perjury that the taxpayer identification 2010)), establish four permanent security zones number is correct regardless of when the in the Brazos River in Freeport, Texas. account, contract, or relationship is * * * * * This security zone is needed to protect established. Par. 11. Section 301.6722–1 is vessels, waterfront facilities, and Par. 9. Section 31.6051–4 is amended amended by: surrounding areas from destruction, by revising paragraph (c)(2) to read as 1. Removing the language ‘‘and’’ at loss, or injury caused by terrorism, follows: the end of paragraph (d)(2)(xviii). sabotage, subversive acts, accidents, or § 31.6051–4 Statement required in case of 2. Redesignating paragraphs incidents of a similar nature. Entry into backup withholding. (d)(2)(xvi), (d)(2)(xvii), (d)(2)(xviii) and this zone will be prohibited except by * * * * * (d)(2)(xix) as (d)(2)(xvii), (d)(2)(xviii), permission of the Captain of the Port Houston-Galveston. (c) * * * (d)(2)(xix) and (d)(2)(xx). (2) The amount subject to reporting 3. Adding new paragraph (d)(2)(xvi). DATES: Comments and related material under sections 6041, 6041A(a), 6042, must reach the Coast Guard on or before 6044, 6045, 6049, 6050A, 6050N, or 4. Adding the language ‘‘and’’ at the December 24, 2009. 6050W whether or not the amount of the end of the newly designated paragraph reportable payment is less than the (d)(2)(xix). ADDRESSES: You may submit comments amount for which an information return identified by Coast Guard docket 5. Adding new paragraph (f). is required. If tax is withheld under number USCG–2009–0501 to the Docket section 3406, the statement must show The revisions and additions read as Management Facility at the U.S. the amount of the payment withheld follows: Department of Transportation. To avoid upon; duplication, please use only one of the § 301.6722–1 Failure to furnish correct following methods: * * * * * payee statements. (1) Online: http:// PART 301—PROCEDURE AND * * * * * www.regulations.gov. ADMINISTRATION (d) * * * (2) Mail: Docket Management Facility Par. 10. Section 301.6721–1(g) is (2) * * * (M–30), U.S. Department of amended by: (xvi) Section 6050W (relating to Transportation, West Building Ground 1. Removing the language ‘‘or’’ at the information returns with respect to Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey end of paragraphs (g)(2)(vi) and payments made in settlement of Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590– 0001. (g)(3)(xii). payment card and third party network 2. Redesignating paragraph (g)(2)(vii) transactions, generally the recipient (3) Hand delivery: Room W12–140 on as (g)(2)(viii). copy), the Ground Floor of the West Building, 3. Adding new paragraph (g)(2)(vii). 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 4. Redesignating paragraphs * * * * * Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. (g)(3)(viii), (g)(3)(ix), (g)(3)(x), (g)(3)(xi), (f) Effective/Applicability date. The and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, (g)(3)(xii) and (g)(3)(xiii) as (g)(3)(ix), provisions of paragraph (d)(2)(xvi) of except Federal holidays. The telephone (g)(3)(x), (g)(3)(xi), (g)(3)(xii), (g)(3)(xiii) this section apply to information returns number is (202) 366–9329. and (g)(3)(xiv). required to be filed for calendar years (4) Fax: (202) 493–2251. 5. Adding the language ‘‘or’’ at the beginning after December 31, 2010. end of newly designated paragraph FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (g)(3)(xiii). * * * * * Lieutenant junior grade Margaret 6. Adding new paragraph (g)(3)(viii). Linda E. Stiff, Brown, Sector Houston-Galveston, The revisions and additions read as telephone (713) 678–9001, or e-mail follows: Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement. [email protected]. If you have questions on viewing or submitting § 301.6721–1 Failure to file correct [FR Doc. E9–28076 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] information returns. material to the docket, call Renee V. BILLING CODE 4830–01–P Wright, Program Manager, Docket * * * * * Operations, telephone (202) 366–9826. (g) * * * (2) * * * SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:14 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP1.SGM 24NOP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS 61306 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules
Request for Comments Privacy Act Discussion of Proposed Rule Public Participation and Request for Anyone can search the electronic The Captain of the Port Houston- Comments form of all comments received into any Galveston is proposing four permanent We encourage you to participate in of our dockets by the name of the security zones in the waters adjacent to this rulemaking by submitting individual submitting the comment (or the Dow Chemical Facility in Freeport, comments and related materials. All signing the comment, if submitted on Texas. All vessels not exempted under comments received will be posted, behalf of an association, business, labor this rule would be prohibited from without change, to http:// union, etc.). You may review the entering the security zone unless www.regulations.gov and will include Department of Transportation’s Privacy authorized by the Captain of the Port any personal information you have Act Statement in the Federal Register Houston-Galveston or his designated provided. We have an agreement with published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR representative. In Houston, vessels can the Department of Transportation (DOT) 19477), or you may visit http:// contact the Captain of the Port Houston- Galveston through Vessel Traffic Service to use the Docket Management Facility. DocketsInfo.dot.gov. Please see DOT’s ‘‘Privacy Act’’ Houston/Galveston on VHF Channel 5A, paragraph below. Public Meeting by telephone at (713) 671–5103, or by facsimile at (713) 671–5159. In Freeport, Submitting Comments We do not plan to hold a public vessels can contact the Captain of the If you submit a comment, please meeting. But you may submit a request Port Houston-Galveston through Marine include the docket number for this for one using one of the four methods Safety Unit Galveston, by telephone at rulemaking [USCG–2009–0501], specified under ADDRESSES. Please (409) 978–2700, or by facsimile at (409) indicate the specific section of this explain why you believe a public 978–2671. document to which each comment meeting would be beneficial. If we The security zones are as follows: applies, and give the reason for each determine that one would aid this (i) The Dow Barge Canal, containing comment. We recommend that you rulemaking, we will hold one at a time all waters of the Dow Barge Canal north include your name and a mailing and place announced by a later notice of a line drawn between 28°56.81′ N/ address, an e-mail address, or a phone in the Federal Register. 095°18.33′ W and 28°56.63′ N/ 095°18.54′ W (NAD 1983). This zone number in the body of your document Background and Purpose so that we can contact you if we have increases the size of the established questions regarding your submission. Heightened awareness of potential security zone to include the interior part You may submit your comments and terrorist acts requires enhanced security of the Dow Barge Canal. material by electronic means, mail, fax, of our ports, harbors, and vessels. To (ii) The Brazos Harbor, containing all or delivery to the Docket Management enhance security, the Captain of the Port waters west of a line drawn between ° ′ ° ′ ° ′ Facility at the address under ADDRESSES; Houston-Galveston proposes to establish 28 56.45 N, 95 20.00 W, and 28 56.15 ° ′ but please submit your comments and four permanent security zones within N, 95 20.00 W (NAD 1983) at its material by only one means. If you the port of Freeport, TX. junction with the Old Brazos River. This submit them by mail or delivery, submit security zone remains unchanged, but These zones would protect waterfront them in an unbound format, no larger the position descriptions are changed facilities, persons, and vessels from than 8c by 11 inches, suitable for from Degrees-Minutes-Seconds to subversive or terrorist acts. Vessels copying and electronic filing. If you Degrees-Minutes.Decimal Minutes for operating within the Captain of the Port submit them by mail and would like to ease of use and maximum compatibility Houston-Galveston Zone are potential know that they reached the Facility, with GPS devices. targets of terrorist attacks, or potential please enclose a stamped, self-addressed (iii) The Dow Chemical plant, launch platforms for terrorist attacks on postcard or envelope. We will consider containing all waters of the Brazos Point other vessels, waterfront facilities, and all comments and material received Turning Basin within 100′ of the north adjacent population centers. The zones during the comment period. We may shore and bounded on the east by the being proposed are in areas with a high change this proposed rule in view of longitude line drawn through 28°56.58′ concentration of commercial facilities them. N/095°18.64′ W and on the west by the that are considered critical to national longitude line drawn through 28°56.64′ Viewing Comments and Documents security. N/095°19.13′ W (NAD 1983). This is a To view comments, as well as All vessels not exempted under new security zone surrounding the documents mentioned in this preamble § 165.814(c) desiring to enter this zone docks of the Dow Chemical Plant. as being available in the docket, go to would be required to obtain express (iv) The Seaway Teppco Facility, http://www.regulations.gov, click on the permission from the Captain of the Port containing all waters of the Brazos Port ‘‘read comments’’ box, which will then Houston-Galveston or his designated Turning Basin bounded on the south by become highlighted in blue. In the representative prior to entry. This the shore, the north by the Federal ‘‘Keyword’’ box insert ‘‘USCG–2009– proposed rule is not designed to restrict Channel, on the east by the longitude 0501’’ and click ‘‘Search.’’ Click the access to vessels engaged, or assisting in line running through 28°56.44′ N, ‘‘Open Docket Folder’’ in the ‘‘Actions’’ commerce with waterfront facilities 95°18.83′ W and 28°56.48′ N 095°18.83′ column. You may also visit the Docket within the security zones, vessels W and on the West by the longitude line Management Facility in Room W12–140 operated by port authorities, vessels running through 28°56.12′ N, 95°19.27′ on the ground floor of the Department operated by waterfront facilities within W and 28°56.11′ N, 095°19.34′ W (NAD of Transportation West Building, 1200 the security zones, and vessels operated 1983). This is a new security zone New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, by federal, state, county or municipal surrounding the docks of the Seaway DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., agencies. By limiting access to this area Teppco Facility. Monday through Friday, except Federal the Coast Guard would reduce potential (v) The Conoco Phillips Facility holidays. We have an agreement with methods of attack on vessels, waterfront docks, containing all waters within 100 the Department of Transportation to use facilities, and adjacent population feet of a line drawn from a point on the Docket Management Facility. centers located within the zones. shore at approximate position 28°55.96′
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:14 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP1.SGM 24NOP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 61307
N, 095°19.77′ W east to a point on shore Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), Protection of Children from at approximate position 28°56.19′ N, we want to assist small entities in Environmental Health Risks and Safety 095°20.07′ W (NAD 1983). This is a new understanding this proposed rule so that Risks. This rule is not an economically security zone surrounding the docks of they can better evaluate its effects on significant rule and would not create an the Conoco Phillips facility. them and participate in the rulemaking. environmental risk to health or risk to If the rule would affect your small safety that might disproportionately Regulatory Evaluation business, organization, or governmental affect children. This proposed rule is not a jurisdiction and you have questions Indian Tribal Governments ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under concerning its provisions or options for section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, compliance, please contact Lieutenant This proposed rule does not have Regulatory Planning and Review, and junior grade Margaret Brown at (713) tribal implications under Executive does not require an assessment of 678–9001. The Coast Guard will not Order 13175, Consultation and potential costs and benefits under retaliate against small entities that Coordination with Indian Tribal section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office question or complain about this rule or Governments, because it would not have of Management and Budget has not any policy or action of the Coast Guard. a substantial direct effect on one or reviewed it under that Order. It is not more Indian tribes, on the relationship ‘‘significant’’ under the regulatory Collection of Information between the Federal Government and policies and procedures of the This proposed rule would call for no Indian tribes, or on the distribution of Department of Homeland Security new collection of information under the power and responsibilities between the (DHS). We expect the economic impact Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 Federal Government and Indian tribes. of this proposed rule to be so minimal U.S.C. 3501–3520). Energy Effects that a full Regulatory Evaluation is Federalism unnecessary. The basis of this finding is We have analyzed this proposed rule that the security zones are not part of A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13211, Actions the Federal Channel. It does not impede under Executive Order 13132, Concerning Regulations That commercial traffic to, from, or within Federalism, if it has a substantial direct Significantly Affect Energy Supply, the Port of Freeport. Recreational and effect on State or local governments and Distribution, or Use. We have commercial fishing vessel traffic will be would either preempt State law or determined that it is not a ‘‘significant able to transit the Brazos River within impose a substantial direct cost of energy action’’ under that Order because the Federal Channel. compliance on them. We have analyzed it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ this proposed rule under that Order and under Executive Order 12866 and is not Small Entities have determined that it does not have likely to have a significant adverse effect Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act implications for federalism. on the supply, distribution, or use of (5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered energy. The Administrator of the Office whether this proposed rule would have Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of Information and Regulatory Affairs a significant economic impact on a The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act has not designated it as a significant substantial number of small entities. of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires energy action. Therefore, it does not The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises Federal agencies to assess the effects of require a Statement of Energy Effects small businesses, not-for-profit their discretionary regulatory actions. In under Executive Order 13211. organizations that are independently particular, the Act addresses actions Technical Standards owned and operated and are not that may result in the expenditure by a dominant in their fields, and State, local, or tribal government, in the The National Technology Transfer governmental jurisdictions with aggregate, or by the private sector of and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 populations of less than 50,000. $100,000,000 or more in any one year. U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use The Coast Guard certifies under 5 Though this proposed rule would not voluntary consensus standards in their U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule result in such expenditure, we do regulatory activities unless the agency would not have a significant economic discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere provides Congress, through the Office of impact on a substantial number of small in this preamble. Management and Budget, with an entities. explanation of why using these This proposed rule would not have a Taking of Private Property standards would be inconsistent with significant economic impact on a This proposed rule would not affect a applicable law or otherwise impractical. substantial number of small entities for taking of private property or otherwise Voluntary consensus standards are the following reason: This proposed rule have taking implications under technical standards (e.g., specifications would not interfere with any Executive Order 12630, Governmental of materials, performance, design, or commercial vessel traffic within the Old Actions and Interference with operation; test methods; sampling Brazos River. Constitutionally Protected Property procedures; and related management If you think that your business, Rights. systems practices) that are developed or organization, or governmental adopted by voluntary consensus jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity Civil Justice Reform standards bodies. This proposed rule and that this proposed rule would have This proposed rule meets applicable would not use technical standards. a significant economic impact on it, standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Therefore, we did not consider the use please submit a comment (see Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice of voluntary consensus standards. ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it Reform, to minimize litigation, Environment qualifies and how and to what degree eliminate ambiguity, and reduce this rule would economically affect it. burden. We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction Assistance for Small Entities Protection of Children M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Under section 213(a) of the Small We have analyzed this proposed rule Guard in complying with the National Business Regulatory Enforcement under Executive Order 13045, Environmental Policy Act of 1969
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:14 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP1.SGM 24NOP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS 61308 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules
(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and W and 28°56.11′ N, 095°19.34′ W (NAD October 23, 2009. The full text of this have made a preliminary determination 1983). document is available for public that this action is not likely to have a (v) The Conoco Phillips Facility inspection and copying during regular significant effect on the human docks, containing all waters within 100′ business hours in the FCC Reference environment. A preliminary of a line drawn from a point on shore Center, Federal Communications ‘‘Environmental Analysis Check List’’ at Latitude 28°55.96′ N, Longitude Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., CY– supporting this preliminary 095°19.77′ W, extending west to a point A257, Washington, DC 20554. This determination is available in the docket on shore at Latitude 28°56.19′ N, document will also be available via where indicated under ADDRESSES. The Longitude 095°20.07′ W (NAD 1983). ECFS (http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/). proposed rule involves establishing Dated: September 29, 2009. (Documents will be available security zones and is excluded under Marcus E. Woodring, electronically in ASCII, Word 97, and/ paragraph 34(g) of the Commandant Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the or Adobe Acrobat.) The complete text Instruction. We seek any comments or Port Houston-Galveston. may be purchased from the information that may lead to the [FR Doc. E9–28185 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] Commission’s copy contractor, 445 12th discovery of a significant environmental Street, SW., Room CY–B402, BILLING CODE 4910–15–P impact from this proposed rule. Washington, DC 20554. To request this document in accessible formats List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 (computer diskettes, large print, audio FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation recording, and Braille), send an e-mail COMMISSION (water), Reporting and recordkeeping to [email protected] or call the requirements, Security measures, 47 CFR Part 73 Commission’s Consumer and Waterways. Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) For the reasons discussed in the [MB Docket No. 09–194; FCC 09–94] 418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432 preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to (TTY). Empowering Parents and Protecting amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: Children in an Evolving Media Summary of the Notice of Inquiry Landscape PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION Introduction AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS AGENCY: Federal Communications The evolving electronic media 1. The authority citation for part 165 Commission. landscape presents parents with both continues to read as follows: ACTION: Notice of inquiry. tremendous opportunities and critical challenges. On the one hand, electronic Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. SUMMARY: This document seeks media technologies present many Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; comment on how to empower parents to benefits for children, such as offering an 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; help their children take advantage of the almost unlimited potential for Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department opportunities offered by evolving of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. educational avenues and providing the electronic media technologies while at technological literacy needed to 2. Revise § 165.814(a)(5) to read as the same time protecting children from compete in a global economy. On the follows: the risks inherent in use of these other hand, the technological technologies. It asks for comment about § 165.814 Security Zones; Captain of the developments that produce these the extent to which children are using Port Houston-Galveston Zone. benefits also present risks for children. electronic media today, the benefits and (a) ***** With this Notice of Inquiry (‘‘NOI’’), we risks this presents, and the ways in (5) Freeport, Texas. (i) The Dow Barge seek to develop a record that will help which parents, teachers, and children Canal, containing all waters of the Dow us answer the question of how to can help reap the benefits while Barge Canal north of a line drawn empower parents to help their children minimizing the risks of using these between 28°56.81′ N/095°18.33′ W and take advantage of these opportunities, technologies. It also asks about the 28°56.63′ N/095°18.54′ W (NAD 1983). while at the same time protecting effectiveness of media literacy efforts (ii) The Brazos Harbor, containing all children from the risks inherent in use and about how the Commission can waters west of a line drawn between of these platforms. 28°56.45′ N, 95°20.00′ W, and 28°56.15′ assist with efforts being made by other From television to mobile devices to N, 95°20.00′ W (NAD 1983) at its Federal agencies that are addressing the Internet, electronic media offer junction with the Old Brazos River. similar issues. children today avenues for education (iii) The Dow Chemical plant, DATES: Comments are due January 25, that their parents could never have containing all waters of the Brazos Point 2010; reply comments are due February envisioned. Using a television, a mobile Turning Basin within 100′ of the north 22, 2010. device, a computer, or other media shore and bounded on the east by the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For platform, children potentially can longitude line drawn through 28°56.58′ additional information on this access educational information on every N/095°18.64′ W and on the west by the proceeding, contact David Konczal, topic imaginable. The new media longitude line drawn through 28°56.64′ Media Bureau, Policy Division at (202) landscape is also participatory in N/095°19.13′ W (NAD 1983). 418–2228 or at [email protected], nature. In addition to passively viewing (iv) The Seaway Teppco Facility, Kim Matthews, Media Bureau, Policy or listening to educational content, containing all waters of the Brazos Port Division at (202) 418–2154 or at children are using new technologies, Turning Basin bounded on the south by [email protected], or Holly Saurer, such as social networking sites, to the shore, the north by the Federal Media Bureau, Policy Division at (202) interact with and learn from relatives, Channel, on the east by the longitude 418–7283 or at [email protected]. friends, and others located across the line running through 28°56.44′ N, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a globe. 95°18.83′ W and 28°56.48′ N 095°18.83′ summary of the Commission’s Notice of As children are exposed to new media W and on the West by the longitude line Inquiry (NOI), FCC 09–94, adopted on platforms, however, they may also be running through 28°56.12′ N, 95°19.27′ October 22, 2009, and released on exposed to content that is inappropriate
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:14 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP1.SGM 24NOP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 61309
or subjected to contact with individuals invited to ask and answer any other here. In doing so, we ask commenters to who may want to cause them harm. The questions that this NOI fails to raise discuss whether the Commission has same television, mobile device, which they believe would help inform the statutory authority to take any computer, or other media platform that our inquiry. proposed actions and whether those provides educational information may We then explore the many positive actions would be consistent with the also expose children to exploitative impacts on children that media use may First Amendment. In addressing the advertisements, offensive language, have. As discussed below, the benefits issues raised here, we urge commenters sexually explicit material, violent of electronic media for children include to consider the full range of electronic content, bullying, scams, or even child (i) accessing educational content; (ii) media platforms, including broadcast predators. Media convergence also acquiring technological literacy needed television and radio, multichannel presents new challenges for parents in to compete in a global economy; (iii) video programming distributors monitoring their children’s media developing new skills in the use of (‘‘MVPDs’’), audio devices, video games, consumption. The same content that is technology and the creation of content; wireless devices, nonnetworked blocked when a child attempts to view (iv) facilitating new forms of devices, and the Internet. it on a television may be available for communication with family and peers; Our goal with this NOI is to gather viewing on the Internet. Moreover, two (v) improving health through data and recommendations from decades ago, children’s media telemedicine; and (vi) removing barriers experts, industry, and parents that will consumption was limited to the home for children with disabilities. We seek enable us to identify actions that all environment; today, children can access comment on these benefits, whether stakeholders can take to enable parents the Internet and its unlimited content parents, teachers, and children are and children to navigate this promising options on their mobile devices outside aware of these benefits, and the extent electronic media landscape safely and the home where a parent is not present. to which educational content is offered successfully. In this regard, we solicit While indecency regulations apply to over the various electronic media information on how other nations have radio and television broadcasting, platforms. dealt with and are dealing with these subscription services have generally While we recognize that electronic issues. Commenters should provide data received different regulatory treatment, media technologies offer these potential on broadcast services, subscription requiring parents to take additional benefits to children, we also explore the video and other electronic media actions to protect children when using risks of harm that media use presents. platforms. We also note that we recently these services. In addition, children are As discussed below, these risks include issued a Report to Congress (the ‘‘CSVA now creators of content in a (i) exposure to exploitative advertising; Report’’) pursuant to the Child Safe participatory media environment, (ii) exposure to inappropriate content Viewing Act of 2007 that contains posting their thoughts on blogs and (such as offensive language, sexual relevant data and information for this sharing pictures or videos on Web sites content, violence, or hate speech); (iii) NOI. See Implementation of the Child or using mobile phones. Thus, children impact on health (for example, Safe Viewing Act: Examination of today are at risk of sharing private childhood obesity, tobacco use, sexual Parental Control Technologies for Video information that may be embarrassing or behavior, or drug and alcohol use); (iv) or Audio Programming, MB Docket No. may even expose them to harm. impact on behavior (in particular, 09–26, Report, FCC 09–69 (rel. Aug. 31, Some parents are aware of the wide exposure to violence leading to 2009). (‘‘CSVA Report’’). In the CSVA range of electronic media technologies aggressive behavior); (v) harassment and Report, we assessed the current state of available today but are confused about bullying; (vi) sexual predation; (vii) the marketplace with respect to the fraud and scams; (viii) failure to how to ensure that their children benefit existence and availability of advanced distinguish between who can and who from these technologies while avoiding blocking technologies, methods of cannot be trusted when sharing the inherent risks. Other parents may be encouraging the development, information; and (ix) compromised unaware of the benefits and risks of deployment, and use of such privacy. We seek comment on these electronic media technologies, leaving technologies, and the existence, risks, whether parents, teachers, and their children in danger of being left availability, and use of parental children are aware of them, and what behind in the digital revolution or left empowerment tools and initiatives unsupervised as they navigate this can be done to protect children from already in the market. This NOI picks challenging media landscape. them. up where the CSVA Report left off, and Through this NOI, we seek Some experts believe that greater information on the extent to which media literacy for parents, teachers, and we urge commenters to read the CSVA children are using electronic media children is critical to enabling children Report before filing comments in this today, the benefits and risks these to enjoy the benefits of electronic media proceeding. In addition, we will technologies bring for children, and the while minimizing the potential harms. incorporate the comments filed in the ways in which parents, teachers, and We are particularly interested in CSVA proceeding by reference into the children can help reap the benefits learning more about the effectiveness of record on this NOI. while minimizing the risks. We start by media literacy and what can be done to Issues for Comment reviewing the current children’s media increase media literacy among parents, landscape, including the extent to teachers, and children. We explore Children’s Media Use which children use various kinds of those issues below. Children today live in a media electronic media and the potential In conducting this inquiry, we environment that is dramatically impact on children from media use. We recognize that other Federal agencies are different from the one in which their acknowledge that a wealth of academic addressing some of the same issues, at parents and grandparents grew up research and studies exists on these least with respect to online safety. We decades ago. The advent of cable and issues. As discussed below, we ask seek comment on what the Commission satellite television, accompanied by the commenters to identify additional data can do to assist these efforts. We also transition to digital technology, has and important studies, whether invite commenters to suggest new dramatically increased the number of concluded or ongoing, beyond those actions that the Commission or industry television channels available in most discussed here. Commenters are also can take to address the issues posed homes. Studies examining the media
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:14 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP1.SGM 24NOP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS 61310 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules
habits of American children children actually used media. We seek Benefits of Electronic Media for demonstrate that children have access to comment on how these viewing habits Children a wide array of electronic media may have changed in the past several Electronic media offer numerous technologies. For instance, a study using years. We also seek comment on the benefits for children. As discussed 2004 data indicates that almost all extent to which the rise of media below in more detail, among these households with children ages 8 to 18 multitasking by children—their use of benefits are (i) access to educational had a television set, video player, radio, more than one kind of electronic media content; (ii) acquiring technological and audio player. In fact, a Kaiser simultaneously—may be increasing literacy needed to compete in a global Family Foundation study found that in their total exposure to media content. economy; (iii) developing new skills in The rise in Internet use by children 2004 the typical American child of that the use of technology and the creation plays a significant role in their exposure age was likely to live in a home with of content; (iv) facilitating new forms of three televisions, three video cassette to more forms of media. For instance, according to a Pew study analyzing data communication with family and peers; recorders (‘‘VCRs’’), three radios, three (v) improving health through CD/tape players, two video game from 2006, 93 percent of American children ages 12 to 17 accessed the telemedicine; and (vi) removing barriers consoles, and a personal computer with for children with disabilities. We seek an Internet connection. Data from 2005 Internet. The number of applications children are using online are increasing further information on the benefits that indicates that this ubiquity even electronic media offer for children, what extended to households with children as well: children are now heavily involved on social networking sites, actions can be taken to ensure that six years and younger, 78 percent of parents, teachers, and children are whom had personal computers, and 50 share videos on sites such as YouTube and GoogleVideo, and share artwork, aware of these benefits, and the extent percent of whom had a video game to which educational content is offered player. According to a recent study by photos, stories, and videos online. We seek comment on whether these trends over the various electronic media the Pew Internet & American Life platforms. Project (‘‘Pew’’), 71 percent of children have increased and whether children ages 12 to 17 owned cell phones in 2008 have begun using other new forms of Key Benefits and 74 percent owned an iPod or other media over the past several years. We ask commenters to identify Substantial evidence indicates that MP3 player. The study also found that one significant benefit of media for more than 70 percent of 12- and 13-year- additional data and studies on children’s media use beyond those that children is helping children to learn. olds owned a portable gaming device in Research on educational television 2008—more than the percentage that we have discussed. Are there additional relevant studies describing which media programs for children demonstrates that owned a cell phone among that age programs designed with a specific goal group. We therefore seek information platforms children are using most frequently? Are there studies analyzing to teach academic or social skills can be about whether these trends continue to trends in children’s media consumption effective, with potentially long-lasting hold true, and ways in which they may (for example, how does the amount of effects. A number of studies have have changed. time children spend texting and using concluded that preschoolers who Studies also demonstrate that the social networking sites compare to viewed Sesame Street had higher levels pervasive presence of media in the lives television viewing, and how has this of school readiness than those who did of children has led to children spending changed over time)? Are there studies not. Evidence also shows that children significant time using some form of describing where children use media who were regular viewers of the media, and often using two or more (inside the home in the presence of a educational program Blue’s Clues kinds of media simultaneously. One parent or outside the home)? In what showed improved problem-solving study found that five years ago, in 2004, ways does media consumption vary skills. Research on educational children ages 8 to 18 already were depending on a child’s age? Are there interactive media software and digital reporting an average of five hours and studies concerning what kinds of games suggests they may have similar 48 minutes of daily electronic media content are most commonly accessed by positive results. There is also evidence use, while, in 2005, children six years children, and if so, what do such studies that mobile media, such as cell phones and younger averaged two hours and conclude? and iPods, can be useful in enabling a twenty four minutes of daily exposure We also seek comment on whether personalized learning experience for to electronic media. Further, a Kaiser there are classes of children who do not children, encouraging children to learn Family Foundation study analyzing have access to new digital media outside of school, and reaching 2004 data concluded that 8- to 18-year- platforms. Does access vary depending underserved children. olds watched on average just over three on race, ethnicity, geography, parental Children with digital media skills are hours of television each day and nearly income, or disability? Does access also likely to be better positioned to four hours when videos, DVDs, and pre- depend on the educational level of a compete in today’s workplace. As a recorded shows were included. The child’s parents? What studies have been greater number of workplaces same study found that 12- to 13-year- done on these issues? What can incorporate computers and the Internet olds spent about 13⁄4 hours each day government or industry do to ensure into everyday work activities, the ability listening to music (including radio, CDs, that all children have access to digital of young people to use these tools tapes, or MP3 players), one hour each media? becomes critical to ensuring the day on the computer (not including We invite commenters’ views on availability of job opportunities. One schoolwork), and just under 50 minutes which studies are most reliable, what study has suggested that teaching at-risk each day playing video games. The gaps exist in the research, and where the youth marketable skills such as word study also concluded that one quarter of Commission could contribute by processing, Web design, desktop the time that 8- to 18-year-olds used commissioning further studies. In publishing, or video production can media, they used two or more media at particular, we ask commenters to help them find jobs and resume their the same time. Thus, the amount of identify whether the studies cited education. media content to which children were account for the newest media For older children and youth, new exposed exceeded the number of hours technologies. forms of media have opened up new
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:14 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP1.SGM 24NOP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 61311
ways of communicating with peers and engaged with their children’s media use, for children on broadcast television. We family. Cell phones, text messaging, and may be unfamiliar with the potential note that a 2008 Children Now study social networking sites, for example, benefits of media use, or may not be concluded that, while stations are have become important means by which technically competent to assist their generally meeting the three-hour-per- many youths communicate with peers children with electronic media. What week core programming benchmark, and parents. Studies have suggested that efforts can be taken to ensure that all most core programs focus on social- these communication tools are used by children receive the benefits of emotional lessons for children rather adolescents primarily to reinforce electronic media? What efforts have than cognitive-intellectual topics, such existing relationships and can have a been made and should be made to as physical science, history, or cognitive positive impact on their social educate parents and teachers about how skills, and that relatively few core connections. to harness the benefits of electronic programs are ‘‘highly educational.’’ We There is also evidence that media media for children? ask commenters to describe the quality tools can improve children’s health. of core programming provided by Educational Content One study has noted that a variety of commercial television licensees today. media solutions are being used today to Electronic media can be used to Is there a sufficient amount of cognitive/ promote better health outcomes for provide educational content for intellectual children’s programming children, including the development of children, but it is unclear how much available today? Would children benefit interactive games and social networking educational content is being offered from more cognitive/intellectual programs to help children understand today across electronic media platforms. programming? We also ask commenters and self-manage chronic conditions. We invite comment on this issue. Is to describe the quality of core Another study found that media tools there enough educational content for programming provided on broadcasters’ can provide a resource for children to children available on electronic media multicast streams, as well as what steps help them learn about important health today? Do sufficient marketplace broadcasters take to promote that topics, including nutrition, and to incentives exist to create educational programming. What are the economics influence healthy behavior. content for children, or is governmental of providing educational content? What Evidence also suggests that media or industry action needed to increase is the audience size for this technology can help those with incentives? Is there educational content programming? Should the Commission disabilities by, for example, assisting available for children with particular consider an approach that would permit those with vision impairments to read, needs, including, for example, children commercial entities to fund the creation providing on-screen translations to the whose first language is not English? Is of educational content to be provided by hearing-impaired, and enabling the there adequate content available for others, such as PBS. How would such a physically impaired to work or take care children of different ages? regime be implemented and enforced? of themselves at home. To the extent there is educational or We seek comment on the benefits other beneficial content available for Risks of Electronic Media for Children identified above as well as other children today, what means do parents, While electronic media offer potential gains from children’s media teachers, and children have to select or numerous benefits for children, they use. What do child psychologists, ‘‘white list’’ this content? In the CSVA also present risks. As discussed below, educators, and academics know today Report, we discussed a number of among these risks are (i) exposure to about the favorable effects of media on technologies currently available that exploitative advertising; (ii) exposure to children? Do the benefits to children permit parents or others to select or inappropriate content (such as offensive vary depending on the child’s age, ‘‘white list’’ content, including tools for language, sexual content, violence, or socio-economic class, or other factors the Internet, cell phones, and television. hate speech); (iii) impact on health (for such as disability? Are there studies See CSVA Report at paragraphs 36–38, example, childhood obesity, tobacco other than the ones cited above that are 65, 71, 99, 150. Are there examples of use, sexual behavior, or drug and important to consider with respect to tools that allow parents to find and alcohol use); (iv) impact on behavior (in the benefits of electronic media for select educational content available on particular, exposure to violence leading children? Among the studies that have particular media that stand out as best to aggressive behavior); (v) harassment been conducted, which are most reliable practices? Could any such best practices and bullying; (vi) sexual predation; (vii) or most widely recognized as providing be extended to other media? fraud and scams; (viii) failure to important information on this issue? Do To the extent commenters believe distinguish between who can and who these studies account for the newest there is an insufficient amount of cannot be trusted when sharing media technologies? Are there educational or other beneficial content information; and (ix) compromised significant gaps in the understanding of available for children today, we invite privacy. We seek further information on the benefits of electronic media to comment on what steps the government the risks that the evolving electronic children that should be filled by further or industry could take to promote the media landscape presents for children, studies? If so, what studies should be development and availability of this whether parents, teachers, and children done and what role should the content. Are there any partnerships are aware of these risks, and what can Commission play in facilitating further between commercial entities and public be done to protect children from them. learning about these benefits? or noncommercial entities that enable Electronic media are most likely to the creation of educational content? We Potential Risks benefit children if parents, teachers, and note that the Children’s Television Act One significant concern with children are aware of the possible (‘‘CTA’’) is one example of government children’s exposure to media is the benefits. We seek further information action to promote the availability of harms that may arise from advertising about the level of awareness among educational content on one type of specifically directed to children and parents, teachers, and children of the medium—broadcast television. We used to influence children’s benefits of electronic media. While invite comment on whether the consumption of products. Some of these some parents make efforts to ensure that Commission’s rules implementing the products may be unhealthy food that their children are exposed to beneficial CTA have been effective in promoting can promote obesity. In addition, there media, other parents may not be the availability of educational content is some evidence that younger children
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:14 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP1.SGM 24NOP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS 61312 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules
often do not understand the persuasive recipients are between 14 and 17 years Impact of Advertisements on Children intent of advertisements, and even older of age. Research has also found that Exposure to excessive and children may have difficulty most sexual solicitors of children online exploitative advertisements is a understanding the intent of newer are other adolescents rather than adults. significant risk children face from marketing techniques, such as The percentage of youths who receive electronic media. Advertisements of interactive, embedded, viral, and sexual solicitations online has declined particular concern for children include: behavioral advertising that blur the line in recent years, however, and research (i) Those that promote products between commercial and program has suggested that online harassment or specifically to children; (ii) those that content. cyberbullying of children may pose a promote unhealthy food, thereby There is also concern about children’s more common threat. Although studies contributing to childhood obesity, and exposure to media content that may be differ widely in the number of (iii) those that contain inappropriate inappropriate, such as offensive adolescents that report being victimized content, such as offensive language, language, obscenity, indecency, by the use of the Internet, text messages, sexual content, and violence. While we profanity, or other content that is or e-mail to embarrass or threaten them, discuss below the means parents have to unsuitable for minors, as well as one study conducted in 2005 found that protect children from the risks of concern about exposure to content that more than 70 percent of teens had been electronic media use, those means might could influence children to engage in harassed in the previous year. Concerns be less useful in protecting children behaviors that pose risks to their health. have been expressed also about the from advertisements. For example, For example, studies have indicated that potential infringement of privacy and household media rules are unlikely to heavy exposure of children to violent potential exploitation of children be effective in protecting children from media content may increase the online, ranging from concerns about inappropriate advertisements, because likelihood of future aggressive and children posting personal information parents are usually not aware of the violent behavior, and that youth online to concerns about commercial exposed to smoking in media are more organizations targeting children through content of a particular advertisement susceptible to viewing smoking such practices as ‘‘data-mining.’’ One before a child sees it. Similarly, parental favorably and to becoming smokers. study has concluded that 46 percent of control technologies generally block Studies have also noted a link between children have disclosed personal entire programs or Web sites rather than exposure of adolescents to sexual information to someone they met specific commercials contained within content on television and early sexual online. otherwise acceptable content for behavior, and have found that exposure We seek comment on these and other children. to alcohol advertising and to electronic possible risks we have not identified. What do child psychologists, media that portray alcohol use increases What are the chief harms that can befall educators, and academics know about adolescents’ alcohol use. One study has children from using electronic media, the effects of advertisements on concluded that children who spend and how serious are they? What do children? In what ways do these effects more time playing video games are more child psychologists, educators, and vary based on a child’s age, socio- likely to get into physical fights and be academics know today about the risks of economic class, or other factors? Among ‘‘physically heavier.’’ In addition, as media exposure to children? Is there a the studies that have been conducted, noted above, the growing epidemic of consensus about the most significant which ones are most reliable or most childhood obesity has focused attention risks? Are there certain risks that are widely recognized as providing on the possible role of media use and just as likely to be present even when important information on this issue? Do food advertising in influencing children are not using electronic media? these studies consider advertisements children’s body weight and eating Do the risks vary depending on the carried on newer media technologies, behaviors. While many studies conclude child’s age, socio-economic class, or such as the Internet and mobile devices? that exposure to particular kinds of other factors? Are there studies other Do advertisements for beneficial media content can pose a risk to than the ones cited above that are products, such as nutritious foods, children, there is also some evidence important to consider with respect to produce positive effects for children? that too much time spent with the risks electronic media pose to Are there significant gaps in the electronic media in general can be children? Among the studies that have understanding of the effects of harmful to children’s health. been conducted, which ones are more advertisements on children that should The increased use of the Internet by reliable or more widely recognized as be filled by further studies? If so, what children, including the increased use of providing important information on this studies should be done and what role social networking sites, creates new issue? Do these studies account for the should the Commission play in risks to minors online, including the newest media technologies? Are there facilitating further learning about these danger of sexual solicitation, exposure important gaps in the understanding of risks? to online harassment and bullying, the risks of electronic media to children New digital media also make possible frauds and scams, and compromised that should be filled by further studies? new forms of advertising that warrant privacy. One study has concluded, If so, what studies should be done and scrutiny into how they impact children. however, that the risks minors face what role should the Commission play As discussed above, these forms of online, including harassment, bullying, in facilitating further learning about advertising include interactive and sexual solicitation, ‘‘are not these risks? advertisements, including advergames, radically different in nature or scope In addition, the level of awareness of and embedded advertisements, as well than the risks minors have long faced these risks among parents, teachers, and as behavioral and viral advertising offline, and minors who are most at risk children is unclear. We seek to learn campaigns. To what extent are children in the offline world continue to be most more about how aware parents, subjected to these new forms of at risk online.’’ With respect to online teachers, and children are of the risks of advertising, including when using the sexual solicitation of minors, research electronic media exposure. What efforts Internet and mobile devices? What do has indicated that approximately 13 have been made and should be made to child psychologists, educators, and percent of youths have received sexual educate parents, teachers, and children academics know about the effects of solicitations online, and most of these about these risks? these new forms of advertising on
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:14 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP1.SGM 24NOP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 61313
children? Can they have a positive and academics. The Task Force met in produced for children age 12 and impact if the advertisement is for an effort to examine the impact of media younger must be counted as commercial something beneficial, such as nutritious on childhood obesity and to explore time. Has this rule limited the exposure food? We note that there are pending voluntary recommendations to address of young children to inappropriate NPRMs on interactive and embedded the phenomenon. In addition, the Better promotional materials during children’s advertising in television. See Children’s Business Bureau has created the television programming? Television Obligations of Digital Children’s Food and Beverage Protecting Children From the Risks Television Broadcasters, Report and Advertising Initiative to provide food Order and Further Notice of Proposed and beverage advertisers with a self- Through household media rules and Rulemaking, 19 FCC Rcd 22943, 22967 regulation mechanism for parental control tools, parents have (2004) (‘‘2004 Order and FNPRM’’); advertisements aimed at children. The some ability today to protect children Sponsorship Identification Rules and Initiative is aimed at ‘‘shifting the mix from the risks of electronic media use. Embedded Advertising, Notice of of advertising messaging directed to As discussed below, we seek comment Inquiry and Notice of Proposed Rule children under 12 to encourage on the level of awareness among parents Making, 23 FCC Rcd 10682 (2008). healthier dietary choices and healthy of these protections and how effective Parties wishing to update the record on lifestyles.’’ Have these voluntary efforts these tools have been in combating risks the issues of interactive television and to curtail advertising of unhealthy food posed by media consumption. We embedded advertising in broadcasting to children proven effective? Do these recognize that these issues may not be and cable programming may file ex commitments extend beyond television resolved solely by technology solutions. parte submissions in those proceedings. to other media platforms, such as the Accordingly, we also seek comment on The CTA is an example of a Internet and mobile devices? Are non-technological solutions that will governmental action to ensure that one additional actions needed to address help protect children. In assessing these type of medium—television—limits the these concerns? protections, we urge commenters to amount of advertising viewed by consider the impact of media We invite comment also on the extent children. Specifically, as implemented convergence. While media convergence to which parents are concerned about by the Commission, the CTA requires has many benefits, it may also make it exposure of children to inappropriate commercial television licensees, cable more difficult for parents to protect their content within advertisements on operators, and DBS providers to limit children from the risks of media various media, such as offensive the amount of commercial matter that exposure. For example, content that may be aired during children’s language, sexual content, and violence. parents may block via the V-chip on the television programs to not more than To what extent are commercials home television set, such as a program 10.5 minutes per hour on weekends and containing inappropriate content aired that is rated TV–14, may be freely not more than 12 minutes per hour on during children’s television accessible to their children on the weekdays. In addition, the Commission programming or during general Internet. Moreover, while indecency requires broadcasters to use separations audience programming that may be regulations apply to radio and television or ‘‘bumpers’’ between programming viewed by children, such as sports broadcasting, subscription services have and commercials to assist children in programming? Is it feasible to block generally received different regulatory distinguishing between advertisements advertisements that may be treatment, requiring parents to take and program content. We invite inappropriate for children on various additional actions to protect children information about the effectiveness of media platforms? What are the costs and when using these services. In addition, these rules in limiting commercial benefits? What likely economic impact children can now access television material viewed by children on would this have on advertiser-supported programming and the Internet on their television and how they might be media? If the benefits outweigh the mobile devices outside the home, where improved. costs, what actions could government or no parent is present. How does the The CTA’s commercial limits apply industry take to ensure that children are mobile nature of media today affect the only to broadcast, cable, and satellite not exposed to inappropriate content? ability of parents to monitor their television. To what extent are children What incentives could the government children’s media consumption? What exposed to excessive and exploitative provide to encourage age-appropriate strategies have parents used to monitor advertisements on media other than advertising practices? One concern their children’s media exposure outside television? What actions, if any, should raised previously is the airing during of the home? Have these strategies been government take to create incentives to children’s television programming of effective? Is there more that government limit the exposure of children to promotions for upcoming television or industry should do to keep pace with advertisements and to promote programs that may themselves contain this convergence and increase parents’ associated policies, such as the inappropriate content. We note that the ability to control the content to which separations policy, on these other Commission’s definition of ‘‘commercial their children are exposed? How can or media? Are there examples of voluntary matter’’ for purposes of the commercial should current laws be updated to industry efforts to limit the exposure of time limits may discourage the airing of reflect this convergence and to keep children to advertisements on these these inappropriate promotional pace with changes in technology? other media? Have these efforts been materials. Specifically, the definition of We also note that household media successful? ‘‘commercial matter’’ includes all rules and parental control technologies The role of advertising in the spread promotions of television programs or require parental involvement in their of childhood obesity also warrants video programming services other than children’s media use. Some parents, further study. The Commission has ‘‘children’s or other age-appropriate however, may be unaware of the risks participated in the Task Force on Media programming appearing on the same from electronic media use or choose not and Childhood Obesity, which included channel or promotions for children’s to be engaged in their children’s media representatives from the media, educational and informational use. Because household media rules and advertising, food, and beverage programming on any channel.’’ parental control tools will not protect industries, along with consumer Accordingly, nonexempted promotional children of these parents, they face advocacy groups, healthcare experts, materials aired during programming increased risk of harm in the digital
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:14 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP1.SGM 24NOP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS 61314 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules
world. We invite comment on what can these issues in order to increase our complaints about ratings, be helpful in or should government or industry do to understanding of how parental control addressing such doubts? protect these children from that harm. Is technologies can best be used to protect Ease of Use. We seek comment on teaching media literacy to children in children in an evolving electronic media what, if any, features of specific parental schools starting at a young age, as marketplace. control technologies parents find easy to discussed further below, the best way to Level of Consumer Awareness of the use and helpful, and what features they protect these children? In addition, as Tools. We seek comment on the extent find confusing and difficult to use. We children grow older, they may become to which parents are aware of specific seek comment on whether and, if so, more media savvy than their parents parental control technologies across all how these technologies could be and may be able to circumvent controls media platforms. To what extent does improved to make them easier for put in place by their parents. What the level of awareness differ among parents to use. options are there to protect these media? What additional promotional Familiarity With and Understanding children from the risks of exposure to and educational efforts would be of the Ratings System. We seek electronic media? effective in increasing awareness of comment on whether parents are familiar with and understand the Household Media Rules these parental control technologies? In the CSVA Report, we noted that various ratings systems currently in use One means for protecting children estimates of awareness of the V-chip and the way content is evaluated for from the risks of electronic media among parents vary from 49 percent to blocking and other purposes in consumption is for parents to establish 69 percent. We seek comment on what conjunction with specific parental rules governing their children’s media actions, if any, should Congress, the control technologies. To the extent the use (‘‘household media rules’’). What Commission, or industry take to level of familiarity or understanding is studies describe the extent to which low, we seek comment on whether that increase awareness of the V-chip as a parents have established and lack of familiarity or understanding is tool to protect children from implemented household media rules? impeding use of particular parental inappropriate content on broadcast Have these strategies been successful in control technologies. We also seek television. Would a joint effort between protecting children? How can comment on whether and, if so, what the Commission and industry similar to household media rules protect children steps can be taken to increase familiarity that undertaken in connection with the when they are using technologies and understanding of the various ratings DTV transition be effective in outside the home, such as mobile systems. Are there studies or data from familiarizing parents with the available devices? Are different strategies other countries that have ratings tools? If so, how should such an required for newer media, such as systems or other parental control texting and social networking sites, than outreach program be most effectively technologies? In the CSVA Report, we for more traditional media, such as structured? noted studies indicating that many television? Are there particular rules or Pace of Adoption. We seek comment parents do not understand the existing strategies that can serve as best practices on the extent to which parents are TV Parental Guidelines used in for particular media or across media? adopting specific parental control conjunction with the V-chip. We seek Are there resources for parents to learn technologies. To the extent that the comment on ways to increase more about establishing and adoption rate is low, what reasons, if understanding of the TV Parental implementing household media rules? any, besides lack of awareness keep Guidelines. Would the creation of a parents from adopting parental control uniform rating system that would apply Technology and Parental Control Tools technologies, and to what extent do to various platforms be an appropriate Another way to protect children from these reasons differ among media? For objective? If so, how should such a the risks of electronic media example, in the CSVA Report, we noted system be structured and administered? consumption is through the use of that adoption of control technologies Pace of Innovation. We seek comment parental control technologies. In the may be greater for the Internet than for on the pace of innovation with respect CSVA Report, we identified a wide broadcasting and other traditional to parental control technologies. Is range of parental control tools that exist media. We invite comment on the innovation in parental control and are available today with respect to reasons for this difference in adoption technologies proceeding at a pace over-the-air television, cable and rates. We also seek comment on whether consistent with other consumer satellite television, audio-only and, if so, what actions could be taken technologies (e.g., computers, mobile programming, wireless services, non- to increase adoption of parental control phones and broadband devices)? We networked devices such as DVD players, technologies. In the CSVA Report, we also seek comment on whether video games, and the Internet. We found noted that estimates of V-chip adoption innovation in parental control that the record in that proceeding vary from 5 percent to 16 percent of technologies is proceeding at a pace that indicated that no single parental control parents. We seek comment on what ensures that new parental control technology available today works across actions, if any, Congress, the features and devices are being all media platforms. Moreover, even Commission, or industry should take to developed at a rate that meets evolving within each media platform, we found increase adoption of the V-chip. In this parental and caregiver needs. What is that the available technologies vary regard, we seek data and information driving innovation in parental control greatly with respect to certain criteria. about whether parents have doubts technologies—is it the force of parental Generally, we identified five areas for about the reliable application of the concerns, or is it simply the pace of further study with respect to parental existing ‘‘TV Parental Guidelines’’ innovation in media technologies control tools across media platforms: (i) industry rating system by programmers themselves? In the CSVA Report, we Level of consumer awareness of such or other responsible entities and, if so, noted a number of areas for further tools; (ii) pace of adoption; (iii) ease of whether those doubts affect parents’ study regarding innovation with respect use; (iv) familiarity with and interest in using V-chip technology. to V-chip technology. Can the V-chip be understanding of ratings systems; and Would improvements in the operation used to select or ‘‘white list’’ television (v) pace of innovation. As discussed and visibility of the industry’s Oversight programs identified as ‘‘core’’ below, we seek comment on each of Monitoring Board, which fields educational programs? How feasible
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:14 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP1.SGM 24NOP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 61315
would it be to add this function to the media literacy education in schools and the Commission in particular, seek V-chip and what would be the costs and particularly critical for those at-risk to establish an on-line resource? If so, benefits of doing so? Can the current V- children whose parents are either how can the Commission best promote chip technology support an ‘‘open V- unaware of the benefits and harms of this resource so that parents and chip’’ that would allow parents to select media consumption or choose not to children are aware of it? Are there other from multiple ratings systems? Is further become involved in monitoring their governmental or private organizations investment in the V-chip warranted, children’s media use? At what age that are working on or have already given the relatively low use of the V- should children begin to be taught prepared such on-line resources? Are chip and the increasing number of media literacy? Is it critical for such they comprehensive? Do they cover the alternative parental control tools education to begin early in a child’s latest technologies? available to pay TV subscribers? What development? What roles do the steps, if any, should Congress, the Department of Education and other Other Outreach Commission, or industry take to give government or private organizations We seek comment on other efforts that parents access to multiple content play in this area? Are there studies or would be effective in promoting media ratings for television in addition to data on the effectiveness of media literacy among parents, teachers, and ratings assigned by content producers? literacy education and which children. Some examples of these efforts approaches work best for particular might include promotional campaigns, Media Literacy demographics? What are current best outreach, and public service Some experts view increased media practices on teaching media literacy? announcements (‘‘PSAs’’). What literacy and education for parents, Are there limitations on the value of contribution could these efforts make teachers, and children as a key way to teaching media literacy to children? For toward promoting media literacy? enable children to enjoy the benefits of example, are there certain issues, such Coordinating Government Efforts electronic media while avoiding the as the ability to understand persuasive potential harms. We seek comment on intent in advertising, that children We recognize that other governmental how great a role media literacy can play under a certain age lack the cognitive activities are underway that address one in this respect and what actions can be ability to comprehend? We also note or more of the issues raised here. For taken to promote media literacy. that schools are responsible for example, in the Broadband Data Improvement Act, Congress directed the Is There a Minimum Necessary Level of students’ media consumption while National Telecommunications and Media Literacy? they are in school. How do schools determine whether to use media literacy Information Administration (‘‘NTIA’’) to We seek comment on whether there is and/or control tools to protect children establish the Online Safety and a minimum level of media literacy that while consuming media in schools? Technology Working Group (‘‘OSTWG’’) parents, teachers, and children must What factors do schools consider in to examine, among others things, have to ensure that children can determining what is appropriate industry efforts to promote online safety participate effectively in modern society material for children to access? To what through educational efforts, parental and enjoy the benefits of electronic extent are schools blocking content that control technology, and blocking and media while avoiding the potential might be beneficial for children? Are filtering software. See Broadband Data harms. By way of example, some of the there any studies or data available on Improvement Act, Public Law 110–385, necessary elements of media literacy the impact on long-range educational section 214(b), 122 Stat. 4096, 4104 might include knowledge of: (i) The and/or career opportunities from (2008). Specifically, OSTWG is charged various types of electronic media; (ii) limiting children’s access to online with reviewing and evaluating the the benefits of the electronic media resources? Is there anything that can following issues: landscape; (iii) how to access beneficial and should be done to assist teachers (1) The status of industry efforts to content; (iv) the risks of the electronic and schools in managing students’ promote online safety through media landscape; (v) how to avoid these media consumption and promoting educational efforts, parental control risks (for parents, this may include students’ media literacy while they are technology, blocking and filtering household media rules and use of in school? How are parents and teachers software, age-appropriate labels for parental control technologies; for taught media literacy? Are there content or other technologies or children, this may include the critical examples of media literacy programs initiatives designed to promote a safe thinking skills needed to make smart that could serve as a model for teaching online environment for children; choices); (vi) how to distinguish parents and teachers? What role could (2) The status of industry efforts to between program content and or should the government, and the promote online safety among providers advertising; and (vii) the privacy Commission in particular, play in of electronic communications services implications of using various media. ensuring that children, educators, and and remote computing services by Are all of these elements necessary to a parents receive appropriate media reporting apparent child pornography minimal level of media literacy? Are literacy training? What role should the under section 13032 of title 42, United there additional necessary elements? media industry play in this area? States Code, including any obstacles to Are there studies of what parents, such reporting; Resources on Media Literacy teachers, and children must know to be (3) The practices of electronic sufficiently media literate? While there is a significant amount of communications service providers and information on media literacy available remote computing service providers Teaching Media Literacy to All today, it is unclear whether parents, related to record retention in connection Stakeholders teachers, and children are aware of this with crimes against children; and We seek comment on the availability information or whether they can find (4) The development of technologies and sufficiency of media literacy this information easily. Is there a single to help parents shield their children training for parents, teachers, and source today that pulls together existing from inappropriate material on the children. To what extent is media information about media literacy? What Internet. literacy a required part of school are the available sources of such See id. The same law requires the curricula throughout the nation? Is information? Should the government, Federal Trade Commission (‘‘FTC’’) to
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:14 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP1.SGM 24NOP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS 61316 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules
carry out a nationwide program to commenters, in proposing any action, to the Commission’s Secretary, Office of increase public awareness and provide discuss the source and extent of the the Secretary, Federal Communications education about strategies to promote Commission’s authority to take the Commission. the safe use of the Internet by children, action, or whether new legislation • The Commission’s contractor will including encouraging best practices for would be needed to authorize such receive hand-delivered or messenger- Internet safety. The Adam Walsh Child action. In addition, as discussed above, delivered paper filings for the Protection and Safety Act of 2006 commenters should discuss the Commission’s Secretary at 236 authorizes the Attorney General, in compatibility of any proposed action Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, consultation with the National Center with the First Amendment. Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours for Missing and Exploited Children, to Procedural Matters at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All carry out a public awareness campaign hand deliveries must be held together to demonstrate to children, parents, and Ex Parte Presentations with rubber bands or fasteners. Any community leaders how to protect This is an exempt proceeding in envelopes must be disposed of before children better on the Internet. The which ex parte presentations are entering the building. same law directs the Attorney General permitted (except during the Sunshine • Commercial overnight mail (other to make grants to States, units of local Agenda period) and need not be than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail government, and nonprofit disclosed. and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 organizations to establish programs for Comment Filing Procedures East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, educating children and parents in the MD 20743. best ways for children to be safe when Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 • U.S. Postal Service first-class, on the Internet. Pursuant to the of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR Express, and Priority mail should be Children’s Online Privacy Protection sections 1.415, 1.419, interested parties addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Act, the FTC has adopted rules may file comments and reply comments Washington, DC 20554. detailing, among other things, the on or before the dates indicated on the responsibilities of Web site operators first page of this document. Comments People With Disabilities: To request that seek to collect information from may be filed using: (1) The materials in accessible formats for children under the age of 13. Commission’s Electronic Comment people with disabilities (braille, large The Commission recently partnered Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal print, electronic files, audio format), with OnGuard Online, a partnership Government’s eRulemaking Portal, or send an e-mail to [email protected] or call with 11 Federal agencies and 17 groups (3) by filing paper copies. the Consumer & Governmental Affairs concerned with safety, hosted by the • Electronic Filers: Comments may be Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202– FTC, which provides practical tips ‘‘to filed electronically using the Internet by 418–0432 (tty). help you be on guard against Internet accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/ Comments and reply comments will fraud, secure your computer, and cgb/ecfs/ or the Federal eRulemaking be available for public inspection during protect your personal information.’’ Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. regular business hours in the FCC OnGuard Online provides educational Filers should follow the instructions Reference Center, Federal material, videos, and games on a wide provided on the Web site for submitting Communications Commission, 445 12th range of subjects including e-mail comments. Street, SW., CY–A257, Washington, DC scams, identity theft, kids privacy, • In completing the transmittal 20554. These documents will also be social networking sites, spyware, and screen, filers should include their full available via ECFS. Documents will be phishing. Much of the material can be name, U.S. Postal Service mailing available electronically in ASCII, Word downloaded, printed, embedded in address, and the applicable docket or 97, and/or Adobe Acrobat. third party Web sites, and otherwise rulemaking number. Parties may also Additional Information. For widely used and distributed. The submit an electronic comment by additional information on this Commission looks forward to Internet e-mail. To get filing proceeding, contact David Konczal, participating in and contributing to instructions, filers should send an [email protected]; Kim Matthews, OnGuard Online. e-mail to [email protected], and include the [email protected]; or Holly Saurer, We seek comment on any additional following words in the body of the [email protected]; of the Media efforts underway, at either the Federal message, ‘‘get form.’’ A sample form and Bureau, Policy Division, (202) 418– or State level, that address the issues directions will be sent in response. 2120. raised in this NOI. What can the • Paper Filers: Parties who choose to Commission do to assist these existing file by paper must file an original and Ordering Clauses governmental efforts? Are there areas four copies of each filing. If more than Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to that the government is not currently one docket or rulemaking number the authority contained in Sections 1, addressing that the Commission should appears in the caption of this 4(i) and (j), 303(r), and 403 of the address? Which of the ongoing proceeding, filers must submit two Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. governmental activities encompass additional copies for each additional sections 151, 154(i) and (j), 303(r), and media platforms other than online docket or rulemaking number. 403, that this Notice of Inquiry is media, including television, radio, Filings can be sent by hand or adopted. audio devices, and video games? messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or Marlene H. Dortch, Legal Authority overnight U.S. Postal Service mail Secretary, Federal Communications We note that the Commission has (although we continue to experience Commission. varying degrees of statutory authority delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service [FR Doc. E9–27664 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] with respect to different media. We ask mail). All filings must be addressed to BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:14 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP1.SGM 24NOP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS 61317
Notices Federal Register Vol. 74, No. 225
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER Independence Avenue, SW., STOP The forms covered under this contains documents other than rules or 0237, room 1406–S, Washington, DC information collection require the proposed rules that are applicable to the 20250–0237; telephone (202) 720–2491; minimum information necessary to public. Notices of hearings and investigations, Fax (202) 720–8938, or E-mail: effectively carry out the requirements of committee meetings, agency decisions and [email protected]. the order, and their use is necessary to rulings, delegations of authority, filing of fulfill the intent of the AMAA as petitions and applications and agency SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: statements of organization and functions are expressed in the order, and the rules Title: Data Collection Requirements and regulations issued under the order. examples of documents appearing in this Applicable to Cranberries Not Subject to section. The information collected is used the Cranberry Marketing Order, 7 CFR only by authorized representatives of Part 926. the USDA, including AMS, Fruit and DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE OMB Number: 0581–0222. Vegetable Programs’ regional and Expiration Date of Approval: May 31, headquarters staff, and authorized Agricultural Marketing Service 2010. employees of the Committee. Type of Request: Extension of a Authorized Committee employees and [Docket No. AMS–FV–09–0066; FV09–926– currently approved information 1NC] the industry are the primary users of the collection. information, and AMS is the secondary Notice of Request for Extension of a Abstract: A Federal marketing order user. Currently Approved Information for cranberries (M.O. 929) regulates the Estimate of Burden: Public reporting Collection handling of cranberries grown in 10 burden for this collection of information States and is applicable to regulated is estimated to average .083 hours per AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, handlers under the order. Public Law response. USDA. 106–78, enacted October 22, 1999, Respondents: Cranberry importers ACTION: Notice and request for amended section 8(d) of the Agricultural and brokers who acquire and sell comments. Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 cranberries and cranberry products, and (AMAA), as amended (7 U.S.C. 601– maintain inventories of cranberries and SUMMARY: In accordance with the 674). If a cranberry order is in effect, the cranberry products; and handlers, Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 amendment authorizes the Secretary to producer-handlers, and processors not U.S.C. Chapter 35), this notice require persons engaged in the handling subject to the cranberry marketing order announces the Agricultural Marketing or importation of cranberries and who produce, handle, acquire, sell and Service’s (AMS) intention to request an cranberry products not subject to the maintain beginning and ending extension of a currently approved reporting requirements of the Federal inventories of cranberries and cranberry information collection for Data cranberry marketing order to maintain products. Collection, Reporting and adequate records and report information Estimated Number of Respondents: Recordkeeping Requirements on sales, acquisitions, and inventory 12. Applicable to Cranberries Not Subject to information to USDA or the Cranberry Estimated Number of Responses per the Cranberry Marketing Order, 7 CFR Marketing Committee (Committee). Respondent: 1. Part 926. Such persons include handlers, Estimated Total Annual Burden on DATES: Comments on this notice must be producer-handlers, processors, brokers, Respondents: 1 hour. received by January 25, 2010. and importers. The Committee collects Comments: Comments are invited on: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR COMMENTS: this information. The data collection (1) Whether the proposed collection of Contact Valerie L. Emmer-Scott, and reporting requirements helps the the information is necessary for the Marketing Specialist, Marketing Order Committee make more informed proper performance of the functions of Administration Branch, Fruit and recommendations to USDA for the agency, including whether the Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 regulations authorized under the information will have practical utility; Independence Avenue, SW., STOP cranberry marketing order, (7 CFR Part (2) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate 0237, Washington, DC 20250–0237; Tel: 929). of the burden of the proposed collection (202) 205–2829, Fax: (202) 720–8938, or Although a final rule, published in of information including the validity of Internet: http://www.regulations.gov. All the Federal Register on April 4, 2007 the methodology and assumptions used; comments should reference the docket (72 FR 16265) suspended the reporting (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility number and the date and page number requirements under 7 CFR Part 926, and clarity of the information to be of this issue of the Federal Register and AMS is requesting that the Office of collected; and (4) ways to minimize the will be made available for public Management and Budget (OMB) burden of the collection of information inspection in the Office of the Docket approve a one-hour placeholder for on those who are to respond, including Clerk during regular business hours, or future use of this information collection through the use of appropriate can be viewed at http:// should the suspension be lifted and the automated, electronic, mechanical, or www.regulations.gov. reporting requirements re-implemented. other technological collection Small business may request The information collection techniques or other forms of information information on this notice by contacting requirements in this request are technology. Jay Guerber, Marketing Order essential to carry out the intent of the Comments should reference OMB No. Administration Branch, Fruit and AMAA, and to administer the program, 0581–0222 and the Data Collection and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 which was implemented in 2005. Reporting Requirements Applicable to
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES 61318 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices
Cranberries Not Subject to the Cranberry commercial thinning, 7,311 acres of Reduce the acres at moderate-to-high Marketing Order, 7 CFR Part 926, and be overstory removal, 10,954 acres of fire hazard by thinning stands to mailed to Docket Clerk, Fruit and precommercial thinning, 2,134 acres of decrease crown proximity and by Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 commercial seed cuts, 191 acres of reducing fuel accumulations. Thinning Independence Avenue, SW, group selection, 466 acres of individual may use commercial or non-commercial Washington, DC 20250–0237; tree selection, 764 acres of hardwood methods. Fuel reduction treatments Telephone: (202) 205–2829; Fax (202) enhancement, 206 acres of meadow could include lopping, chipping, 720–8938; or Internet: http:// enhancement, 836 acres of old growth crushing, piling and burning, www.regulations.gov. Comments should management, 354 acres of product- construction of fuel breaks, and reference the docket number and the other-than-log thinning, and 411 acres broadcast prescribed burning. date and page number of this issue of of stand-alone prescribed burning, in Improve watershed conditions the Federal Register. All comments addition, approximately 30,629 acres through road closure, meadow received will be available for public will be analyzed for prescribed burning enhancement, hardwood enhancement inspection in the Office of the Docket following timber harvest although it is and mitigation of connected disturbed Clerk during regular USDA business expected that approximately 10,000 areas. hours at 1400 Independence Ave., SW, acres of that total will actually be Provide for a diversity of wildlife Washington, DC, room 1406–S. burned over a 10–15 year period. habitat through meadow enhancement, All responses to this notice will be Approximately 15 miles of new road hardwood enhancement, seasonal road summarized and included in the request construction would be necessary to closures, and patch clear cuts to create for OMB approval. All comments will carry out the proposed vegetation open browsing areas. also become a matter of public record. management actions. Provide for opportunities to conduct Dated: November 17, 2009. DATES: Comments concerning the scope research forestry in the Black Hills Rayne Pegg, of the analysis are requested by Experimental Forest. Proposed Administrator, Agricultural Marketing December 21, 2009. The draft treatments to implement research Service. environmental impact statement is objectives over the next 10–15 years [FR Doc. E9–28154 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] expected to be available April 2010 and designed to examine the effectiveness of BILLING CODE 3410–02–P the final environmental impact timber management techniques not statement is expected to be completed typically conducted on the Black Hills by July 2010. National Forest. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ADDRESSES: Send written comments to: Road construction and maintenance Rhonda O’Byrne, District Ranger, activities necessary to access areas Forest Service Northern Hills Ranger District, 2014 proposed for timber harvest. New roads would be closed following harvest and Black Hills National Forest, Northern North Main Street, Spearfish, SD 57783. Telephone number: (605) 642–4622. e- existing roads that are not in the Hills Ranger District, South Dakota, National Forest System could also be Nautilus Project mail: comments-rocky-mountain-black- [email protected] with closed in conjunction with this project. AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ‘‘Nautilus Project’’ as the subject. The Forest Service is the sole responsible agency for this project; no ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: environmental impact statement. cooperators are participating in project Chris Stores, Assistant NEPA Planner, planning. SUMMARY: The Forest Service will Northern Hills Ranger District, 2014 prepare an environmental impact North Main Street, Spearfish, SD 57783. Responsible Official statement on a proposal to implement Telephone number: (605) 642–4622. Rhonda O’Byrne, District Ranger, multiple resource management actions SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Northern Hills Ranger District, 2014 within the Nautilus Project area to Purpose of and Need for Action North Main Street, Spearfish, SD 57783. implement the amended Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource The purpose of and need for the Nature of Decision To Be Made Management Plan. The Nautilus Project actions proposed in the Nautilus project The decision to be made is whether or area covers approximately 41,302 acres area is to reduce mountain pine beetle not to approve the proposed action or of National Forest System land and susceptibility, reduce fire hazard, alternatives at this time. No Forest Plan approximately 5,699 acres of improve watershed conditions, provide amendments are proposed. interspersed private land northwest of for a diversity of wildlife habitat, and Scoping Process Rapid City, South Dakota. Mountain provide for research forestry pine beetle infestations are present opportunities. All actions are intended Comments and input regarding the within and adjacent to the project area. to move toward or achieve related proposed action are being requested Therefore, the Nautilus environmental Forest Plan Goals and Objectives, from the public and other interested impact statement will be analyzed consistent with Forest Plan Standards parties in conjunction with this notice under the provisions of Title IV of the and Guidelines. of intent. The comment period will be Healthy Forests Restoration Act. Proposed Action open for thirty days, beginning on the Proposed actions include a combination date of publication of this notice of of vegetation and fuels treatments to Proposed actions include the intent. An open house to gather reduce mountain pine beetle following: comments from local individuals and susceptibility, reduce fire hazard, Reduce acres at high or medium groups will be held on December 2, improve watershed conditions, provide susceptibility to mountain pine beetle 2009 at 5:30 PM MST at the Community for a diversity of wildlife habitat, and by thinning stands and changing stand Hall in Nemo, SD. Also, response to the provide for research forestry structure. Commercial and non- draft EIS will be sought from the opportunities. The proposed action commercial (including prescribed interested public beginning includes approximately 7,157 acres of burning) methods may be used. approximately in April 2010.
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices 61319
Comment Requested the statement. Reviewers may wish to ∑ Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to This notice of intent initiates the refer to the Council on Environmental (http://www.regulations.gov/ scoping process which guides the Quality Regulations for implementing fdmspublic/component/main?main= development of the environmental the procedural provisions of the DocketDetail&d=APHIS–2009–0087) to impact statement. It is our desire to National Environmental Policy Act at 40 submit or view comments and to view involve interested parties and especially CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points. supporting and related materials Comments received, including the available electronically. adjacent landowners in identifying the ∑ issues related to proposed activities. names and addresses of those who Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Comments will assist in identification of comment, will be considered part of the Please send two copies of your comment key issues and opportunities to develop public record on this proposal and will to Docket No. APHIS–2009–0087, project alternatives and mitigation be available for public inspection (40 Regulatory Analysis and Development, measures. CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; Forest Service PPD, APHIS, Station 3A–03.8, 4700 Early Notice of Importance of Public Handbook 1909.15, Section 21). River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD Participation in Subsequent Dated: November 17, 2009. 20737–1238. Please state that your Environmental Review: A draft Craig Bobzien, comment refers to Docket No. APHIS– 2009–0087. environmental impact statement will be Forest Supervisor, Black Hills National Forest. prepared for comment. The comment Reading Room: You may read any [FR Doc. E9–28091 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] comments that we receive on this period on the draft environmental BILLING CODE 3410–11–M impact statement will be 45 days docket in our reading room. The reading (beginning in April 2010) from the date room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and the Environmental Protection Agency DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE publishes the notice of availability in Independence Avenue SW., the Federal Register. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Washington, DC. Normal reading room The Forest Service believes, at this Service hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday early stage, it is important to give through Friday, except holidays. To be [Docket No. APHIS–2009–0087] reviewers notice of several court rulings sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 690–2817 before related to public participation in the Availability of a Draft Environmental environmental review process. First, coming. Assessment for Oral Rabies Vaccine Other Information: Additional reviewers of draft environmental impact Program statements must structure their information about APHIS and its participation in the environmental AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health programs is available on the Internet at review of the proposal so that it is Inspection Service, USDA. (http://www.aphis.usda.gov). meaningful and alerts an agency to the ACTION: Notice of availability and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. reviewer’s position and contentions request for comments. Dennis Slate, Rabies Program (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. Coordinator, Wildlife Services, APHIS, v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978)). SUMMARY: We are advising the public 59 Chenell Drive, Suite 7, Concord, NH Also, environmental objections that that we have prepared a proposed 03301; (603) 223–9623. To obtain copies could be raised at the draft environmental assessment relative to of the documents discussed in this environmental impact statement stage oral rabies vaccination programs in notice, contact Mr. Kevin Williams, but that are not raised until after several States. Since the publication of Operational Support Staff, WS, APHIS, completion of the final environmental our original environmental assessment 4700 River Road Unit 87, Riverdale, MD impact statement may be waived or and decision/finding of no significant 20737–1234; phone (301) 734–4937, fax dismissed by the courts (City of Angoon impact in 2001, we have prepared, and (301) 734–5157, or email: v. Hodel, 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. made available to the public for ([email protected]). 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. comment, several supplemental This notice and the proposed Hanis, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. environmental assessments and environmental assessment are also Wis. 1980)). Because of these court decisions/findings of no significant posted on the APHIS Web site at (http:// rulings, it is very important that those impact in order to reflect changes in the www.aphis.usda.gov/regulations/ws/ws_ interested in this proposed action program. The new environmental nepa_environmental_documents.shtml). participate by the close of the 45-day assessment made available by this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The comment period so that substantive notice analyzes the further expansion Wildlife Services (WS) program in the comments and objections are made the oral rabies vaccination program to Animal and Plant Health Inspection available to the Forest Service at a time include the States of New Mexico and Service (APHIS) cooperates with when it can meaningfully consider them Arizona, which is necessary to Federal agencies, State and local and respond to them in the final effectively combat the gray fox variant governments, and private individuals to environmental impact statement. of the rabies virus. The new research and implement the best To assist the Forest Service in environmental assessment is intended methods of managing conflicts between identifying and considering issues and to facilitate planning and interagency wildlife and human health and safety, concerns on the proposed action, coordination in the event of rabies agriculture, property, and natural comments on the draft environmental outbreaks, help streamline program resources. Wildlife-borne diseases that impact statement should be as specific management, and clearly communicate can affect domestic animals and humans as possible. It is also helpful if to the public the actions involved in the are among the types of conflicts that comments refer to specific pages or oral rabies vaccination program. APHIS–WS addresses. Wildlife is the chapters of the draft statement. DATES: We will consider all comments dominant reservoir of rabies in the Comments may also address the that we receive on or before December United States. adequacy of the draft environmental 24, 2009. On December 7, 2000, a notice was impact statement or the merits of the ADDRESSES: You may submit comments published in the Federal Register (65 alternatives formulated and discussed in by either of the following methods: FR 76606–76607, Docket No. 00–045–1)
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES 61320 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices
in which the Secretary of Agriculture contingency plans that may involve the Massachusetts, Maryland, and New declared an emergency and transferred reduction of a limited number of local Jersey. Cooperative rabies surveillance funds from the Commodity Credit target species populations through activities and/or baiting programs were Corporation to APHIS–WS for the lethal means (i.e., the preferred already being conducted on various continuation and expansion of oral alternative identified in the EA). The land classes, with the exception of rabies vaccination (ORV) programs to decision was based upon the final EA, National Forest System lands, in many address rabies in the States of Ohio, which reflected our review and of the aforementioned States. The New York, Vermont, Texas, and West consideration of the comments received programs’ primary goals were to stop Virginia. from the public in response to our the spread of a specific raccoon rabies On March 7, 2001, we published a March 2001 and May 2001 notices and variant or ‘‘strain’’ of the rabies virus. If notice in the Federal Register (66 FR information gathered during planning/ not stopped, this strain could 13697–13700, Docket No. 01–009–1) to scoping meetings with State health potentially spread to much broader solicit public involvement in the departments, other State and local areas of the United States and Canada planning of a proposed cooperative agencies, the Ontario Ministry of and cause substantial increases in program to stop the spread of rabies in Natural Resources, and the Centers for public and domestic animal health costs the States of New York, Ohio, Texas, Disease Control and Prevention. because of increased rabies exposures. Vermont, and West Virginia. The notice Following the August 2001 As numerous National Forest System also stated that a small portion of publication of our original decision/ lands are located within current and northeastern New Hampshire and the FONSI, we determined there was a need potential ORV barrier zones, it became western counties in Pennsylvania that to expand the ORV programs to include increasingly important to bait these border Ohio could also be included in the States of Kentucky and Tennessee to large land masses to effectively combat these control efforts, and discussed the effectively stop the westward spread of this strain of the rabies virus. In possibility of APHIS–WS cooperating in raccoon rabies. Accordingly, we addition, we prepared a new decision/ smaller-scale ORV projects in the States prepared a supplemental decision/ FONSI based on the supplemental EA of Florida, Massachusetts, Maryland, FONSI to document the potential effects that was published in the Federal New Jersey, Virginia, and Alabama. The of expanding the programs. We Register on February 20, 2004 (69 FR March 2001 notice contained detailed published a notice announcing the 7904–7905, Docket No. 01–009–6). information about the history of the availability of the supplemental Following the 2004 supplemental EA problems with raccoon rabies in eastern decision/FONSI in the Federal Register and decision/FONSI for expansion of States and with gray fox and coyote on July 5, 2002 (67 FR 44797–44798, the ORV program to include portions of rabies in Texas, along with information Docket No. 01–009–4). National Forest System lands, we about previous and ongoing efforts Following the publication of the determined the need to further expand using ORV baits in programs to prevent supplemental decision/FONSI in July the ORV program to include 25 eastern the spread of the rabies variants or 2002, we determined the need to further States (Maine, New York, Vermont, New ‘‘strains’’ of concern. expand the ORV program to include the Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Subsequently, on May 17, 2001, we States of Georgia and Maine to Virginia, West Virginia, Tennessee, published in the Federal Register (66 effectively prevent the westward and Kentucky, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, FR 27489, Docket No. 01–009–2) a northward spread of the rabies virus North Carolina, South Carolina, notice in which we announced the across the United States and into Massachusetts, Maryland, Connecticut, availability, for public review and Canada. To facilitate planning, Rhode Island, Delaware, Indiana, comment, of an environmental interagency coordination, and program Michigan, Mississippi, Louisiana and assessment (EA) that examined the management and to provide the public New Jersey), the District of Columbia, potential environmental effects of the with our analysis of potential individual and Texas to effectively prevent the ORV programs described in our March and cumulative impacts of the westward and northward spread of the 2001 notice. We solicited comments on expanded ORV programs, we prepared a rabies virus across the United States and the EA for 30 days ending on June 18, supplemental EA that addresses the into Canada. In addition, we prepared a 2001. We received one comment by that inclusion of Georgia and Maine, as well new decision/FONSI based on the date. The comment was from an animal as the 2002 inclusion of Kentucky and supplemental EA that was published in protection organization and supported Tennessee, in the ORV program. In the Federal Register on September 23, APHIS’ efforts toward limiting or addition, we prepared a new decision/ 2004 (69 FR 56992–56993, Docket No. eradicating rabies in wildlife FONSI based on the supplemental EA 01–009–7). populations. The commenter did not, that was published in the Federal Following the 2004 supplemental EA however, support the use of lethal Register on June 30, 2003 (68 FR 38669– and decision/FONSI, we determined the monitoring methods or local 38670, Docket No. 01–009–5). need to expand the ORV program to depopulation as part of an ORV Following publication of the 2003 include portions of National Forest program. supplemental EA and decision/FONSI, System lands, excluding Wilderness On August 30, 2001, we published a we determined the need to further Areas, within the same 25 eastern States notice in the Federal Register (66 FR expand the ORV program to include and the District of Columbia. As 45835–45836, Docket No. 01–009–3) in portions of National Forest System numerous National Forest System lands which we advised the public of APHIS’ lands, excluding Wilderness Areas, are located within current and potential decision and finding of no significant within several eastern States. The ORV barrier zones, it had become impact (FONSI) regarding the use of oral National Forest System lands where increasingly important to bait these vaccination to control specific rabies APHIS–WS involvement could be large land masses to effectively combat virus strains in raccoons, gray foxes, and expanded included the States of Maine, this strain of the rabies virus. coyotes in the United States. That New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, Accordingly, we prepared a decision allows APHIS–WS to purchase Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, West supplemental EA and decision/FONSI and distribute ORV baits, monitor the Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky, that served to update program needs effectiveness of the ORV programs, and Alabama, Georgia, Florida, North and evaluate current data. Those participate in implementing Carolina, South Carolina, documents were made available through
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices 61321
a notice published in the Federal prepared in accordance with: (1) The ∑ Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Register on December 8, 2005 (70 FR National Environmental Policy Act of Please send two copies of your comment 72977–72978, Docket No. 01–009–8). 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. to Docket No. APHIS–2009–0071, In 2007, we prepared a new decision/ 4321 et seq.), (2) regulations of the Regulatory Analysis and Development, FONSI to update and replace the Council on Environmental Quality for PPD, APHIS, Station 3A–03.8, 4700 previous decision/FONSI of September implementing the procedural provisions River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 9, 2004, for the 2004 supplemental EA. of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500–1508), (3) 20737–1238. Please state that your The purpose of the new 2007 decision/ USDA regulations implementing NEPA comment refers to Docket No. APHIS– FONSI was to clarify the term (7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS’ NEPA 2009–0071. ‘‘contingency actions,’’ which is used in Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part Reading Room: You may read any the 2004 supplemental EA, and to 372). comments that we receive on this analyze a type of contingency action The EA may be viewed on the docket in our reading room. The reading called trap-vaccinate-release (TVR) that Regulations.gov Web site or in our room is located in room 1141 of the was not analyzed as part of the reading room. (Instructions for accessing USDA South Building, 14th Street and proposed action in the 2004 Regulations.gov and information on the Independence Avenue SW., supplemental EA. The 2007 decision/ location and hours of the reading room Washington, DC. Normal reading room FONSI was made available through a are provided under the heading hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday notice published in the Federal Register ADDRESSES at the beginning of this through Friday, except holidays. To be on April 27, 2007 (72 FR 20984–20986, notice.) In addition, copies may be sure someone is there to help you, Docket No. 01–009–9). obtained by calling or writing to the please call (202) 690–2817 before As a result of a recent outbreak of gray individual listed under FOR FURTHER coming. fox variant rabies in coyotes west of the INFORMATION CONTACT. Other Information: Additional original gray fox ORV zone in Texas information about APHIS and its toward the New Mexico border, and an Done in Washington, DC, this 18th day of programs is available on the Internet at ongoing outbreak of gray fox variant November 2009. (http://www.aphis.usda.gov). rabies in western New Mexico and Kevin Shea, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For eastern Arizona, APHIS–WS has Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant general information on the topics determined there is a need to further Health Inspection Service. expand the ORV program to include the covered in this notice, contact Mr. John States of New Mexico and Arizona to [FR Doc. E9–28142 Filed 11–23–09: 11:41 Greifer, Associate Deputy Administrator am] effectively combat the gray fox variant for SPS Management, International of the rabies virus. In addition, the State BILLING CODE 3410–34–S Services, APHIS, room 1132, South of Arizona recently released a draft Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250; management plan for invasive species DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE that included the rabies virus on its list (202) 720–7677. For specific information regarding of invasive species that should be Animal and Plant Health Inspection standard-setting activities of the World controlled and managed. The purpose of Service the new 2009 EA that we are making Organization for Animal Health, contact available through this notice is to [Docket No. APHIS–2009–0071] Dr. Michael David, Director, Sanitary International Standards Team, National facilitate planning and interagency International Sanitary and coordination, help streamline program Center for Import and Export, VS, Phytosanitary Standard-Setting APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 33, management, and to clearly Activities communicate with the public the Riverdale, MD 20737–1231; (301) 734– analysis of individual and cumulative AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 5324. impacts of an expanded APHIS–WS Inspection Service, USDA. For specific information regarding the standard-setting activities of the ORV program. The States where APHIS– ACTION: Notice and request for WS involvement would be continued or comments. International Plant Protection expanded include the 26 States noted Convention or the North American Plant previously plus New Mexico and SUMMARY: In accordance with legislation Protection Organization, contact Ms. Arizona. The program’s primary goals implementing the results of the Uruguay Julie E. Aliaga, Program Director, are to stop the spread of specific Round of negotiations under the General International Phytosanitary Standards, raccoon (eastern States), coyote (Texas), Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, we are PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 140, and gray fox (Texas, New Mexico, and informing the public of the international Riverdale, MD 20737–1236; (301) 734– Arizona) rabies variants to new areas. standard-setting activities of the World 0763. The EA analyzes the proposed action Organization for Animal Health, the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: and several alternatives with respect to Secretariat of the International Plant Background a number of environmental and other Protection Convention, and the North issues raised by involved operating American Plant Protection Organization, The World Trade Organization (WTO) agencies and the public. Analysis of and we are soliciting public comment was established as the common those areas and information not on the standards to be considered. international institutional framework for included in the EA, the 2004 ADDRESSES: You may submit comments governing trade relations among its supplemental EA, and the associated by either of the following methods: members in matters related to the decisions/FONSIs are being presented ∑ Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to Uruguay Round Agreements. The WTO in the new 2009 EA and have been (http://www.regulations.gov/ is the successor organization to the incorporated into the decisionmaking fdmspublic/component/ General Agreement on Tariffs and process. main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS- Trade. U.S. membership in the WTO The proposed EA that is the subject of 2009-0071) to submit or view comments was approved by Congress when it this notice, as well as the documents and to view supporting and related enacted the Uruguay Round Agreements cited above that preceded it, have been materials available electronically. Act (Pub. L. 103–465), which was
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES 61322 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices
signed into law by the President on informs the public of OIE, IPPC, and sanitary measures relating to animal December 8, 1994. The WTO NAPPO standard-setting activities. health. Agreements, which established the FSIS publishes an annual notice in The OIE facilitates intergovernmental the Federal Register to inform the WTO, entered into force with respect to cooperation to prevent the spread of public of SPS standard-setting activities the United States on January 1, 1995. contagious diseases in animals by for Codex. Codex was created in 1962 by The Uruguay Round Agreements Act sharing scientific research among its amended Title IV of the Trade two United Nations organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization members. The major functions of the Agreements Act of 1979 (19 U.S.C. 2531 OIE are to collect and disseminate et seq.). Section 491 of the Trade (FAO) and the World Health information on the distribution and Agreements Act of 1979, as amended Organization. It is the major occurrence of animal diseases and to (19 U.S.C. 2578), requires the President international organization for ensure that science-based standards to designate an agency to be responsible encouraging international trade in food govern international trade in animals for informing the public of the sanitary and protecting the health and economic and animal products. The OIE aims to and phytosanitary (SPS) standard- interests of consumers. setting activities of each international APHIS is responsible for publishing achieve these through the development standard-setting organization. The an annual notice of OIE, IPPC, and and revision of international standards designated agency must inform the NAPPO activities related to for diagnostic tests, vaccines, and the public by publishing an annual notice international standards for plant and safe international trade of animals and in the Federal Register that provides the animal health and representing the animal products. following information: (1) The SPS United States with respect to these The OIE provides annual reports on standards under consideration or standards. Following are descriptions of the global distribution of animal planned for consideration by the the OIE, IPPC, and NAPPO diseases, recognizes the free status of international standard-setting organizations and the standard-setting Member countries for certain diseases, organization; and (2) for each SPS agenda for each of these organizations. categorizes animal diseases with respect standard specified, a description of the We have described the agenda that each to their international significance, consideration or planned consideration of these organizations will address at publishes bulletins on global disease of that standard, a statement of whether their annual general sessions, including status, and provides animal disease the United States is participating or standards that may be presented for control guidelines to Member countries. adoption or consideration, as well as plans to participate in the consideration Various OIE commissions and working other initiatives that may be underway of that standard, the agenda for U.S. groups undertake the development and participation, if any, and the agency at the OIE, IPPC, and NAPPO. The agendas for these meetings are preparation of draft standards, which responsible for representing the United subject to change, and the draft are then circulated to Member countries States with respect to that standard. standards identified in this notice may for consultation (review and comment). ‘‘International standard’’ is defined in not be sufficiently developed and ready Draft standards are revised accordingly 19 U.S.C. 2578b as any standard, for adoption as indicated. Also, while it and are then presented to the OIE guideline, or recommendation: (1) is the intent of the United States to International Committee (all the Adopted by the Codex Alimentarius support adoption of international Member countries) during the General Commission (Codex) regarding food standards and to participate actively Session, which meets annually every safety; (2) developed under the auspices and fully in their development, it May, for review and adoption. of the World Organization for Animal should be recognized that the U.S. Adoption, as a general rule, is based on Health (OIE, formerly known as the position on a specific draft standard will consensus of the OIE membership. Office International des Epizooties) depend on the acceptability of the final The next OIE General Session is regarding animal health and zoonoses; draft. Given the dynamic and interactive scheduled for May 23–28, 2010, in (3) developed under the auspices of the nature of the standard-setting process, Paris, France. Currently, the Deputy Secretariat of the International Plant we encourage any persons who are Administrator for APHIS’ Veterinary Protection Convention (IPPC) in interested in the most current details Services program is the official U.S. cooperation with the North American about a specific draft standard or the Delegate to the OIE. The Deputy Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO) U.S. position on a particular standard- Administrator for APHIS’ Veterinary regarding plant health; or (4) established setting issue, or in providing comments Services program intends to participate by or developed under any other on a specific standard that may be under in the proceedings and will discuss or international organization agreed to by development, to contact APHIS. Contact comment on APHIS’ position on any the member countries of the North information is provided at the beginning standard up for adoption. Information American Free Trade Agreement of this notice under FOR FURTHER about OIE draft Terrestrial and Aquatic (NAFTA) or the member countries of the INFORMATION CONTACT. Animal Health Code chapters may be WTO. OIE Standard-Setting Activities found on the Internet at (http:// The President, pursuant to www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/ Proclamation No. 6780 of March 23, The OIE was established in Paris, animals/oie/) or by contacting Dr. 1995 (60 FR 15845), designated the France, in 1924 with the signing of an Michael David (see FOR FURTHER Secretary of Agriculture as the official international agreement by 28 countries. INFORMATION CONTACT above). responsible for informing the public of It is currently composed of 174 member the SPS standard-setting activities of nations, each of which is represented by OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code Codex, OIE, IPPC, and NAPPO. The a delegate who, in most cases, is the Chapters and Appendices Adopted by United States Department of chief veterinary officer of that country. the May 2009 General Session Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Food Safety and The WTO has recognized the OIE as the Inspection Service (FSIS) informs the international forum for setting animal Over 50 Code chapters were amended public of Codex standard-setting health standards, reporting global and/or rewritten, or newly proposed activities, and USDA’s Animal and animal disease events, and presenting and presented for adoption at the Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) guidelines and recommendations on General Session. The following Code
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices 61323
chapters1 are of particular interest to the 9. Chapter 11.8, Bovine tuberculosis in 1. International transport of aquatic United States: farmed Cervidae animal disease agents and pathological materials. 1. Glossary This is a new chapter that incorporates many of the 2. Guidelines for aquatic animal Several Code chapter definitions were recommendations found in the bovine surveillance. modified, rewritten, or deleted. tuberculosis chapter. The Process Modified or rewritten definitions include the definitions for ‘‘protection 10. Chapter 14.9, Scrapie The OIE Code chapters are drafted (or zone,’’ ‘‘early detection system,’’ A new chapter was adopted and a few revised) by either the Terrestrial or ‘‘outbreak,’’ ‘‘risk,’’ ‘‘risk articles that address surveillance were Aquatic Animal Health Standards communication,’’ ‘‘vaccination,’’ and left as ‘‘under study.’’ Commission or by ad hoc groups ‘‘veterinary professional.’’ composed of technical experts 11. Chapter 15.3, Classical swine fever nominated by the Director General of 2. Chapter 3.x.x, Vector surveillance A new chapter was adopted. the OIE by virtue of their subject-area expertise. Once a new chapter is drafted This is a new chapter that is focused OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code or an existing one is revised, the chapter on the surveillance of disease agents Chapters and Appendices for Future is distributed to Member countries for transmitted by vectors. Review review and comment. The OIE attempts 3. Chapter 4.3, Zoning and Existing Terrestrial Animal Health to provide proposed chapters by late compartmentalization, and Chapter 4.4, Code chapters that may be further October to allow Member countries Application of compartmentalization revised and new chapters that may be sufficient time for comment. Comments drafted in preparation for the next are due by late January of the following The text in these chapters was General Session in 2010 include the year. The draft standard is revised by modified for clarity in content. No following: the OIE Code Commission on the basis substantive changes were made to these 1. Chapter 2.3.1, Bovine brucellosis of relevant scientific comments received chapters. from Member countries. 4. Chapter 8.5, Foot and mouth disease 2. Chapter 7.x.x, The use of animals in The United States (i.e., USDA/APHIS) research, testing, teaching intends to review, and where The term ‘‘buffer’’ was removed and 3. Chapter 8.1, Anthrax appropriate, comment on all draft replaced with the term ‘‘protection.’’ chapters and revisions once it receives The text was further clarified that an 4. Chapter 8.5, Foot and mouth disease them from the OIE. USDA/APHIS outbreak of FMD within a ‘‘protection Changes may include the concept of intends to distribute these drafts to the zone’’ would not affect the free status of compartmentalization. U.S. livestock and aquaculture a free zone or country as long as the 5. Chapter 15.5, Swine vesicular disease industries, veterinary experts in various outbreak is shown to be contained to U.S. academic institutions, other State that protection zone. 6. Chapter x.x.x, Communication and Federal agencies, and other 5. Chapter 10.4, Avian influenza OIE Aquatic Animal Health Code interested persons for review and Chapters and Appendices up for comment. Additional information Minor changes were made to this Adoption regarding these draft standards may be chapter, and it was modified for clarity. obtained by contacting Dr. Michael Aquatic Animal Health Code chapters David (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 6. Chapter 10.13, Newcastle disease and appendices that have been revised CONTACT above). The text in this chapter was modified or that are new for adoption at the 2010 Generally, if a country has concerns for clarity. General Session include: with a particular draft standard, and 7. Chapter 11.6, Bovine spongiform 1. Chapter 1.3.1, General obligations supports those concerns with sound encephalopathy and Chapter 1.3.2, Certification technical information, the pertinent OIE procedures Code Commission will revise that The text in this chapter was modified Certification procedures will be standard accordingly and present the to remove the 30-month age limit submitted for comment later in 2009. revised draft for adoption at the General restriction so that deboned skeletal Session in May. In the event that a muscle can be freely traded from all 2. Chapter x.x.x, Handling and disposal country’s concerns regarding a draft countries, regardless of BSE risk, and to of carcasses and wastes of aquatic standard are not taken into account, that allow countries to source bone vertebrae animals country may refuse to support the for gelatin production from cattle 30 This newly proposed chapter is under standard when it comes up for adoption months of age and younger from further review by the OIE. at the General Session. However, each countries of either undetermined or Member country is obligated to review controlled risk. 3. Chapter x.x.x, Infection with abalone and comment on proposed standards, herpes-like virus and make decisions regarding the 8. Chapter 11.7, Bovine tuberculosis This new chapter may be proposed for adoption of those standards, strictly on A new chapter on bovine tuberculosis adoption in 2010. their scientific merits. was adopted. It retains the definition of OIE Aquatic Animal Commission Other OIE Topics a ‘‘herd,’’ which provides a country Future Work Program another means to manage the disease in Every year at the General Session, at addition to the implementation of During the next few years, the OIE least one technical item is presented. compartmentalization. Aquatic Animal Commission may For the May 2010 General Session, the address the following issues or establish following technical item will be 1NOTE: Proposed appendices and chapters not ad hoc groups of experts to update or presented: yet assigned by number have been designated an develop standards for the following 1. The critical contribution of ‘‘x’’ as a temporary placeholder by the OIE. issues: veterinary activities to the global
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES 61324 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices
security of food derived from terrestrial The United States became a Step 4: The standard is drafted or and aquatic animals. contracting party to the IPPC in 1972 revised in accordance with the The information in this notice and has been actively involved in specifications by a working group includes all the information available to furthering the work of the IPPC ever designated by the Standards Committee. us on OIE standards currently under since. The IPPC was amended in 1979, The resulting draft standard is development or consideration. and the amended version entered into submitted to the Standards Committee Information on OIE standards is force in 1991 after two-thirds of the for review. available on the Internet at (http:// contracting countries accepted the Step 5: Draft standards approved by www.oie.int). Further, a formal agenda amendment. More recently, in 1997, the Standards Committee are distributed for the next General Session should be contracting parties completed to members by the Secretariat and available to Member countries by March negotiations on further amendments RPPOs for consultation (100 days). 2010, and copies will be available to the that were approved by the FAO Comments are submitted in writing to public once the agenda is published. For Conference and submitted to the parties the Secretariat. Where appropriate, the the most current information on meeting for acceptance. This 1997 amendment Standards Committee may establish times, working groups, and/or meeting updated phytosanitary concepts and open-ended discussion groups as agendas, including information on formalized the standard-setting forums for further comment. The official U.S. participation in OIE structure within the IPPC. The 1997 Secretariat summarizes the comments activities and U.S. positions on amended version of the IPPC entered and submits them to the Standards standards being considered, contact Dr. into force after two-thirds of the Committee. Step 6: Taking into account the Michael David (see FOR FURTHER contracting parties notified the Director comments, the Secretariat, in INFORMATION CONTACT above). Those General of FAO of their acceptance of cooperation with the Standards wishing to provide comments on any the amendment in October 2005. The Committee, revises the draft standard. areas of work under the OIE may do so U.S. Senate gave its advice and consent The Standards Committee submits the at any time by responding to this notice to acceptance of the newly revised IPPC on October 18, 2000. The President final version to the CPM for adoption. (see ADDRESSES above) or by providing Step 7: The ISPM is established submitted the official letter of comments through Dr. Michael David. through formal adoption by the CPM acceptance to the FAO Director General according to Rule X of the Rules of IPPC Standard-Setting Activities on October 4, 2001. Procedure of the CPM. The IPPC is a multilateral convention The IPPC has been, and continues to Step 8: Review of the ISPM is adopted in 1952 for the purpose of be, administered at the national level by completed by the specified date or such securing common and effective action to plant quarantine officials whose other date as may be agreed upon by the prevent the spread and introduction of primary objective is to safeguard plant CPM. pests of plants and plant products and resources from injurious pests. In the Each member country is represented to promote appropriate measures for United States, the national plant on the CPM by a single delegate. their control. Under the IPPC, the protection organization is APHIS’ Plant Although experts and advisors may understanding of plant protection has Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) accompany the delegate to meetings of been, and continues to be, broad, program. The steps for developing a the CPM, only the delegate (or an encompassing the protection of both standard under the IPPC are described authorized alternate) may represent cultivated and noncultivated plants below. each member country in considering a from direct or indirect injury by plant Step 1: Proposals for a new standard up for approval. Parties pests. Activities addressed by the IPPC international standard for phytosanitary involved in a vote by the CPM are to include the development and measures (ISPM) or for the review or make every effort to reach agreement on establishment of international plant revision of an existing ISPM are all matters by consensus. Only after all health standards, the harmonization of submitted to the Secretariat of the IPPC efforts to reach a consensus have been phytosanitary activities through in a standardized format on a 2-year exhausted may a decision on a standard emerging standards, the facilitation of cycle. Alternatively, the Secretariat can be passed by a vote of two-thirds of the exchange of official and scientific propose a new standard or amendments delegates present and voting. information among countries, and the to existing standards. Technical experts from the United furnishing of technical assistance to Step 2: After review by the Standards States have participated directly in developing countries that are signatories Committee and the Strategic Planning working groups and indirectly as to the IPPC. and Technical Assistance Working reviewers of all IPPC draft standards. The IPPC is under the authority of the Group, a summary of proposals is The United States also has a Food and Agriculture Organization submitted by the Secretariat to the CPM. representative on the Standards (FAO), and the members of the The CPM identifies the topics and Committee. In addition, documents and Secretariat of the IPPC are appointed by priorities for standard setting from positions developed by APHIS and the FAO. The IPPC is implemented by among the proposals submitted to the NAPPO have been sources of significant national plant protection organizations Secretariat and others that may be raised input for many of the standards adopted (NPPOs) in cooperation with regional by the CPM. to date. This notice describes each of the plant protection organizations (RPPOs); Step 3: Specifications for the IPPC standards currently under the Commission on Phytosanitary standards identified as priorities by the consideration or up for adoption. The Measures (formerly referred to as the CPM are drafted by the Standards full text of each standard will be International Commission on Committee. The draft specifications are available on the Internet at (http:// Phytosanitary Measures); and the subsequently made available to www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/ Secretariat of the IPPC. The United members and RPPOs for comment (60 plants/plant_exports/ States plays a major role in all standard- days). Comments are submitted in phyto_international_standards.shtml). setting activities under the IPPC and has writing to the Secretariat. Taking into Interested individuals may review the representation on FAO’s highest account the comments, the Standards standards posted on this Web site and governing body, the FAO Conference. Committee finalizes the specifications. submit comments via the Web site.
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices 61325
The next CPM meeting is scheduled 14. Goal 7: Review of the status of CBD terms and definitions could not for March 22–26, 2010, at FAO plant protection in the world therefore be used directly in the IPPC Headquarters in Rome, Italy. The 15. Election of the Bureau Glossary. It was decided instead to Deputy Administrator for APHIS’ PPQ 16. Membership of CPM subsidiary present these terms and definitions in program is the U.S. delegate to the CPM. bodies an Appendix to the Glossary, providing The Deputy Administrator intends to 17. Calendar explanations of how they differ from participate in the proceedings and will 18. Other business IPPC terminology. discuss or comment on APHIS’ position 19. Date and venue of the next The following CBD terms have been on any standards up for adoption. The meeting adopted to the Appendix to the IPPC agenda for the Fifth Session of the 20. Adoption of the report Glossary: Commission of Phytosanitary Measures ∑ Alien species IPPC Standards Adopted at the CPM–4 ∑ Introduction is as follows: Session in 2009 1. Opening of the session ∑ Invasive alien species 2. Adoption of the agenda 1. Amendments to ISPM No. 5 (Glossary ∑ Establishment 3. Election of the Rapporteur of Phytosanitary Terms) ∑ Intentional introduction 4. Report by the CPM chairperson ∑ Unintentional introduction 5. Report by the Secretariat A. The following new terms and ∑ Risk analysis 6. Report of the technical consultation definitions have been adopted to the 3. Revision of ISPM No. 15 (Regulation among RPPOs Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms in 7. Report of observer organizations ISPM No. 5: of Wood Packaging Material in 8. Goal 1: A robust international ∑ Incidence (of a pest): Proportion or International Trade) standard-setting and implementation number of units in which a pest is ISPM No. 15 was adopted in 2002, program present in a sample, consignment, field and modifications to Annex 1 of ISPM 8.1 Report by the chairperson of the or other defined population. No. 15 were adopted by CPM–1 in 2006. Standards Committee ∑ Tolerance level (of a pest): The Technical Panel on Forest 8.2 Adoption of international Incidence of a pest specified as a Quarantine initiated the revision of the standards—under the regular process threshold for action to control that pest standard in 2006. Over 440 comments 8.3 Adoption of international or to prevent its spread or introduction. were received after country standards—under the special-track ∑ Phytosanitary security (of a consultation. The Standards Committee process consignment): Maintenance of the adjusted the draft and recommended it 8.4 IPPC standard-setting work integrity of a consignment and for adoption by the CPM. program (with proposed adjustments) prevention of its infestation and This standard describes phytosanitary 9. Goal 2: Information exchange contamination by regulated pests, measures that reduce the risk of systems appropriate to meet IPPC through the application of appropriate introduction and spread of quarantine obligations phytosanitary measures. pests associated with the movement in 9.1 Proposed work program for 2010 ∑ Corrective action plan (in an area): international trade of wood packaging 10. Goal 3: Effective dispute Documented plan of phytosanitary material made from raw wood. Wood settlement systems actions to be implemented in an area packaging material covered by this 10.1 Report of the chairperson of the officially delimited for phytosanitary standard includes dunnage but excludes Subsidiary Body on Dispute Settlement purposes if a pest is detected or a wood packaging made from wood 11. Goal 4: Improved phytosanitary specified pest level is exceeded or in the processed in such a way that it is free capacity of members case of faulty implementation of from pests (e.g., plywood). 12. Goal 5: Sustainable officially established procedures. implementation of the IPPC B. The following terms and 4. ISPM No. 32 (Categorization of 12.1 Report of the fourth meeting of definitions have been revised in the Commodities According to Their Pest the Strategic Planning and Technical Glossary: Risk) Assistance group ∑ Compliance procedure (for a This new standard provides criteria 12.2 IPPC/CPM activities 12.2.1 State of membership to the consignment): Official procedure used for NPPOs of importing countries on IPPC to verify that a consignment complies categorizing commodities according to 12.2.2 Acceptance of documents in with phytosanitary import requirements their pest risk when considering import electronic format or phytosanitary measures related to requirements. This categorization 12.3 Update to the Business Plan transit. should help in identifying whether ∑ 2008–2011 Intended use: Declared purpose for further risk analysis is required or not. 12.4 Financial report and budget which plants, plant products, or other Contaminating pests or storage pests 12.4.1 Financial report 2009 articles are imported, produced, or used. that may become associated with the 12.4.2 Financial report 2009 for the ∑ Reference specimen: Specimen commodity after processing are not Trust Fund for the IPPC from a population of a specific organism considered in this standard. conserved and accessible for the 12.4.3 CPM Operational Plan for 2010 IPPC Standards Up for Adoption in 12.4.4 Budget 2010 for the Trust Fund purpose of identification, verification, 2010 for the IPPC or comparison. 12.5 Proposal for the adoption of CPM It is expected that the following 2. Draft Appendix to ISPM No. 5: recommendations standards will be sufficiently developed Terminology of the Convention on 13. Goal 6: International promotion of to be considered by the CPM for Biological Diversity (CBD) in Relation to the IPPC and cooperation with relevant adoption at its 2010 meeting. The the Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms regional and international organizations United States, represented by the 13.1 Report on the international Terms and definitions from the CBD Deputy Administrator for APHIS’ PPQ promotion of the IPPC and cooperation are based on concepts different from program, will participate in with relevant regional and international those of the IPPC so similar terms are consideration of these standards. The organizations given distinctly different meanings. The U.S. position on each of these issues
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES 61326 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices
will be developed prior to the CPM aspects, including export issues related information on the due dates for session and will be based on APHIS’ to re-export and consignment in transit. comments. Additional information on analysis, information from other U.S. IPPC standards is available on the IPPC 2. Design and operation of post-entry Government agencies, and relevant Web site at (http://www.ippc.int/IPP/En/ quarantine stations scientific information from interested default.htm). For the most current stakeholders. This standard describes general information on official U.S. guidelines for the design and operation participation in IPPC activities, 1. Pest-Free Potato (Solanum spp.) of post-entry quarantine stations that including U.S. positions on standards Micropropagative Material and hold in quarantine consignments of being considered, contact Ms. Julie E. Minitubers for International Trade plants that may be infested with Aliaga (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION This standard will provide guidance quarantine pests. CONTACT above). Those wishing to on the production, maintenance, and provide comments on any of the areas 3. Amendment to ISPM No. 5 (Glossary phytosanitary certification of pest-free of work being undertaken by the IPPC of Phytosanitary Terms) potato (Solanum tuberosum and related may do so at any time by responding to tuber-forming spp.) micropropagative The Standards Committee, following this notice (see ADDRESSES above) or by material and minitubers intended for recommendations by the Technical providing comments through Ms. international trade. This standard does Panel for the Glossary, is proposing Aliaga. not apply to field-grown propagative deletion of the term and definition of NAPPO Standard-Setting Activities material of potato or to potatoes ‘‘beneficial organism’’ from ISPM No. 5. intended for consumption or processing. The current definition in the Glossary NAPPO, a regional plant protection for the term ‘‘beneficial organism’’ is: organization created in 1976 under the 2. Annex to ISPM No. 26 (Establishment ‘‘Any organism directly or indirectly IPPC, coordinates the efforts among of Pest Free Areas for Fruit Flies advantageous to plants or plant Canada, the United States, and Mexico (Tephritidae)) products, including biological control to protect their plant resources from the This Annex provides detailed agents (ISPM No. 3, 2005).’’ entry, establishment, and spread of information regarding trapping under harmful plant pests, while facilitating different pest situations for different 4. Diagnostic Protocol on Thrips palmi intra- and inter-regional trade. NAPPO fruit fly species (Tephritidae) of (redraft) conducts its business through panels economic importance. The information This diagnostic protocol, if adopted, and annual meetings held among the in this Annex can be used by NPPOs to will be incorporated as an Annex to three member countries. The NAPPO aid them in developing fruit fly pest-free ISPM No. 27 (Diagnostic Protocols for Executive Committee charges individual areas and fruit fly areas of low pest Regulated Pests). This Annex provides panels with the responsibility for prevalence in line with guidance taxonomic information on Thrips palmi drawing up proposals for NAPPO provided in other ISPMs. It describes to allow for morphological and positions, policies, and standards. These the most widely used trapping systems molecular assay identifications of this panels are made up of representatives including materials such as traps and pest in the laboratory. from each member country who have attractants, trapping densities, surveying scientific expertise related to the policy 5. Cold treatments for Fruit Flies procedures, and procedures including or standard being considered. Proposals evaluation, data recording, and analysis. The following cold treatments (CT) for drawn up by the individual panels are fruit flies, if adopted, will be annexed to circulated for review to Government and New Standard-Setting Initiatives, ISPM No. 28 (Phytosanitary Treatments industry officials in Canada, the United Including Those in Development for Regulated Pests): States, and Mexico, who may suggest A number of expert working group ∑ CT of Citrus sinensis for Ceratitis revisions. In the United States, draft meetings or other technical capitata standards are circulated to industry, consultations will take place during ∑ CT of Citrus reticulata x Citrus States, and various government agencies 2009 and 2010 on the topics listed sinensis for Ceratitis capitata for consideration and comment. The below. These standard-setting initiatives ∑ CT of Citrus sinensis for Bactrocera draft standards are posted on the are under development and may be tryoni Internet at (http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ considered for future adoption. APHIS ∑ CT of Citrus reticulata x Citrus import_export/plants/plant_exports/ intends to participate actively and fully sinensis for Bactrocera tryoni phyto_international_standards.shtml). in each of these working groups. The ∑ CT of Citrus limon for Bactrocera Once revisions are made, the proposal is U.S. position on each of the topics to be tryoni sent to the NAPPO Working Group and addressed by these various working ∑ CT of Citrus paradisi for Ceratitis the NAPPO Standards Panel for groups will be developed prior to these capitata technical reviews, and then to the working group meetings and will be ∑ CT of Citrus reticulata cultivars and Executive Committee for final approval, based on APHIS’ technical analysis, hybrids for Ceratitis capitata which is granted by consensus. information from other U.S. ∑ CT of Citrus limon for Ceratitis The annual NAPPO meeting is Government agencies, and relevant capitata scheduled for October 19–23, 2009, in scientific information from interested For more detailed information on the Chicago, IL, USA. The NAPPO stakeholders. above topics, which will be addressed Executive Committee meeting will take by various working groups established place on October 19, 2009, and a session 1. Revision of ISPM Nos. 7 (Export by the CPM, contact Ms. Julie E. Aliaga will be held on October 20, 2009, to certification system) and 12 (Guidelines (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT solicit comments from industry groups for phytosanitary certificates) above). so that suggestions can be incorporated Existing ISPM Nos. 7 and 12 have APHIS posts draft standards on the into the NAPPO workplan for the 2010 been reviewed for amendment to Internet (http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ NAPPO year. The Associate Deputy provide specific guidance on their import_export/plants/plant_exports/ Administrator for PPQ is a member of procedures, which cover technical, phyto_international_standards.shtml) as the NAPPO Executive Committee. The legal, administrative, and operational they become available and provides Associate Deputy Administrator intends
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices 61327
to participate in the proceedings and with particular focus on pest risk 8. Fruit Tree and Grapevine Panel will discuss or comment on APHIS’ analysis of transgenic crops and the This panel, created by the merger of position on any standard up for implications for importation of products two existing panels, has combined adoption or any proposals to develop with different intended uses. RSPM No. 25 (Guidelines for new standards. 4. Citrus Panel International Movement of Pome and The work plan for 2009 was Stone Fruit Trees into a NAPPO established after the October 2008 The panel convened a NAPPO Member Country) and RSPM No. 15 Annual Meeting in Guadalajara, Mexico. workshop on citrus quarantine pests, (Guidelines for the Importation of The Associate Deputy Administrator for Grapevines into a NAPPO Member PPQ participated in establishing this including citrus leprosis, citrus variegated chlorosis, and citrus greening Country) into one standard and is NAPPO work plan (see panel working on the Annexes to RSPM No. assignments below). Below is a (Huanglongbing), in July 2009, and invited the participation of regional and 25. The panel is developing a diagnostic summary of current panel assignments protocol for the detection of plum pox as they relate to the ongoing international experts to exchange the latest research and regulatory virus by enzyme-linked immunosorbent development of NAPPO standards. The assay and is developing a treatment United States (i.e., USDA/APHIS) information. The panel has developed a diagnostic protocol for Huanglongbing. protocol for methyl bromide fumigation intends to participate actively and fully of fruit trees to contain the oriental fruit in the work of each of these panels. The 5. Electronic Phytosanitary Certification moth. The panel continues to provide U.S. position on each topic will be Panel technical assistance to the National guided and informed by the best Clean Plant Network. scientific information available on each The panel organized an international of these topics. For each of the following workshop to share information on e- 9. Grains Panel panels, the United States will consider certification initiatives in different The panel has finished reviewing its position on any draft standard after countries and regions of the world. It RSPM No. 21 (Harmonized Procedure it reviews a prepared draft. Information continues the harmonization of systems for Morphologically Distinguishing regarding the following NAPPO panel development towards a functioning e- Teliospores of Karnal Bunt, Ryegrass topics, assignments, activities, and certification capability for use among Bunt and Rice Bunt) and continues to updates on meeting times and locations NAPPO countries. work on the review of RSPM No. 13 may be obtained from the NAPPO (Guidelines to Establish, Maintain and homepage at (http://www.nappo.org) or 6. Forestry Panel Verify Karnal Bunt Pest Free Areas in by contacting Ms. Julie E. Aliaga (see The panel has completed a NAPPO North America). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT standard on preventing the entry of above). 10. Invasive Species Panel Asian gypsy moth into North America, The panel’s technical advisory group 1. Accreditation Panel RSPM No. 33 (Guidelines for Regulating continues to review comments on RSPM The panel revised RSPM No. 9 (The the Movement of Ships and Cargo from No. 31(Pathways Risk Analysis). It has Accreditation of Laboratories for Areas Infested with the Asian Gypsy completed a position paper describing Phytosanitary Testing) and developed a Moth). It has drafted a discussion paper NAPPO’s role in invasive alien species, regional phytosanitary standard on assessing the risk associated with including the documentation of relevant authorization to perform other imported wooden handicraft items and Federal legislative authority for the phytosanitary procedures (e.g., possible risk management measures. regulation of aquatic plants in North inspection, testing, and treatments) The panel reviewed the risk and risk America. The panel completed a entitled RSPM No. 28 (Guidelines for management options for wood products discussion paper on RSPM No. 32 (Pest Authorization). imported into NAPPO countries and has Risk Assessment for Plants for Planting drafted a standard on the import of 2. Biological Control Panel as Quarantine Pests). Christmas trees. The panel is developing an Annex to 11. Pest Risk Analysis Panel RSPM No. 26 to describe the 7. Fruit Panel This panel has developed a NAPPO certification process for non-Apis This panel has reviewed RSPM No. 17 Pest Risk Analysis template and pollinators, including an approved list (Guidelines for the Establishment, supported the Forestry Panel in drafting of non-Apis pollinators in NAPPO Maintenance, and Verification of Fruit RSPM No. 33. It has also assisted the countries. It is preparing a discussion Fly Free Areas in North America). They Invasive Species Technical Advisory paper on the risk associated with the Group in completing RSPM No. 31. importation and movements of have established a technical advisory honeybee-collected pollen, risk group to the panel to develop a 12. Phytosanitary Alert System (PAS) assessment, management measures, and discussion paper that summarizes the Panel research needs. distribution of Rhagoletis spp. in the The panel continues to post timely NAPPO region, their potential for pest alerts on the NAPPO Web site and 3. Biotechnology Panel establishment, their host range, and is refining the official pest reporting The panel has organized a symposium other pertinent characteristics. The process and content. The panel for the 2009 NAPPO Annual Meeting panel completed a new draft standard, conducted outreach, including the event. The topic of the symposium is Guidelines for the Development of completion of a PAS brochure and a ‘‘Living Modified Organisms and Plant Phytosanitary Treatment Protocols for survey of PAS subscribers. Health.’’ The panel is considering a Arthropod Pests of Fresh Fruits and proposal to determine whether it is Vegetables. This draft will be circulated 13. Plants for Planting appropriate to revise RSPM No. 14 by panel members for internal The panel continues to work on (Importation and Release into the consideration by the NAPPO member solutions for the implementation of Environment of Transgenic Plants in countries. The final draft will be RSPM No. 24 (Integrated Pest Risk NAPPO Member Countries) at this time, submitted for country consultation. Management Measures for the
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES 61328 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices
Importation of Plants for Planting in ADDRESSES above) or by transmitting Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. NAPPO Member Countries). It comments through Ms. Aliaga. Chapter 35). collaborated with the Accreditation Agency: National Institute of Panel to finalize RSPM No. 28 Done in Washington, DC, this 18th day of Standards and Technology (NIST). (Guidelines for Authorization). November 2009. Title: NIST Construction Grant 14. Potato Panel Kevin Shea, Program Applicant Requirements. Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Form Number(s): NIST–1101, NIST– This panel continues to revise RSPM Health Inspection Service. 1101A, and NIST–1102. No. 3 (Requirements for the Importation [FR Doc. E9–28143 Filed 11–23–09: 8:17 am] OMB Control Number: 0693–0055. of Potatoes into a NAPPO Member BILLING CODE 3410–34–S Type of Request: Regular submission Country), including the Annexes. (extension). 15. Seeds Panel Burden Hours: 125,000. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Number of Respondents: 250. This newly reconstituted panel has Average Hours per Response: 500. developed a discussion paper Forest Service Needs and Uses: The NIST addressing problems related to the re- Notice of New Fee Site; Federal Lands Construction Grant Program (Program) export of seeds and has developed is a competitive financial assistance procedures to facilitate their re-export in Recreation Enhancement Act (Title VIII, Pub. L. 108–447); Cancellation (grant) program for research science the Americas, in collaboration with the buildings through the construction of North American seed industry, the Seed AGENCY: Bighorn National Forest, USDA new buildings or expansion of existing Association of the Americas, and Forest Service. buildings. For purposes of this program, Comite´ de Sanidad Vegetal del Cono (1) ‘‘research science building’’ means a Sur. ACTION: Cancellation of Notice [FR Doc. E9–26300 Filed 11–2–09: 8:45 am]. building or facility whose purpose is to 16. Standards Panel conduct scientific research, including SUMMARY: The Bighorn National Forest, laboratories, test facilities, measurement The panel coordinated the review of Powder River Ranger District, has facilities, research computing facilities, new and amended NAPPO standards cancelled notification of fee charge and observatories; and (2) ‘‘expansion of and implementation plans; exchanged proposal for the West Tensleep existing buildings’’ means that space to and discussed comments on draft ISPMs Trailhead. This corrects FR Doc. E9– conduct scientific research is being within NAPPO and with other RPPOs to 26300. expanded from what is currently build consensus on draft ISPMs and available for the supported research other IPPC-related issues, as DATES: Cancellation effective immediately. activities. appropriate; reviewed draft RSPMs This request is for the information prepared by panels and made ADDRESSES: Forest Supervisor, Bighorn collection requirements associated with recommendations on their suitability for National Forest, 2013 Eastside 2nd requesting proposals. The information adoption by the Executive Committee; Street, Sheridan, WY 82801. will be used to make final selections of and reviewed NAPPO position papers FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: funding recipients. and policy documents to verify current Craig Cope, Powder River Ranger Affected Public: Not-for-profit relevance. District Recreation Staff Office, 307– institutions. The PPQ Associate Deputy 684–7806. Frequency: Annually. Administrator, as the official U.S. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Respondent’s Obligation: Required to delegate to NAPPO, intends to Federal Recreation Lands Enhancement obtain benefits. participate in the adoption of these Act (Title VIII, Pub. L. 108–447) OMB Desk Officer: Jasmeet Seehra, regional plant health standards, directed the Secretary of Agriculture to (202) 395–3123. including the work described above, publish a six month advance notice in Copies of the above information once they are completed and ready for the Federal Register whenever new collection proposal can be obtained by such consideration. recreation fee areas are established. calling or writing Diana Hynek, The information in this notice The Bighorn National Forest will give Departmental Paperwork Clearance contains all the information available to further consideration to this proposal Officer, (202) 482–0266, Department of us on NAPPO standards currently under and issue a new notice at a later date. Commerce, Room 7845, 14th and development or consideration. For Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, updates on meeting times and for Dated: November 17, 2009. William T. Bass, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at information on the working panels that [email protected]). Forest Supervisor, Bighorn National Forest. may become available following Written comments and publication of this notice, go to the [FR Doc. E9–28087 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] recommendations for the proposed NAPPO Web site on the Internet at BILLING CODE 3410–11–M information collection should be sent (http://www.nappo.org) or contact Ms. within 30 days of publication of this Julie Aliaga (see FOR FURTHER notice to Jasmeet Seehra, OMB Desk INFORMATION CONTACT above). DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Officer, FAX number (202) 395–5806 or Information on official U.S. via the Internet at participation in NAPPO activities, Submission for OMB Review; [email protected]. including U.S. positions on standards Comment Request being considered, may also be obtained Dated: November 19, 2009. from Ms. Aliaga. Those wishing to The Department of Commerce will Gwellnar Banks, provide comments on any of the topics submit to the Office of Management and Management Analyst, Office of the Chief being addressed by any of the NAPPO Budget (OMB) for clearance the Information Officer. panels may do so at any time by following proposal for collection of [FR Doc. E9–28121 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] responding to this notice (see information under the provisions of the BILLING CODE 3510–13–P
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices 61329
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The automated PI instrument will be within 30 days of publication of this used to collect the following information notice to Brian Harris-Kojetin, OMB Submission for OMB Review; for persons in housing units only: Desk Officer either by fax (202–395– Comment Request 1. Roster of people living at the 7245) or e-mail ([email protected]). housing unit at the time of the CCM PI The Department of Commerce will Dated: November 18, 2009. Interview. Glenna Mickelson, submit to the Office of Management and 2. Census Day (April 1, 2010) address Budget (OMB) for clearance the information from people who moved Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. following proposal for collection of into the sample address since Census information under the provisions of the Day. [FR Doc. E9–28097 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3. Other addresses where a person BILLING CODE 3510–07–P chapter 35). may have been counted on Census Day. Agency: U.S. Census Bureau. 4. Other information to help us Title: 2010 Census Coverage determine where a person should have DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Measurement, Person Interview and been counted as of Census Day (relative Person Interview Reinterview. National Oceanic and Atmospheric to Census residence rules). For example, Administration Form Number(s): All data will be enumerators will probe for persons who collected using automated instruments might have been left off the household RIN 0648–XR39 on computers. roster; ask additional questions about OMB Control Number: None. persons who moved from another Endangered and Threatened Species; Type of Request: New collection. address on Census Day to the sample Recovery Plans Burden Hours: 99,619. address; collect additional information Number of Respondents: 362,250. AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries for persons with multiple addresses; Average Hours per Response: 15 Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and and collect information on the addresses minutes. Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), of other potential residences for Needs and Uses: The U.S. Census Commerce. household members. Bureau requests authorization from the ACTION: Extension of public comment 5. Demographic information for each Office of Management and Budget to period. person in the household on Interview conduct the Census Coverage Day or Census Day, including name, Measurement (CCM) Person Interview SUMMARY: On October 7, 2009, we, date of birth, sex, race, Hispanic origin, (PI) and Person Interview Reinterview NMFS, announced the release of the and relationship. (PIRI) operations as part of the 2010 Draft Central Valley Salmon and 6. Name and above information for Steelhead Recovery Plan (Draft Plan) for Census. The CCM program will provide any person who has moved out of the estimates of net coverage error and public review and comment. The Draft sample address since Census Day (if Plan addresses the Sacramento River components of coverage error known). (omissions and erroneous enumerations) winter-run Chinook salmon We also will conduct a quality control (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) for housing units and persons in operation—PI Reinterview (PIRI) on 10 housing units. The data collection and Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU), percent of the PI cases. The purpose of the Central Valley spring-run Chinook matching methodologies for previous the operation is to confirm that the PI coverage measurement programs were salmon (O. tshawytscha) ESU, and the enumerator conducted a PI interview Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of designed only to measure net coverage with an actual household member or a error, which reflects the difference Central Valley Steelhead (Oncorhynchus valid proxy respondent and conduct a mykiss). NMFS is soliciting review and between omissions and erroneous full person interview when falsification inclusions. comment from the public and all is suspected. If PIRI results indicate interested parties on the Draft Plan. As The 2010 CCM will be comprised of falsified information by the original two samples selected to measure census part of that proposal, we provided a 60– enumerator, all cases worked by the day comment period, ending on coverage of housing units and the original enumerator are reworked by household population: The population December 5, 2009. We have received reassigning the cases to a different PI requests for an extension of the public sample (P sample) and the enumeration enumerator. sample (E sample). The primary comment period. In response to these Affected Public: Individuals or requests, we are extending the comment sampling unit is a block cluster, which households. consists of one or more contiguous period for the proposed action an Frequency: One time. additional 60 days. census blocks. The P sample is a sample Respondent’s Obligation: Mandatory. of housing units and persons obtained Legal Authority: Title 13, United DATES: Information and comments on independently from the census for a States Code, Sections 141 and 193. the subject action must be received by sample of block clusters. The E sample OMB Desk Officer: Brian Harris- February 3, 2009. is a sample of census housing units and Kojetin, (202) 395–7314. ADDRESSES: Please send written enumerations in the same block cluster Copies of the above information comments to Brian Ellrott, National as the P sample. The results of the collection proposal can be obtained by Marine Fisheries Service, 650 Capitol housing unit matching operations will calling or writing Diana Hynek, Mall, Suite 8–300, Sacramento, CA be used to determine which CCM and Departmental Paperwork Clearance 95816. Comments may also be Census addresses will be eligible to go Officer, (202) 482–0266, Department of submitted by e-mail to: to the CCM Person Interview (PI) Commerce, Room 7845, 14th and [email protected]. Operation. The PI Operations will Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, Include in the subject line of the e-mail contain approximately 362,250 sample DC 20230 (or via the Internet at comment the following identifier: addresses. The Person Interview [email protected]). Comments on Central Valley Salmon Reinterview Operation will be a sample Written comments and and Steelhead Draft Plan. Comments of those cases with an estimate 36,225 recommendations for the proposed may be submitted via facsimile (fax) to sample addresses. information collection should be sent (916) 930–3629.
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES 61330 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices
Persons wishing to review the Draft DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Activated Carbon from the PRC (August Plan can obtain an electronic copy (i.e., 21, 2009). Therefore, on September 18, CD-ROM) from Aimee Diefenbach by International Trade Administration 2009, we selected Ningxia Huahui calling (916) 930–3600 or by e-mailing [A–570–904] Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. (‘‘Huahui’’) a request to [email protected] as a mandatory respondent. See with the subject line ‘‘CD-ROM Request Certain Activated Carbon From the Memorandum to James C. Doyle, for Central Valley Salmon and Steelhead People’s Republic of China: Extension Director, Office 9, through Catherine Recovery Draft Plan.’’ Electronic copies of Time Limits for Preliminary Results Bertrand, Program Manager, Office 9, of the Draft Plan are also available on- of the Second Antidumping Duty from Katie Marksberry, Case Analyst, line on the NMFS website http:// Administrative Review Office 9 RE: Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/recovery/cent- AGENCY: Import Administration, Activated Carbon from the People’s val.htm. International Trade Administration, Republic of China: Selection of Department of Commerce. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Additional Mandatory Respondent, EFFECTIVE DATE: November 24, 2009. Howard Brown, NMFS Sacramento dated September 18, 2009. The FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: River Basin Branch Chief at (916) 930– preliminary results of this Robert Palmer, AD/CVD Operations, 3608 or Brian Ellrott at (916) 930–3612. administrative review are currently due Office 9, Import Administration, on December 31, 2009. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Statutory Time Limits Background Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act requires the Department to issue the On October 7, 2009, we published a Washington DC 20230; telephone: (202) preliminary results of an administrative Notice of Availability of the Draft 482–9068. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: review within 245 days after the last day Central Valley Salmon and Steelhead of the anniversary month of an order for Recovery Plan (Draft Plan) for public Background which a review is requested. Consistent review and comment (74 FR 51553). The On May 29, 2009, the Department of with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Draft Plan addresses the Sacramento Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) Department may extend the 245-day River winter-run Chinook salmon published in the Federal Register a period to 365 days if it is not practicable (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) notice of initiation of an administrative to complete the review within a 245-day Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU), review of the antidumping duty order period. the Central Valley spring-run Chinook on certain activated carbon from the Extension of Time Limit of Preliminary salmon (O. tshawytscha) ESU, and the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) Results Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of covering the period April 1, 2008, Central Valley Steelhead (Oncorhynchus through March 31, 2009. See Initiation The preliminary results are currently mykiss). NMFS is soliciting review and of Antidumping and Countervailing due on December 31, 2009. This comment from the public and all Duty Administrative Reviews, 74 FR administrative review covers two interested parties on the Draft Plan. As 25711 (May 29, 2009). mandatory respondents, one of whom part of that proposal, we provided a 60– On August 10, 2009, the Department has numerous suppliers which requires day comment period, ending on selected two mandatory respondents in the Department to gather and analyze a significant amount of information December 5, 2009. Public meetings were the above–referenced administrative pertaining to each supplier’s held in Chico, CA and Sacramento, CA review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2)(B) manufacturing methods. Moreover, on October 20 and 21, respectively. We of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended because the department selected Huahui have received requests for an extension (‘‘the Act’’). See Memorandum to James C. Doyle, Director, Office 9, from Katie after the request for review was of the public comment period. In Marksberry, Case Analyst, RE: withdrawn for CCT, the receipt of response to these requests, we are Antidumping Duty Administrative Huahui’s initial questionnaire is within extending the comment period for the Review of Certain Activated Carbon close proximity of the unextended proposed action an additional 60 days. from the People’s Republic of China: preliminary results. The current due Information and comments must be Selection of Respondents for Individual date does not afford the Department received by February 3, 2009. Review, dated August 10, 2009. adequate time to gather, analyze, request Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. On August 19, 2009, one of the two supplementary information, and allow original mandatory respondents filed a parties to comment and provide Dated: November 18, 2009. letter with the Department withdrawing information on appropriate surrogate Angela Somma, its request for a review. See Letter from values regarding Huahui’s responses. Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd. (‘‘CCT’’) Therefore, in accordance with section of Protected Resources, National Marine to the Department regarding Activated 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department Fisheries Service. Carbon from the PRC–Withdrawal of finds that it is not practicable to [FR Doc. E9–28174 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] Request for Administrative Review, complete the preliminary results within BILLING CODE 3510–22–S dated August 19, 2009. On August 21, the original time period and thus the 2009, Petitioners1 filed a letter Department is extending the time limit withdrawing their request for review of for issuing the preliminary results by CCT. See Letter from Petitioners to the 120 days until April 30, 2010. The final Department regarding Second results continue to be due 120 days after Administrative Review of the the publication of the preliminary Antidumping Duty Order on Certain results. This notice is published pursuant to 1 Calgon Carbon Corporation and Norit Americas sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i)(1) of the Inc. (‘‘Petitioners’’). Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2).
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices 61331
Dated: November 18, 2009. to the Chief, Permits, Conservation and SUMMARY: The New England Fishery John M. Andersen, Education Division at the address listed Management Council (Council) is Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for above. The request should set forth the scheduling a public meeting of its Antidumping and Countervailing Duty specific reasons why a hearing on this Scientific and Statistical Committee, on Operations. application would be appropriate. December 8–9, 2009, to consider actions [FR Doc. E9–28179 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate affecting New England fisheries in the BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S Swails or Carrie Hubard, (301) 713– exclusive economic zone (EEZ). 2289. Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The consideration and action, if appropriate. subject permit is requested under the DATES: National Oceanic and Atmospheric authority of the Marine Mammal This meeting will be held on Administration Protection Act of 1972, as amended Tuesday, December 8 at 10 a.m. and (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), the Wednesday, December 9, 2009 at 8:30 RIN 0648–XT05 regulations governing the taking and a.m. Marine Mammals; File No. 14791 importing of marine mammals (50 CFR ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at part 216), the Endangered Species Act of the Seaport Hotel, One Seaport Lane, AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 Boston, MA 02210; telephone: (617) Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and et seq.), and the regulations governing 385–4000; fax: (617) 385–4001. Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the taking, importing, and exporting of Council address: New England Commerce. endangered and threatened species (50 Fishery Management Council, 50 Water ACTION: Notice; receipt of application. CFR 222–226). Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950. The primary research objective is to FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that determine (1) natural behavioral J. Howard, Executive Director, New Douglas Nowacek, Ph.D., Duke patterns right whales exhibit to England Fishery Management Council; University Marine Lab, Beaufort, NC approaching vessels and (2) the ability telephone: (978) 465–0492. 28516, has applied in due form for a of right whales to localize and detect permit to conduct scientific research vessels and other sounds in their SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena environment. Researchers would Tuesday, December 8, 2009 glacialis). conduct passive recording, attach a DATES: Written, telefaxed, or e-mail digital sound recording tag (DTAG) via The Scientific and Statistical comments must be received on or before suction cup, and collect samples of Committee (SSC) will discuss SSC December 24, 2009. exhaled air and sloughed skin on up to policies and procedures and review and ADDRESSES: The application and related 40 right whales per year. Up to 90 right possibly revise the Council research documents are available for review by whales may be incidentally harassed recommendations. selecting ‘‘Records Open for Public during the research. The research would Wednesday, December 9, 2009 Comment’’ from the Features box on the take place along the eastern seaboard of Applications and Permits for Protected the U.S. and the permit would be issued The SSC will finalize its Species (APPS) home page, https:// for five years. recommendations to the Habitat Plan apps.nmfs.noaa.gov, and then selecting Concurrent with the publication of Development Team concerning the File No. 14791 from the list of available this notice in the Federal Register, PDT’s analyses of gear effects, applications. NMFS is forwarding copies of the vulnerability assessment and adverse These documents are also available application to the Marine Mammal impacts evaluations associated with upon written request or by appointment Commission and its Committee of Draft Habitat Omnibus 2, an action that in the following office(s): Scientific Advisors. will update all New England Council fishery management plan essential fish Permits, Conservation and Education Dated: November 19, 2009. Division, Office of Protected Resources, habitat (EFH) designations and include P. Michael Payne, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room measures to reduce adverse impacts on 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education EFH. Division, Office of Protected Resources, Although non-emergency issues not (301) 713–2289; fax (301) 713–0376; National Marine Fisheries Service. Northeast Region, NMFS, 55 Great contained in this agenda may come Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930; [FR Doc. E9–28158 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] before this group for discussion, those phone (978) 281–9328; fax (978) 281– BILLING CODE 3510–22–S issues may not be the subject of formal 9394; and action during this meeting. Action will Southeast Region, NMFS, 263 13th be restricted to those issues specifically DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Avenue South, Saint Petersburg, Florida listed in this notice and any issues 33701; phone (727) 824–5312; fax (727) National Oceanic and Atmospheric arising after publication of this notice 824–5309. Administration that require emergency action under Written comments on this application section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens should be submitted to the Chief, RIN 0648–XS99 Act, provided the public has been Permits, Conservation and Education notified of the Council’s intent to take Division, at the address listed above. New England Fishery Management final action to address the emergency. Comments may also be submitted by Council; Public Meeting Special Accommodations facsimile to (301) 713–0376, or by email AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries to [email protected]. Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and This meeting is physically accessible Please include the File No. in the Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), to people with disabilities. Requests for subject line of the email comment. Commerce. sign language interpretation or other Those individuals requesting a public auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul ACTION: Notice of a public meeting. hearing should submit a written request J. Howard, Executive Director, at (978)
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES 61332 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices
465–0492, at least 5 days prior to the -AP/SSC/HAP Membership Dated: November 19, 2009. meeting date. -Budget William D. Chappell, Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. -FY 2009 Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. Dated: November 19, 2009. -Budget Petition: 5-years (2010–14) [FR Doc. E9–28147 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] William D. Chappell, •Other Business BILLING CODE 3510–22–S Acting Director, Office of Sustainable December 16, 2009 - 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. • [FR Doc. E9–28133 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] Continuation of ACLs/AMs Report/ DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE BILLING CODE 3510–22–S Discussion (if needed) •Enforcement Reports Bureau of Industry and Security -Puerto Rico DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE -U.S. Virgin Islands - DPNR Materials Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Open Meeting National Oceanic and Atmospheric -NOAA/NMFS Administration -U.S. Coast Guard The Materials Technical Advisory •Administrative Committee Committee (MTAC) will meet on RIN 0648–XS92 Recommendations December 10, 2009, 10 a.m., in the • Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room Caribbean Fishery Management Meetings Attended by Council Members and Staff 6087B, 14th Street between Constitution Council; Public Meetings & Pennsylvania Avenues, NW., •PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD (5- Washington, DC. The Committee AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries MINUTES PRESENTATIONS) Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and • advises the Office of the Assistant Other Business Secretary for Export Administration Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), •Next Council Meeting Commerce. with respect to technical questions that The established times for addressing affect the level of export controls ACTION: Notice of public meetings. items on the agenda may be adjusted as applicable to advanced materials and necessary to accommodate the timely SUMMARY: The Caribbean Fishery related technology. completion of discussion relevant to the Management Council (Council) and its agenda items. To further accommodate Agenda Administrative Committee will hold discussion and completion of all items 1. Opening remarks and meetings. on the agenda, the meeting may be Introductions. DATES: The meetings will be held on extended from, or completed prior to 2. Report on Update 2009 by December 15–16, 2009. The Council the date established in this notice. Chemical and Biological Controls will convene on Tuesday, December 15, The meetings are open to the public, Division Personnel. 2009, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., and the and will be conducted in English. 3. Report on Missile Technology Administrative Committee will meet However, simultaneous translation Control Regime Technical Experts from 5:15 p.m. to 6 p.m. They will (English/Spanish) will be provided. Meeting and Plenary of November, reconvene on Wednesday, December 16, Fishers and other interested persons are 2009. 2009, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. invited to attend and participate with 4. Report on Composite Working ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held at oral or written statements regarding Group and Export Control Classification the El Conquistador Resort, 1000 El agenda issues. Review Subgroup. 5. Report on Status of 1.C.8 Proposal Conquistador Avenue, Las Croabas, Although non-emergency issues not Fajardo, Puerto Rico 00738. and Others at Wassenaar Arrangement. contained in this agenda may come 6. Presentation on Exports Controls FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: before this group for discussion, those for Biological Agents and Processing Caribbean Fishery Management Council, issues may not be subjects for formal Equipment. 268 Munoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 1108, action during this meeting. Actions will 7. New Business. San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918–1920; be restricted to those issues specifically 8. Public Comments from telephone: (787) 766–5926. identified in this notice, and any issues Teleconference and Physical Attendees. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The arising after publication of this notice The open session will be accessible Council will hold its 133rd regular that require emergency action under via teleconference to 20 participants on Council Meeting to discuss the items section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens a first come, first serve basis. To join the contained in the following agenda: Fishery Conservation and Management conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Act, provided that the public has been Yvette Springer at December 15, 2009 - 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. notified of the Council’s intent to take [email protected] no later than •Call to Order final action to address the emergency. December 3, 2009. • A limited number of seats will be Adoption of Agenda Special Accommodations •Consideration of the 132nd Council available during the public session of Meeting Verbatim Transcription These meetings are physically the meeting. Reservations are not •Executive Director’s Report accessible to people with disabilities. accepted. To the extent time permits, •ACLs/AMs Report/Discussion For more information or request for sign members of the public may present oral •National Meeting of the Regional language interpretation and/other statements to the Committee. Written Fishery Management Councils’ auxiliary aids, please contact Mr. statements may be submitted at any Scientific and Statistical Committee Miguel A. Rolon, Executive Director, time before or after the meeting. Report Caribbean Fishery Management Council, However, to facilitate distribution of PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD 268 Munoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 1108, public presentation materials to San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918–1920, Committee members, the materials December 15, 2009 - 5:15 p.m. to 6 p.m. telephone: (787) 766–5926, at least five should be forwarded prior to the •Administrative Committee Meeting days prior to the meeting date. meeting to Ms. Springer via e-mail.
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices 61333
For more information contact Yvette Special Accommodations Reservations are not accepted. To the Springer on (202) 482–2813. These meetings are physically extent that time permits, members of the Dated: November 18, 2009. accessible to people with disabilities. public may present oral statements to Yvette Springer, Requests for sign language the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or Committee Liaison Officer. interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Tina O’Hern at the after the meeting. However, to facilitate [FR Doc. E9–28191 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] the distribution of public presentation BILLING CODE 3510–JT–P Council (see ADDRESSES) at least 5 working days prior to the meeting. materials to the Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters Dated: November 19, 2009. forward the public presentation DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE William D. Chappell, materials prior to the meeting to Ms. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Springer via e-mail. Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. Administration The Assistant Secretary for [FR Doc. E9–28150 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] Administration, with the concurrence of RIN 0648–XT06 BILLING CODE 3510–22–S the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on November 18, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management 2009, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Council; Public Meeting DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2 § (10)(d)), that AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Bureau of Industry and Security the portion of the meeting dealing with Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and matters the disclosure of which would Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Emerging Technology and Research be likely to frustrate significantly Commerce. Advisory Committee; Notice of Partially Closed Meeting implementation of an agency action as ACTION: Notice of a public meeting. described in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B) shall SUMMARY: The Gulf of Mexico Fishery The Emerging Technology and be exempt from the provisions relating Management Council will convene a Research Advisory Committee (ETRAC) to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. meeting of the Reef Fish Limited Access will meet on December 9, 2009, 8:30 app. 2 § 10(a)1 and 10(a)(3). The Privilege Program Advisory Panel. a.m., Room 6087B, and on December 10, remaining portions of the meeting will 2009, 8:30 a.m., Room 3884, at the be open to the public. DATES: The meeting will convene at 8:30 Herbert C. Hoover Building, 14th Street For more information, call Yvette a.m. on Monday, December 14, 2009 between Pennsylvania and Constitution Springer at (202) 482–2813. and conclude by 4:30 p.m. Avenues, NW., Washington, DC. The Dated: November 19, 2009. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at Committee advises the Office of the Yvette Springer, the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Assistant Secretary for Export Council, 2203 North Lois Avenue, Suite Administration on emerging technology Committee Liaison Officer. 1100, Tampa, FL 33607, telephone: and research activities, including those [FR Doc. E9–28198 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] (813) 348–1630. related to deemed exports. BILLING CODE 3510–JT–P FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Agenda Assane Diagne, Economist; Gulf of DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Mexico Fishery Management Council; Wednesday, December 9 telephone: (813) 348–1630. Open Session National Oceanic and Atmospheric SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Reef Administration Fish Limited Access Privilege Program 1. Opening Remarks. 2. Recap of ETRAC Methodology Advisory Panel will meet to discuss RIN 0648–XT00 issues related to the design, adoption, Work. 3. Deemed Export Control implementation, and, evaluation of a Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Methodology. reef fish limited access program for the Council; Public Meetings commercial and recreational sectors. 4. Public Comments. Copies of the agenda and other related Closed Session AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries materials can be obtained by calling Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and (813) 348–1630. 5. Discussion of matters determined to Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Although other non-emergency issues be exempt from the provisions relating Commerce. to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. not on the agenda may come before the ACTION: Notice of public meetings. Advisory Panel for discussion, in app. 2 § 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Thursday, December 10 SUMMARY: The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Fishery Conservation and Management Management Council (Council), its Act, those issues may not be the subject Open Session Surfclam / Ocean Quahog / Tilefish of formal action during this meeting. 1. Deemed Export Control Committee; its Dogfish Committee; its Actions of the Advisory Panel will be Methodology. Squid, Mackerel, Butterfish Committee; restricted to those issues specifically The open session will be accessible its Demersal and Coastal Migratory identified in the agenda and any issues via teleconference to 20 participants on Committee; its Monkfish Committee; arising after publication of this notice a first come, first serve basis. To join the and, its Executive Committee will hold that require emergency action under conference, submit inquiries to Ms. public meetings. Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Yvette Springer at DATES: The meetings will be held Fishery Conservation and Management [email protected] no later than Tuesday, December 8, 2009 through Act, provided the public has been December 2, 2009. Thursday, December 10, 2009. See notified of the Council’s intent to take A limited number of seats will be SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for specific action to address the emergency. available for the public session. dates and times.
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES 61334 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices
ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held at Agenda items by day for the Council’s will hear Committee reports and discuss the Sheraton Suites Hotel, 422 Delaware Committees and the Council itself are: any continuing and / or new business. Avenue, Wilmington, DE 19801; On Tuesday, December 8 - The Although non-emergency issues not telephone: (302) 654–8300. Council will convene jointly with the contained in this agenda may come Council address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Atlantic States Marine Fisheries before these groups for discussion, in Management Council, 300 S. New St., Commission’s (ASMFC) Summer accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Room 2115, Dover, DE 19904; Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Conservation and Management telephone: (302) 674–2331. Board. They will review and discuss the Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), those FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Monitoring Committee’s and Advisory issues may not be the subject of formal Daniel T. Furlong, Executive Director, Panel’s recommendations on summer action during these meetings. Actions Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management flounder, scup, and black sea bass will be restricted to those issues Council; telephone: (302) 674–2331 ext. recreational management measures, and specifically identified in this notice and 19. develop and approve recreational any issues arising after publication of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: management measures for the 2010 this notice that require emergency summer flounder, scup, and black sea action under Section 305(c) of the Tuesday, December 8, 2009 bass recreational fisheries. Jointly with Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the From 8:30 a.m. until 5 p.m., the the ASMFC’s Dogfish Board, the public has been notified of the Council’s Council will convene jointly with the Council will review and discuss the intent to take final action to address the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Spiny Dogfish Monitoring Committee’s emergency. Commission’s (ASMFC) Summer and the SSC’s advice and Special Accommodations Flounder, Scup, Black Sea Bass and recommendations for the spiny dogfish These meetings are physically Dogfish Boards to discuss and develop quota and related management measures accessible to people with disabilities. recreational management measures for for the 2010/11 fishing year, and adopt Requests for sign language Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea quota and related management measures interpretation or other auxiliary aid Bass, and commercial management for the 2010/11 fishing year. should be directed to M. Jan Bryan, measures for Dogfish. On Wednesday, December 9 - The (302) 674–2331 ext 18, at least 5 days Council will convene to discuss Wednesday, December 9, 2009 prior to the meeting date. Accountability Measures (AM) to be From 8 a.m. until noon, the Council included in the Council’s ACL/AM Dated: November 19, 2009. will meet to discuss and develop Omnibus Amendment with its Surfclam William D. Chappell, Accountability Measures (AM) for / Ocean Quahog / Tilefish Committee, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Surfclam, Ocean Quahog, Tilefish, its Dogfish Committee, and its Squid, Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. Dogfish, Mackerel, and Butterfish. Mackerel, and Butterfish Committee. [FR Doc. E9–28134 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] From 1 p.m. until 1:15 p.m., the The Council will then award its 2009 BILLING CODE 3510–22–S Council will present its 2009 annual Fisheries Achievement Award (FAA) award recognitions. and its Ricks E Savage Award. The From 1:15 p.m. until 4 p.m., the Council will meet with its Demersal and DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Council will meet to discuss and Coastal Migratory Committee and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric develop AMs for Summer Flounder, Monkfish Committee to discuss and Administration Scup, Black Sea Bass, and Monkfish. recommend draft Accountability From 4 p.m. until 5:30 p.m., officials Measures (AM) to be included in the RIN 0648–XT02 from National Marine Fisheries Council’s ACL/AM Omnibus Service’s (NMFS) Northeast Fisheries Amendment. The Council will then Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Science Center (NEFSC) will provide receive a presentation from a NMFS Zone Off Alaska; Catch Accounting in the Council with a presentation on NEFSC Official on performance the Longline Catcher/Processor Pacific Catch Shares. monitoring and evaluation of catch Cod Fishery Thursday, October 10, 2009 shares in terms of their social, cultural AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries From 8 a.m. until 9 a.m., the and economic impacts on regional Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Executive Committee will meet. fisheries. Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), From 9 a.m. until 10 a.m., the Council On Thursday, December 10 - The Commerce. will receive a presentation from a senior Executive Committee will meet to ACTION: Notice of public workshop. NOAA Advisor on NOAA’s Catch Share review the draft standards for Policy. reconsideration by the SSC of ABC SUMMARY: NMFS announces a workshop From 10 a.m. until 11:30 a.m,. the advice previously provided by that to solicit feedback from owners and Council will hold its regular Business Committee. The Council will then operators of longline catcher/processors Session. convene to receive a presentation by Dr. (freezer longliners) engaged in the From 11:30 until 12 p.m., an informal Lubchenco’s Senior Advisor and Catch Pacific cod fisheries off Alaska. We are question and answer session will be Share Task Force Chairperson on interested in feedback concerning convened regarding MPA nominations NOAA’s draft-interim policy on Catch improved catch accounting measures, and designations. Shares. The Council will open its specifically the feasibility of using From 1 p.m. until 2:15 p.m., public regular business session to approve the motion-compensated scales for comments will be taken and considered October Council meeting minutes and determining the weight of cod brought regarding the selection of sites for MPA receive various organizational reports. A onboard; as well as other issues designation. question / answer session will then be associated with improved estimation of From 2:15 p.m. until 3:30 p.m., the held regarding MPA nominations, Pacific cod catch and associated Council will receive Committee reports followed by a public comment bycatch. The workshop is open to the and conduct any continuing and/or new concerning the Council’s selection of public, but NMFS is particularly seeking business. sites for MPA designation. The Council participation by people who are
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices 61335
knowledgeable about the operations of be in Dutch Harbor/Unalaska. As part of areas: ELA/R (English language arts/ cod freezer longliners. the process of gathering information on reading) or STEM (science, technology, DATES: The public workshop will be this issue, NMFS staff will be available engineering, and/or mathematics). held on Tuesday, December 1, 2009, before and after the meeting to tour Local educational agencies (LEAs) from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. Alaska standard individual vessels and discuss specific may only apply to receive funds for time. issues related to available space and the their elementary school(s) with a ADDRESSES: The workshop will be held feasibility of weighing catch prior to military student population of at least at the Unalaska Public Library Alaskana processing. 25 percent and for their secondary school(s) with a military student Room, 64 Eleanor Drive, Unalaska, Special Accommodations Alaska. population of at least 15 percent. LEAs The workshop will be physically self-certify the numbers and percentages FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: accessible to people with disabilities. of students. Alan Kinsolving, 928–774–4362 or Requests for sign language Concept papers will be disseminated Jennifer Watson, 907–586–7537. interpretation or other auxiliary aids to eligible LEAs by e-mail on or about SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The North should be directed to Jennifer Watson, December 1, 2009. They will be due on Pacific Fishery Management Council 907–586–7537, at least 10 working days or about January 27, 2010. The concept has requested that NMFS prepare a prior to the meeting date. papers will be reviewed in February, discussion paper on improved catch Dated: November 18, 2009. 2010. Full proposals will be accounting in the longline catcher/ Alan D. Risenhoover, disseminated to selected LEAs on or processor sector of the Pacific cod about March 1, 2010 and will be due on fishery off Alaska. Pacific cod and Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. April 22, 2010. Awards are expected to associated bycatch in this fishery are be made June 1–15, 2010. The currently accounted for using data [FR Doc. E9–28162 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–22–P Department may take into account collected by NMFS-certified observers. geographic distribution and military Because only a portion of sets in the service representation when making fishery are observed, the data from DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE grant awards. observed sets are extrapolated to Authorization: estimate catch from unobserved sets and • Office of the Secretary Section 574(d) of Public Law 109– for unobserved trips. In order to 364, as amended by Section 553 of improve catch and bycatch accounting FY 2010 Grant Competition Public Law 110–417; title 10 U.S.C. in this fishery, a group representing Announcement; Promoting Student 2192(b) and 2193a. many of the freezer-longline vessel Achievement at Schools Impacted by CFDA Number owners, the Freezer Longline Coalition, Military Force Structure Changes has suggested that Pacific cod be • CFDA 12.556: Support for K–12 accounted for using the weight of AGENCY: Department of Defense Student Achievement at Military- processed product coupled with an Education Activity (DoDEA). Connected Schools. estimate of drop-offs (fish which are ACTION: Grant competition caught but that do not enter the factory) announcement. K–12 Education made by a NMFS-certified observer. The Department of Defense considers NMFS staff believes that cod catch can SUMMARY: The Department of Defense the education of the dependents of best be accounted for using motion- Education Activity (DoDEA) announces members of the Armed Forces to be a compensated scales to weigh Pacific cod and requests concept papers for the FY critical quality of life issue. K–12 prior to processing coupled with an 2010 Promoting Student Achievement at education concerns are often cited as a observer estimate of drop-offs. However, Schools Impacted by Military Force key reason for requesting changes in there are issues associated with Structure Changes grant competition. assignment and for deciding not to available space and product quality that Approximately $20 million is expected reenlist. may make this approach less practical to be awarded, depending on in this fishery than in others where the availability of funding. The period of Eligibility use of motion-compensated scales is performance is expected to be 40 Eligibility is determined through a required. New approaches to catch months (01 Jun 10–30 Sep 13). Awards two-tier process. The first tier, selection accounting may lead to increased duties will be based on military student of installations, was determined by the for observers as well as necessitating enrollment and will range in size from Military Services and DoDEA using data additional work space for observers. $100,000 to $2,500,000, depending on provided by the Military Services as of In order to inform the discussion the number of military students at the October 2009. Installations had to have paper that NMFS staff will be preparing target schools. The Department’s aim is growth of 400 or more military students on this issue, we seek input into the to enhance the education of military over the 2009–10 and 2010–11 school vessel-specific difficulties associated students, but funds may be used to raise years in order to qualify. If an with the use of motion-compensated student achievement for all students at installation qualified, the Military scales to weigh all retained cod; and the target school(s). Services listed the LEAs that served it. issues associated with providing SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Project See attached list. LEAs were not additional space for an observer activities will occur at military- involved in the determination of sampling station. connected schools that serve installation growth. LEAs that were This workshop is open to the public, installations which have been and are listed must meet the requirements of the but NMFS is particularly seeking input experiencing significant military growth second tier of eligibility in order to from people who work on freezer due to force structure changes. Projects submit a concept paper/full application. longliners and are familiar with vessel will enhance student learning The second tier of eligibility is based operations. The workshop has been opportunities, student achievement, on the size and percentage of the timed to coincide with a period when a and/or educator professional military student population measured at large number of freezer longliners will development in one of the following the school, not the district, level and on
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES 61336 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices
whether or not schools have already Application Focus Areas achievement as shown by standardized tests and related measures. received DoDEA funds. DoDEA seeks proposals that use • Percentage: LEAs may only apply to research-based practices to enhance Federal Forms receive funds for elementary school(s) student learning opportunities, student For the full application only, school with a military student population of at achievement, and/or educator districts will have to complete Standard least 25 percent and secondary school(s) professional development. Proposals Form 424, 424–A, 424–B, and with a military student population of at must focus on one of the following Certification regarding Lobbying. A full least 15 percent. LEAs self-certify the subject areas: ELA/R (English language application is defined as having all numbers and percentages. arts/reading) or STEM (science applicable data correctly completed to • Size: LEAs with 4,500 or more total technology, engineering, and/or include the CAGE number. If an LEA (military and non-military) students or mathematics). Student achievement in does not have a CAGE number, it must 450 or more military students must the focus area must include be obtained prior to submission of the target either their eligible elementary measurements of performance on state full application via http://www.ccr.gov. schools or their eligible secondary norm- and/or criterion-referenced Expected Dates and Procedures schools. LEAs with fewer than 4,500 assessments. total (military and non-military) Evaluation Application E-mailed to LEAs (listed students and fewer than 450 military below): 01 Dec 10. students may target their eligible Proposals must have a strong Deadline for submission of concept elementary and/or eligible secondary evaluation plan with data disaggregated papers: 27 Jan 10, 5 p.m. (EST). schools. at the school level for the military Deadline for submission of full student population. proposals: 22 Apr 10, 5 p.m. (EST). • Definition: Military student is defined as an elementary or secondary Anticipated Awards Submission school student who is a dependent of a It is anticipated grants will be funded Concept papers and full applications member of the Armed Forces or a at the rate of $1,250 per military student must be submitted directly to DoDEA. civilian employee of the Department of (for the entire grant period) with a Detailed submission procedures will be Defense who is employed on Federal minimum award of $100,000 and a presented in the concept paper and full property. LEAs usually use Impact Aid maximum award of $2,500,000. It is applications. data to determine their military student anticipated that LEAs will receive Proposal Compliance population. official award documentation between Failure to adhere to deadlines to be • Current Awardees: Current June 1–15, 2010. awardees of DoDEA grant funds are specified in the forthcoming application eligible to apply for FY10 funds if they Funding Restrictions may result in proposal rejection. Any meet the aforementioned criteria and if A maximum of 25 percent of grant proposal received after the exact time they apply for schools that have not funds may be used for the employment and date specified for receipt will not be already been targeted/listed in their of full-time equivalent (FTE) staff. No considered. DoDEA, at its sole discretion, may accept a late proposal if grant awards. grants funds may be allocated for it determines that no competitive administrative or indirect costs. Awards Eligibility Appeals advantage has been conferred and that are expected to take the form of grants the integrity of the competitive grants to each selected LEA. DoDEA will not entertain petitions process will not be compromised. from LEAs. If such a request is made, it Proposal Evaluation and Selection will be referred to the appropriate Local Educational Agencies (LEAs)* Military Service. Concept papers, limited to six pages Associated With Military Installations in length, will consist of an overview of Experiencing Significant Military DoDEA Point-of-Contact the district, needs assessment, project Student Growth During the 2009–10 goals, project plan, evaluation concept, • Mr. Brian Pritchard, Contracts and and 2010–11 School Years personnel, and budget. Grants Liaison, DoDEA e-mail: Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD (2) Full proposals will consist of two [email protected], Cecil County Public Schools (PS), telephone: 703–588–3345. abstracts (50 and 200 words), 15-page narrative (consisting of a needs Harford County PS. Application Process assessment, research basis, project goals, Andrews AFB, MD (1) personnel, implementation plan, The two-step application process evaluation plan, sustainability, and Prince Georges County PS. consists of a concept paper and full budget narrative), budget, bibliography, Brooks City AFB, TX (15) application. Each concept paper will be up to three resumes, and up to two Alamo Heights Independent School scored by a team of reviewers. Only letters of support. LEAs with the highest scoring concept District (ISD), East Central ISD, Both the concept papers and full Edgewood ISD, Fort Sam Houston ISD, papers will be invited to submit full applications will be evaluated by a team applications. Harlandale ISD, Judson ISD, Lackland of professionals. Approximately one ISD, North East ISD, Northside ISD, Only an eligible LEA may submit a month after the submission of the Randolph Field ISD, San Antonio ISD, concept paper. Each concept paper must concept papers, DoDEA will inform Somerset ISD, South San Antonio ISD, target one or more schools that meet the districts whether or not they have been Southside ISD, Southwest ISD. eligibility requirements listed above. invited to submit a full application. Although the Department’s aim is to Cannon AFB, NM (1) Competitive Preference Priorities With enhance the education of military Clovis Municipal Schools. students, project funds may be used to Points raise student achievement for all Five additional points may be * The nine LEAs associated with Fort Sam students in the target school(s). awarded to LEAs that have low student Houston and Brooks City AFB are listed twice.
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices 61337
Detroit Arsenal, MI (7) Steilacoom Historical SD, Sumner SD, Presidio of Monterey, CA (3) Anchor Bay School District (SD), Tacoma SD, Tenino SD, Tumwater SD, Carmel USD, Monterey Peninsula Centerline SD, L’Anse Cruese SD, University Place SD, Yelm Community USD, Pacific Grove USD. Mount Clemons Community SD, Oak Schools. Redstone Arsenal, AL (3) Park SD, Pontiac SD, Warren Woods PS. Fort Meade, MD (1) Huntsville City Schools, Madison City Eglin AFB, FL (4) Anne Arundel County PS. Schools, Madison County Schools. Okaloosa PS, Santa Rosa PS, Walton Fort Riley, KS (17) Wright-Patterson AFB, OH (25) PS, Escambia County SD. Abilene Unified School District (USD) Beavercreek City PS, Bethel PS, Fort Belvoir, VA (3) 435, Blue Valley-Randolph USD 384, Brookville PS, Centerville City PS, Centre USD 397, Chapman USD 473, Fairfax County PS, Prince William Dayton City PS, Fairborn City PS, Clay County USD 379, Geary County County PS, Stafford County PS. Greenon Local Schools, Huber Heights USD 475, Herrington USD 487, City PS, Kettering City PS, Mad River Fort Benning, GA (6) Manhattan-Ogden USD 383, Mill Creek Local PS, Miamisburg City PS, Chattahoochee County Schools, Harris USD 329, Morris County USD 417, Riley Northmont City PS, Northridge Local County PS, Lee County PS, Muscogee County USD 378, Rock Creek USD 323, PS, Oakwood City PS, Springboro County SD, Phenix City PS, Russell Rural Vista USD 481, Salina USD 305, Community City PS, Springfield City County SD. Solomon USD 393, Topeka USD 501, PS, Sugarcreek Local PS, Tecumseh Wamego USD 320. Local SD, Tipp City Exempted Village Fort Bliss, TX (9) Fort Sam Houston, TX (10) Schools, Trotwood-Madison City Anthony SD, Canutillo SD, Clint SD, Alamo Heights ISD, East Central ISD, Schools, Troy PS, Valley View PS, El Paso ISD, Fabens SD, San Elizario SD, Edgewood ISD, Fort Sam Houston ISD, Vandalia-Butler PS, Xenia Community Socorro SD, Tornillo SD, Ysleta SD. Harlandale ISD, Judson ISD, North East City PS, Yellow Springs Schools. Fort Bragg, NC (5) ISD, Northside ISD, Schertz-Cibolo- Dated: November 19, 2009. Cumberland County Schools, Harnett Universal City ISD, Southwest ISD. Mitchell S. Bryman, County Schools, Hoke County Schools, Fort Stewart, GA (2) Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Lee County Schools, Moore County Officer, Department of Defense. Chatham County Schools, Liberty [FR Doc. E9–28124 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] Schools. County Schools. BILLING CODE 5001–06–P Fort Carson, CO (21) Hill AFB, UT (3) Calhan SD RJ–1, Canon City Fremont Davis SD, Ogden City SD, Weber SD. SD RE–1, Cheyenne Mountain SD 12, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Douglas County SD RE–1, Edison SD Maxwell-Gunter AFB, AL (3) Office of the Secretary JT–54, Elbert SD D–200, Elizabeth Montgomery PS, Autauga County SD, School District C–1, Ellicott SD D–22, Elmore County Public School System. Defense Health Board (DHB) Meeting; Fountain-Fort Carson SD 8, Fremont MCB Camp Lejeune, NC (7) DoD Task Force on the Prevention of RE–2, Hanover SD 28, Harrison SD 2, Suicide by Members of the Armed Kiowa SD RE–1, Lewis Palmer SD RE– Carteret County Schools, Craven Forces 1, Manitou Springs SD 14, Miami-Yoder County Schools, Duplin County SD JT–60, Peyton SD JT–23, Pueblo Schools, Jones County Schools, Onslow AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD). County SD 60, Pueblo County SD 70, County Schools, Pamlico County ACTION: Notice of meeting. Widefield SD 3, Woodland Park SD RE– Schools, Pender County Schools. 2. SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal NAS Jacksonville, FL (7) Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 Fort Dix, NJ (1) Atlantic Beach Schools, Clay County U.S.C., Appendix as amended), the Pemberton Township SD. Schools, Duval County Schools, Sunshine in the Government Act of Jacksonville Beach Schools, Middleburg 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and Fort Knox, TN (8) Central SD, Neptune Beach Elementary 41 CFR 102–3.150, and in accordance Breckinridge County Schools, Bullitt SD, Orange Park SD. with section 10(a)(2) of Public Law, the County Schools, Elizabethtown ISD, NS San Diego, CA (25) following meeting is announced: Grayson County Schools, Hardin County Name of Committee: DoD Task Force Schools, LaRue County Schools, Meade Cajon Valley Union Elementary SD, on the Prevention of Suicide by County Schools, Nelson County Chula Vista Elementary SD, Coronado Members of the Armed Forces, a Schools. USD, Del Mar Union Elementary SD, subcommittee of the Defense Health Del Mar Union SD, Escondido Union Board (DHB). Fort Lee, VA (6) Elementary SD, Escondido Union High Dates: December 15, 2009 (subject to Chesterfield County Schools, Colonial SD, Grossmont Union High SD, La the availability of space, the meeting is Heights PS, Dinwiddie County Schools, Mesa-Spring Valley SD, Lakeside Union open to the public). Hopewell City PS, Petersburg City PS, SD, Lemon Grove Elementary SD, Times: 9 a.m.–4 p.m. Prince George County PS. National Elementary SD, Poway USD, Place of Meeting: Bethesda Marriott, Rancho Santa Fe SD, San Diego USD, 5151 Pooks Hill Road, Bethesda, MD Fort Lewis, WA (20) San Dieguito Union High, San Dieguito 20814. Auburn SD, Bethel SD, Clover Park Union SD, Santee Elementary SD, Purpose of the Meeting: The purpose SD, Dieringer SD, Eatonville SD, Federal Santee SD, South Bay Union Elementary of the meeting is to receive briefings Way SD, Fife SD, Franklin Pierce SD, SD, South Bay Union SD, Sweetwater regarding current Service efforts related North Thurston SD, Olympia SD, Union High SD, Sweetwater Union SD, to the investigation of suicides among Peninsula SD, Puyallup SD, Rainer SD, Valley Center-Pauma USD, Warner USD. members of the Armed Services.
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES 61338 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices
Agenda: On December 15, 2009, the on the Prevention of Suicide by Member 202 of HAVA requires EAC to serve as DoD Task Force on the Prevention of of the Armed Forces. a national clearinghouse and resource Suicide by Members of the Armed Additional information, agenda for the compilation of information Forces will receive briefings from updates, and meeting registration are related to the administration of Federal Service experts and others related to available online at the Defense Health elections. Section 202(3) authorizes EAC their procedures on investigations Board Web site, http://www.ha.osd.mil/ to conduct studies and to carry out other within the safety and risk management dhb. The public is encouraged to duties and activities to promote the areas. Task Force members will also register for the meeting. If special effective administration of Federal receive briefings on the processes used accommodations are required to attend elections. by the Services in conducting suicide (sign language, wheelchair accessibility) DATES: Written comments must be investigations. please contact Ms. Severine Bennett at submitted on or before 4 p.m. EDT on Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b, as (202) 374–5755 or December 24, 2009. amended, and 41 CFR 102–3.140 [email protected] by December Comments: Comments are invited on: through 102–3.165 and subject 1, 2009. (a) Whether the proposed collection of availability of space, the DoD Task FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Col. information is necessary for the proper Force on the Prevention of Suicide by JoAnne McPherson, Executive performance of the functions of the Members of the Armed Forces meeting Secretary, DoD Task Force on Suicide agency, including whether the December 15, 2009 is open to the Prevention by Members of the Armed information shall have practical utility; public. Any member of the public Forces, Three Skyline Place, 5201 (b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate wishing to provide input to the Task Leesburg Pike, Suite 400, Falls Church, of the burden of the proposed Force on the Prevention of Suicide by Virginia 22041, (703) 824–7007, Fax: information collection; (c) ways to Members of the Armed Forces should (703) 824–3832, enhance the quality, utility, and clarity submit a written statement in [email protected]. of the information to be collected; and accordance with 41 CFR 102–3.140(c) Written statements may be sent to the (d) ways to minimize the burden of the and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal mailing address under this caption, e- information collection on respondents, Advisory Committee Act, and the mailed to: [email protected], or faxed to: including through the use of automated procedures described in this notice. (703) 681–3317. collection techniques or other forms of Written statement should be not longer Dated: November 19, 2009. information technology. The than two type-written pages and must information collection tool is available Mitchell S. Bryman, address the following detail: The issue, on the EAC Web site (http:// discussion, and a recommended course Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison www.eac.gov). of action. Supporting documentation Officer, Department of Defense. Additional Information: Please note may also be included as needed to [FR Doc. E9–28173 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] that the Office of Management and establish the appropriate historical BILLING CODE 5001–06–P Budget (OMB) has up to 60 days to context and to provide any necessary approve or disapprove the information background information. collection, but may respond after 30 Individuals desiring to submit a ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION days. Comments on the proposed written statement may do so through the information collection should be Board’s Designated Federal Officer Submission for OMB Review— submitted to OMB within 30 days of (DFO) at the address under FOR FURTHER Evaluation of EAC Educational this notice. Comments should be sent to INFORMATION CONTACT. However, if the Products; Comment Request the attention of Alex Hunt, Desk Officer written statement is not received at least 10 calendar days prior to the meeting, AGENCY: U.S. Election Assistance for the U.S. Election Assistance which is subject to this notice, then it Commission (EAC). Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of may not be provided to or considered by ACTION: Notice. the Task Force on the Prevention of Management and Budget, Washington, Suicide by Members of the Armed SUMMARY: On September 8, 2009, the DC 20503. Comments sent to OMB Forces until the next open meeting. EAC published a notice in accordance should also be sent to EAC at The DFO will review all timely with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the [email protected]. submissions with the Task Force on the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. EAC Obtaining a Copy of the Surveys and Prevention of Suicide by Members of announced an information collection Focus Group Protocol: To obtain a free the Armed Forces Co-Chairpersons, and and sought public comment on the copy of the surveys and focus group ensure they are provided to members of provisions thereof. The EAC, pursuant protocol: (1) Access the EAC Web site at the Task Force before the meeting that to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(iii), intends to http://www.eac.gov; (2) write to the EAC is subject to this notice. After reviewing submit this proposed information (including your address and phone the written comments, the Co- collection (Evaluation of EAC number) at U.S. Election Assistance Chairpersons and the Designated Educational Products) to the Director of Commission, 1225 New York Avenue, Federal Officer may choose to invite the the Office of Management and Budget NW., Suite 1100, Washington, DC submitter of the comments to orally for approval. The Evaluation of EAC 20005, ATTN: Educational Products present their issue during an open Educational Products (Evaluation) asks Evaluation. portion of this meeting or at a future election officials questions concerning FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. meeting. the effectiveness, use, and overall Karen Lynn-Dyson or Ms. Shelly The DFO, in consultation with the satisfaction with the educational Anderson at (202) 566–3100. Task Force on the Prevention of Suicide products by State and local election SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: by Members of the Armed Forces Co- officials. The results of the evaluation Title and OMB Number: Evaluation of Chairpersons, may, if desired, allot a will be used internally as a decision- EAC Educational Products; OMB specific amount of time for members of making tool to guide the EAC’s Number Pending. the public to present their issues for determination about future updates and Needs and Uses: This proposed review and discussion by the Task Force reprints of these work products. Section information collection activity is
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices 61339
necessary to meet requirements of the Responses per Respondent: 1. Deadline for filing comments and Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002 Estimated Burden per Response: 1.5 motions to intervene: December 18, (42 U.S.C. 15301). This data collection hours. 2009. Comments and motions to effort is authorized under the Help Estimated Total Annual Burden intervene may be filed electronically via America Vote Act (HAVA). Section 202 Hours: 45 hours. the Internet. See 18 CFR of HAVA requires EAC to serve as a Frequency: One-time data collection. 385.2001(a)(1)(iii)(2008) and the national clearinghouse and resource for The following categories of instructions on the Commission’s the compilation of information and information will be requested of local website under the ‘‘e-Filing’’ link. If review of procedures with respect to the and State election officials via the unable to be filed electronically, administration of Federal elections. surveys and focus groups: documents may be paper-filed. To • Familiarity with the EAC Section 202(3) authorizes EAC to paper-file, an original and eight copies educational products; conduct studies and to carry out other should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, • Use of EAC educational products; duties and activities to promote the • The impact of having used EAC Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory effective administration of Federal educational products on administrative Commission, 888 First Street, NE., elections. Since 2004, the EAC has and/or election processes; and, Washington, DC 20426. For more issued guidance on various topics to • Recommendations for improving information on how to submit these assist State and local election officials in existing products and/or creation of types of filings please go to the managing and administering elections. additional products. Commission’s Web site located at This guidance includes a number of http://www.ferc.gov/filing- management guidelines, best practices, Thomas R. Wilkey, comments.asp. More information about and other related reports. The specific Executive Director, U.S. Election Assistance this project can be viewed or printed on products to be evaluated include: Commission. the eLibrary link of Commission’s Web Effective Designs for the Administration [FR Doc. E9–28104 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ of Federal Elections (Ballot Designs); BILLING CODE 6820–KF–P elibrary.asp. Successful Practices—Poll Worker Enter the docket number (P–11480) in Recruitment, Training, and Retention; A the docket number field to access the Guidebook to Recruiting College Poll DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY document. For assistance, call toll-free Workers; State Poll Worker 1–866–208–3372. Requirements Compendium; Election Federal Energy Regulatory Kimberly D. Bose, Management Guidelines; Quick Start Commission Secretary. Guides; Election Terminology Glossaries [Project No. 11480–017] in Six Languages; and A Voter’s Guide [FR Doc. E9–28116 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] to Federal Elections. The Evaluation Haida Corporation, Haida Energy, Inc.; BILLING CODE 6717–01–P Contractor will conduct an evaluation of Notice of Application for Transfer of the effectiveness, use, and overall License and Soliciting Comments and DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY satisfaction with the aforementioned Motions To Intervene products by State and local election November 17, 2009. Federal Energy Regulatory officials. The results of the evaluation On November 6, 2009, Haida Commission will be used internally as a decision- Corporation (transferor) and Haida making tool to guide the EAC’s [Project No. 13583–000] Energy, Inc. (transferee) filed an determination about future updates and application for transfer of license of the reprints of these work products. The Crane & Company; Notice of Reynolds Creek Hydroelectric Project evaluation will include the use of Preliminary Permit Application located on Reynolds Creek, near the surveys and focus groups. Accepted for Filing and Soliciting There is one online survey for local town of Hydaburg, on Prince of Wales Comments, Motions To Intervene, and election officials and one online survey Island, in southeast Alaska. Competing Applications Applicants seek Commission approval for State election officials. Each survey to transfer the license for the Reynolds November 17, 2009. is estimated to take 40 minutes to Creek Hydroelectric Project from the On September 3, 2009, Crane & complete. Company filed an application, pursuant Affected Public (Respondents): State transferor to the transferee. Applicant Contact: Transferor: Mr. to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, governments, the District of Columbia, Alvin Edenshaw, President, Haida proposing to study the feasibility of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, Corporation, P.O. Box 89, Hydaburg, AK Byron Weston Dam No. 2 Hydroelectric American Samoa, and the United States 99922, (907) 230–8780. Mr. Donald H. Generation Project No. 13583, to be Virgin Islands, and local entities. located on the East Branch of the Affected Public: State and local Clarke, Law Offices of GKRSE, 1500 K Housatonic River, in Berkshire County, government. Street, NW., Suite 330, Washington, DC Number of Respondents: 5,000. 20005, (202) 408–5400. Massachusetts. Responses per Respondent: 1. Transferee: Mr. Alvin Edenshaw, The proposed project would consist Estimated Burden per Response: 40 President, Haida Energy, Inc., P.O. Box of: (1) The existing 30-foot-high, 75-foot- minutes. 89, Hydaburg, AK 99922, (907) 230– long Byron Weston Dam No. 2; (2) an Estimated Total Annual Burden 8780. Mr. Robert Grimm, President, existing 1.2-acre impoundment with a Hours: 2,000 hours. Alaska Power & Telephone Company, normal water surface elevation of 1,112 Frequency: One-time data collection. P.O. Box 3222, Port Townsend, WA feet mean sea level; (3) a new turbine There will be three focus groups held 98368, (360) 385–1733. Mr. Donald H. and generator with a capacity of 175 with approximately 10 participants per Clarke, Law Offices of GKRSE, 1500 K kilowatts; (4) a new trash rack; (5) a group. Each focus group meeting is Street, NW., Suite 330, Washington, DC refurbished 6-foot-diameter penstock expected to last one and one-half hours. 20005, (202) 408–5400. and a new 15-foot-long, 4-foot-diameter Affected Public: Local government. FERC Contact: Christopher Chaney, penstock; (6) an existing 27-by-29-foot, Number of Respondents: 30. (202) 502–6778. four-story powerhouse; (7) an existing
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES 61340 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices
25-foot-long, 8-foot-wide tailrace; (8) Docket Numbers: RP08–426–011. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY and appurtenant facilities. The project Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Federal Energy Regulatory would have an estimated annual Company. generation of 837 megawatt-hours. Commission Applicant Contact: James Noel, Crane Description: El Paso Natural Gas & Company, 30 South Street, Dalton, Company submits Fourth Revised Sheet Combined Notice of Filings No. 1 No 388 to FERC Gas Tariff, Second MA 01226, (413) 684–6319. November 16, 2009. FERC Contact: Brandon Cherry, (202) Revised Volume No 1A. Take notice that the Commission has 502–8328. Filed Date: 10/29/2009. Deadline for filing comments, motions received the following Natural Gas to intervene, competing applications Accession Number: 20091030–0129. Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings: (without notices of intent), or notices of Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Docket Numbers: RP10–137–000. intent to file competing application: 60 on Monday, November 16, 2009. Applicants: Eastern Shore Natural Gas days from the issuance of this notice. Company. Docket Numbers: RP00–327–008. Comments, motions to intervene, Description: Eastern Shore Natural notices of intent, and competing Applicants: Columbia Gas Gas Company submits Seventieth applications may be filed electronically Transmission, LLC. Revised Sheet No. 7 et al to its FERC via the Internet. See 18 CFR Description: Columbia Gas Gas tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions Transmission Segmentation Report. 1, to be effective 11/1/09. on the Commission’s Web site under the Filed Date: 11/12/2009. ‘‘eFiling’’ link. If unable to be filed Filed Date: 10/30/2009. Accession Number: 20091113–0139. electronically, documents may be paper- Accession Number: 20091030–5097. Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time filed. To paper-file, an original and eight Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, November 24, 2009. copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. on Monday, November 16, 2009. Docket Numbers: RP10–138–000. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Applicants: Texas Gas Transmission, Regulatory Commission, 888 First Any person desiring to protest this LLC. Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For filing must file in accordance with Rule Description: Texas Gas Transmission, more information on how to submit 211 of the Commission’s Rules of LLC submits Eleventh Revised Sheet these types of filings please go to the Practice and Procedure (18 CFR No. 99 to FERC Gas Tariff, Third Commission’s Web site located at: 385.211). Protests to this filing will be Revised Volume No. 1, to be effective http://www.ferc.gov/filing- considered by the Commission in 11/12/09. comments.asp. determining the appropriate action to be Filed Date: 11/12/2009. More information about this project taken, but will not serve to make Accession Number: 20091113–0140. can be viewed or printed on the protestants parties to the proceeding. Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time ‘‘eLibrary’’ link of Commission’s Web Such protests must be filed on or before on Tuesday, November 24, 2009. site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified Docket Numbers: RP10–139–000. elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number comment date. Anyone filing a protest Applicants: Texas Gas Transmission, (P–13583) in the docket number field to must serve a copy of that document on LLC. access the document. For assistance, all the parties to the proceeding. Description: Texas Gas Transmission, call toll-free 1–866–208–3372. The Commission encourages LLC submits Substitute Original Sheet Kimberly D. Bose, electronic submission of protests in lieu No. 77 to FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1. Secretary. of paper using the ‘‘eFiling’’ link at Filed Date: 11/12/2009. http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to [FR Doc. E9–28115 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] Accession Number: 20091113–0141. file electronically should submit an BILLING CODE 6717–01–P Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time original and 14 copies of the protest to on Tuesday, November 24, 2009. the Federal Energy Regulatory DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Docket Numbers: RP10–140–000. Washington, DC 20426. Applicants: Freebird Gas Storage, Federal Energy Regulatory LLC. Commission This filing is accessible on-line at Description: Freebird Gas Storage, http://www.ferc.gov, using the LLC submits First Revised Sheet 100 et Combined Notice of Filings ‘‘eLibrary’’ link and is available for al to FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised review in the Commission’s Public Volume 1, to be effective 12/1/09. November 10, 2009. Reference Room in Washington, DC. Filed Date: 11/12/2009. Take notice that the Commission has There is an ‘‘eSubscription’’ link on the Accession Number: 20091113–0102. received the following Natural Gas Web site that enables subscribers to Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings: receive e-mail notification when a on Tuesday, November 24, 2009. Docket Numbers: RP10–58–001. document is added to a subscribed Applicants: Questar Pipeline Docket Numbers: RP10–141–000. docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Company. Applicants: T.W. Phillips Pipeline Description: Questar Pipeline Online service, please e-mail Corporation. Company submits Substitute Seventh [email protected], or call Description: TW Phillips Pipeline Revised Sheet 7.01 to FERC Gas Tariff, (866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call Corp submits Original Sheet 1 et al to First Revised Volume 1 to be effective (202) 502–8659. FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume 1, to be effective 1/1/10. 11/1/09. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Filed Date: 10/22/2009. Filed Date: 11/12/2009. Accession Number: 20091023–0016. Deputy Secretary. Accession Number: 20091113–0101. Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time [FR Doc. E9–28110 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, November 16, 2009. BILLING CODE 6717–01–P on Tuesday, November 24, 2009.
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices 61341
Docket Numbers: RP10–142–000. Any person desiring to intervene or to DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline protest in any of the above proceedings LLC. must file in accordance with Rules 211 Federal Energy Regulatory Description: Rockies Express Pipeline and 214 of the Commission’s Rules of Commission LLC submits Tenth Revised Sheet 8A et Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 Combined Notice of Filings No. 2 al to FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern Volume 1, to be effective 11/12/09. time on the specified comment date. It November 16, 2009. Filed Date: 11/12/2009. is not necessary to separately intervene Take notice that the Commission has Accession Number: 20091113–0149. again in a subdocket related to a received the following Natural Gas Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time compliance filing if you have previously Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings: on Tuesday, November 24, 2009. intervened in the same docket. Protests Docket Numbers: RP10–40–001. Docket Numbers: RP10–142–001. will be considered by the Commission Applicants: Southern Natural Gas Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline in determining the appropriate action to Company. LLC. Description: Southern Natural Gas Description: Rockies Express Pipeline be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Company submits Fourth Revised Sheet LLC submits Seventh Revised Sheet 8 et 231 to its FERC Gas Tariff, Seventh al FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that Revised Volume 1 under RP10–40. Volume 1, to be effective 11/12/09. Filed Date: 11/10/2009. Filed Date: 11/13/2009. document on the Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, Accession Number: 20091113–0142. Accession Number: 20091113–0158. Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time interventions or protests submitted on Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, November 23, 2009. on Tuesday, November 24, 2009. or before the comment deadline need not be served on persons other than the Docket Numbers: RP10–111–001. Docket Numbers: RP10–143–000. Applicants: Equitrans, L.P. Applicants: Iroquois Gas Applicant. Description: Equitrans, LP submits Transmission System, L.P. The Commission encourages Substitute Seventh Revised Tariff Sheet Description: Iroquois Gas electronic submission of protests and 317 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Original Transmission System, LP submits Sixth interventions in lieu of paper, using the Volume 1. Revised Sheet 6 of its FERC Gas Tariff, FERC Online links at http:// Filed Date: 11/12/2009. First Revised Volume 1, to be effective www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic Accession Number: 20091113–0103. 11/15/09. service, persons with Internet access Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Filed Date: 11/13/2009. who will eFile a document and/or be on Tuesday, November 24, 2009. Accession Number: 20091113–0157. listed as a contact for an intervenor Docket Numbers: RP10–96–001. Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Applicants: Equitrans, L.P. on Wednesday, November 25, 2009. must create and validate an eRegistration account using the Description: Equitrans, LP submits Docket Numbers: RP10–144–000. eRegistration link. Select the eFiling Substitute Sixth Revised Tariff Sheet Applicants: Discovery Gas link to log on and submit the 317 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Original Transmission LLC. intervention or protests. Volume 1, to be effective 11/1/09. Description: Discovery Gas Filed Date: 11/12/2009. Transmission LLC submits Eighteenth Persons unable to file electronically Accession Number: 20091113–0104. Revised Sheet No 20 to FERC Gas Tariff, should submit an original and 14 copies Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Original Volume No 1. of the intervention or protest to the on Tuesday, November 24, 2009. Filed Date: 11/13/2009. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Any person desiring to protest this Accession Number: 20091113–0159. 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC filing must file in accordance with Rule Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time 20426. 211 of the Commission’s Rules of on Wednesday, November 25, 2009. The filings in the above proceedings Practice and Procedure (18 CFR Docket Numbers: RP10–145–000. are accessible in the Commission’s 385.211). Protests to this filing will be Applicants: The State of Alaska. eLibrary system by clicking on the considered by the Commission in Description: Petition of the State of appropriate link in the above list. They determining the appropriate action to be Alaska for Expedited Grant of Limited are also available for review in the taken, but will not serve to make Waiver. Commission’s Public Reference Room in protestants parties to the proceeding. Filed Date: 11/12/2009. Such protests must be filed in Washington, DC. There is an Accession Number: 20091112–5243. accordance with the provisions of eSubscription link on the web site that Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Section 154.210 of the Commission’s on Tuesday, November 24, 2009. enables subscribers to receive e-mail regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone Docket Numbers: CP10–18–000. notification when a document is added filing a protest must serve a copy of that Applicants: Columbia Gulf to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance document on all the parties to the Transmission Company and Gulf South with any FERC Online service, please e- proceeding. Pipeline Company, LP. mail [email protected] or The Commission encourages Description: Abbreviated Joint call (866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, electronic submission of protests in lieu Application of Columbia Gulf call (202) 502–8659. of paper using the ‘‘eFiling’’ link at Transmission Company and Gulf South Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to Pipeline Company, LP for permission file electronically should submit an and approval to abandon Natural Gas Deputy Secretary. original and 14 copies of the protest to Exchange Service. [FR Doc. E9–28109 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] the Federal Energy Regulatory Filed: 11/10/2009. BILLING CODE 6717–01–P Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Accession Number: 20091110–5118. Washington, DC 20426. Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time This filing is accessible on-line at on Friday, November 27, 2009. http://www.ferc.gov, using the
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES 61342 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices
‘‘eLibrary’’ link and is available for Status re market based rate authority Filed Date: 11/06/2009. review in the Commission’s Public filed on 10/2/09. Accession Number: 20091112–0092. Reference Room in Washington, DC. Filed Date: 11/09/2009. Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time There is an ‘‘eSubscription’’ link on the Accession Number: 20091112–0098. on Friday, November 27, 2009. Web site that enables subscribers to Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Docket Numbers: ER06–1185–003. receive e-mail notification when a on Monday, November 30, 2009. Applicants: Pace Global Asset document is added to a subscribed Docket Numbers: ER00–1026–020; Management, LLC. docket(s). For assistance with any FERC ER00–33–015; ER01–1315–009; ER01– Description: Pace Global Asset Online service, please e-mail 2401–015; ER01–751–015; ER05–442– Management, LLC’s amended, revised [email protected], or call 007; ER09–1278–002; ER09–38–003; market based rate tariff, updated market (866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call ER98–2184–018; ER98–2185–018; power analysis, and application for (202) 502–8659. ER98–2186–019; ER99–1761–009; status as a Category 1 Seller. ER99–1773–013; ER99–2284–013. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Filed Date: 11/12/2009. Applicants: Indianapolis Power & Accession Number: 20091116–0206. Deputy Secretary. Light Company; AES Placerita, Inc.; Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time [FR Doc. E9–28107 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] AES Ironwood LLC; AES Red Oak LLC; on Thursday, December 03, 2009. BILLING CODE 6717–01–P Mountain View Power Partners, LLC; Docket Numbers: ER08–1439–002; Condon Wind Power, LLC; AES EL09–32–002. Armenia Mountain Wind, LLC; AES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Applicants: New Brunswick Power Energy Storage, LLC; AES Huntington Generation Corporation. Federal Energy Regulatory Beach, L.L.C.; AES Alamitos, Inc.; AES Description: New Brunswick Power Commission Redondo Beach, L.L.C.; AES Eastern Generation Corporation submits Energy, LP; AES Creative Resources LP; additional information re NBP’s 8/10/09 Combined Notice of Filings # 1 AEE 2 LLC. compliance filing. Description: The AES Corporation Filed Date: 11/09/2009. November 17, 2009. submits revised tariff sheets updating Accession Number: 20091112–0108. Take notice that the Commission seller category designation for the Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time received the following electric corporate Northwest Power Pool Regions et al. on Monday, November 30, 2009. filings: Filed Date: 11/06/2009. Docket Numbers: ER09–633–002; Docket Numbers: EC10–21–000. Accession Number: 20091110–0042. ER99–1248–001; ER08–851–003; ER01– Applicants: Noble Great Plains Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time 1784–011; ER03–222–010; ER08–333– Windpark, LLC. on Friday, November 27, 2009. 004. Description: Noble Great Plains Docket Numbers: ER01–2659–015; Windpark, LLC, Application for Applicants: SWG Colorado, LLC; ER03–674–014; ER05–453–005; ER05– Harbor Cogeneration Co; Valencia Authorization of Transaction Pursuant 89–013; ER07–650–003; ER95–1528– to Section 203 of the Federal Power Act, Power, LLC; Fountain Valley Power, 021; ER96–1088–048. LLC; Las Vegas Cogeneration II, LLC; Request for Waivers of Filing Applicants: Wisconsin Public Service Las Vegas Cogeneration LP. Requirements, Confidential Treatment Corporation, Upper Peninsula Power Description: Southwest Generation of Transaction Documents. Company, Wisconsin River Power Operating Co, LLC submits revisions to Filed Date: 11/13/2009. Company, Integrys Energy Services, market-based rate tariffs in compliance Accession Number: 20091113–5152. Inc., WPS Power Development, LLC, with Order 697 and 697–A. Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Quest Energy, LLC, Combined Locks on Friday, December 04, 2009. Filed Date: 11/06/2009. Energy Center, LLC. Accession Number: 20091110–0043. Take notice that the Commission Description: Intergys Energy Group, received the following exempt Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Inc submits Supplement to their June on Friday, November 27, 2009. wholesale generator filings: 18, 2009 Application for renewal of Docket Numbers: EG10–8–000. their market-based rate etc. Docket Numbers: ER09–650–002. Applicants: Star Point Wind Project Filed Date: 11/09/2009. Applicants: PJM Interconnection LLC. LLC. Accession Number: 20091112–0093. Description: PJM Interconnection, Description: Notice of Self- Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time LLC submits response to the 10/8/09 Certification of Exempt Wholesale on Monday, November 30, 2009. notice requesting additional Generator Status of Star Point Wind Docket Numbers: ER06–615–056; information. Project LLC. ER09–556–004; ER08–367–009. Filed Date: 11/09/2009. Filed Date: 11/17/2009. Applicants: California Independent Accession Number: 20091112–0091. Accession Number: 20091117–5022. System Operator Corporation. Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Description: California Independent on Monday, November 30, 2009. on Tuesday, December 08, 2009. System Operator Corporation submits Docket Numbers: ER09–1543–003. Take notice that the Commission informational filing to reflect revised Applicants: Midwest Independent received the following electric rate accepted effective date. Transmission System Operator, Inc. filings: Filed Date: 11/13/2009. Description: Midwest Independent Docket Numbers: ER97–2801–028; Accession Number: 20091116–0243. Transmission System Operator, Inc. ER96–719–027; ER99–2156–020; ER07– Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time submits Second Revised Sheet 496 et al 1236–004. on Friday, December 04, 2009. to FERC Electric Tariff, Fourth Revised Applicants: PacifiCorp; MidAmerican Docket Numbers: ER06–1071–001. Volume 1. Energy Company; Cordova Energy Applicants: Kuehne Chemical Filed Date: 11/09/2009. Company LLC; Yuma Cogeneration Company, Inc. Accession Number: 20091110–0139. Associates. Description: Kuehne Chemical Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Description: PacifiCorp et al submits Company, Inc submits amended market on Monday, November 30, 2009. supplement to the Notice of Change in power analysis. Docket Numbers: ER09–1581–003.
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices 61343
Applicants: Midwest Independent Filed Date: 11/06/2009. Applicants: Southern California Transmission System Operator, Inc. Accession Number: 20091110–0141. Edison Company. Description: Midwest Independent Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Description: Southern California Transmission System Operator, Inc. on Friday, November 27, 2009. Edison Company submits a revised rate submits revisions to the Amended and Docket Numbers: ER10–238–000. sheet to the Amended and Restated Restated Generator Interconnection Applicants: Upper Peninsula Power Mandalay Generating Station Radial Agreement with Northern States Power Company. Lines Agreement between CE and RRI Company. Description: Upper Peninsula Power Energy Mandalay, Inc. Filed Date: 11/09/2009. Company submits revisions to Filed Date: 11/10/2009. Accession Number: 20091110–0137. Attachments D and E of its Original Rate Accession Number: 20091110–0126. Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Schedule FERC 54 for provision of Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, November 30, 2009. Load-Following Full Requirement on Tuesday, December 01, 2009. Docket Numbers: ER10–25–001. Service to Alger Delta Cooperative Docket Numbers: ER10–244–000. Applicants: Xcel Energy Services Inc. Electric Association. Applicants: Southern California Description: Xcel Energy Services Inc Filed Date: 11/09/2009. Edison Company. submits Attachment A as the Accession Number: 20091110–0131. Description: Southern California cancellation coversheet for the Volume Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Edison Company submits a revised rate 5 Tariff. on Monday, November 30, 2009. sheet to the Ameresco Chiquita Energy, Filed Date: 11/06/2009. Docket Numbers: ER10–239–000. LLC Service Agreement for Wholesale Accession Number: 20091110–0044. Applicants: PacifiCorp. Distribution Service, Service Agreement Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Description: PacifiCorp submits 199 etc. on Friday, November 27, 2009. Transmission Interconnection Filed Date: 11/10/2009. Docket Numbers: ER10–192–001. Agreement for Points of Delivery dated Accession Number: 20091110–0125. Applicants: Public Service Company 10/26/09 with Garkane Energy Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time of Colorado. Cooperative, Inc designated as Rate on Tuesday, December 01, 2009. Description: Public Service Company Schedule FERC 654 etc. Docket Numbers: ER10–247–000. of Colorado submits errata to the 10/30/ Filed Date: 11/09/2009. Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric 09. Accession Number: 20091110–0133. Company. Filed Date: 11/06/2009. Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Description: Pacific Gas and Electric Accession Number: 20091110–0045. on Monday, November 30, 2009. Co submits a Transmission Facilities Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Docket Numbers: ER10–240–000. Agreement for the Ravenswood Bore on Friday, November 27, 2009. Applicants: PacifiCorp. Bay Tunnel Project. Docket Numbers: ER10–231–000. Description: PacifiCorp submits Filed Date: 11/10/2009. Applicants: New York Independent Network Integration Transmission Accession Number: 20091112–0140. System Operator, Inc. Service Agreement dated 11/2/09 with Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Description: New York Independent Tri-State Generation and Transmission on Tuesday, December 01, 2009. System Operator, Inc. submits revisions Association, Inc designated as Service Docket Numbers: ER10–248–000. to its Market Administration and Agreement 628, Seventh Revised Applicants: Allegheny Power. Control Area Services Tariff. Volume 11 etc. Description: PJM Interconnection, Filed Date: 11/06/2009. Filed Date: 11/09/2009. LLC submits the Second Revised Sheet Accession Number: 20091110–0039. Accession Number: 20091110–0132. No. 313A to FERC Electric Tariff, Sixth Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Revised Volume No. 1. on Friday, November 27, 2009. on Monday, November 30, 2009. Filed Date: 11/10/2009. Docket Numbers: ER10–232–000. Docket Numbers: ER10–241–000. Accession Number: 20091112–0139. Applicants: Los Medanos Energy Applicants: PacifiCorp. Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Center, LLC. Description: PacifiCorp submits on Tuesday, December 01, 2009. Description: Los Medanos Energy Transmission Interconnection Docket Numbers: ER10–249–000. Center, LLC submits notice of Agreement for Points of Delivery at Applicants: Illinois Power Company & termination of Rate Schedule FERC No Foote Creek dated 10/26/09 with Tri- Ameren Illinois. 2. State Generation and Transmission Description: Illinois Power Co etc. Filed Date: 11/06/2009. Association, Inc etc. submits a revised Exhibit A to the Joint Accession Number: 20091110–0041. Filed Date: 11/09/2009. Ownership Agreement. Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Accession Number: 20091110–0134. Filed Date: 11/10/2009. on Friday, November 27, 2009. Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Accession Number: 20091112–0138. Docket Numbers: ER10–233–000. on Monday, November 30, 2009. Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Applicants: PacifiCorp. Docket Numbers: ER10–242–000. on Tuesday, December 01, 2009. Description: PacifiCorp submits Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Docket Numbers: ER10–250–000. Facilities Maintenance Agreement. Inc. Applicants: Florida Power & Light Filed Date: 11/06/2009. Description: Southwest Power Pool, Company. Accession Number: 20091110–0040. Inc submits revised pages to its Open Description: Florida Power & Light Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Access Transmission Tariff to Company submits Original Rate on Friday, November 27, 2009. implement a rate change for Oklahoma Schedule FERC 319 to be effective 1/1/ Docket Numbers: ER10–235–000. Gas and Electric Company etc. 10. Applicants: E. ON U.S. LLC. Filed Date: 11/09/2009. Filed Date: 11/10/2009. Description: E ON U.S., LLC submits Accession Number: 20091110–0135. Accession Number: 20091112–0123. amendment to the interconnection Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time agreement with East Kentucky Power on Monday, November 30, 2009. on Tuesday, December 01, 2009. Cooperative. Docket Numbers: ER10–243–000. Docket Numbers: ER10–251–000.
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES 61344 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices
Applicants: Florida Power & Light Description: Public Service Company Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Company. of New Mexico submits Letter on Friday, December 04, 2009. Description: Florida Power & Light Agreement to Facilitate Installation of Docket Numbers: ER10–266–000. Company submits Original Service the Series Reactors. Applicants: Trans Bay Cable LLC. Agreement 279 to its FERC Electric Filed Date: 11/13/2009. Description: Trans Bay Cable LLC Tariff, 2nd Revised Volume 6. Accession Number: 20091113–0152. submits initial Transmission Owner Filed Date: 11/10/2009. Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Tariff, FERC Electric Tariff Original Accession Number: 20091112–0124. on Friday, December 04, 2009. Volume No. 1. Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Docket Numbers: ER10–260–000. Filed Date: 11/13/2009. on Tuesday, December 01, 2009. Applicants: Southwestern Public Accession Number: 20091116–0191. Docket Numbers: ER10–252–000. Service Company. Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Applicants: Florida Power & Light Description: Southwestern Public on Friday, December 04, 2009. Company. Service Co submits a revised rate Docket Numbers: ER10–267–000. Description: Florida Power & Light Co schedule No. 102. Applicants: Southwest Power Pool submits an Interconnection Agreement Filed Date: 11/12/2009. Inc. with Lee County, Florida. Accession Number: 20091113–0156. Description: Southwest Power Pool, Filed Date: 11/10/2009. Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Inc. submits revisions to membership Accession Number: 20091112–0141. on Thursday, December 03, 2009. agreement. Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Docket Numbers: ER10–261–000. Filed Date: 11/13/2009. on Tuesday, December 01, 2009. Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Accession Number: 20091116–0190. Docket Numbers: ER10–254–000. Inc. Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Applicants: Tucson Electric Power Description: Southwest Power Pool, on Friday, December 04, 2009. Company. Inc submits an executed Large Generator Docket Numbers: ER10–268–000. Description: Tucson Electric Power Co Interconnection Agreement with Applicants: PJM Interconnection, submits an Agreement for the Transmission Provider, Taloga Wind, LLC. Interconnection of the Electrical System LLC etc. Description: PJM Interconnection, etc. Filed Date: 11/12/2009. LLC submits amendments to Schedule Filed Date: 11/12/2009. Accession Number: 20091113–0153. 12–Appendix for the PJM Tariff. Accession Number: 20091113–0136. Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Filed Date: 11/13/2009. Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, December 03, 2009. Accession Number: 20091116–0196. on Thursday, December 03, 2009. Docket Numbers: ER10–262–000. Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Docket Numbers: ER10–255–000. Applicants: MMC Chula Vista LLC. on Friday, December 04, 2009. Applicants: Carolina Power & Light Description: MMC Chula Vista LLC Docket Numbers: ER99–2311–013; Company. submits notice of cancellation of FERC ER97–2846–016. Description: Carolina Power & Light Electric Tariff, Original Volume No. 1. Applicants: Carolina Power & Light Co submits the revised power sales Filed Date: 11/13/2009. Company; Florida Power Corporation. agreement with North Carolina Electric Accession Number: 20091116–0195. Description: Amended Notice of Membership Corp. Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Change in Status of Florida Power Filed Date: 11/12/2009. on Friday, December 04, 2009. Corporation, et al. Accession Number: 20091113–0138. Docket Numbers: ER10–263–000. Filed Date: 11/13/2009. Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Applicants: MMC Escondido LLC. Accession Number: 20091113–5084. on Thursday, December 03, 2009. Description: MMC Escondido LLC Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Docket Numbers: ER10–257–000. submits notice of cancellation of its on Friday, December 04, 2009. Applicants: American Electric Power FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume Take notice that the Commission Service Corporation. No. 1. received the following open access Description: American Electric Power Filed Date: 11/13/2009. transmission tariff filings: Service Corporation submits the fully Accession Number: 20091116–0194. Docket Numbers: OA08–27–004. executed Letter Agreement dated 8/28/ Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Applicants: E.ON U.S. LLC. 09 with Oklahoma Gas and Electric. on Friday, December 04, 2009. Description: E.ON US. LLC submits Filed Date: 11/13/2009. Docket Numbers: ER10–264–000. revisions to Attachment K of their joint Accession Number: 20091113–0150. Applicants: MMC Mid-Sun, LLC. Open Access Transmission Tariff etc, to Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Description: MMC Mid-Sun, LLC be effective 11/18/09. on Friday, December 04, 2009. submits notice of cancellation of FERC Filed Date: 11/06/2009. Docket Numbers: ER10–258–000. Electric Tariff, Original Volume No. 1. Accession Number: 20091110–0136. Applicants: American Electric Power Filed Date: 11/13/2009. Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Service Corporation. Accession Number: 20091116–0193. on Friday, November 27, 2009. Description: American Electric Power Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Any person desiring to intervene or to Service Corporation submits fully on Friday, December 04, 2009. protest in any of the above proceedings executed Letter Agreement dated 8/28/ Docket Numbers: ER10–265–000. must file in accordance with Rules 211 09 with Oklahoma Gas and Electric. Applicants: Western Kentucky Energy and 214 of the Commission’s Rules of Filed Date: 11/13/2009. Corporation. Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 Accession Number: 20091113–0151. Description: Western Kentucky and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Energy Corporation submits notice of time on the specified comment date. It on Friday, December 04, 2009. cancellation of its First revised Rate is not necessary to separately intervene Docket Numbers: ER10–259–000. Schedule FERC No. 1. again in a subdocket related to a Applicants: Public Service Company Filed Date: 11/13/2009. compliance filing if you have previously of New Mexico. Accession Number: 20091116–0192. intervened in the same docket. Protests
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices 61345
will be considered by the Commission Annual Report of Penalty Revenue Revised Sheet No. 8B to FERC Gas in determining the appropriate action to Credits. Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1. be taken, but will not serve to make Filed Date: 11/06/2009. Filed Date: 11/09/2009. protestants parties to the proceeding. Accession Number: 20091110–0127. Accession Number: 20091110–0129. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time protest must serve a copy of that on Wednesday, November 18, 2009. on Monday, November 23, 2009. document on the Applicant. In reference Docket Numbers: RP10–131–000. Any person desiring to intervene or to to filings initiating a new proceeding, Applicants: CenterPoint Energy Gas protest in any of the above proceedings interventions or protests submitted on Transmission Company. must file in accordance with Rules 211 or before the comment deadline need Description: CenterPoint Energy Gas and 214 of the Commission’s Rules of not be served on persons other than the Transmission Company submits an Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 Applicant. Amended and Restated Firm and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern The Commission encourages Transportation Service Agreement. time on the specified comment date. It electronic submission of protests and Filed Date: 11/06/2009. is not necessary to separately intervene interventions in lieu of paper, using the Accession Number: 20091110–0128. again in a subdocket related to a FERC Online links at http:// Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time compliance filing if you have previously www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic on Wednesday, November 18, 2009. intervened in the same docket. Protests service, persons with Internet access Docket Numbers: RP10–132–000. will be considered by the Commission who will eFile a document and/or be Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline in determining the appropriate action to listed as a contact for an intervenor LLC. be taken, but will not serve to make must create and validate an Description: Rockies Express Pipeline, protestants parties to the proceeding. eRegistration account using the LLC submits Fourth Revised Sheet 6 to Anyone filing a motion to intervene or eRegistration link. Select the eFiling its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised protest must serve a copy of that link to log on and submit the Volume 1 to be effective 12/9/09. document on the Applicant. In reference intervention or protests. Filed Date: 11/09/2009. to filings initiating a new proceeding, Persons unable to file electronically Accession Number: 20091110–0052. interventions or protests submitted on should submit an original and 14 copies Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time or before the comment deadline need of the intervention or protest to the on Monday, November 23, 2009. not be served on persons other than the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Applicant. 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC Docket Numbers: RP10–133–000. Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline The Commission encourages 20426. electronic submission of protests and The filings in the above proceedings LLC. Description: Rockies Express Pipeline, interventions in lieu of paper, using the are accessible in the Commission’s FERC Online links at http:// eLibrary system by clicking on the LLC submits Seventh Revised Sheet 8B et al. to its FERC Gas Tariff, Second www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic appropriate link in the above list. They service, persons with Internet access are also available for review in the Revised Volume 1, to be effective 12/9/ 09. who will eFile a document and/or be Commission’s Public Reference Room in listed as a contact for an intervenor Washington, DC. There is an Filed Date: 11/09/2009. Accession Number: 20091110–0053. must create and validate an eSubscription link on the Web site that eRegistration account using the enables subscribers to receive e-mail Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, November 23, 2009. eRegistration link. Select the eFiling notification when a document is added link to log on and submit the to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance Docket Numbers: RP10–134–000. Applicants: Columbia Gulf intervention or protests. with any FERC Online service, please e- Persons unable to file electronically mail [email protected]. or Transmission Company. Description: Columbia Gulf should submit an original and 14 copies call (866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, of the intervention or protest to the call (202) 502–8659. Transmission Company submits Fifty- First Revised Sheet 18 et al. to FERC Gas Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Tariff, Second Revised Volume 1. 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC Deputy Secretary. Filed Date: 11/09/2009. 20426. [FR Doc. E9–28106 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] Accession Number: 20091110–0049. The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission’s BILLING CODE 6717–01–P Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, November 23, 2009. eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They Docket Numbers: RP10–135–000. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY are also available for review in the Applicants: Honeoye Storage Commission’s Public Reference Room in Federal Energy Regulatory Corporation. Washington, DC. There is an Commission Description: Honeoye Storage eSubscription link on the Web site that Corporation submits the Second Revised enables subscribers to receive e-mail Combined Notice of Filings Sheet No. 8 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, notification when a document is added Original Volume No. 1A. to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance November 12, 2009. Filed Date: 11/09/2009. with any FERC Online service, please e- Take notice that the Commission has Accession Number: 20091110–0130. mail [email protected] or received the following Natural Gas Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time call (866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings: on Monday, November 23, 2009. call (202) 502–8659. Docket Numbers: RP10–130–000. Docket Numbers: RP10–136–000. Applicants: CenterPoint Energy Gas Applicants: Iroquois Gas Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Transmission Company. Transmission System, LP. Deputy Secretary. Description: CenterPoint Energy Gas Description: Iroquois Gas [FR Doc. E9–28108 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] Transmission Company submits the Transmission System, LP submits First BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES 61346 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY document is added to a subscribed entities that may be affected by this docket(s). For assistance with any FERC action. If you have any questions Federal Energy Regulatory Online service, please e-mail regarding the applicability of this action Commission [email protected] or call to a particular entity, consult the [Docket No. ER10–225–000] (866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call technical person listed under FOR (202) 502–8659. FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Major Energy Electric Services, LLC; Kimberly D. Bose, B. How Can I Get Copies of this Supplemental Notice That Initial Secretary. Document and Other Related Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Information? Request for Blanket Section 204 [FR Doc. E9–28117 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] Authorization BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 1. Docket. EPA has established a docket for this action under docket November 17, 2009. identification (ID) number EPA–HQ– This is a supplemental notice in the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OPPT–2003–0004. All documents in the above-referenced proceeding of Major AGENCY docket are listed in the docket index Energy Electric Services, LLC’s available at http://www.regulations.gov. application for market-based rate [EPA–HQ–OPPT–2003–0004; FRL–8798–7] Although listed in the index, some authority, with an accompanying rate Access to Confidential Business information is not publicly available, tariff, noting that such application Information by Science Applications e.g., CBI or other information whose includes a request for blanket International Corporation disclosure is restricted by statute. authorization, under 18 CFR Part 34, of Certain other material, such as future issuances of securities and AGENCY: Environmental Protection copyrighted material, will be publicly assumptions of liability. Agency (EPA). available only in hard copy. Publicly Any person desiring to intervene or to ACTION: Notice. available docket materials are available protest should file with the Federal electronically at http:// Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 SUMMARY: EPA has authorized its www.regulations.gov, or, if only First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, contractor, Science Applications available in hard copy, at the OPPT in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 International Corporation (SAIC), to Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in of the Commission’s Rules of Practice access information which has been the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and submitted to EPA under all sections of 3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to the Toxic Substances Control Act Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, intervene or protest must serve a copy (TSCA). Some of the information may be DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room of that document on the Applicant. claimed or determined to be hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 Notice is hereby given that the Confidential Business Information (CBI). p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding deadline for filing protests with regard DATES: Access to the confidential data Federal holidays. The telephone number to the applicant’s request for blanket will occur no sooner than December 1, of the EPA/DC Public Reading Room is authorization, under 18 CFR Part 34, of 2009. (202) 566–1744, and the telephone future issuances of securities and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For number for the OPPT Docket is (202) assumptions of liability, is December 7, general information contact: Colby 566–0280. Docket visitors are required 2009. Lintner, Regulatory Coordinator, to show photographic identification, The Commission encourages Environmental Assistance Division pass through a metal detector, and sign electronic submission of protests and (7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention the EPA visitor log. All visitor bags are interventions in lieu of paper, using the and Toxics, Environmental Protection processed through an X-ray machine FERC Online links at http:// Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., and subject to search. Visitors will be www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone provided an EPA/DC badge that must be service, persons with Internet access number: (202) 554–1404; e-mail address: visible at all times in the building and who will eFile a document and/or be [email protected]. returned upon departure. listed as a contact for an intervenor For technical information contact: 2. Electronic access. You may access must create and validate an Scott Sherlock, Environmental this Federal Register document eRegistration account using the Assistance Division (7408M), Office of electronically through the EPA Internet eRegistration link. Select the eFiling Pollution Prevention and Toxics, under the ‘‘Federal Register’’ listings at link to log on and submit the Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. intervention or protests. Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, II. What Action is the Agency Taking? Persons unable to file electronically DC 20460–0001; telephone number: should submit an original and 14 copies (202) 564–8257; fax number: (202) 564– Under Contract Number GS–35F– of the intervention or protest to the 8251; e-mail address: sherlock.scott 4461G, contractor SAIC of 10260 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, @epa.gov. Campus Point Drive, San Diego, CA, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC will assist the Office of Pollution 20426. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) in The filings in the above-referenced I. General Information designing and developing graphical user proceeding are accessible in the interface screens. The screens will be Commission’s eLibrary system by A. Does this Notice Apply to Me? transferred from the development clicking on the appropriate link in the This action is directed to the public environment to the EPA Confidential above list. They are also available for in general. This action may, however, be Business environment. Users will input review in the Commission’s Public of interest to all who manufacture, data into a repository in the Reference Room in Washington, DC. process or distribute industrial Confidential Business environment via There is an eSubscription link on the chemicals. Since other entities may also use of the input screens. Web site that enables subscribers to be interested, the Agency has not In accordance with 40 CFR 2.306(j), receive e-mail notification when a attempted to describe all the specific EPA has determined that under Contract
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices 61347
Number GS–35F–4461G, SAIC will DATES: Additional comments may be listing of the contents of the docket, and require access to CBI submitted to EPA submitted on or before December 24, to access those documents in the docket under all sections of TSCA to perform 2009. that are available electronically. Once in successfully the duties specified under ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, the system, select ‘‘docket search,’’ then the contract. SAIC personnel will be referencing Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– key in the docket ID number identified given access to information submitted to OW–2009–0089 to (1) EPA online using above. Please note that EPA’s policy is EPA under all sections of TSCA. http://www.regulations.gov (our that public comments, whether EPA is issuing this notice to inform preferred method), by e-mail to OW- submitted electronically or in paper, all submitters of information under all [email protected], or by mail to: EPA will be made available for public sections of TSCA that EPA may provide Docket Center, Environmental viewing at http://www.regulations.gov SAIC access to these CBI materials on a Protection Agency, Water Docket, as EPA receives them and without need-to-know basis only. All access to United States Environmental Protection change, unless the comment contains TSCA CBI under this contract will take Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 copyrighted material, confidential place at EPA Headquarters in Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, business information (CBI), or other accordance with EPA’s TSCA CBI DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. information whose public disclosure is Protection Manual. EPA–HQ–OW–2009–0089, and (2) OMB restricted by statute. For further Access to TSCA data, including CBI, by mail to: Office of Information and information about the electronic docket, will continue until September 27, 2012. Regulatory Affairs, Office of go to http://www.regulations.gov. If the contract is extended, this access Management and Budget (OMB), Title: Unregulated Contaminant will also continue for the duration of the Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 Monitoring in Public Water Systems extended contract without further 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC (Renewal). ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 2192.03, notice. 20503. SAIC personnel will be required to OMB Control No. 2040–0270. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: sign nondisclosure agreements and will ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to Brenda D. Parris, Technical Support expire on November 30, 2009. Under be briefed on appropriate security Center, Office of Ground Water and OMB regulations, the Agency may procedures before they are permitted Drinking Water, United States continue to conduct or sponsor the access to TSCA CBI. Environmental Protection Agency, collection of information while this List of Subjects Office of Water, 26 West Martin Luther submission is pending at OMB. An King Drive (MS 140), Cincinnati, OH Environmental Protection, Agency may not conduct or sponsor, 45268, telephone (513) 569–7961; e-mail Confidential Business Information. and a person is not required to respond address [email protected]. For to, a collection of information, unless it Dated: November 18, 2009. general information, contact the Safe displays a currently valid OMB control Matthew Leopard, Drinking Water Hotline. Callers within number. The OMB control numbers for Acting Director, Information Management the United States may reach the Hotline EPA’s regulations in title 40 of the CFR, Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and at (800) 426–4791. The Hotline is open after appearing in the Federal Register Toxics. Monday through Friday, excluding legal when approved, are listed in 40 CFR [FR Doc. E9–28170 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] holidays, from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m., Eastern part 9, are displayed either by BILLING CODE 6560–50–S Time. publication in the Federal Register or SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has by other appropriate means, such as on submitted the following ICR to OMB for the related collection instrument or ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION review and approval according to the form, if applicable. The display of OMB AGENCY procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. control numbers in certain EPA On June 9, 2009, (74 FR 27312) EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR [EPA–HQ–OW–2009–0089; FRL–8984–4] sought comments on this ICR pursuant part 9. Agency Information Collection to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no Abstract: The Safe Drinking Water Act Activities; Submission to OMB for comments during the comment period. (SDWA), as amended in 1996, directs Review and Approval; Comment Any additional comments on this ICR EPA to establish criteria for a program Request; Unregulated Contaminant should be submitted to EPA and OMB to monitor not more than 30 Monitoring in Public Water Systems within 30 days of this notice. unregulated contaminants every five (Renewal); EPA ICR No. 2192.03, OMB EPA has established a public docket years. EPA published the first group of Control No. 2040–0270 for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA– contaminants in the Unregulated HQ–OW–2009–0089, which is available Contaminant Monitoring Regulation AGENCY: Environmental Protection for online viewing at http:// (i.e., UCMR 1), which established a Agency (EPA). www.regulations.gov, or in person revised approach for UCMR ACTION: Notice. viewing at the Water Docket, EPA West, implementation, in the Federal Register Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, dated September 17, 1999, (64 FR SUMMARY: In compliance with the NW., Washington, DC. The Docket 50556). EPA published the second Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 Center Public Reading Room is open group of contaminants in UCMR 2, in U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday the Federal Register dated January 4, announces that an Information through Friday, excluding legal 2007, (72 FR 367). This regulation met Collection Request (ICR) has been holidays. The telephone number for the the SDWA requirement by identifying forwarded to the Office of Management Reading Room is 202–566–1744, and the 25 new priority contaminants to be and Budget (OMB) for review and telephone number for the Water Docket monitored during the UCMR 2 cycle of approval. This is a request to renew an is (202) 566–2426. 2007–2011. existing approved collection. The ICR, Use EPA’s electronic docket and Under UCMR 2, Assessment which is abstracted below, describes the comment system at http:// Monitoring uses more common nature of the information collection and www.regulations.gov, to submit or view analytical method technologies used by its estimated burden and cost. public comments, access the index drinking water laboratories. All public
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES 61348 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices
water systems (PWSs) serving more than capital and operation & maintenance Special arrangements should be made 10,000 people, and 800 representative costs. for deliveries of boxed information. The PWSs serving fewer than 10,001 people Changes in the Estimates: There is Docket Facility telephone number is are required to monitor for the 10 ‘‘List decrease of 30,625 hours in the total (703) 305–5805. 1’’ contaminants during a 12-month estimated burden currently identified in Instructions: Direct your comments to period between January 2008–December the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2009– 2010. Screening Survey monitoring uses Burdens. This decrease is due to the fact 0660. EPA’s policy is that all comments more specialized analytical method that the complete five-year UCMR 2 received will be included in the docket technologies not as widely used by cycle of 2007–2011 overlaps with the without change and may be made drinking water laboratories. All PWSs applicable ICR renewal period only available on-line at http:// serving more than 100,000 people, 320 during 2010 and 2011. In this time, www.regulations.gov, including any representative PWSs serving 10,001– there will be fewer PWSs participating personal information provided, unless 100,000 people, and 480 representative and the schedule of activities will have the comment includes information PWSs serving fewer than 10,001 people changed. claimed to be Confidential Business are required to monitor for the 15 ‘‘List Dated: November 16, 2009. Information (CBI) or other information 2’’ contaminants during a 12-month John Moses, whose disclosure is restricted by statute. period between January 2008–December Do not submit information that you Director, Collection Strategies Division. 2010. consider to be CBI or otherwise This notice proposes renewal of the [FR Doc. E9–28145 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] protected through regulations.gov or e- currently approved UCMR 2 ICR (OMB BILLING CODE 6560–50–P mail. The regulations.gov website is an Control No. 2040–0270), which covers ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which the period of 2007–2009. This ICR means EPA will not know your identity renewal accounts for activities over a ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY or contact information unless you three-year period (2010–2012), as is provide it in the body of your comment. customary. Note that the complete five- [EPA–HQ–OPP–2009–0660; FRL–8797–5] If you send an e-mail comment directly year UCMR 2 cycle of 2007–2011 to EPA without going through overlaps with the applicable ICR Pesticide Experimental Use Permits; regulations.gov, your e-mail address renewal period only during 2010 and Receipt of Applications; Comment will be automatically captured and 2011. Public water systems will only be Requests included as part of the comment that is involved in active monitoring during AGENCY: Environmental Protection placed in the docket and made available 2010 (i.e., one-third of this ICR period), on the Internet. If you submit an with reporting continuing into 2011 for Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. electronic comment, EPA recommends some. that you include your name and other Burden Statement: The annual public SUMMARY: This notice announces EPA’s contact information in the body of your reporting and recordkeeping burden for receipt of applications 86414–EUP–E comment and with any disk or CD–ROM this collection of information is and 86414–EUP–R from Washington you submit. If EPA cannot read your estimated to average 5.8 hours per State University Long Beach Research comment due to technical difficulties response. Burden means the total time, Unit requesting experimental use and cannot contact you for clarification, effort, or financial resources expended permits (EUPs) for the pesticide EPA may not be able to consider your by persons to generate, maintain, retain, Imidacloprid. The Agency has comment. Electronic files should avoid or disclose or provide information to or determined that the permits may be of the use of special characters, any form for a Federal agency. This includes the regional and national significance. of encryption, and be free of any defects time needed to review instructions; Therefore, in accordance with 40 CFR or viruses. develop, acquire, install, and utilize 172.11(a), the Agency is soliciting Docket: All documents in the docket technology and systems for the purposes comments on these applications. are listed in the docket index available of collecting, validating, and verifying DATES: Comments must be received on at http://www.regulations.gov. Although information, processing and listed in the index, some information is maintaining information, and disclosing or before December 24, 2009. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other and providing information; adjust the information whose disclosure is existing ways to comply with any identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–OPP–2009–0660, by restricted by statute. Certain other previously applicable instructions and material, such as copyrighted material, requirements which have subsequently one of the following methods: • is not placed on the Internet and will be changed; train personnel to be able to Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line publicly available only in hard copy respond to a collection of information; form. Publicly available docket search data sources; complete and instructions for submitting comments. • Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs materials are available either in the review the collection of information; electronic docket at http:// and transmit or otherwise disclose the (OPP) Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 www.regulations.gov, or, if only information. available in hard copy, at the OPP Respondents/Affected Entities: Public Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S– water systems. DC 20460–0001. • Estimated Number of Respondents: Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public 4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 1,694 (1,638 PWSs and 56 State primacy Docket (7502P), Environmental 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The agencies). Protection Agency, Rm. S–4400, One hours of operation of this Docket Frequency of Response: On Occasion. Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: Crystal Dr., Arlington,VA. Deliveries are Monday through Friday, excluding legal 9,761. only accepted during the Docket holidays. The Docket Facility telephone Estimated Total Annual Cost: Facility’s normal hours of operation number is (703) 305–5805. $3,250,616 includes an estimated labor (8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: cost of $387,096 and $2,863,520 for Friday, excluding legal holidays). Joanne Edwards, Registration Division
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices 61349
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, v. If you estimate potential costs or granular imidacloprid) to be used is up Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 burdens, explain how you arrived at to 300 pounds of active ingredient on up Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, your estimate in sufficient detail to to 30 acres. DC 20460–0001; telephone number: allow for it to be reproduced. A copy of the applications and any (703) 305–6736; e-mail address: vi. Provide specific examples to information submitted is available for [email protected]. illustrate your concerns and suggest public review in the docket established alternatives. for these EUP applications as described SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: vii. Explain your views as clearly as under ADDRESSES. I. General Information possible, avoiding the use of profanity Following the review of the or personal threats. applications and any comments and A. Does this Action Apply to Me? viii. Make sure to submit your data received in response to this This action is directed to the public comments by the comment period solicitation, EPA will decide whether to in general. This action may, however, be deadline identified. issue or deny the EUP requests, and if of interest to those persons who are or 3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to issued, the conditions under which it is may be required to conduct testing of achieve environmental justice, the fair to be conducted. Any issuance of EUPs chemical substances under the Federal treatment and meaningful involvement will be announced in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) of any group, including minority and/or Register. low income populations, in the or the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, List of Subjects and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Since development, implementation, and other entities may also be interested, the enforcement of environmental laws, Environmental protection, Agency has not attempted to describe all regulations, and policies. To help Experimental use permits. the specific entities that may be affected address potential environmental justice issues, the Agency seeks information on Dated: November 12, 2009. by this action. If you have any questions Lois Rossi, regarding the applicability of this action any groups or segments of the population who, as a result of their Director, Registration Division, Office of to a particular entity, consult the person Pesticide Programs. listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION location, cultural practices, or other CONTACT. factors, may have atypical or [FR Doc. E9–28152 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] disproportionately high and adverse BILLING CODE 6560–50–S B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare human health impacts or environmental My Comments for EPA? effects from exposure to the pesticide(s) 1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this discussed in this document, compared ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION information to EPA through to the general population. AGENCY regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark II. What Action is the Agency Taking? [FRL–8982–8] the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI Under section 5 of FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. Tentative Approval and Solicitation of information in a disk or CD–ROM that 136c, EPA can allow manufacturers to Request for a Public Hearing for Public you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the field test pesticides under development. Water Supply Supervision Program disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then Manufacturers are required to obtain Revision for the U.S. Virgin Islands identify electronically within the disk or EUPs before testing new pesticides or new uses of pesticides if they conduct AGENCY: Environmental Protection CD–ROM the specific information that Agency. is claimed as CBI. In addition to one experimental field tests on 10 acres or ACTION: complete version of the comment that more of land or one acre or more of Notice. includes information claimed as CBI, a water. Pursuant to 40 CFR 172.11(a), the SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that copy of the comment that does not Agency has determined that the the U.S. Virgin Islands is revising its contain the information claimed as CBI following EUP applications may be of approved Public Water System must be submitted for inclusion in the regional and national significance, and Supervision Program to adopt EPA’s public docket. Information so marked therefore is seeking public comment on National Primary Drinking Water will not be disclosed except in the EUP applications: Regulations. The EPA has determined accordance with procedures set forth in Submitter: Washington State that these revisions are no less stringent 40 CFR part 2. University Long Beach Research Unit, than the corresponding Federal 2. Tips for preparing your comments. (86414–EUP–E and 86414–EUP–R). regulations. Therefore, the EPA intends When submitting comments, remember Pesticide Chemical: Imidacloprid. to approve these program revisions. All to: Summary of Request: Washington interested parties may request a public i. Identify the document by docket ID State University Long Beach Research hearing. number and other identifying Unit is applying for two EUPs for the DATES: This determination to approve information (subject heading, Federal use of Imidacloprid to investigate the the U.S. Virgin Island’s primacy Register date and page number). efficacy and non-target effects of the program revision application is made ii. Follow directions. The Agency may pesticide against burrowing shrimp in pursuant to 40 CFR 142.12(d)(3). It shall ask you to respond to specific questions oyster and manila clam beds in Willapa become final and effective unless (1) a or organize comments by referencing a Bay and Grays harbor, Washington state. timely and appropriate request for a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part For 86414–EUP–R, the total quantity of public hearing is received or (2) the or section number. product (Nuprid 2F, EPA Reg. No. 228– Regional Administrator elects to hold a iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; 484, containing 21.4% liquid public hearing on his own motion. Any suggest alternatives and substitute imidacloprid) to be used is up to 80 interested person, other than Federal language for your requested changes. pounds of active ingredient on up to 100 Agencies, may request a public hearing. iv. Describe any assumptions and acres. For 86414–EUP–E, the total A request for a public hearing must be provide any technical information and/ quantity of product (Mallet 0.5G, EPA submitted to the Regional Administrator or data that you used. Reg. No. 228–501, containing 0.5% at the address shown below by
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES 61350 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices
December 24, 2009. If a substantial Level Goals and National Primary Interim Enhanced Surface Water request for a public hearing is made Drinking Water Regulations for Lead Treatment Rule and the Stage 1 within the requested thirty day time and Copper; Final Rule, promulgated by Disinfectants and Disinfection frame, a public hearing will be held and EPA June 30, 1994 (59 FR 33860), Byproducts, and Revisions to State a notice will be given in the Federal Drinking Water; National Primary Primacy Requirements to Implement the Register and a newspaper of general Drinking Water, Synthetic Organic Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments; circulation. Frivolous or insubstantial Chemicals and Inorganic Chemicals; Final Rule, promulgated by EPA April requests for a hearing may be denied by National Primary Drinking Water 14, 2000 (65 FR 20304), National the Regional Administrator. If no timely Implementation; Monitoring for Primary Drinking Water Regulations: and appropriate request for a hearing is Unregulated Contaminants; Final Rule, Public Notification Rule; Final Rule, received and the Regional Administrator promulgated by EPA July 1, 1994 (59 FR promulgated by EPA May 4, 2000 (65 FR does not elect to hold a hearing on his 34320), National Primary Drinking 25982), with the following Technical own motion, this determination shall Water Regulations; Analytical Methods Corrections promulgated by EPA: June become final and effective December 24, for Regulated Drinking Water 21, 2000 (65 FR 38629), June 30, 2000 2009. Contaminants; Final Rule, promulgated (65 FR 40520), Removal of the ADDRESSES: Any request for a public by EPA December 5, 1994, National Maximum Contaminant Level Goal for hearing shall include the following Primary and Secondary Drinking Water Chloroform from the National Primary information: (1) Name, address and Regulations; Analytical Methods for Drinking Water Regulations; Final Rule, telephone number of the individual, Regulated Drinking Water promulgated by EPA May 30, 2000 (65 organization or other entity requesting a Contaminants, promulgated by EPA FR 34404), National Primary Drinking hearing; (2) a brief statement of the June 29, 1995 (60 FR 34083), National Water Regulations; Radionuclides; Final requesting person’s interest in the Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Rule, promulgated by EPA December 7, Regional Administrator’s determination Analytical Methods for Radionuclides; 2000, (65 FR 76708), Revisions to the and a brief statement on information Final Rule, promulgated by EPA March Interim Enhanced Surface Water that the requesting person intends to 5, 1997 (63 FR 10175), Revisions to Treatment Rule, the Stage 1 submit at such hearing; (3) the signature State Primacy Requirements to Disinfectants and Disinfection of the individual making the requests or, Implement Safe Drinking Water Act Byproducts Rule and Revisions to State if the request is made on behalf of an Amendments; Final Rule, promulgated Primacy Requirements to Implement the organization or other entity, the by EPA April 28, 1998 (63 FR 23361), Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments; signature of a responsible official of the Revision of Existing Variance and Final Rule, promulgated by EPA January organization or other entity. Requests Exemption Regulations To Comply With 16, 2001 (66 FR 3770), National Primary for Public Hearing shall be addressed to: Requirements of the Safe Drinking Drinking Water Regulations; Arsenic Regional Administrator, U.S. Water Act; Final Rule, promulgated by and Clarifications to Compliance and Environmental Protection Agency— EPA August 14, 1998 (63 FR 43833), New Source Contaminants Monitoring; Region 2, 290 Broadway, New York, National Primary Drinking Water Final Rule, promulgated by EPA January New York 10007–1866. Regulation: Consumer Confidence 22, 2001 (66 FR 6976), with the All documents relating to this Reports; Final Rule, promulgated by following Minor Clarification determination are available for EPA August 19, 1998 (63 FR 44511) promulgated by EPA March 25, 2003 (68 inspection between the hours of 9 a.m. with the following Technical FR 14502), Revisions to the Interim and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, Corrections promulgated by EPA: June Enhanced Surface Water Treatment at the following offices: 29, 1999 (64 FR 34732), September 14, Rule, the Stage 1 Disinfectants and Office of the Commissioner, Department 1998 (64 FR 49671), November 27, 2002 Disinfection Byproducts Rule and of Planning and Natural Resources, 45 (67 FR 70850), and December 9, 2002 Revisions to State Primacy Mars Hill, Frederiksted, St. Croix, (67 FR 73011), National Primary Requirements to Implement the Safe U.S. Virgin Islands 00840–4474. Drinking Water Regulations: Drinking Water Act Amendments; Final U.S. Environmental Protection Disinfectants and Disinfection Rule, promulgated by EPA February 12, Agency—Region 2, 24th Floor Byproducts; Final Rule, promulgated by 2001 (66 FR 9903), National Primary Drinking Water Ground Water EPA December 16, 1998 (63 FR 69389), Drinking Water Regulations; Filter Protection Section, 290 Broadway, National Primary Drinking Water Backwash Recycling Rule; Final Rule, New York, New York 10007–1866. Regulations: Interim Enhanced Surface promulgated by EPA June 8, 2001 (66 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Water Treatment; Final Rule, FR 31086), National Primary Drinking Michael J. Lowy, Drinking Water promulgated by EPA December 16, 1998 Water Regulations; Long Term 1 Ground Water Protection Section, U.S. (63 FR 69477), Suspension of Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Environmental Protection Agency— Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule; Final Rule, promulgated by EPA Region 2, (212) 637–3830. Requirements for Small Public Water January 14, 2002 (67 FR 1812), National SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is Systems; Final Rule, promulgated by Primary Drinking Water Regulations; hereby given that the United States EPA January 8, 1999 (64 FR 1499), Methods Update; Final Rule, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Primary and Secondary promulgated by EPA October 23, 2002 has determined to approve an Drinking Water Regulations; Analytical (67 FR 65220), National Primary application by the U.S. Virgin Islands Methods for Chemical and Drinking Water Regulations: Minor Department of Planning and Natural Microbiological Contaminants and Revisions to Public Notification Rule, Resources (DPNR) to revise its Public Revisions to Laboratory Certification Consumer Confidence Report Rule and Water System Supervision Primacy Requirements; Final Rule, promulgated Primacy Rule; Final Rule, promulgated Program to incorporate regulations no by EPA December 1, 1999 (64 FR by EPA November 27, 2002 (67 FR less stringent than the EPA’s National 67449), National Primary Drinking 70850), with the following Technical Primary Drinking Water Regulations Water Regulations for Lead and Copper; Correction promulgated by EPA (NPDWR) for the following rules: Final Rule, promulgated by EPA January December 9, 2002 (67 FR 73011), Drinking Water; Maximum Contaminant 12, 2000 (65 FR 1950), Revisions to the National Primary and Secondary
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices 61351
Drinking Water Regulations: Approval Dated: October 14, 2009. the rear of the 550 17th Street Building of Additional Method for the Detection George Pavlou, (located on F Street), on business days of Coliforms and E. Coli in Drinking Acting Regional Administrator, Region 2. between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. Water: Final Rule, promulgated by EPA [FR Doc. E9–28146 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] A copy of the comments may also be February 13, 2004 (69 FR 7156), BILLING CODE 6560–50–P submitted to the FDIC Desk Officer, National Primary Drinking Water Office of Information and Regulatory Regulations: Minor Corrections and Affairs, Office of Management and Clarification to Drinking Water FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE Budget, New Executive Office Building, Regulations; National Primary Drinking CORPORATION Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503. Water Regulations for Lead and Copper: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For Final Rule, promulgated by EPA June Agency Information Collection further information about the revisions 29, 2004 (69 FR 38850), National Activities: Revision of a Currently discussed in this notice, please contact Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Approved Collection; Comment Leneta G. Gregorie, by telephone at Analytical Method for Uranium, Request promulgated by EPA August 25, 2004 (202) 898–3719 or by mail at the address (69 FR 5217), National Primary Drinking AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance identified above. In addition, copies of Water Regulations: Stage 2 Disinfectants Corporation (FDIC). the proposed revised Forms 7200/05 and Disinfection Byproducts Rule; Final ACTION: Notice and request for comment. and 7200/09, and proposed new Form Rule, promulgated by EPA January 4, 7200/18 can be obtained at the FDIC’s SUMMARY: In accordance with 2006 (71 FR 388), with the following Web site (http://www.fdic.gov/ requirements of the Paperwork Technical Corrections promulgated by regulations/laws/federal/). Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 EPA January 27, 2006 (71 FR 4644), June et seq.), the FDIC may not conduct or SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FDIC 29, 2006 (71 FR 37168), and June 29, sponsor, and the respondent is not is proposing to make minor revisions to 2009 (74 FR 30953), National Primary required to respond to, an information simplify and clarify three of the forms Drinking Water Regulations: Long Term collection unless it displays a currently used in support of deposit insurance 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment valid Office of Management and Budget activities related to failed banks. Rule; Final Rule, promulgated by EPA (OMB) control number. The FDIC Title: Forms Related to Processing of January 5, 2006 (71 FR 654), with the hereby gives notice that it is seeking Deposit Insurance Claims. following Technical Corrections public comment on proposed revisions Forms Currently In Use: promulgated by EPA January 30, 2006 to its ‘‘Forms Related to Processing (71 FR 4968) and February 6, 2006 (71 Declaration for Testamentary Deposit FR 6136), National Primary Drinking Deposit Insurance Claims’’ information (Single Grantor), Form 7200/03; Water Regulations: Ground Water Rule, collection (OMB No. 3064–0143). At the Declaration for Public Unit Deposit, Final Rule, promulgated by EPA end of the comment period, any Form 7200/04; comments and recommendations November 8, 2006 (71 FR 67427), and Declaration for Trust, Form 7200/05; the following Technical Correction received will be analyzed to determine the extent to which the FDIC should Declaration of Independent Activity, promulgated by EPA November 21, 2006 Form 7200/06; (71 FR 67427), and National Primary modify the proposed revisions prior to Declaration of Independent Activity Drinking Water Regulations for Lead submission to OMB for review and for Unincorporated Association, Form and Copper: Short-Term Revisions and approval. 7200/07; Clarifications; Final Rule, promulgated DATES: Comments must be submitted on by EPA October 10, 2007 (72 FR 5782). or before January 25, 2010. Declaration for Joint Ownership Deposit, Form 7200/08; The application demonstrates that the ADDRESSES: Interested parties are U.S. Virgin Islands has adopted invited to submit written comments. All Declaration for Testamentary Deposit drinking water regulations which satisfy comments should refer to the name of (Multiple Grantors), Form 7200/09; the NPDWRs for the above. The USEPA the collection. Comments may be Declaration for Defined Contribution has determined that the U.S. Virgin submitted by any of the following Plan, Form 7200/10; Island’s regulations are no less stringent methods: Declaration for IRA/KEOGH Deposit, than the corresponding Federal • http://www.FDIC.gov/regulations/ Form 7200/11; Regulations and that the U.S. Virgin laws/federal/notices.html. • Declaration for Defined Benefit Plan, Island’s DPNR continues to meet all E-mail: [email protected]. Form 7200/12; requirements for primary enforcement • Mail: Leneta G. Gregorie responsibility as specified in 40 CFR (202.898.3719), Counsel, Federal Declaration of Custodian Deposit, 142.10. Deposit Insurance Corporation, Form 7200/13; Declaration for Health and Welfare Authority: (Section 1413 of the Safe PA1730–3000, 550 17th Street, NW., Drinking Water Act, as amended, 40 U.S.C. Washington, DC 20429. Plan, Form 7200/14; 300g–2, and 40 CFR 142.10, 142.12(d) and • Hand Delivery: Comments may be Declaration for Plan and Trust, Form 142.13) hand-delivered to the guard station at 7200/15.
ESTIMATED NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS AND BURDEN HOURS
Hours per Number of FDIC document response respondents Burden hours
Declaration for Testamentary Deposit (Single Grantor), Form 7200/03 ...... 0.50 1000 500 Declaration for Public Unit Deposit, Form 7200/04 ...... 0.50 500 250 Declaration for Trust, Form 7200/05 ...... 0.50 900 450 Declaration of Independent Activity, Form 7200/06 ...... 0.50 25 12.5 Declaration of Independent Activity for Unincorporated Association, Form 7200/07 ...... 0.50 25 12.5 Declaration for Joint Ownership Deposit, Form 7200/08 ...... 0.50 25 12.5
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES 61352 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices
ESTIMATED NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS AND BURDEN HOURS—Continued
Hours per Number of FDIC document response respondents Burden hours
Declaration for Testamentary Deposit (Multiple Grantors), Form 7200/09 ...... 0.50 500 250 Declaration for Defined Contribution Plan, Form 7200/10 ...... 1.0 50 50 Declaration for IRA/KEOGH Deposit, Form 7200/11 ...... 0.50 50 25 Declaration for Defined Benefit Plan, Form 7200/12 ...... 1.0 200 200 Declaration of Custodian Deposit, Form 7200/13 ...... 0.50 50 25 Declaration for Health and Welfare Plan, Form 7200/14 ...... 1.0 200 200 Declaration for Plan and Trust, Form 7200/15 ...... 0.50 1300 650
Sub-total ...... 4,825 2,638 Additional Burden for Deposit Brokers Only ...... 138 New Form To Be Added: Declaration for Irrevocable Trust, Form 7200/18 ...... 0.50 200 100
Total ...... 5,095 2,875
General Description of Collection: The relationship of each beneficiary to the of automated collection techniques or collection involves forms used by the grantors; eliminate the requirement to other forms of information technology. FDIC to obtain information from provide a date of death for any named All comments will become a matter of individual depositors and deposit beneficiaries who are deceased; add a public record. brokers necessary to supplement the request for information on beneficiary Dated at Washington, DC, this 19th day of records of failed depository institutions type (i.e., individual, charity, or non- November 2009. to make determinations regarding profit) and add, for charitable or non- Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. deposit insurance coverage for profit organization beneficiaries, a Valerie J. Best, depositors of failed institutions. The request that the respondent indicate Assistant Executive Secretary. information provided allows the FDIC to whether the charity or non-profit is identify the actual owners of an account recognized by the IRS. The FDIC [FR Doc. E9–28129 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] and each owner’s interest in the believes that changes to Form 7200/09 BILLING CODE 6714–01–P account. do not render it any more or less Current Action: The FDIC is burdensome than the existing form; FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE proposing modifications, which may be therefore, the current burden estimates CORPORATION considered substantive and material, to remain unchanged. With respect to new the following forms: Declaration for Form 7200/18, it does collect Agency Information Collection Trust, Form 7200/05, and Declaration information regarding irrevocable trusts Activities: Revision of a Currently for Testamentary Deposit (Multiple that previously was collected on Form Approved Collection; Comment Grantors), Form 7200/09. In addition, 7200/05. However, unlike old Form Request the FDIC proposes to add to the 7200/05, new Form 7200/18 does not collection the following new form: request information on the ownership AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance Declaration for Irrevocable Trust, Form interest (percentage or dollar amount) of Corporation (FDIC). 7200/18. Specifically, with respect to beneficiaries, or the date of death or any ACTION: Notice and request for comment. Form 7200/05, the FDIC is changing the deceased beneficiaries, but does collect title of the form to ‘‘Declaration for information on the beneficiary type (i.e., SUMMARY: In accordance with Revocable Trust,’’ thereby eliminating individual, charity or non-profit) and, requirements of the Paperwork use of the form for irrevocable trusts; for charitable or non-profit Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 deleting the request for information on organizations, on whether the entity is et seq.), the FDIC may not conduct or ownership interest (by percentage or recognized by the IRS. The estimated sponsor, and the respondent is not dollar amount); adding a request for response time for new Form 7200/18 is required to respond to, an information information on beneficiary type (i.e., 30 minutes and the estimated number of collection unless it displays a currently individual, charity, or non-profit) and respondents is 200. valid Office of Management and Budget adding, for charitable or non-profit (OMB) control number. The FDIC organizations, a request that the Request for Comment hereby gives notice that it is seeking respondent indicate whether the charity Comments are invited on: (a) Whether public comment on proposed revisions or non-profit is recognized by the IRS. these collections of information are to its ‘‘Forms Related to Processing The FDIC believes that the changes to necessary for the proper performance of Deposit Insurance Claims’’ information Form 7200/05 do not render it any more the FDIC’s functions, including whether collection (OMB No. 3064–0143). At the or less burdensome than the existing the information has practical utility; (b) end of the comment period, any form; therefore, the estimated time to the accuracy of the estimate of the comments and recommendations complete the form is unchanged. There burden of the information collection, received will be analyzed to determine is, however, an estimated decrease (of including the validity of the the extent to which the FDIC should 200) in the number of respondents methodology and assumptions used; (c) modify the proposed revisions prior to because the form will no longer be used ways to enhance the quality, utility, and submission to OMB for review and to collect information for irrevocable clarity of the information to be approval. trusts. With respect to Form 7200/09, collected; and (d) ways to minimize the the FDIC is proposing to eliminate the burden of the information collection on DATES: Comments must be submitted on request for information regarding the respondents, including through the use or before January 25, 2010.
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices 61353
ADDRESSES: Interested parties are Budget, New Executive Office Building, Declaration for Public Unit Deposit, invited to submit written comments. All Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503. Form 7200/04. comments should refer to the name of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For Declaration for Trust, Form 7200/05. the collection. Comments may be further information about the revisions Declaration of Independent Activity, submitted by any of the following discussed in this notice, please contact Form 7200/06. methods: Leneta G. Gregorie, by telephone at Declaration of Independent Activity • http://www.FDIC.gov/regulations/ (202) 898–3719 or by mail at the address for Unincorporated Association, Form laws/federal/notices.html. identified above. In addition, copies of 7200/07. • E-mail: [email protected]. the proposed revised Forms 7200/05 Declaration for Joint Ownership and 7200/09, and proposed new Form Deposit, Form 7200/08. • Mail: Leneta G. Gregorie 7200/18 can be obtained at the FDIC’s Declaration for Testamentary Deposit (202.898.3719), Counsel, Federal Web site (http://www.fdic.gov/ (Multiple Grantors), Form 7200/09. Deposit Insurance Corporation, regulations/laws/federal/). Declaration for Defined Contribution PA1730–3000, 550 17th Street, NW., SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FDIC Plan, Form 7200/10. Washington, DC 20429. Declaration for IRA/KEOGH Deposit, • is proposing to make minor revisions to Hand Delivery: Comments may be simplify and clarify three of the forms Form 7200/11. hand-delivered to the guard station at used in support of deposit insurance Declaration for Defined Benefit Plan, the rear of the 550 17th Street Building activities related to failed banks. Form 7200/12. (located on F Street), on business days Title: Forms Related to Processing of Declaration of Custodian Deposit, between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. Deposit Insurance Claims. Form 7200/13. A copy of the comments may also be Declaration for Health and Welfare submitted to the FDIC Desk Officer, Forms Currently in Use Plan, Form 7200/14. Office of Information and Regulatory Declaration for Testamentary Deposit Declaration for Plan and Trust, Form Affairs, Office of Management and (Single Grantor), Form 7200/03. 7200/15.
ESTIMATED NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS AND BURDEN HOURS
Hours per Number of FDIC document response respondents Burden hours
Declaration for Testamentary Deposit (Single Grantor), Form 7200/03 ...... 0.50 1000 500 Declaration for Public Unit Deposit, Form 7200/04 ...... 0.50 500 250 Declaration for Trust, Form 7200/05 ...... 0.50 900 450 Declaration of Independent Activity, Form 7200/06 ...... 0.50 25 12.5 Declaration of Independent Activity for Unincorporated Association, Form 7200/07 ...... 0.50 25 12.5 Declaration for Joint Ownership Deposit, Form 7200/08 ...... 0.50 25 12.5 Declaration for Testamentary Deposit (Multiple Grantors), Form 7200/09 ...... 0.50 500 250 Declaration for Defined Contribution Plan, Form 7200/10 ...... 1.0 50 50 Declaration for IRA/KEOGH Deposit, Form 7200/11 ...... 0.50 50 25 Declaration for Defined Benefit Plan, Form 7200/12 ...... 1.0 200 200 Declaration of Custodian Deposit, Form 7200/13 ...... 0.50 50 25 Declaration for Health and Welfare Plan, Form 7200/14 ...... 1.0 200 200 Declaration for Plan and Trust, Form 7200/15 ...... 0.50 1300 650
Sub-total ...... 4,825 2,638 Additional Burden for Deposit Brokers Only ...... 138 New Form To Be Added: Declaration for Irrevocable Trust, Form 7200/18 ...... 0.50 200 100
Total ...... 5,095 2,875
General Description of Collection: The for Testamentary Deposit (Multiple or non-profit is recognized by the IRS. collection involves forms used by the Grantors), Form 7200/09. In addition, The FDIC believes that the changes to FDIC to obtain information from the FDIC proposes to add to the Form 7200/05 do not render it any more individual depositors and deposit collection the following new form: or less burdensome than the existing brokers necessary to supplement the Declaration for Irrevocable Trust, Form form; therefore, the estimated time to records of failed depository institutions 7200/18. Specifically, with respect to complete the form is unchanged. There to make determinations regarding Form 7200/05, the FDIC is changing the is, however, an estimated decrease (of deposit insurance coverage for title of the form to ‘‘Declaration for 200) in the number of respondents depositors of failed institutions. The Revocable Trust,’’ thereby eliminating because the form will no longer be used information provided allows the FDIC to use of the form for irrevocable trusts; to collect information for irrevocable identify the actual owners of an account deleting the request for information on trusts. With respect to Form 7200/09, and each owner’s interest in the ownership interest (by percentage or the FDIC is proposing to eliminate the account. dollar amount); adding a request for request for information regarding the Current Action: The FDIC is information on beneficiary type (i.e., relationship of each beneficiary to the proposing modifications, which may be individual, charity, or non-profit) and grantors; eliminate the requirement to considered substantive and material, to adding, for charitable or non-profit provide a date of death for any named the following forms: Declaration for organizations, a request that the beneficiaries who are deceased; add a Trust, Form 7200/05, and Declaration respondent indicate whether the charity request for information on beneficiary
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES 61354 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices
type (i.e., individual, charity, or non- DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Government funds and complies with profit) and add, for charitable or non- Government policy when profit organization beneficiaries, a GENERAL SERVICES subcontracting. The review provides the request that the respondent indicate ADMINISTRATION administrative contracting officer a basis whether the charity or non-profit is for granting, withholding, or recognized by the IRS. The FDIC NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND withdrawing approval of the believes that changes to Form 7200/09 SPACE ADMINISTRATION contractor’s purchasing system. do not render it any more or less [OMB Control No. 9000–0132] B. Annual Reporting Burden burdensome than the existing form; Federal Acquisition Regulation; Number of Respondents: 1,580. therefore, the current burden estimates Responses per Respondent: 1. remain unchanged. With respect to new Information Collection; Contractors’ Purchasing Systems Reviews Total Responses: 1,580. Form 7200/18, it does collect Average Burden per Response: 17. information regarding irrevocable trusts AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DOD), Total Burden Hours: 26,860. that previously was collected on Form General Services Administration (GSA), Obtaining Copies of Proposals: 7200/05. However, unlike old Form and National Aeronautics and Space Requesters may obtain a copy of the 7200/05, new Form 7200/18 does not Administration (NASA). information collection documents from the General Services Administration, request information on the ownership ACTION: Notice of request for public Regulatory Secretariat (MVPR), 1800 F interest (percentage or dollar amount) of comments regarding an extension to an Street, NW., Room 4041, Washington, beneficiaries, or the date of death or any existing OMB clearance. deceased beneficiaries, but does collect DC 20405, telephone (202) 501–4755. information on the beneficiary type (i.e., SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Please cite OMB Control No. 9000–0132, individual, charity or non-profit) and, Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 Contractors’ Purchasing Systems Reviews, in all correspondence. for charitable or non-profit U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Regulatory organizations, on whether the entity is Secretariat will be submitting to the Dated: November 17, 2009. recognized by the IRS. The estimated Office of Management and Budget Al Matera, response time for new Form 7200/18 is (OMB) a request to review and approve Director, Acquisition Policy Division. an extension of a previously approved 30 minutes and the estimated number of [FR Doc. E9–28192 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] information collection requirement respondents is 200. BILLING CODE 6820–EP–P concerning contractors’ purchasing Request for Comment systems reviews (CPSRs). Public comments are particularly DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Comments are invited on: (a) Whether invited on: Whether this collection of these collections of information are information is necessary for the proper GENERAL SERVICES necessary for the proper performance of performance of functions of the FAR, ADMINISTRATION the FDIC’s functions, including whether and whether it will have practical the information has practical utility; (b) utility; whether our estimate of the NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND the accuracy of the estimate of the public burden of this collection of SPACE ADMINISTRATION burden of the information collection, information is accurate, and based on [OMB Control No. 9000–0007] including the validity of the valid assumptions and methodology; methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and Federal Acquisition Regulation; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be Information Collection; Summary clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can Subcontract Report collected; and (d) ways to minimize the minimize the burden of the collection of burden of the information collection on information on those who are to AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DOD), respondents, including through the use respond, through the use of appropriate General Services Administration (GSA), of automated collection techniques or technological collection techniques or and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). other forms of information technology. other forms of information technology. All comments will become a matter of DATES: Comments may be submitted on ACTION: Notice of request for comments public record. or before January 25, 2010. regarding an extension to an existing ADDRESSES: Submit comments, OMB clearance. Dated at Washington, DC, this 19th day of including suggestions for reducing this November 2009. SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the burden to the General Services Valerie J. Best, Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 Administration, Regulatory Secretariat U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Regulatory Assistant Executive Secretary, Federal (MVPR), 1800 F Street, NW., Room Secretariat will be submitting to the Deposit Insurance Corporation. 4041, Washington, DC 20405. Office of Management and Budget [FR Doc. E9–28130 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. (OMB) a request to review and approve BILLING CODE 6714–01–P Rhonda Cundiff, Procurement Analyst, an extension of a previously approved Contract Policy Branch, GSA, (202) 501– information collection requirement 0044 or e-mail [email protected]. concerning summary subcontract report. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of A. Purpose information is necessary for the proper The objective of a contractor performance of functions of the FAR, purchasing systems review (CPSR), as and whether it will have practical discussed in Part 44 of the FAR, is to utility; whether our estimate of the evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness public burden of this collection of with which the contractor spends information is accurate, and based on
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices 61355
valid assumptions and methodology; DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE A. Purpose ways to enhance the quality, utility, and Under the Qualified Products GENERAL SERVICES clarity of the information to be Program, an end item, or a component ADMINISTRATION collected; and ways in which we can thereof, may be required to be minimize the burden of the collection of prequalified. The solicitation at FAR information on those who are to NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 52.209–1, Qualification Requirements, respond, through the use of appropriate SPACE ADMINISTRATION requires offerors who have met the technological collection techniques or qualification requirements to identify other forms of information technology. [OMB Control No. 9000–0083] the offeror’s name, the manufacturer’s DATES: Submit comments on or before name, source’s name, the item name, January 25, 2010. Federal Acquisition Regulation; Submission for OMB Review; service identification, and test number ADDRESSES: Submit comments regarding Qualification Requirements (to the extent known). this burden estimate or any other aspect The contracting officer uses the of the collection of information, AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DOD), information to determine eligibility for including suggestions for reducing this General Services Administration (GSA), award when the clause at 52.209–1 is burden to the General Services and National Aeronautics and Space included in the solicitation. The offeror Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Administration (NASA). must insert the offeror’s name, the (MVPR), 1800 F Street, NW., Room ACTION: Notice of reinstatement request manufacturer’s name, source’s name, 4041, Washington, DC 20405. for an information collection the item name, service identification, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: requirement regarding an existing OMB and test number (to the extent known). Rhonda Cundiff, Procurement Analyst, clearance. Alternatively, items not yet listed may Contract Policy Branch, GSA, (202) 501– be considered for award upon the 0044 or email [email protected]. SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the submission of evidence of qualification SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 with the offer. U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Regulatory A. Purpose Secretariat will be submitting to the B. Annual Reporting Burden In accordance with the Small Office of Management and Budget Respondents: 2,207. Business Act (15 U.S.C. 631, et seq.), (OMB) a request to reinstate a Responses per Respondent: 100. contractors receiving a contract for more previously approved information Annual Responses: 220,700. than $10,000 agree to have small and collection requirement concerning Hours per Response: .25. small disadvantaged business concerns Qualification Requirements. Total Burden Hours: 55,175. participate in the performance of the Public comments are particularly Obtaining Copies of Proposals: contract as far as practicable. invited on: Whether this collection of Requesters may obtain a copy of the Contractors receiving a contract or a information is necessary; whether it will information collection documents from modification to a contract expected to have practical utility; whether our the General Services Administration, exceed $500,000 ($1 million for estimate of the public burden of this Regulatory Secretariat (MVPR), 1800 F construction) must submit a collection of information is accurate, Street, NW., Room 4041, Washington, subcontracting plan that provides and based on valid assumptions and DC, 20405, telephone (202) 501–4755. maximum practicable opportunities for methodology; ways to enhance the Please cite OMB Control No. 9000–0083, small and small disadvantaged business quality, utility, and clarity of the Qualification Requirements, in all concerns. Specific elements required to information to be collected; and ways in correspondences. be included in the plan are specified in which we can minimize the burden of Dated: November 17, 2009. section 8(d) of the Small Business Act the collection of information on those Al Matera, and are implemented in FAR Subpart who are to respond, through the use of 19.7. appropriate technological collection Director, Acquisition Policy Division. techniques or other forms of information [FR Doc. E9–28182 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] B. Annual Reporting Burden technology. BILLING CODE 6820–EP–P Number of Respondents: 4,253. DATES: Submit comments on or before Responses per Respondent: 1.66. January 25, 2010. Total Responses: 7,059. GENERAL SERVICES Average Burden Hours per Response: ADDRESSES: Submit comments regarding ADMINISTRATION 15.90. this burden estimate or any other aspect Total Burden Hours: 112,253. of this collection of information, [FMR Bulletin PBS–2009–B3] Obtaining Copies of Proposals: including suggestions for reducing this Requesters may obtain a copy of the burden, to: GSA Desk Officer, OMB, Federal Management Regulation; information collection documents from Room 10236, NEOB, Washington, DC Redesignations of Federal Buildings the General Services Administration, 20503 and a copy to General Services Regulatory Secretariat (MVPR), 1800 F Administration, Regulatory Secretariat AGENCY: Public Buildings Service (P), Street, NW., Room 4041, Washington, (MVPR), 1800 F Street, NW., Room GSA. DC 20405, telephone (202) 501–4755. 4041, Washington, DC 20405. Please cite ACTION: Notice of a bulletin. Please cite OMB Control Number 9000– OMB Control No. 9000–0083, 0007, Summary Subcontract Report, in Qualification Requirements, in all SUMMARY: The attached bulletin all correspondence. correspondance. announces the redesignation of a Federal building. Dated: November 16, 2009. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Expiration Date: This bulletin expires Al Matera, Millisa Gary, Procurement Analyst, May 2010. However, the building Director, Acquisition Policy Division. Contract Policy Branch, GSA, (202) 501– redesignations announced by this [FR Doc. E9–28193 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] 0699 or [email protected]. bulletin will remain in effect until BILLING CODE 6820–EP–P SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: canceled or superseded.
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES 61356 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: U.S. Former Name: Federal Building and DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND General Services Administration, Public United States Courthouse, 211 East HUMAN SERVICES Buildings Service (P), Attn: Anthony E. 7th Avenue, Eugene, OR 97401. Administration for Children and Costa, 1800 F Street, NW., Washington, New Name: Federal Building, 211 East Families DC 20405; e-mail: 7th Avenue, Eugene, OR 97401. [email protected]; telephone: (202) 501–1100. 4. Whom should we contact for Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request Dated: November 10, 2009. further information regarding Paul F. Prouty, redesignation of this Federal building? Title: Head Start Program Performance Acting Administrator of General Services. U.S. General Services Administration, Standards—Final rule. Public Buildings Service (P), Attn: OMB No.: 0970–0148. U.S. General Services Administration Anthony E. Costa, 1800 F Street, NW., Description: Head Start Program FMR Bulletin PBS–2009–B3; Washington, DC 20405; telephone Performance Standards require Head Redesignations of Federal Buildings number: (202) 501–1100; e-mail: Start and Early Head Start Programs and [email protected]. Delegate Agencies to maintain program To: Heads of Federal Agencies. records. The Administration for Subject: Designations and Paul F. Prouty, Acting Administrator of General Services. Children and Families, Office of Head Redesignations of Federal Buildings. Start, is proposing to renew, without 1. What is the purpose of this [FR Doc. E9–28184 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] changes, the authority to require certain bulletin? This bulletin announces the BILLING CODE 6820–23–P record keeping in all programs as redesignation of a Federal building. provided for in 45 CFR part 1304 Head 2. When does this bulletin expire? Start Program Performance Standards. This bulletin expires May 2010. These standards prescribe the services However, the building redesignation that Head Start and Early Head Start announced in this bulletin will remain programs provide to enrolled children in effect until canceled or superseded. and their families. 3. Redesignation. The former and new Respondents: Head Start and Early names of the redesignated building are Head Start grantees and delegate as follows: agencies.
ANNUAL BURDEN ESTIMATES
Number of Average Instrument Number of responses per burden hours Total burden respondents respondent per response hours
Standard ...... 2,590 16 41.80 1,732,192
Estimated Total Annual Burden Attn: Desk Officer for the amended, allows Indian Tribes to use Hours: 1,732,192. Administration for Children and Child Care and Development Fund Additional Information: Copies of the Families. (CCDF) grant awards for construction proposed collection may be obtained by Dated: November 18, 2009. and renovation of child care facilities. A writing to the Administration for Robert Sargis, tribal grantee must first request and Children and Families, Office of receive approval from the Reports Clearance Officer. Administration, Office of Information Administration for Children and Services, 370 L’Enfant Promenade, SW., [FR Doc. E9–28085 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] Families (ACF) before using CCDF funds Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF BILLING CODE 4184–01–P for construction or major renovation. Reports Clearance Officer. All requests This information collection contains the should be identified by the title of the statutorily-mandated uniform DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND information collection. E-mail address: procedures for the solicitation and HUMAN SERVICES [email protected]. consideration of requests, including OMB Comment: OMB is required to Administration for Children and instructions for preparation of make a decision concerning the Families environmental assessments in collection of information between 30 conjunction with the National and 60 days after publication of this Submission for OMB Review; Environmental Policy Act. The document in the Federal Register. Comment Request proposed draft procedures update the Therefore, a comment is best assured of procedures that were originally issued having its full effect if OMB receives it Title: Procedures for Requests to use in August 1997 and last updated in May within 30 days of publication. Written Child Care and Development Fund for 2007. Respondents will be CCDF tribal comments and recommendations for the Construction or Major Renovation of grantees requesting to use CCDF funds proposed information collection should Child Care Facilities. for construction or major renovation. be sent directly to the following: Office OMB No.: 0970–0160. Respondents: Tribal Child Care Lead of Management and Budget, Paperwork Description: The Child Care and Agencies acting on behalf of Tribal Reduction Project, Fax: 202–395–7245, Development Block Grant Act, as Governments.
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices 61357
ANNUAL BURDEN ESTIMATES
Number of Average Instrument Number of responses per burden hours Total burden respondents respondent per response hours
Construction or Major Renovation of Tribal Child Care Facilities ...... 10 1 20 200
Estimated Total Annual Burden be sent directly to the following: Office OMB No.: New Collection. Hours: 200. of Management and Budget, Paperwork Description: The requirements for Additional Information: Copies of the Reduction Project, Fax: 202–395–7245, establishing proof of eligibility for the proposed collection may be obtained by Attn: Desk Officer for the enrollment of children in Head Start Administration for Children and writing to the Administration for programs are documented in 45 CFR Families. Children and Families, Office of 1305.4 (e). Each child’s record must Administration, Office of Information Dated: November 19, 2009. include a signed document by an Services, 370 L’Enfant Promenade, SW., Robert Sargis, employee identifying those documents Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. which were reviewed to determine Reports Clearance Officer. All requests [FR Doc. E9–28187 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] eligibility. Presently there is no uniform should be identified by the title of the BILLING CODE 4184–01–P document which the employee must information collection. E-mail address: sign. This form will be used to facilitate [email protected]. an efficient and accurate determination DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND OMB Comment: OMB is required to of childrens’ eligibility for Head Start HUMAN SERVICES make a decision concerning the enrollment. collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this Administration for Children and Respondents: Head Start grantees. document in the Federal Register. Families Therefore, a comment is best assured of Submission for OMB Review; having its full effect if OMB receives it Comment Request within 30 days of publication. Written comments and recommendations for the Title: Head Start Eligibility proposed information collection should Verification.
ANNUAL BURDEN ESTIMATES
Number of Average Instrument Number of responses per burden hours Total burden respondents respondent per response hours
Head Start Eligibility Verification ...... 1,600 750 0.08 96,000
Estimated Total Annual Burden Administration for Children and For information, contact Dr. Mary Hours: 96,000 Families. Jean Brown, Designated Federal Officer, Additional Information: Copies of the Dated: November 18, 2009. Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead proposed collection may be obtained by Robert Sargis, Poisoning Prevention, Department of writing to the Administration for Health and Human Services, 1600 Children and Families, Office of Reports Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E9–28105 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] Clifton Road, NE., M/S F60, Atlanta, GA Administration, Office of Information 30333, Telephone: 770/488–7492 or Fax BILLING CODE 4184–01–P Services, 370 L’Enfant Promenade, SW., 770/488–3635. Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. All requests The Director, Management Analysis should be identified by the title of the DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND and Services Office, has been delegated information collection. E-mail address: HUMAN SERVICES the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of [email protected]. Centers for Disease Control and OMB Comment: OMB is required to meetings and other committee Prevention make a decision concerning the management activities, for both the collection of information between 30 Advisory Committee on Childhood Centers for Disease Control and and 60 days after publication of this Lead Poisoning Prevention: Notice of Prevention and the Agency for Toxic document in the Federal Register. Charter Renewal Substances and Disease Registry. Therefore, a comment is best assured of Dated: November 13, 2009. having its full effect if OMB receives it This gives notice under the Federal within 30 days of publication. Written Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92– Elaine L. Baker, comments and recommendations for the 463) of October 6, 1972, that the Director, Management Analysis and Services proposed information collection should Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead Office, Centers for Disease Control and be sent directly to the following: Office Poisoning Prevention, Department of Prevention. of Management and Budget, Paperwork Health and Human Services, has been [FR Doc. E9–28073 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] Reduction Project, Fax: 202–395–7245, renewed for a 2-year period through BILLING CODE 4163–18–P Attn: Desk Officer for the October 31, 2011.
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES 61358 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND OD Offices and National Center leadership DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND HUMAN SERVICES shall actively participate in TCAC meetings SECURITY and HHS-sponsored regional and national Centers for Disease Control and tribal consultation sessions as frequently as U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Prevention possible. Services Matters To Be Discussed: The TCAC will Office of the Director (OD)/Office of the convene their advisory committee meeting Agency Information Collection Chief of Public Health Practice with discussions and presentations from Activities: Form I–212; Extension of an (OCPHP)/Office of Minority Health and various CDC senior leadership on activities Existing Information Collection; Health Disparities (OMHD) and areas identified by TCAC members and Comment Request other tribal leaders as priority public health In accordance with Presidential issues. The Biannual Tribal Consultation ACTION: 60-Day Notice of Information Executive Order No. 13175, November Session will engage CDC Senior leadership Collection Under Review; Form I–212, 6, 2000, and the Presidential from the Office of the Director and various Application for Permission To Reapply Memorandum of September 23, 2004, CDC Offices and National Centers including for Admission into the United States Consultation and Coordination with the Financial Management Office (FMO), after Deportation or Removal; OMB Indian Tribal Governments, the Centers National Center for Environmental Health Control No. 1615–0018. for Disease Control (CDC) OD/OCPHP/ and the Agency for Toxic Substances (NCEH/ OMHD announces the following ATSDR), Coordinating Office for Terrorism The Department Homeland Security, meeting and Tribal Consultation and Preparedness and Emergency Response U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Session: (COTPER), Office of Enterprise Services (USCIS) has submitted the Name: Tribal Consultation Advisory Communications (OEC), and the proposed following information collection request Committee (TCAC) Meeting and the 4th Office of State and Local Support. for review and clearance in accordance Biannual Tribal Consultation Session. Opportunities will be provided during the with the Paperwork Reduction Act of Times and Dates: TCAC Meeting on Consultation Session for tribal testimony. 1995. The information collection is January 26–27, 2010 from 8 a.m.–5:30 p.m. Tribal Leaders are encouraged to submit published to obtain comments from the and the 4th Biannual CDC Tribal written testimony by COB on January 15, public and affected agencies. Comments Consultation Session on January 28, 2010 are encouraged and will be accepted for from 8–6 p.m. 2010 to CAPT Pelagie (Mike) Snesrud, Senior Place: CDC Headquarters, 1600 Clifton Tribal Liaison for Policy and Evaluation, sixty days until January 25, 2010. Road NE., Building 19, Room 3B; Atlanta, GA Office of Minority Health and Health During this 60-day period, USCIS will 30329. Disparities, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS E–67 be evaluating whether to revise the Status: Open to the public, limited only by Atlanta, GA 30329, telephone 404–498–2343, Form I–212. Should USCIS decide to the space available. The meeting room e-mail: [email protected], fax 404–498–2355. revise Form I–212 we will advise the accommodates approximately 125 people. Depending on the time available it may be public when we publish the 30-day Purpose: CDC established their Tribal necessary to limit the time of each presenter. notice in the Federal Register in Consultation Policy in October of 2005 with Please reference the web links of http:// accordance with the Paperwork the primary purpose of providing guidance www.cdc.gov/omhd/TCAC/AAC.html and Reduction Act. The public will then across the agency to work effectively with http://www.cdc.gov/omhd/TCP/ American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) have 30 days to comment on any tribes, communities, and organizations to Consultations/BiannualConsultations.htm to revisions to the Form I–212. enhance AI/AN access to CDC programs. In review information about the TCAC and Written comments and/or suggestions October of 2005, an Agency Advisory CDC’s Tribal Consultation Policy. regarding the item(s) contained in this Committee (CDC/ATSDR Tribal Consultation FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: notice, especially regarding the Advisory Committee—TCAC) was estimated public burden and associated Capt. Pelagie (Mike) Snesrud, Senior established to provide a complementary response time, should be directed to the Tribal Liaison for Policy and Evaluation, venue wherein tribal representatives and Department of Homeland Security Office of Minority Health and Health CDC staff will exchange information about (DHS), USCIS, Chief, Regulatory public health issues in Indian Country, Disparities, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., identifying urgent public health issues in Products Division, Clearance Officer, Mailstop E–67, Atlanta, GA 30333, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Indian country, and discuss collaborative telephone (404)498–2343, fax (404)498– approaches to these issues. Within the CDC Washington, DC 20529–2210. Consultation Policy, it is stated that CDC will 2355, e-mail: [email protected]. Comments may also be submitted to conduct government-to-government The Director, Management Analysis DHS via facsimile to 202–272–8352 or consultation with elected tribal officials or and Services Office has been delegated via e-mail at [email protected]. When their designated representatives and also the authority to sign Federal Register submitting comments by e-mail, please confer with tribal and Alaska Native notices pertaining to announcements of make sure to add OMB Control No. organizations and AI/AN urban and rural 1615–0018 in the subject box. Written communities before taking actions and/or meetings and other committee making decisions that affect them. management activities, for both CDC comments and suggestions from the Consultation is an enhanced form of and the Agency for Toxic Substances public and affected agencies concerning communication that emphasizes trust, and Disease Registry. the collection of information should respect, and shared responsibility. It is an address one or more of the following open and free exchange of information and Dated: November 13, 2009. four points: opinion among parties that leads to mutual Elaine L. Baker, (1) Evaluate whether the proposed understanding and comprehension. CD Director, Management Analysis and Services collection of information is necessary believes that consultation is integral to a Office, Centers for Disease Control and for the proper performance of the deliberative process that results in effective Prevention. functions of the agency, including collaboration and informed decision making with the ultimate goal of reaching consensus [FR Doc. E9–28139 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] whether the information will have on issues. Although formal responsibility for BILLING CODE 4163–18–P practical utility; the agency’s overall government-to- (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the government consultation activities rests agencies estimate of the burden of the within the Office of the Director (OD), other proposed collection of information,
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices 61359
including the validity of the DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; SECURITY methodology and assumptions used; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration clarity of the information to be clarity of the information to be Services collected; and collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the Agency Information Collection (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who Activities: Form I–191; Extension of an collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the Existing Information Collection; are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, Comment Request use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other electronic, mechanical, or other ACTION: 60-Day Notice of Information technological collection techniques or technological collection techniques or Collection Under Review; Form I–191, other forms of information technology, other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of Application for Advance Permission to e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Return to Unrelinquished Domicile; OMB Control No. 1615–0016. responses. Overview of This Information Overview of This Information Collection The Department of Homeland Collection Security, U.S. Citizenship and (1) Type of Information Collection: Immigration Services (USCIS) has Extension of an existing information (1) Type of Information Collection: submitted the following information collection. Extension of an existing information collection request for review and collection. (2) Title of the Form/Collection: clearance in accordance with the Application for Permission to Reapply Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The (2) Title of the Form/Collection: for Admission into the United States information collection is published to Application for Advance Permission to after Deportation or Removal. obtain comments from the public and Return to Unrelinquished Domicile. (3) Agency form number, if any, and affected agencies. Comments are (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the encouraged and will be accepted for the applicable component of the Department of Homeland Security sixty days until January 25, 2010. Department of Homeland Security sponsoring the collection: Form I–212; During this 60-day period, USCIS will sponsoring the collection: Form I–191; U.S. Citizenship and Immigration be evaluating whether to revise the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Form I–191. Should USCIS decide to Services (USCIS). revise Form I–191 we will advise the (4) Affected public who will be asked (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief public when we publish the 30-day notice in the Federal Register in or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. The information provided accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The public will then households. Form I–191 is necessary for on Form I–212 is used by USCIS to USCIS to determine whether the adjudicate applications filed by aliens have 30 days to comment on any revisions to the Form I–191. applicant is eligible for discretionary requesting consent to reapply for relief under section 212(c) of the Act. admission to the United States after Written comments and/or suggestions deportation, removal or departure, as regarding the item(s) contained in this (5) An estimate of the total number of provided under section 212 of the notice, especially regarding the respondents and the amount of time Immigration and Nationality Act. estimated public burden and associated estimated for an average respondent to response time, should be directed to the (5) An estimate of the total number of respond: 300 responses at 15 minutes Department of Homeland Security (.25) per response. respondents and the amount of time (DHS), USCIS, Chief, Regulatory estimated for an average respondent to Products Division, Clearance Officer, (6) An estimate of the total public respond: 4,200 responses at 2 hours per 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., burden (in hours) associated with the response. Washington, DC 20529–2210. collection: 75 annual burden hours. (6) An estimate of the total public Comments may also be submitted to If you need a copy of the information burden (in hours) associated with the DHS via facsimile to 202–272–8352 or collection instrument, please visit the collection: 8,400 annual burden hours. via e-mail at [email protected]. When Web site at: http://www.regulations.gov/ If you need a copy of the information submitting comments by e-mail, please . collection instrument, please visit the make sure to add OMB Control No. We may also be contacted at: USCIS, 1615–0016 in the subject box. Written Web site at: Regulatory Products Division, 111 comments and suggestions from the http://www.regulations.gov/. Massachusetts Avenue, NW., public and affected agencies concerning We may also be contacted at: USCIS, Washington, DC 20529–2210, the collection of information should Regulatory Products Division, 111 address one or more of the following Telephone number 202–272–8377. Massachusetts Avenue, NW., four points: Dated: November 18, 2009. Washington, DC 20529–2210, (1) Evaluate whether the proposed Telephone number 202–272–8377. Sunday Aigbe, collection of information is necessary Chief, Regulatory Products Division, U.S. Dated: November 18, 2009. for the proper performance of the Citizenship and Immigration Services, Sunday Aigbe, functions of the agency, including Department of Homeland Security. Chief, Regulatory Products Division, U.S. whether the information will have [FR Doc. E9–28112 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] Citizenship and Immigration Services, practical utility; BILLING CODE 9111–97–P Department of Homeland Security. (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the [FR Doc. E9–28111 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] agencies estimate of the burden of the BILLING CODE 9111–97–P proposed collection of information,
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES 61360 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND including the validity of the Dated: November 18, 2009. SECURITY methodology and assumptions used; Sunday Aigbe, (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and Chief, Regulatory Products Division, U.S. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration clarity of the information to be Citizenship and Immigration Services, Services collected; and Department of Homeland Security. [FR Doc. E9–28113 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] Agency Information Collection (4) Minimize the burden of the BILLING CODE 9111–97–P Activities: Form I–929; Extension of an collection of information on those who Existing Information Collection; are to respond, including through the Comment Request use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ACTION: 60-Day Notice of Information technological collection techniques or Minerals Management Service Collection Under Review; Form I–929, other forms of information technology, Petition for Qualifying Family Member e.g., permitting electronic submission of [Docket No. MMS–2009–OMM–0006] of a U–1 Nonimmigrant; OMB Control responses. No. 1615–0106. MMS Information Collection Activity: Overview of This Information 1010–0091, Facilities Located Seaward Collection The Department of Homeland of the Coast Line; Extension of a Security, U.S. Citizenship and (1) Type of Information Collection: Collection, Submitted for Office of Immigration Services (USCIS) has Extension of an existing information Management and Budget (OMB) submitted the following information collection. Review; Comment Request collection request for review and (2) Title of the Form/Collection: clearance in accordance with the AGENCY: Minerals Management Service Petition for Qualifying Family Member (MMS), Interior. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The of a U–1 Nonimmigrant. information collection is published to ACTION: Notice of an extension of an (3) Agency form number, if any, and information collection (1010–0091). obtain comments from the public and the applicable component of the affected agencies. Comments are Department of Homeland Security SUMMARY: To comply with the encouraged and will be accepted for sponsoring the collection: Form I–929; Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 sixty days until January 25, 2010. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration (PRA), we are notifying the public that During this 60-day period, USCIS will Services (USCIS). we have submitted to OMB an be evaluating whether to revise the (4) Affected public who will be asked information collection request (ICR) to Form I–929. Should USCIS decide to or required to respond, as well as a brief renew approval of the paperwork revise Form I–929 we will advise the abstract: Primary: Individuals or requirements in the regulations under public when we publish the 30-day households. Section 245(m) of the 30 CFR 254, Oil-Spill Response notice in the Federal Register in Immigration and Nationality Act (Act) Requirements for Facilities Located accordance with the Paperwork allows certain qualifying family Seaward of the Coast Line. This notice Reduction Act. The public will then members who have never held U also provides the public a second have 30 days to comment on any nonimmigrant status to seek lawful opportunity to comment on the revisions to the Form I–929. permanent residence or apply for paperwork burden of these regulatory Written comments and/or suggestions immigrant visas. Before such family requirements. regarding the item(s) contained in this members may apply for adjustment of notice, especially regarding the DATES: Submit written comments by status or seek immigrant visas, the estimated public burden and associated December 24, 2009. U–1 nonimmigrant who has been response time, should be directed to the ADDRESSES: granted adjustment of status must file an You should submit Department of Homeland Security immigrant petition on behalf of the comments directly to the Office of (DHS), USCIS, Chief, Regulatory qualifying family member using Form Information and Regulatory Affairs, Products Division, Clearance Officer, I–929. Form I–929 is necessary for OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for the 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., USCIS to make a determination that the Department of the Interior (1010–0091), Washington, DC 20529–2210. eligibility requirements and conditions either by fax (202) 395–5806 or e-mail Comments may also be submitted to _ are met regarding the qualifying family (OIRA [email protected]). DHS via facsimile to 202–272–8352 or member. Please also send a copy to MMS by via e-mail at [email protected]. When either of the following methods: submitting comments by e-mail, please (5) An estimate of the total number of • http://www.regulations.gov. In the make sure to add OMB Control No. respondents and the amount of time entry titled ‘‘Enter Keyword or ID,’’ 1615–0106 in the subject box. Written estimated for an average respondent to enter docket ID MMS-2009-OMM-0006 comments and suggestions from the respond: 2,000 responses at 1 hour per then click search. Under the tab ‘‘View public and affected agencies concerning response. By Docket Folder’’ you can submit the collection of information should (6) An estimate of the total public public comments and view supporting address one or more of the following burden (in hours) associated with the and related materials available for this four points: collection: 2000 annual burden hours. collection of information. Include your (1) Evaluate whether the proposed If you need a copy of the information name and address. Submit comments to collection of information is necessary collection instrument, please visit the http://www.regulations.gov by for the proper performance of the Web site at: http://www. December 24, 2009. The MMS will post functions of the agency, including regulations.gov/. all comments. whether the information will have We may also be contacted at: USCIS, • Mail or hand-carry comments to the practical utility; Regulatory Products Division, 111 Department of the Interior; Minerals (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Management Service; Attention: Cheryl agencies estimate of the burden of the Washington, DC 20529–2210, Blundon; 381 Elden Street, MS–4024; proposed collection of information, Telephone number 202–272–8377. Herndon, Virginia 20170–4817. Please
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices 61361
reference ‘‘Information Collection 1010– facilities seaward of the coast line, No proprietary, confidential, or 0091’’ in your comment and include including associated pipelines. sensitive information is collected. your name and address. The MMS uses the information However, we will protect any FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: collected under 30 CFR 254 to information from respondents Cheryl Blundon, Regulations and determine compliance with OPA by considered proprietary under the Standards Branch, (703) 787–1607. You owners/operators. Specifically, MMS Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. needs the information to: 552) and its implementing regulations may also contact Cheryl Blundon to • obtain a copy, at no cost, of the ICR and Determine effectiveness of the spill- (43 CFR part 2) and under regulations at the regulation that requires the subject response capability of owners/operators. 30 CFR parts 250, 251, and 252. • Review plans prepared under the collection of information. Responses are mandatory. regulations of a State and submitted to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: MMS to satisfy the requirements to Frequency: On occasion, monthly, Title: 30 CFR 254, Oil-Spill Response ensure that they meet minimum annually, biennially, and triennially. Requirements for Facilities Located requirements of OPA. Estimated Number and Description of Seaward of the Coast Line. • Verify that personnel involved in Respondents: Respondents comprise OMB Control Number: 1010–0091. oil-spill response are properly trained Abstract: The Federal Water Pollution owners or operators of facilities located and familiar with the requirements of in both State and Federal waters Control Act (FWPCA), as amended by the spill-response plans and to witness the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA), seaward of the coast line and oil spill spill-response exercises. response companies. requires that a spill-response plan be • Assess the sufficiency and submitted for offshore facilities prior to availability of contractor equipment and Estimated Reporting and February 18, 1993. The OPA specifies materials. Recordkeeping ‘‘Hour’’ Burden: The that after that date, an offshore facility • Verify that sufficient quantities of estimated annual hour burden for this may not handle, store, or transport oil equipment are available and in working information collection is a total of unless a plan has been submitted. This order. 35,070 hours. In calculating the authority and responsibility are among • Oversee spill-response efforts and burdens, we assumed that respondents those delegated to the Minerals maintain official records of pollution perform certain requirements in the Management Service (MMS) by events. normal course of their activities. We Executive Order 12777. Regulations at • Assess the efforts of owners/ consider these to be usual and 30 CFR 254 establish requirements for operators to prevent oil spills or prevent customary and took that into account in spill-response plans for oil-handling substantial threats of such discharges. estimating the burden.
Citation 30 CFR 254 and Average No. of annual Annual burden NTLs Reporting requirement Hour burden responses hours
Subpart A—General
1(a) thru (d); 2(a); 3 thru 5; Submit spill response plan for OCS facilities and re- 120 26 new plans ...... 3,120 7; 20 thru 29; 44(b). lated documents. 1(e) ...... Request MMS jurisdiction over facility landward of 0.5 2 requests...... 1 coast line (no recent request received). 2(b) ...... Submit certification of capability to respond to worst 15 1 certification...... 15 case discharge or substantial threat of such. 2(c); 30 ...... Submit revised spill response plan for OCS facilities 36 177 revised plans ...... 6,372 at least every 2 years; notify MMS of no change...... 1 1 No change ...... 1 2(c) ...... Request deadline extension for submission of revised 4 11 extensions...... 44 plan. 8 ...... Appeal MMS orders or decisions ...... Exempt under 5 CFR 1320.4(a)(2), (c) 0
Subtotal ...... 218 responses ...... 9,553
Subpart C—Related Requirements for OCS Facilities
40 ...... Make records of all OSRO-provided services, equip- 5 20 records...... 100 ment, personnel available to MMS. 41 ...... Conduct annual training; retain training records for 2 25 197 owners/operators 4,925 years. 42(a) thru (e) ...... Conduct triennial response plan exercise; retain exer- 110 134 exercises...... 14,740 cise records for 3 years. 42(f) ...... Inform MMS of the date of any exercise (triennial) ..... 1 170 notifications ...... 170 43 ...... Inspect response equipment monthly; retain inspec- 3.5 55 inspections x 12 2,310 tion & maintenance records for 2 years. months = 660. 46(a) NTL ...... Notify NRC of all oil spills from owner/operator facility Burden would be included in the NRC 0 inventory
46(b) ...... Notify MMS of oil spills of one barrel or more from 2 61 notifications & re- 122 NTL(s) ...... owner/operator facility; submit follow-up report; after ports. catastrophic event may be requested to meet w/ MMS to discuss storm recovery strategies/pollution. 46(c) ...... Notify MMS & responsible party of oil spills from oper- 2 24 notifications...... 48 ations at another facility.
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES 61362 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices
Citation 30 CFR 254 and Average No. of annual Annual burden NTLs Reporting requirement Hour burden responses hours
Subtotal ...... 1,266 responses ...... 22,415
Subpart D—Oil Spill Response Requirements for Facilities Located in State Waters Seaward of the Coast Line
50; 51 ...... Submit response plan for facility in State waters by 42 10 plans...... 420 modifying existing OCS plan. 50; 52 ...... Submit response plan for facility in State waters fol- 100 9 plans...... 900 lowing format for OCS plan. 50; 53 ...... Submit response plan for facility in State waters de- 89 18 plans...... 1,602 veloped under State requirements. 54 ...... Submit description of oil-spill prevention procedures 5 36 submissions...... 180 and demonstrate compliance.
Subtotal ...... 73 responses ...... 3,102
Total Hour Burden ...... 1,557 responses ...... 35,070
Estimated Reporting and comments. We have received no SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Recordkeeping Non-Hour Cost Burden: comments in response to those efforts. Management (BLM) has submitted an We have identified no paperwork non- If you wish to comment in response information collection request to the hour cost burdens associated with the to this notice, you may send your Office of Management and Budget collection of information. comments to the offices listed under the (OMB) for a 3-year extension of OMB Public Disclosure Statement: The PRA ADDRESSES section of this notice. The Control Number 1004–0029 under the (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) provides that an OMB has up to 60 days to approve or Paperwork Reduction Act. The agency may not conduct or sponsor a disapprove the information collection respondents are individuals, groups, collection of information unless it but may respond after 30 days. and corporations who provide displays a currently valid OMB control Therefore, to ensure maximum information to the BLM in support of number. Until OMB approves a consideration, OMB should receive applications for land under the Color-of- collection of information, you are not public comments by December 24, 2009. Title Act. obligated to respond. Public Comment Procedures: Before DATES: The OMB is required to respond including your address, phone number, Comments: Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of to this information collection request e-mail address, or other personal the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) within 60 days but may respond after 30 identifying information in your requires each agency ‘‘* * * to provide days. Therefore, written comments comment, you should be aware that notice * * * and otherwise consult should be received on or before your entire comment—including your with members of the public and affected December 24, 2009. personal identifying information—may agencies concerning each proposed ADDRESSES: You may submit comments be made publicly available at any time. collection of information * * *’’ directly to the Desk Officer for the While you can ask us in your comment Agencies must specifically solicit Department of the Interior (OMB #1004– to withhold your personal identifying comments to: (a) Evaluate whether the 0029), Office of Management and information from public review, we proposed collection of information is Budget, Office of Information and cannot guarantee that we will be able to necessary for the agency to perform its Regulatory Affairs, fax 202–395–5806, do so. duties, including whether the or by electronic mail at _ information is useful; (b) evaluate the MMS Information Collection oira [email protected]. Please mail a accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the Clearance Officer: Arlene Bajusz (202) copy of your comments to: Bureau burden of the proposed collection of 208–7744. Information Collection Clearance Officer information; (c) enhance the quality, Dated: October 21, 2009. (WO–630), Department of the Interior, usefulness, and clarity of the E.P. Danenberger, 1849 C Street, N.W., Mail Stop 401 LS, information to be collected; and (d) Chief, Office of Offshore Regulatory Programs. Washington, DC 20240. You may also minimize the burden on the [FR Doc. E9–28178 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] send a copy of your comments by respondents, including the use of electronic mail to BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P _ automated collection techniques or jean [email protected]. other forms of information technology. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To comply with the public DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Alzata L. Ransom, Lands and Realty consultation process, on May 1, 2009, Group, at (202) 912–7341. Persons who we published a Federal Register notice Bureau of Land Management use a telecommunication device for the (74 FR 20332) announcing that we deaf (TDD) may call the Federal would submit this ICR to OMB for [LLWO35000.L14300000.FR0000.24–1A; Information Relay Service (FIRS) on 1– approval. The notice provided the OMB Control Number 1004–0029] 800–877–8339, 24 hours a day, seven required 60-day comment period. In days a week, to contact Ms. Ransom. Information Collection; Color-of-Title addition, 30 CFR 254.9 displays the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Application OMB control number, specifies that the Title: Color-of-Title Application (43 public may comment at anytime on the AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management. CFR Subparts 2540 and 2541). collection of information required in the OMB Number: 1004–0029. ACTION: 30-Day Notice and Request for 30 CFR 254 regulations, and provides Abstract: The Bureau of Land Comments. the address to which they should send Management proposes to extend the
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices 61363
currently approved collections of cannot guarantee that we will be able to will request a 3-year term of approval information, which enable the agency to do so. for each information collection activity. determine whether or not applicants are Comments are invited on: (1) The Jean Sonneman, qualified to obtain tracts of public land need for the collection of information Acting Information Collection Clearance for the performance of the functions of due to peaceful, adverse possession in Officer. good faith for more than 20 years. the agency; (2) the accuracy of the [FR Doc. E9–28180 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] agency’s burden estimates; (3) ways to 60-Day Notice: On May 21, 2009, the BILLING CODE 4310–84–P enhance the quality, utility and clarity BLM published a 60-day notice (74 FR of the information collection; and (4) 23879) requesting comments on the ways to minimize the information proposed information collection. The DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR collection burden on respondents, such comment period ended on July 20, 2009. as use of automated means of collection One comment was received. The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement of the information. A summary of the comment did not address, and was not public comments will accompany germane to, this information collection; Notice of Proposed Information OSM’s submissions of the information rather, it was a general invective about Collection for 1029–0057 and 1029– collection requests to OMB. the Department of the Interior, the BLM, 0087 Before including your address, phone and Washington politicians. Therefore, number, e-mail address, or other we have no response to the comment. AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining personal identifying information in your Current Action: This proposal is being Reclamation and Enforcement. comment, you should be aware that submitted to extend the expiration date ACTION: Notice and request for your entire comment—including your of November 30, 2009. comments. personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. Type of Review: 3-year extension. SUMMARY: In compliance with the While you can ask us in your comment Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Affected Public: Individuals, groups, to withhold your personal identifying Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and corporations. information from public review, we and Enforcement (OSM) is announcing Obligation to Respond: Required to cannot guarantee that we will be able to its intention to request approval for the obtain or retain benefits. do so. collections of information for 30 CFR The following information is provided Annual Responses: 10. Part 882—Reclamation of private lands; for the information collection: (1) Title and Form OSM–76—Abandoned Mine Annual Burden Hours: 30. of the information collection; (2) OMB Land Problem Area Description form. A filing fee of $10 is associated with control number; (3) summary of the These information collection activities each of these information collections. information collection activity; (4) the were previously approved by the Office The BLM requests comments on the Bureau form number; and (5) frequency of Management and Budget (OMB), and following subjects: of collection, description of the assigned clearance numbers 1029–0057 respondents, estimated total annual 1. Whether the collection of and 1029–0087, respectively. responses, and the total annual information is necessary for the proper DATES: Comments on the proposed functioning of the BLM, including reporting and recordkeeping burden for information collection must be received the collection of information. whether the information will have by January 25, 2010. practical utility; Title: 30 CFR Part 882—Reclamation ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to on Private Lands. 2. The accuracy of the BLM’s estimate John A. Trelease, Office of Surface OMB Control Number: 1029–0057. of the burden of collecting the Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Summary: Public Law 95–87 information, including the validity of 1951 Constitution Ave, NW., Room 202– authorizes Federal, State, and Tribal the methodology and assumptions used; SIB, Washington, DC 20240. Comments governments to reclaim private lands 3. The quality, utility and clarity of may also be submitted electronically to and allows for the establishment of the information to be collected; and [email protected]. procedures for the recovery of the cost FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To 4. How to minimize the information of reclamation activities on privately receive a copy of either information collection burden on those who are to owned lands. These procedures are collection request, contact John A. respond, including the use of intended to ensure that governments Trelease, at (202) 208–2783. have sufficient capability to file liens so appropriate automated, electronic, that certain landowners will not receive mechanical, or other forms of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office a windfall from reclamation. information technology. of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR 1320, which Bureau Form Number: None. Please send comments to the implement provisions of the Paperwork Frequency of Collection: Once. addresses listed under ADDRESSES. Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13), Description of Respondents: State Please refer to OMB control number require that interested members of the governments and Indian tribes. 1004–0029 in your correspondence. public and affected agencies have an Total Annual Responses: 1. Before including your address, phone opportunity to comment on information Total Annual Burden Hours: 120. number, e-mail address, or other collection and recordkeeping activities Title: OSM–76—Abandoned Mine personal identifying information in your [see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)]. This notice Land Problem Area Description Form. comment, you should be aware that identifies information collections that OMB Control Number: 1029–0087. your entire comment—including your OSM will be submitting to OMB for Summary: This form will be used to personal identifying information—may approval. These collections are update the Office of Surface Mining be made publicly available at any time. contained in (1) 30 CFR Part 882, Reclamation and Enforcement’s While you can ask us in your comment Reclamation on private lands; and (2) inventory of abandoned mine lands. to withhold your personal identifying Form OSM–75, Abandoned Mine Land From this inventory, the most serious information from public review, we Problem Area Description form. OSM problem areas are selected for
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES 61364 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices
reclamation through the apportionment Way, Sacramento, CA 95825; by calling information, may be made publicly of funds to States and Indian tribes. 916–978–5106 (TDD 916–978–5608); or available at any time. While you can ask Bureau Form Number: OSM–76. by e-mailing [email protected]. The us in your correspondence to withhold Frequency of Collection: On occasion. Final EIS is also accessible from the your personal identifying information Total Annual Responses: 1,800. following Web site: http://www.usbr. from public review, we cannot Total Annual Burden Hours: 4,000. gov/mp/intertie/docs/index.html. guarantee that we will be able to do so. Description of Respondents: State FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: governments and Indian tribes. Mr. Dated: October 30, 2009. Louis Moore at the phone number or e- Pablo R. Arroyave, Dated: November 17, 2009. mail address above. Deputy Regional Director, Mid-Pacific Region. John R. Craynon, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Final [FR Doc. E9–28138 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] Chief, Division of Regulatory Support. EIS documents the direct, indirect, and BILLING CODE 4310–MN–P [FR Doc. E9–28089 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] cumulative effects to the physical, BILLING CODE 4310–05–M biological, and socioeconomic environment that may result from the DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR construction and operation of the DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Intertie facilities. Bureau of Land Management The Intertie Final EIS evaluates Bureau of Reclamation [LLNVB02000.L51010000.ER0000.F0900080; constructing and operating a pipeline NVN–86292; 09–08807; TAS:14X5017] Delta-Mendota Canal/California connecting between the DMC and the Notice of Intent To Prepare an Aqueduct Intertie, Alameda County, CA California Aqueduct. The purpose of the Proposed Action is to improve the DMC Environmental Impact Statement for AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation, conveyance conditions that restrict the the Proposed Tonopah Solar Energy, Department of the Interior. CVP Jones Pumping Plant to less than LLC Crescent Dunes Solar Energy ACTION: Notice of availability of the its authorized pumping capacity of Project, Nye County, NV Final Environmental Impact Statement 4,600 cubic feet per second. The Final AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, (Final EIS). EIS evaluates four alternatives, Interior. including the No Action, Proposed ACTION: Notice of intent. SUMMARY: The Bureau of Reclamation, Action (alternative previously analyzed as the National Environmental Policy in the Environmental Assessment), an SUMMARY: In compliance with the Act Federal lead agency, has prepared alternative location of the same design, National Environmental Policy Act the Delta-Mendota Canal/California and a temporary structure. The Intertie (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, the Bureau Aqueduct Intertie (Intertie) Final EIS. would be located in an unincorporated of Land Management (BLM), Battle The Intertie is a proposed action in the area of the San Joaquin Valley in Mountain District Office, Tonopah Field August 2000 CALFED Bay-Delta Alameda County, west of the city of Office, Nevada intends to prepare an Program Programmatic Record of Tracy, in a rural agricultural area that is environmental impact statement (EIS) Decision. The Intertie Final EIS owned by the State and Federal for the Crescent Dunes Solar Energy evaluates constructing and operating a governments. The primary study area Project located on public lands in Nye pipeline connecting the Delta-Mendota includes the Intertie alternative facilities County, Nevada. Canal (DMC) and the California and the associated transmission lines DATES: Submit comments on or before Aqueduct. The purpose of the Proposed connecting to the Tracy substation, December 24, 2009. The BLM will Action is to improve the DMC which is located at DMC Milepost 3.5. announce public scoping meetings to conveyance conditions that restrict the Public hearings were held on August identify relevant issues through local Central Valley Project’s (CVP) Jones 4, 2009 in Sacramento, California and news media and the BLM Web site, Pumping Plant to less than its on August 5, 2009 in Stockton, http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/fo/battle_ authorized pumping capacity of 4,600 California. mountain_field.html, at least 15 days cubic feet per second. Copies of the Final EIS are available prior to each meeting. The BLM will A notice of availability of the Draft for public review at the following provide additional opportunities for EIS was published in the Federal locations: public participation upon publication of Register on July 14, 2009 (74 FR 34031). • Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific the Draft EIS. The written comment period on the Region, Regional Library, 2800 Cottage ADDRESSES: Draft EIS ended on August 31, 2009. You may submit comments Way, Sacramento, CA 95825. on issues related to the proposed project The Final EIS contains responses to all • California Bay-Delta Authority, 650 comments received and reflects by the following methods: Capitol Mall, 5th Floor, Sacramento, CA • E-mail: [email protected] comments and any additional 95812. • Fax: (775) 482–7810 (attention: Tim information received during the review • Bureau of Reclamation, Denver Coward) period. Office Library, Building 67, Room 167, • Mail or Hand Delivery: Bureau of DATES: Reclamation will not make a Denver Federal Center, 6th and Kipling, Land Management, Tonopah Field decision on the Proposed Action until at Denver, CO 80225. Office, Attn: Tim Coward, Project least 30 days after release of the Final • Natural Resources Library, U.S. Manager, 1553 South Main Street, P.O. EIS. After the 30-day waiting period, Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street Box 911, Tonopah, NV 89049. Reclamation will complete a Record of NW., Main Interior Building, Documents pertinent to this project Decision (ROD). The ROD will state the Washington, DC 20240–0001. may be examined at the Tonopah Field action that will be implemented and Before including your name, address, Office. will discuss all the factors leading to phone number, e-mail address, or other FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For that decision. personal identifying information in any further information or to have your ADDRESSES: Copies of the Final EIS may correspondence, you should be aware name added to the mailing list, contact be requested from Mr. Louis Moore, that your entire correspondence, Tim Coward, (775) 482–7800, or e-mail Bureau of Reclamation, 2800 Cottage including your personal identifying [email protected].
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices 61365
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Tonopah constructed to deliver power from the DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Solar Energy, LLC has submitted a right- plant switchyard to the Anaconda of-way application to the BLM to build substation. It is proposed that the new Bureau of Land Management a solar power generation facility, with a transmission line would parallel an [LLAZ9120000.L12200000.AL00006100 net generating capacity of up to 180 existing transmission line that crosses 241A] megawatts (MW) of electricity based on the northwest corner of the site. Access concentrating solar power technology to the site would be provided from State Notice of Reestablishment of Arizona (CSP). The proposed solar power plant, Route 89. Buildings and enclosures Resource Advisory Council including the heliostat array, power planned for the project include a steam AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, tower, power block, and associated generator area building, a steam turbine Interior. facilities would be built on about 1,600 enclosure building, an electrical ACTION: acres of public land, northwest of building, an administration and Notice of Reestablishment of Tonopah, Nevada. The project is maintenance building, and a heliostat Arizona Resource Advisory Council. proposed to be built entirely on lands assembly building with a warehouse. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that administered by the BLM Battle On-site storage for spare components the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) Mountain District, Tonopah Field would be required for maintenance has reestablished the Bureau of Land Office. uses. In addition, on-site storage The solar facility would include a Management (BLM) Resource Advisory facilities for water pretreatment Council for the state of Arizona. large field of heliostats or mirrors to chemicals, cooling water treatment reflect the sun’s energy onto a central FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: chemicals, and boiler water treatment Allison Sandoval, Legislative Affairs solar receiver or tower; a conventional chemicals would be necessary. The steam turbine to generate electricity; and Correspondence (600), Bureau of proposed project would be designed for Land Management, 1620 L Street, NW., thermal storage tanks to store hot and a life of 30 years. cold liquid salt; a hybrid cooling MS–LS–401, Washington, DC 20036, system; associated equipment such as The EIS will analyze the site-specific telephone (202) 912–7434. pumps, transformers, heat exchangers, impacts of the proposed project on air SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This and buildings; and associated linear quality, biological resources (including notice is published in accordance with facilities including an eight-mile special status species) cultural Section 9(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory transmission line, access road and resources, water resources, geological Committee Act of 1972, Public Law 92– possible water supply pipeline. resources, paleontological resources, 463. The BLM has re-established the The heliostat array would be a public health, socioeconomics, soils, Arizona Advisory Council. circular field with a radius of traffic and transportation, and visual CERTIFICATION STATEMENT: I hereby approximately 4,400 feet. The proposed resources. It will also analyze the certify that the reestablishment of the array would consist of approximately geological hazards, hazardous materials BLM Resource Advisory Councils is 17,350 heliostats, each approximately handling, land use, waste management, necessary and in the public interest in 670 square feet in size. The heliostats and worker safety and fire protection connection with the Secretary’s would be arranged in arcs around the potentially associated with the proposed responsibilities to manage the lands, central solar receiver or tower. The project. Native American Tribal resources, and facilities administered by central solar receiver or tower would be consultations will be conducted and the BLM. a concrete structure, approximately 538 Tribal concerns will be given due feet high, supporting a cylindrical consideration. The EIS will include the Ken Salazar, receiver, approximately 95 feet tall. The consideration of any impacts on Indian Secretary of the Interior. total height of the receiver would be trust assets. [FR Doc. E9–28186 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] approximately 633 feet. A 20-foot tall Before including your address, phone BILLING CODE 4310–32–P maintenance crane would be mounted number, e-mail address, or other on top of the receiver. The primary personal identifying information in your DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR components of the power block include comment, you should be aware that a solar steam generator system; a solar your entire comment, including your Bureau of Indian Affairs preheater; an evaporator; a steam personal identifying information, may turbine; and feedwater heaters. A hybrid be made publicly available at any time. Proclaiming Certain Lands as a cooling system would be employed at While you can ask us in your comment Reservation for the Nottawaseppi the site. The hybrid cooling system to withhold your personal identifying Huron and of Potawatomi Indians of would consist of an air-cooled information from public review, we Michigan condenser augmented with a wet cannot guarantee that we will be able to cooling system designed to minimize do so. Federal, State, and local agencies, AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, water consumption. The proposal as well as individuals or organizations Interior. includes a thermal storage system using that may be interested in or affected by ACTION: Notice of Reservation liquid salt held in tanks to store solar the BLM’s decision on this project are Proclamation; Correction. heat energy for later steam generation, invited to participate in the scoping as well as associated pumps and piping. SUMMARY: The Bureau of Indian Affairs The bulk of the electric power process and, if eligible, may request or (BIA) published a document in the produced by the facility would be be requested by the BLM, to participate Federal Register of November 13, 2007, transmitted to the electric grid under the as a cooperating agency. concerning the Assistant Secretary— control of the Sierra Pacific Power Authority: 43 CFR Part 2800. Indian Affairs proclaiming Company, doing business as NV Energy, approximately 78.26 acres as the and delivered to the Anaconda 230- Thomas J. Seley, Nottawaseppi Huron Band of kilovolt (kV) Substation, located about 8 Field Manager, Tonopah Field Office. Potawatomi Indian Reservation. The miles north of the site. A high voltage [FR Doc. E9–28188 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] document contained an error in the overhead transmission line would be BILLING CODE 4310–HC–P legal description.
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES 61366 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices
DATES: Effective Date: November 24, cumulative impacts. A public hearing by raising in place the levee system 2009. will be held in the City of Presidio to along the upper and middle reaches of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ben receive comments on the Draft EIS from the Presidio FCP, constructing a new Burshia, Bureau of Indian Affairs, interested organizations and individuals 1.4-mile spur levee at mile 8.5, and Division of Real Estate Services, MS– through transcription by a certified retaining the 25-year flood protection in 4639 MIB, 1849 C Street, NW., court reporter. Written comments may the lower reach; and (6) raising the levee Washington, DC 20240, telephone (202) be submitted at the public hearing, or along the upstream sections of the levee 208–7737. mailed to the USIBWC during the public system to provide 100-year flood review period to the contact and address protection to the City of Presidio and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: below. retaining the 25-year flood protection of Corrections DATES: Written comments are requested agricultural lands in the lower reach, as In the Federal Register of November by January 12, 2010. The Draft EIS for in the two previous alternatives, and 13, 2007, in FR Doc. E7–22158, on page the Presidio Flood Control Project will constructing a new 2.9-mile-long spur levee in the middle reach, starting at 63924, in the second column, line be available to agencies, organizations levee mile 7.3, along a railroad track. seven, change ‘‘North 60 degrees 2′ 31″ and the general public on November 20, Five copies of the Draft EIS for the East’’ to ‘‘North 60 degrees 25′ 31″ East,’’ 2009. A copy of the Draft EIS will be available for review at the City of Presidio FCP have been filed with such that line seven reads as follows: USEPA, Region 6 Office of Federal Degrees 25′ 31″ East, 347.43 feet; Presidio Library, 2440 O’Reilly Street, Activities, in accordance with 40 CFR thence. Presidio, Texas 79845, and will also be posted at the USIBWC Web site at parts 1500–1508 and USIBWC Dated: October 21, 2009. http://www.ibwc.gov. The USIBWC will procedures. The public comment period Larry Echo Hawk, conduct a public hearing at the Presidio of the Draft EIS will end January 12, Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs. Activities Center, 1200 East O’Reilly 2010. [FR Doc. E9–28157 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] Street, Presidio, Texas 79845, on Dated: November 18, 2009. BILLING CODE 4310–W7–P December 10, 2009, from 5 p.m. to 7 Pamela Barber, p.m. CST. The hearing date and location Legal Counsel. will also be announced in local [FR Doc. E9–28136 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] newspapers two weeks prior to the INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY AND BILLING CODE 7010–01–P WATER COMMISSION, UNITED hearing date. STATES AND MEXICO FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Daniel Borunda, Environmental DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE United States Section; Notice of Protection Specialist, Environmental Availability of Draft Environmental Management Division, USIBWC, 4171 Drug Enforcement Administration Impact Statement, Flood Control North Mesa Street, C–100, El Paso, Improvements and Partial Levee Texas 79902 or e-mail: Mohammed F. Abdel-Hameed, M.D.; Relocation, Presidio Flood Control [email protected]. Revocation of Registration Project, Presidio, TX SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Draft On April 4, 2008, the Deputy AGENCY: United States Section, EIS analyzes potential effects of the No Assistant Administrator, Office of International Boundary and Water Action Alternative and flood control Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Commission (USIBWC). improvement alternatives for the Administration, issued an Order to ACTION: Notice of Availability of Draft Presidio FCP. The following six action Show Cause to Mohammed F. Abdel- Environmental Impact Statement. alternatives are under consideration: (1) Hameed, M.D. (Respondent), of Retaining the current levee alignment, Orlando, Florida. The Show Cause SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 102(2)(c) repairing structural levee damage and Order proposed the revocation of of the National Environmental Policy raising some levee segments as required Respondent’s DEA Certificate of Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, the to ensure full protection from a 25-year Registration, BA6015158, as a United States Section, International flood event; (2) 100-year flood practitioner, and proposed the denial of Boundary and Water Commission protection of the City of Presidio and any pending applications for (USIBWC) has prepared a Draft agricultural lands along the Presidio modification or renewal of the Environmental Impact Statement (Draft FCP by raising the levee system along its registration, on the ground that EIS) for flood control improvements to entire length and current alignment; (3) Respondent’s ‘‘continued registration is the Presidio Flood Control Project, raising the entire levee system for 100- inconsistent with the public interest’’ as Presidio, Texas (Presidio FCP). The EIS year flood protection, retaining current that term is defined in 21 U.S.C. 823(f) analyzes potential impacts of the No levee alignment in the upper and and 824(a)(4). Show Cause Order at 1. Action Alternative and six action middle reaches of the Presidio FCP but The Show Cause Order specifically alternatives under consideration. Site- partially relocating approximately 3.4 alleged that while Respondent is specific information is used to evaluate miles of the levee in the lower reach; (4) licensed as a physician only in Florida, environmental consequences that may 100-year flood protection of the City of he prescribed controlled substances for result from implementing improvements Presidio by raising the levee system in internet customers ‘‘throughout the in the upper, middle and lower reaches the upper and middle reaches of the United States from approximately June of the Presidio FCP. The following Presidio FCP, in conjunction with a new 2002, through September 2004, on the environmental resources are assessed in 1.3-mile spur levee starting at mile 9.2 basis of online questionnaires and/or the Draft EIS: Biological resources, to connect the raised levee section to telephone consultations,’’ such that he cultural resources, water resources, land elevated terrain south of the City of issued prescriptions ‘‘without a use, socioeconomic resources and Presidio; a 25-year flood protection legitimate medical purpose and outside transportation, environmental health would be retained in the lower reach the usual course of professional issues (air quality, noise, public health, along agricultural lands; (5) 100-year practice, in violation of 21 CFR and environmental hazards), and flood protection of the City of Presidio 1306.04(a) and 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1).’’ Id.
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices 61367
at 1. The Show Cause Order further a bi-weekly paycheck. GX 5, at 2. FedEx. Id. On all but one of the buys, alleged that Respondent’s writing of Respondent handled both internet- the phone consultation was recorded controlled substance prescriptions initiated calls and some walk-in and transcribed. Id. ‘‘violated state laws that prohibit the patients. Id. Throughout the undercover unauthorized practice of medicine, Respondent also indicated to the DIs purchases, officers dealt with one of including unlicensed, out-of-state that he was operating under a Ken three physicians but not with physicians issuing controlled substance Drugs/Kenady Medical Clinic policy Respondent. See Id. In each instance, prescriptions to state residents’’ in such dated October 8, 2004, under which the telephonic consultation lasted only States as California and Alabama. Id. at internet prescribing physicians are not a few minutes. Id. at 19–20. In general, 1–2. expected to prescribe controlled the physicians inquired whether the The Show Cause Order was served on substances to internet clients until the purchaser had faxed the requested Respondent by FedEx to Respondent’s patients/clients are first seen by a medical records to Kenaday Group, the last-known address on April 11, 2008; physician or a physician’s assistant. Id. nature of the medical complaint, what on April 14, 2008, FedEx delivered the In September 2002, DEA, in drugs or medications the purchaser had Order. GX 2, at 2; GX 3. Because more conjunction with other law enforcement taken in the past, and what medications than 30 days have passed and neither agencies, commenced a criminal the purchaser currently desired. Id. at Respondent, nor any other person investigation of various web sites which 20. purporting to represent him, has were believed to be engaged in the The officers, however, rarely faxed in requested a hearing, I find that distribution of controlled substances in their medical records. Id. When they Respondent has waived his right to a violation of federal law, as well as Ken did, the purchaser’s age conflicted with hearing. 21 CFR 1301.43(d). I therefore Drugs, Kennedee Group, Inc., the age given on the photocopied enter this Decision and Final Order pharmacist Kenneth Shobola, and driver’s license. Id. Nevertheless, on based on relevant evidence contained in various physicians including each occasion, the physicians the investigative file. See 21 CFR Respondent. GX 7, at 14. As part of the prescribed schedule III controlled 1301.43(e), 1301.46. investigation, on March 27, 2003, substances containing hydrocodone, Having considered the record in this investigators conducted a trash run at which was expeditiously shipped and matter, I find that Respondent’s the Ken Drugs pharmacy which was delivered to the officer. Id. In no continued registration is inconsistent located on Waters Avenue in Tampa, instance was an undercover officer with the public interest. Accordingly, Florida. Id. at 18. The investigators required to obtain a physical Respondent’s registration will be found prescription labels bearing the examination by a doctor associated with revoked and any pending applications name ‘‘Dr. Fathi Hamid.’’ Id. Ken Drugs, Kenady Medical Clinic, or for renewal or modification will be Subsequently, in June 2004, Kenaday Group. Id. denied. I make the following findings. Investigators obtained records from the On October 7, 2003, the Winchester, Kentucky Police Department Findings Kenady Medical Clinic, a Tampa-based clinic owed by Shobola, which included interviewed E.C., who had used Respondent is the holder of DEA eighteen names and seven addresses to prescription records signed by ‘‘Hamid’’ Certificate of Registration, BA6015158, receive drug shipments from Ken Drugs. and which bore Respondent’s DEA which authorizes him to dispense Id. E.C. confessed that he was addicted controlled substances in schedules II registration number. Id. at 22. As part of their investigation, DEA to hydrocodone and that his source for through V, as a practitioner, with a and the cooperating agencies conducted controlled substances was Ken Drugs. registered location in Orlando, Florida. Id. According to E.C., he initially seventeen undercover purchases of Respondent’s registration does not consulted with one of the other three controlled substance prescriptions and expire until June 30, 2010. doctors, who requested that he send refills for hydrocodone, Xanax, and Respondent earned a Ph.D. in genetics medical records. Id. at 20–21. Although Soma. Id. at 18–19. Whether the officers and an M.D. from the University of E.C. never sent the requested records, initiated contact through http:// California. In 1990, Respondent began Ken Drugs dispensed controlled www.medsviaweb.com or by contacting practicing medicine in the Orlando, substances to him. Id. at 21. Florida area. Throughout the time at Ken Drugs directly, each purchase On November 20, 2003, the Cabell issue in this proceeding, Respondent included the payment of $120 or $125 County, West Virginia Department of was licensed as a physician in only the for a telephonic consultation fee with a Public Safety detained C.W. for traffic State of Florida. GX 7, at 17; GX 10, at purportedly licensed physician. Id. at violations. Id. In an interview, C.W. 2. 19. After payment of the fee, each stated that he and his wife had been On November 4, 2004, two DEA undercover officer talked by telephone 2 obtaining hydrocodone 7.5 mg. and 10 Diversion Investigators (DIs) to an employee of Kenaday Group, who mg. tablets and Xanax 1 mg. and 2 mg. interviewed Respondent. GX 5, at 1. In advised the individual that he or she tablets from Ken Drugs. Id. In order to the interview, Respondent indicated would have to fax his/her medical obtain a larger quantity of controlled that sometime in late 2002, Ken record accompanied by a photocopy of substances, C.W. and his wife submitted Shobola, the sole owner of Ken Drugs, his/her driver’s license. Id. Regardless of to Ken Drugs the names, addresses, Inc. (‘‘Ken Drugs’’), contracted with him whether the officer actually faxed in drivers’ licenses, and medical records of to work as an internet prescribing his/her medical records, the employee friends and relatives, as well as falsified physician for Ken Drugs. Id.; GX 7, at would notify the individual that a medical records including MRIs and test 10. Respondent worked part-time—20 doctor would soon be available for a results which were obtained from hours per week—for Ken Drugs/Kenady consultation, after which, according to internet sites. Id. Medical Clinic,1 for which he received the employee, the prescribed controlled In June 2004, the law enforcement substances would arrive via UPS or agencies obtained records from Kenady 1 Kenady Medical Clinic, Inc., is a Florida Medical Clinic corresponding to some of corporation incorporated by Kenneth Shobola in 2 Kennedee Group, Inc., a/k/a Kenaday Group, is April 2002. In the period under consideration in a Florida corporation incorporated by Kenneth the fictitious names given by Mr. and this decision, Mr. Shobola was the president and Shobola in September 2000. GX 7, at 16, 19. Mr. Mrs. C.W. Id. at 22. Among these registered agent of the corporation. GX 7, at 16. Shobola was president of Kennedee Group. Id. records were prescriptions written by
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES 61368 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices
‘‘Fathi Hamid’’ under Respondent’s CSA requires consideration of the Factors Two and Four—Respondent’s DEA registration number. Id. following factors: Experience in Dispensing Controlled On September 21, 2004, a search (1) The recommendation of the appropriate Substances and Record of Compliance warrant was executed at the Ken Drugs state licensing board or professional With Applicable Controlled Substance pharmacy on Habana Avenue in Tampa, disciplinary authority. Laws Florida. The Investigators obtained (2) The applicant’s experience in The primary issue in this case is computer records which showed that dispensing * * * controlled substances. whether the controlled-substance between the dates of September 4, 2002, (3) The applicant’s conviction record under prescriptions which Respondent wrote and December 12, 2003, Respondent Federal or State laws relating to the in 2003, pursuant to his arrangement had issued 992 controlled substance manufacture, distribution, or dispensing of with Ken Drugs/Kenady Medical Clinic, prescriptions. Respondent issued these controlled substances. were lawful prescriptions under the prescriptions to residents of 38 States (4) Compliance with applicable State, CSA. Under a longstanding DEA and Puerto Rico. Federal, or local laws relating to controlled regulation, a prescription for a More specifically, between April 2, substances. controlled substance is not ‘‘effective’’ 2003, and December 1, 2003, (5) Such other conduct which may threaten unless it is ‘‘issued for a legitimate Respondent wrote 147 prescriptions for the public health and safety. medical purpose by an individual schedule III drugs containing practitioner acting in the usual course of 21 U.S.C. 823(f). hydrocodone and 13 diazepam his professional practice.’’ 21 CFR prescriptions for residents of California. ‘‘[T]hese factors are * * * considered 1306.04(a). This regulation further Between April 2, 2003, and December 4, in the disjunctive.’’ Robert A. Leslie, provides that ‘‘an order purporting to be 2003, he wrote 54 prescriptions for M.D., 68 FR 15227, 15230 (2003). I may a prescription issued not in the usual combination hydrocodone drugs for rely on any one or a combination of course of professional treatment * * * residents of Georgia. Between April 4, factors, and I may give each factor the is not a prescription within the meaning 2003, and December 11, 2003, he wrote weight I deem appropriate in and intent of [21 U.S.C. 829] and * * * 24 prescriptions for combination determining whether to revoke an the person issuing it, shall be subject to hydrocodone drugs for residents of existing registration. Id. Moreover, I am the penalties provided for violations of Texas. Between June 2, 2003, and the provisions of law relating to October 27, 2003, he wrote 21 ‘‘not required to make findings as to all the factors.’’ Hoxie v. DEA, 419 F.3d controlled substances.’’ Id. As the prescriptions for combination Supreme Court recently explained: ‘‘The 477, 482 (6th Cir. 2005); see also Morall hydrocodone drugs for residents of prescription requirement * * * ensures v. DEA, 412 F.3d 165, 173–74 (DC Cir. Alabama. Between April 4, 2003, and patients use controlled substances December 5, 2003, he wrote nineteen 2005). under the supervision of a doctor so as prescriptions for combination Having considered all of the factors, I to prevent addiction and recreational hydrocodone drugs for residents of acknowledge that the record contains no abuse. As a corollary, [it] also bars North Carolina. Id. evidence that the State of Florida has doctors from peddling to patients who Combination schedule III controlled taken action against Respondent’s crave the drugs for those prohibited substances containing hydrocodone medical license (factor one) or that uses.’’ Gonzalez v. Oregon, 546 U.S. heavily predominated in the 992 Respondent has been convicted of an 243, 274 (2006) (citing United States v. prescriptions Respondent wrote. As I offense related to controlled substances Moore, 423 U.S. 122, 135, 143 (1975)). have noted in numerous other (factor three).3 However, the record Under the CSA, for a physician to act decisions, the drugs are highly popular contains substantial evidence that ‘‘in the usual course of * * * drugs with abusers. See Southwood Respondent’s experience in dispensing professional practice’’ and to issue a Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 72 FR 36487, controlled substances (factor two) and prescription for a ‘‘legitimate medical 36504 (2007) (noting 2004 survey of the his record of compliance with purpose,’’ he or she must be authorized National Institute of Drug Abuse which applicable Federal and state laws (factor to ‘‘practice medicine and to dispense found that ‘‘9.3 percent of twelfth drugs in connection with his [or her] four) is characterized by his repeated graders reported using Vicodin, a brand professional practice,’’ and he or she violation of the CSA’s prescription name Schedule III controlled substance must also have established a bona fide requirement, as well as his repeated without a prescription in the previous doctor-patient relationship with the year’’); William R. Lockridge, 71 FR violation of state laws and regulations individual for whom the prescription is 77791, 77796 (2006) (noting that in prohibiting the unlicensed practice of written. Moore, 423 U.S. at 140–43. See 2002, the abuse of hydrocodone medicine and setting the standards for also Patrick W. Stodola, 74 FR 20727, products resulted in more than 27,000 prescribing controlled substances and 20731 (2009); Joseph Gaudio, 74 FR emergency room visits). dangerous drugs. Accordingly, I 10083, 10090 (2009). See also conclude that Respondent’s continued Dispensing and Purchasing Controlled Discussion registration would be inconsistent with Substances Over the Internet, 66 FR Section 304(a) of the Controlled the public interest and will revoke his 21181 (2001). Substances Act (CSA) provides that a registration. A ‘‘physician who engages in the registration to ‘‘dispense a controlled unauthorized practice of medicine’’ substance * * * may be suspended or 3 This Agency has long held that a State’s failure under state laws—such as an out-of- revoked by the Attorney General upon to take action against a practitioner’s authority to state physician who lacks the license to a finding that the registrant * * * has dispense controlled substances is not dispositive in prescribe to a State’s residents—‘‘is not committed such acts as would render determining whether the continuation of a a practitioner acting in the usual course his registration under section 823 of this registration would be consistent with the public of * * * professional practice’’ under interest. See Mortimer B. Levin, 55 FR 8209, 8210 title inconsistent with the public (1990). The absence of a criminal conviction is the CSA. United Prescription Services, interest as determined under such likewise not dispositive of the public interest Inc., 72 FR 50397, 50407 (2007) (citing section.’’ 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4). In making inquiry. See, e.g., Edmund Chein, 72 FR 6580, 6593 21 CFR 1306.04(a)). This rule derives the public interest determination, the n.22 (2007). directly from the text of the CSA which
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices 61369
defines the term ‘‘practitioner’’ as ‘‘a contractual arrangement with Ken or her to ‘‘regulation by the board.’’ Id. physician * * * licensed, registered, or Drugs/Kenady Medical Clinic. By issuing controlled substance otherwise permitted, by the United In 2000, California enacted a law prescriptions to Georgia residents via States or the jurisdiction in which he specifically prohibiting the prescribing telephone and the internet without practices * * * to * * * dispense or dispensing of a dangerous drug ‘‘on having a Georgia license to practice * * * a controlled substance.’’ 21 the Internet for delivery to any person medicine, Respondent violated both U.S.C. 802(21). See also Moore, 423 U.S. in [California], without an appropriate Georgia law and the CSA. at 140–41 (‘‘In the case of a physician prior examination and medical In addition, under the regulation of [the CSA] contemplates that he is indication therefore, except as the Georgia Composite State Board of authorized by the State to practice authorized by Section 2242.’’ Cal. Bus. Medical Examiners, it is medicine and to dispense drugs in & Prof. Code § 2242.1.5 Moreover, in ‘‘unprofessional conduct’’ to connecting with his professional 2003, the Medical Board of California ‘‘[p]rovid[e] treatment and/or practice.’’) (emphasis added). A expressly held that a ‘‘physician cannot consultation recommendations via controlled-substance prescription issued do a good faith prior examination based electronic or other means unless the by a physician who lacks the license or on a history, a review of medical licensee has performed a history and authority required to practice medicine records, responses to a questionnaire physical examination of the patient within a State is therefore unlawful and a telephone consultation with the adequate to establish differential under the CSA. See 21 CFR 1306.04(a). patient, without a physical examination diagnoses and identify underlying As to the issue of a bona fide doctor- of the patient.’’ In re John Steven conditions and or contraindications to patient relationship, at the time of the Opsahl, M.D., Decision and Order, at 3 the treatment recommended.’’ Ga. prescriptions at issue in this case, the (Med Bd. Cal. 2003) (available by query Comp. R. & Regs. 360–3–.02(6) (2002). CSA generally looked to state law to at http://publicdocs.medbd.ca.gov/pdl/ Respondent’s failure to perform a determine its elements.4 See Stodola, 74 mbc.aspx). The California Board further physical examination on the Georgia FR at 20731; Kamir Garces-Mejias, 72 held that ‘‘[a] physician cannot residents he prescribed to thus violated FR 54931, 54935 (2007); see also determine whether there is a medical Georgia law and the CSA for this reason Dispensing and Purchasing Controlled indication for prescription of a as well. See 21 CFR 1306.04(a). Substances Over the Internet, 66 FR at dangerous drug without performing a Respondent wrote 24 prescriptions to 21182–83. As the DEA elaborated in the physical examination.’’ Id. residents of Texas for schedule III 2001 Guidance: In addition, well before Respondent’s controlled substances containing For purposes of state law, many state issuance of the prescriptions, the hydrocodone. Texas law provides that authorities, with the endorsement of medical California Board had cited an out-of- individuals who are ‘‘physically located societies, consider the existence of the state physician for violating state law by in another jurisdiction but who, through following four elements as an indication that prescribing to state residents through the use of any medium, including an a legitimate doctor/patient relationship has the internet. Citation Order, Carlos electronic medium, perform[ ] an act been established: Gustavo Levy (Nov. 30, 2001). As that is part of a patient care service —A patient has a medical complaint; Respondent did not hold a California initiated in [Texas] * * * and that —A medical history has been taken; license, he clearly violated California would affect the diagnosis or treatment —A physical examination has been law and the CSA when he wrote of the patient’’ are engaged in the performed; and controlled-substance prescriptions for practice of medicine. Tex. Occup. Code —Some logical connection exists between the medical complaint, the medical history, California residents. Moreover, because § 151.056(a); see also Tex. Occup. Code the physical examination, and the drug Respondent did not perform physical § 155.001 (requiring a license to engage prescribed. examinations of the California residents, in the practice of medicine). In order to his prescriptions were not issued in the issue prescriptions for controlled 66 FR at 21182–83. usual course of professional practice substances, such individuals must also As found above, Respondent wrote and lacked a legitimate medical purpose obtain a state registration to dispense 147 prescriptions for schedule III and thus violated the CSA for this such drugs, which in turn requires them controlled substances containing reason as well. See 21 CFR 1306.04(a). to be licensed under the laws of Texas. hydrocodone and thirteen prescriptions Respondent wrote 54 prescriptions to Tex. Health & Safety Code §§ 481.061(a) for diazepam for residents of California residents of Georgia for schedule III & 481.063(d). between April 2, 2003, and December 1, controlled substances which contain More specifically, Texas regulations 2003. These prescriptions were filled by hydrocodone. Under Georgia law provide that ‘‘[p]hysicians who treat and Ken Drugs pursuant to Respondent’s (which was in effect when he issued the prescribe through the Internet are prescriptions), an individual ‘‘who is practicing medicine and must possess 4 On October 15, 2008, President Bush signed into physically located in another state’’ and appropriate licensure in all jurisdictions law the Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act of 2008, Public Law 110–425, 122 who ‘‘through the use of any means, where patients reside.’’ Tex. Admin. Stat. 4820 (2008). Section 2 of the Act prohibits the including electronic * * * or other Code 174.4(c). Because Respondent was dispensing of a prescription controlled substance means of telecommunication, through not licensed to practice medicine in ‘‘by means of the Internet without a valid which medical information or data is Texas and did not hold a Texas prescription,’’ and defines ‘‘[t]he term ‘valid prescription’ [to] mean[ ] a prescription that is transmitted, performs an act that is part Controlled Substances Registration, his issued for a legitimate medical purpose in the usual of a patient care service located in this prescriptions to the Texas residents course of professional practice by * * * a state * * * that would affect the violated Texas law and the CSA. See practitioner who has conducted at least 1 in-person diagnosis or treatment of the patient’’ is 1306.04(a). medical evaluation of the patient.’’ 122 Stat. 4820. Section 2 further defines ‘‘the term ‘in-person ‘‘engaged in the practice of medicine’’ in Respondent issued 21 prescriptions to medical evaluation’ [to] mean[ ] a medical Georgia. Ga. Code Ann. § 43–34–31.1. residents of Alabama for schedule III evaluation that is conducted with the patient in the Such practice of medicine requires the controlled substances containing physical presence of the practitioner, without individual to have ‘‘a license to practice hydrocodone. Notably, Alabama law regard to whether portions of the evaluation are conducted by other health professionals.’’ Id. These medicine in [Georgia]’’ and subjects him defines the practice of medicine to mean provisions do not, however, apply to Respondent’s ‘‘[t]o diagnose, treat, correct, advise or conduct. 5 This statute became effective on January 1, 2001. prescribe for any human disease,
VerDate Nov<24>2008 17:01 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES 61370 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices
ailment, injury, infirmity, deformity, and formulate a therapeutic plan, a part controlled substances in schedules II pain or other condition, physical or of which might be a prescription.’’ Id. through V as a practitioner, on the mental, real or imaginary, by any means As Respondent failed to perform ground that Respondent’s continued or instrumentality.’’ Ala. Code § 34–24– physical examinations of these patients, registration is ‘‘inconsistent with the 50(1). Under Alabama law, ‘‘the practice his conduct was not in the usual course public interest, as that term is defined of medicine * * * across state lines’’ as of professional practice. He in 21 U.S.C. 823(f), 824(a)(4).’’ Show it applies to ‘‘[t]he rendering of consequently violated the CSA in Cause Order at 1. The Order also treatment to a patient located within writing these prescriptions as well. See proposed the denial of any pending [Alabama] by a physician located 21 CFR 1306.04(a). applications for renewal or modification outside [Alabama] as a result of As the foregoing demonstrates, of Respondent’s registration. Id. transmission of individual patient data Respondent repeatedly violated state Specifically, the Show Cause Order by electronic or other means from this laws and regulations prohibiting the alleged that from February 2007 through state to such physician or his or her unlicensed practice of medicine and October 2008, Respondent ‘‘purchased agent’’ constitutes the ‘‘practice of establishing standards of medical approximately 613,000 dosage units of medicine,’’ such that ‘‘[n]o person shall practice by prescribing controlled hydrocodone combination products and engage in the practice of medicine substances to persons he never unlawfully distributed these drugs to an * * * across state lines in [Alabama]’’ physically examined and who resided unregistered individual in exchange for unless he or she has ‘‘been issued a in States where he was not licensed to $10,000 per month * * * in violation of special purpose license to practice practice and prescribe drugs. In issuing 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1).’’ Id. In addition, the medicine * * * across state lines.’’ Ala. the prescriptions, Respondent also acted Show Cause Order alleged that from Code § 34–24–501 & 34–24–502(a). As outside of ‘‘the usual course of September 2007 through October 2008, Respondent did not possess a special professional practice’’ and lacked ‘‘a Respondent ‘‘purchased approximately purpose license from Alabama, his legitimate medical purpose’’ and thus 397,000 dosage units of hydrocodone prescribing over the internet to these repeatedly violated the CSA. I therefore combination products using the DEA patients constituted violations of conclude that Respondent has registration numbers of two other Alabama law. In issuing these committed acts which render his practitioners in violation of 21 U.S.C. controlled-substance prescriptions, continued registration ‘‘inconsistent 843(a)(2) and (3).’’ Id. at 2. Further, Respondent acted outside the usual with the public interest.’’ 21 U.S.C. Respondent allegedly then ‘‘distributed course of professional practice and 824(a)(4). Accordingly, Respondent’s these drugs to an unregistered violated the CSA. See 21 CFR registration will be revoked. individual, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 1306.04(a). 841(a)(1).’’ Id. Respondent wrote nineteen Order Based on the above, I further prescriptions for schedule III drugs Pursuant to the authority vested in me concluded that Respondent’s containing hydrocodone to residents of by 21 U.S.C. §§ 823(f) and 824(a), as ‘‘continued registration while these North Carolina. Under North Carolina well as 28 CFR 0.100(b) and 0.104, I proceedings are pending constitutes an law prior to 2007, ‘‘prescribing hereby order that DEA Certificate of imminent danger to the public health medication by use of the internet or a Registration, BA6015158, issued to and safety.’’ Show Cause Order at 2. toll-free number,’’ was ‘‘regarded as Mohammed F. Abdel-Hameed, M.D., be, Consequently, pursuant to my authority practicing medicine’’ in North Carolina. and it hereby is, revoked. I further order under 21 U.S.C. 824(d) and 21 CFR 6 N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. 90–18(b). As such, that any pending application to renew 1301.36(e), I immediately suspended it subjected a practitioner to North or modify the registration be, and it Respondent’s registration, with the Carolina law and the regulation of the hereby is, denied. This order is effective suspension to remain in effect until the issuance of this Final Order. Id. North Carolina Medical Board. Id. North December 24, 2009. Carolina prohibits the practice of Respondent requested a hearing on medicine without the appropriate Dated: November 17, 2009 the allegations. The case was placed on license and registration and makes out- Michele M. Leonhart, the docket of the Agency’s of-state violators guilty of a ‘‘Class I Deputy Administrator. Administrative Law Judges (ALJ) and a felony.’’ N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. 90–18(a). [FR Doc. E9–28189 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] hearing was scheduled for May 12, Respondent’s prescribing to North BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 2009. On April 9, 2009, the ALJ ordered Carolina residents via the internet Respondent to file a prehearing clearly violated North Carolina law. statement no later than May 4, 2009. Additionally, in February 2001, the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ALJ at 2 n.1; ALJ Ex. 3. The same day, North Carolina Medical Board issued its the ALJ’s law clerk faxed Respondent a position statement, ‘‘Contact with Drug Enforcement Administration letter advising him of his right to Patients Before Prescribing,’’ which [Docket No. 09–32] counsel. ALJ at 2 n.1; ALJ Ex. 4. stated that ‘‘prescribing drugs to an On May 1, Respondent requested an individual the prescriber has not Harrell E. Robinson, M.D.; Revocation extension of time to file his prehearing personally examined is inappropriate.’’ of Registration statement, advising that he was Contact with Patients before Prescribing, retaining counsel that afternoon. ALJ at at 1 (available at http:// On February 26, 2009, I, the Deputy 2 n.1. On May 4, the ALJ granted www.ncmedboard.org/ Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Respondent an extension of time to May position_statements/). The Board further Administration, issued an Order to 7, noting that the hearing was set for explained that ‘‘[o]rdinarily, this will Show Cause and Immediate Suspension May 12 and that Respondent had not require that the physician personally of Registration to Harrell E. Robinson, asked for a postponement of the hearing. perform an appropriate history and M.D. (Respondent), of Santa Ana, Id. physical examination, make a diagnosis, California. The Order proposed the On May 6, Respondent filed a request revocation of Respondent’s DEA to postpone the hearing; in response, the 6 This provision was deleted, effective October 1, Certificate of Registration, AR8613487, ALJ’s law clerk ‘‘left a telephone 2007, by S.L. 2007–346, section 23. which authorizes him to dispense message for Respondent advising that
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices 61371
before [the ALJ] could act on his request violated 21 U.S.C. 822(a)(1) by (‘‘the Board’’), ‘‘signed a stipulation to postpone the hearing, his attorney distributing the products without a which acknowledged that the Board must contact [the ALJ’s] office and that registration to do so. Id. at 18. could establish a factual basis for a all communication with [the ALJ’s] Furthermore, the ALJ concluded that series of allegations contained in a office should be accomplished through Respondent violated 21 CFR 1301.71(a) Fourth Amended Accusation, which the attorney.’’ Id. However, no attorney by not maintaining effective controls included twelve (12) causes of action contacted the ALJ’s office on against diversion of controlled against him.’’ Gov’t Mot. at 2. In support Respondent’s behalf. Accordingly, on substances. Id. Finally, the ALJ of its motion, the Government attached May 7, the ALJ denied Respondent’s determined that Respondent had a copy of the Fourth Amended request to postpone the hearing. Id.; ALJ violated California State Business and Accusation and the Board’s Decision Ex. 6. Professions Code sections 2242 and and Order of July 20, 2009. Id. On May 12, 2009, the hearing was 2241.5 in that (1) he failed to physically The Board’s Decision and Order held as originally scheduled in examine the individual to whom he had provided that the attached Stipulated Arlington, Virginia. ALJ at 2. At the distributed the drugs and to determine Surrender of License and Order of June hearing, the Government was that she had a medical indication for 22, 2009, was ‘‘adopted by the Medical represented by counsel. Id. By contrast, treatment with hydrocodone Board of California * * * as its neither Respondent, nor anyone combination products, and that (2) he Decision’’ in the matter. Gov’t Mot., purporting to represent him, appeared, failed to maintain records of his Exh. A, at 1. The Decision provided that and thereafter, Respondent ‘‘filed handling of controlled substances as the Stipulated Surrender of License and nothing further’’ with the office of the required by state law. Id. Accordingly, Order ‘‘shall become effective at 5 p.m. ALJ. Id. at 2 & 2 n.1; see also 21 CFR the ALJ found that ‘‘these factors weigh on September 30, 2009.’’ Id. (emphasis 1301.43(d) (‘‘If any person entitled to a in favor of a finding that Respondent’s in original). hearing * * * files [a request for a continued registration would be Because the Board’s order is clearly hearing] and fails to appear at the inconsistent with the public interest.’’ material to the public interest inquiry, hearing, such person shall be deemed to Id. see 21 U.S.C. 823(f)(1), was not available have waived the opportunity * * * to Noting that the record did not include at the time of the hearing, and therefore participate in the hearing, unless such any evidence that Respondent had been could not have been presented at the person shows good cause for such convicted under any federal or state law original hearing, I conclude that the failure.’’). relating to the manufacture, Government has set forth a prima facie At the hearing, the Government called distribution, or dispensing of controlled case for reopening the record. Cf. INS v. witnesses to testify and introduced substances, the ALJ concluded that the Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 97 (1988). I documentary evidence. ALJ at 2. Respondent’s conviction record therefore grant the Government’s motion Thereafter, the Government filed ‘‘although not dispositive, weighs to reopen the record and admit the proposed findings of fact, conclusions of against finding that Respondent’s Board’s order to the record. law, and argument. registration would be inconsistent with Having considered the record in its On May 29, 2009, the ALJ issued her the public interest.’’ Id. at 18–19. entirety, I hereby issue this Decision Opinion and Recommended Ruling. On Finally, crediting the Diversion and Final Order. I adopt the ALJ’s June 24, noting that neither party had Investigator’s (DI’s) testimony that findings of fact and conclusions of law filed exceptions to the opinion, the ALJ Respondent had ‘‘told him that except as expressly noted herein. I forwarded the matter to me for final Respondent’s status as a physician further adopt the ALJ’s recommended agency action. allowed him to order hydrocodone and sanction. I make the following findings. In her discussion of the public that his orders were acceptable because Findings interest factors, the ALJ noted that the drugs were going to poor people,’’ ‘‘[t]here is no indication that the ALJ concluded that ‘‘[t]his ludicrous Respondent is the holder of DEA Respondent is not fully licensed to attempt to justify his activities indicates Certificate of Registration, AR8613487, practice medicine in California.’’ ALJ at that Respondent has neither respect for which prior to the issuance of the Order 17. She therefore found that ‘‘this factor nor a willingness to accept the of Immediate Suspension, authorized weighs in favor of a finding that his responsibilities adherent to a DEA him to dispense controlled substances continued registration would be in the registration.’’ Id. at 19. Accordingly, she in schedules II through V as a public interest.’’ Id. The ALJ further found that factor five—such other practitioner at the registered location of explained, however, that because ‘‘state conduct which may threaten public 1523 North Broadway in Santa Ana, licensure is a necessary but not health or safety—weighed ‘‘in favor of a California. GX 1; Tr. 110. While the sufficient condition for DEA finding that Respondent’s continued registration certificate indicates that the registration,’’ this factor was ‘‘not registration would not be consistent registration was to expire on April 30, dispositive.’’ Id. As for factors two and with the public interest.’’ Id. 2008; on March 12, 2008, Respondent four—Respondent’s experience in Considering all the factors together, submitted a renewal application. GX 9, dispensing controlled substances and the ALJ concluded that ‘‘a at 1. Because Respondent timely filed compliance with applicable laws—the preponderance of the evidence his renewal application, and his ALJ concluded that Respondent violated establishes that Respondent’s continued registration was not then suspended, 21 U.S.C. 841 by distributing registration with the DEA would be Respondent retains a current hydrocodone combination products at inconsistent with the public interest.’’ registration (albeit one which is unregistered locations to unregistered Id. The ALJ therefore recommended that suspended) pending the issuance of this persons who were not legitimate I revoke Respondent’s registration and Final Order. See 5 U.S.C. 558(c); 21 CFR patients and by arranging with other deny any pending applications. Id. 1301.36(i). physicians to use their DEA registration On August 6, 2009, the Government In February 2008, Respondent also numbers to purchase hydrocodone filed a Motion to Reopen Record. The applied for registrations at the locations combination products which were also basis of the motion was that on June 22, of 145 South Chaparral in Anaheim distributed unlawfully. Id. at 17–18. She 2009, Respondent, in a proceeding Hills, California, and 1421 North also concluded that Respondent before the Medical Board of California Broadway in Santa Ana. Id. at 111, 134,
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES 61372 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices
136; GX 7. Both the 1523 North Tr. 64–65; 73–74; 99–100; GXs 16 & 27. purchased from Harvard by Respondent Broadway and the 1421 North Broadway On other occasions, Respondent and Drs. Bickman and Mitchell. GX 29; locations were owned by a Dr. Joy personally ordered the hydrocodone Tr. 25. Respondent ordered the drugs by Johnson, but she ‘‘delegated’’ the combination products. Id. at 10–12, 14. telephone, a matter confirmed to the DI responsibility for leasing the premises to By January 2008, Respondent ceased by G.B., an inside sales representative Ms. Magdalena Annan, an individual to purchase hydrocodone combination for Harvard, as well as by e-mail from identified as having hired Respondent products from Top RX. Instead, in S.S. to the DI. Tr. 18–19, 116–17; GX 31, as the medical director of the clinic on December 2007, he started purchasing at 3.4 1523 North Broadway. Tr. 100, 141. the same type of drugs from Harvard During the months of March through At the hearing, an Agency Investigator Drug Group (Harvard), a wholesaler in May 2008, S.S. provided e-mail alerts to (DI) testified that he visited the 1523 Michigan. Tr. 8, 79. Mr. S. S., Harvard’s the DI regarding Respondent’s ordering North Broadway location, which was a Vice President for Regulatory Affairs, for the three clinics. See GX 31. On house converted into a business testified that Respondent opened an March 18, S.S. e-mailed the DI, premises; on the front of the house was account with Harvard in December indicating that ‘‘last night’’ Respondent a sign indicating the business name as 2007, indicating that it was an account had called and left a message to order the Madre Maria Ines Teresa Health for a clinic he owned. Tr. 11. To open more hydrocodone combination Center. Tr. 75. Although the DI observed the account, on December 26, 2007, products. GX 31, at 9. S.S. wrote: ‘‘We the property for between two and three Respondent signed an affidavit in which have not shipped this order as account hours, he never saw an individual who he attested that he was not engaged in has reached its total quantity allowed appeared to be a patient entering or business as an Internet pharmacy, that for Hydrocodone items for the month.’’ exiting the premises. Id. at 75–76. he did not dispense prescriptions by Id. Again, on March 18, S.S. e-mailed as mail to patients, that he was located in follows: The DEA Investigation an area accessible to the public, and that I spoke with [Respondent] this afternoon. DEA commenced investigating walk-in customers were welcome. Tr. I explained our company’s policy when his Respondent in November 2007 because 29; GX 24. On his credit application to orders get cut off when they order group [sic] he was the sixth largest purchaser of Harvard, Respondent listed the accounts of products (Controlled Drugs) which reaches hydrocodone combination products payable manager as ‘‘Maggie.’’ GX 27. 25,000 tablets a month. He insisted that his among California physicians for the year S.S. testified that he did not know who other clinic in Anaheim Hills has not reached 2007. Tr. 55–56, 63; GX 34. Respondent this individual was. Tr. 43. his monthly limit and wants his order was known to have purchased In January 2008, Respondent opened shipped at that location. We ran reports to find out what quantity he has purchased at controlled substances from four a second account with Harvard, his Anaheim Hills clinic. We have so far different wholesalers, including Top indicating that he owned a second shipped 17,500 tablets of Hydrocodone so RX, Inc., the Harvard Drug Group, and medical clinic whose medical director, since he wants balanced [sic] of order A.F. Hauser. Tr. 59–60. Scott Bickman, M.D.,3 would also be shipped, here is what we have shipped today The DI confirmed through a purchasing controlled substances under *** . Compliance Officer for Top Rx, Inc. his own DEA registration. Tr. 11; GX 28. This will be his last shipment for the (Top RX), a Tennessee drug wholesaler, While the drugs ordered by Dr. Bickman month. I have explained to him that any that Respondent had purchased 336,000 were to be shipped to the second clinic additional orders for Hydrocodone must be dosage units 1 of hydrocodone (145 Chaparral Court in Anaheim Hills), placed with other wholesale distributors as products 2 from Top RX between we will not be able to ship any quantity to bills were to be sent to Respondent’s either of his clinic [sic] until April 1st. February 2 and November 12, 2007. Tr. main office. Tr. 11–12, 20; GX 30, at 9. 63–64; GXs 14 & 15. At least one order Respondent was listed on the invoices Id. at 11. was paid for with a check in the name as the person billed. GX 30, at 9, 20. On April 15, S.S. again e-mailed the of Madre Maria Ines Teresa Health At some point, Respondent opened a DI indicating that Respondent had Center, 1523 Broadway Street, Santa third account in the name of Thomas placed an order for his Anaheim Hills Ana, California; the holder of that Mitchell, M.D. Tr. 14, 30. Both Drs. clinic and that Respondent ‘‘also asked checking account was Magdalena Bickman and Mitchell provided Harvard if we can ship similar order to his other (‘‘Maggie’’) Annan. Tr. 72–73; GX 16, at with affidavits similar to that provided location but we have refused to ship 96. According to the Compliance by Respondent when he opened the because that location has already Officer, the ‘‘contact name’’ on the account. Tr. 29–30; GXs 25 & 26. reached its monthly purchase limits for account was ‘‘Maggee.’’ GX 14. S.S. testified that Harvard sends its above items.’’ Id. at 20. Similarly, on In some cases, Ms. Annan ordered the local DEA office (Detroit) computer- April 22, S.S. advised the DI by e-mail hydrocodone products, and her name generated reports of orders that the that Respondent ‘‘called to place was listed as the accounts payable company considers excessive. Tr. 47. He additional orders but we refused to fill manager on Respondent’s account with also testified that Harvard ‘‘reported’’ orders as he has reached his monthly Top RX and the Harvard Drug Group. Drs. Robinson and Bickman ‘‘pretty maximum limit that he could get so we much every month from January 2008 have not filled any additional orders 1 The ALJ found that Respondent had purchased onward.’’ Id. at 49. He additionally since our last shipment.’’ Id. at 26. S.S. only 228,700 dosage units from Top Rx, finding that testified that Harvard imposes a quota further advised that Respondent ‘‘may the Compliance Officer had ‘‘advised’’ the DI as to be purchasing from other wholesalers.’’ that number. ALJ at 3. The DI did not so testify, and on the quantity of hydrocodone the letter from Compliance Officer did not include combination products that a customer Id. any total of drug dosage units, See GX 14. Rather, may receive in a given month. Id. at 48. only the letter’s attachment provided the data from The evidence further shows that 4 Sometime prior to March 2008, the DI had the orders. See GX 15. In totaling those orders, I hydrocodone combination products contacted S.S. and asked him to provide historical find that Respondent bought 336,000 dosage units information on Respondent’s purchases. Tr. 78–79. from Top Rx. were the sole products that were Starting in March 2008, the DI asked S.S. to provide 2 Throughout this Order any reference to advanced notice of controlled substance deliveries hydrocodone products refers to schedule III drugs 3 Dr. Bickman was the sixth largest purchaser of to Respondent and Drs. Mitchell and Bickman. Tr. which combine hydrocodone with another active hydrocodone products in California for 2008. Tr. 14, 16, 79; GX 31. S.S. complied with this request, pharmaceutical ingredient such as acetaminophen. 57; GX 36. typically, by e-mail. See id.
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices 61373
In October 2008, Harvard generated Agency Investigators, with the help of and then drove to the 1421 North computer printouts of the controlled officers from the Costa Mesa, California Broadway location, taking the flower substances orders it had received from Police Department, conducted arrangement inside. Id. at 96. One of the Respondent, Dr. Mitchell and Dr. surveillance of the delivery of packages women returned to the car, driving it to Bickman. The printouts showed that from Harvard to Respondent’s clinics on a shopping center in Santa Ana. Id. As Respondent had ordered 263,500 dosage five occasions. Tr. 80–81. In the first the car lacked license plates, the officers units 5 of hydrocodone between such instance, in mid-February 2008, copied the vehicle identification December 11, 2007 and October 10, the DHL driver could not complete the number (VIN) and determined from the 2008; that Dr. Bickman ordered 213,000 delivery. Id. at 83. Department of Motor Vehicles that the dosage units 6 of hydrocodone between However, at 9 a.m. on March 12, car was registered in Respondent’s December 18, 2007 and October 15, during a surveillance of the Anaheim name. Id. at 96–97. The woman returned 2008; and that Dr. Mitchell ordered Hills clinic, Investigators observed a to the car, drove elsewhere to pick up 43,500 dosage units 7 of hydrocodone delivery which was taken into the two children, went to a pharmacy and between July 31 and October 15, 2008. office. Id. Later that morning, at about then to the Seabiscuit Run address GX 29. Most of the orders were for 10- 11:45 a.m., Respondent arrived in his arriving there at about 5:45 p.m. Id. at milligram strength product; others were car and went into the office; fifteen 97. Surveillance terminated some fifteen for 7.5-milligram strength product. Id. minutes later he emerged with the box, minutes later. Id. The DI testified that The DI testified that Respondent and placed it in the trunk of his car. Id. the woman driving the car was Alinka purchased about 800,000 pills using his, at 83–84. Moments later, Respondent Robinson, Respondent’s wife. Id. at 98. Dr. Bickman’s, and Dr. Mitchell’s DEA got into another car in the parking lot On May 9, law enforcement officers registrations. Tr. 113–14.8 According to which was driven by a woman, who conducted a fourth surveillance. Id. at DEA’s Automated Reports and then drove him to his car, where he 104. A box was delivered at 10:12 a.m., Consolidated Ordering System retrieved the box and placed it in the and Respondent arrived at his office by (ARCOS), Respondent purchased a total trunk of the woman’s car. Id. at 84–85, car at approximately 12:15 p.m. Id. At of 641,400 dosage units of hydrocodone 87. Respondent and the woman then around 2:15 p.m., Respondent placed products under his name between drove approximately twenty miles to the box in his car and returned to the February 2, 2007 and October 10, 2008 pick up two children at a school and office; at about 4:30 p.m., Respondent (the period of his ordering from Top RX then returned with the children to the again left the office and drove to a bank and Harvard). GX 37. ARCOS data Anaheim Hills clinic. Id. at 86–87. Some and a restaurant. Id. In the restaurant further indicates that 265,500 dosage ten or fifteen minutes later, the woman parking lot, Respondent parked next to units of hydrocodone products were and children got back in the car and a black Humvee that investigators purchased under Dr. Bickman’s DEA drove to Respondent’s residence at 1880 identified as belonging to Ms. Annan. registration between October 8, 2007, Seabiscuit Run, Yorba Linda, California. Id. at 105–06. Respondent moved three and September 29, 2008.9 GX 38; Tr. Id. at 87. The woman parked the car in boxes from his car to the Humvee and 158. Finally, ARCOS data indicates that the garage, leaving the children and the talked for about fifteen minutes with 51,500 dosage units of hydrocodone box in the car. Id. at 87–88. Ms. Annan in her car; Respondent then products were purchased under Dr. Moments later, the woman emerged, returned to his car and drove away. Id. Mitchell’s DEA registration between drove to the 1421 North Broadway at 105. The investigators followed Ms. August 22 and October 15, 2008. GX 39; clinic, and parked at the rear of the Annan to her home in Santa Ana, but Tr. 158. building. Id. at 88. After going into the the boxes remained in her car until the Based on the evidence establishing office, she returned to the car with surveillance terminated at 6:30 p.m. Id. that Respondent had entered into another woman, and put the box in a The DI testified that he had opened this arrangements with Drs. Bickman and third car. Id. The other woman then box before it was delivered and that it Mitchell to use their registration drove away with the box. Id. at 88–89. contained bottles of hydrocodone. Id. at numbers, I find that the purchases made The second woman drove 107–08. under their registrations are attributable approximately five miles to another On May 14, the fifth and final to Respondent. I further find that house in Santa Ana where another surveillance was conducted at the 1523 between February 2, 2007 and October woman got in the car with her; the two North Broadway location in Santa Ana. 10, 2008, Respondent purchased a total then drove to the Madre Maria Ines Id. at 106. At 9:24 a.m., DHL delivered of 958,400 dosage units of hydrocodone Teresa Health Center, where they a box. Later, Respondent arrived, and at products. entered the building and left the box in about 11:20 a.m., Ms. Annan arrived in the car. Id. at 89. The surveillance a black Mercedes-Benz. At around noon, 5 The ALJ found only 93,000 dosage units. ALJ at ended at that point. Id. Ms. Annan and another woman put the 5. The ALJ appears to have multiplied the bottle- On March 20, Investigators conducted box in Ms. Annan’s car and returned to count (500) by the number of orders rather than by a third surveillance at the Anaheim the building. Id. at 106–07. At the number of bottles per order. Hills clinic. Id. at 94–95. The approximately 12:40 p.m., Ms. Annan 6 The ALJ found only 77,000 dosage units. ALJ at surveillance began at approximately 5. See supra note 4 for the explanation of the left the building and drove to her home, discrepancy. 8:45 a.m.; about one hour later, a where she stayed until surveillance 7 The ALJ found only 16,500 dosage units. ALJ at woman arrived in a Mercedes-Benz and terminated at 6:30 p.m. Id. at 107. 5. See supra note 4 for the explanation of the walked into the building. Id. at 95. On October 16, 2008, investigators discrepancy. Respondent arrived by car at about executed search warrants at the 1523 8 This figure includes the approximately 336,000 11:15 a.m. and also entered the and 1421 North Broadway locations in tablets obtained from Top RX and the approximately 263,500 obtained from Harvard on building. Id. DHL delivered a box at Santa Ana, at the 145 South Chaparral his own account, plus the approximately 213,000 11:40 a.m. Id. At 1:30 p.m., two women location in Anaheim Hills, and at Ms. and 43,500 obtained from Harvard on the accounts and a man left the office carrying the Annan’s and Respondent’s residences. of Drs. Bickman and Mitchell. The ALJ’s figures are box and a flower arrangement, which Id. at 110. During the search, the therefore rejected as inconsistent with the evidence. 9 A comparison of ARCOS data with the Harvard they placed in the trunk of one of the Investigators did not find any records data suggests that Dr. Bickman’s account was used cars. Id. The women drove to a documenting the disposition of the to order from an additional wholesaler. restaurant a few blocks away, dined, hydrocodone products Respondent had
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES 61374 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices
purchased such as dispensing records. reportedly paid Drs. Bickman and Furthermore, Respondent, ‘‘g[a]ve[] up Id. at 112. While there were some Mitchell $2,000 per month and $1,000 his right to contest that cause for purchase invoices at Ms. Annan’s per month, respectively; both discipline exists based on those residence, Ms. Annan does not hold a physicians knew that Respondent was charges.’’ 11Id. DEA registration. Id. at 122–23. ordering controlled substances in their The First Cause for Discipline During the search of the 1421 North names and using their DEA registration specifically alleged that between Broadway location, the Investigators numbers to do so. Id. at 120–21.10 February 2007 and October 2008, found a box of hydrocodone products During the execution of the search Respondent ‘‘purchased approximately which had been delivered that very day. warrants, another DI interviewed Ms. 613,000 dosage units of hydrocodone Id. at 124–25; GX 40. At the South Annan at her residence. Id. at 145. Ms. and unlawfully distributed them to an Chaparral location, which was an Annan denied that she had ever unregistered individual in exchange for operating medical clinic, they found received anything from Respondent, $10,000.00 per month in violation of 21 patient records but no records that Respondent had ever put anything U.S.C. 841(a)(1).’’ Id. at 10. It further documenting the receipt and dispensing in her vehicle, and that he had ever alleged that ‘‘[f]rom September 2007 of the hydrocodone products given her money. Id. According to Ms. through October 2009, [R]espondent Respondent had purchased. Tr. 126. Annan, Respondent paid half the rent purchased approximately 397,000 The DI interviewed Respondent, who for the Madre Maria Ines Teresa Health dosage units 12 of hydrocodone using reported that he had given the Center and he also paid her referral fees the DEA registration numbers of two hydrocodone products to Ms. Annan, for patients that she referred to him for other practitioners in violation of 21 who had told him ‘‘that she was taking plastic surgery. Id. at 146. She indicated U.S.C. 843(a)(2) and (3),’’ and ‘‘then these pills into Mexico to give them to that she had worked for a number of distributed these drugs to an either the Catholic health clinics or a physicians and that the physicians had unregistered individual in violation of doctor down there for poor or people always ordered their own drugs. Id. 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1).’’ Id. who can’t get medication on their own.’’ While executing the warrant at Ms. The First Cause also alleged that in an Id. at 114. Respondent provided the Annan’s residence, Investigators found a interview on or about October 16, 2008, name of a doctor, but no address. Id. at black garbage bag in her kitchen which Respondent admitted that he had 114–15. However, the DIs were unable contained medications, including some diverted the aforementioned to verify Respondent’s story. Id. at 115. controlled substances. Id. at 147–48. Ms. hydrocodone products to ‘‘Magdalena Respondent does not hold either a Annan indicated that she was taking ‘Maggie’ Annan’’; that he had given Ms. distributor’s or an exporter’s registration them to the Department of Health Annan ‘‘permission for her to order under the Controlled Substances Act. Id. Services for destruction. Id. at 148. Ms. drugs’’ such that ‘‘Annan would place at 115; GX 1. Annan also directed investigators to a the orders or would tell [R]espondent Respondent further stated that Ms. hall closet containing miscellaneous what to order and then [R]espondent Annan had hired him as medical drugs which she alleged she had would give the hydrocodone to her’’; director of a clinic, for which she paid brought home from the office of a Dr. that Annan ‘‘was reimbursing him $10,000 per month, but that he Marini on instructions from the [R]espondent for the cost of the ‘‘rarely went to the clinic at all as far as Anaheim Police Department, due to narcotics and paying [R]espondent seeing patients or to do records.’’ Id. He break-ins at the doctor’s office. Id. at $10,000.00 a month to work as her indicated that he had given Ms. Annan 148–49. Ms. Annan denied that she sold medical director * * * at 1523 North permission to order drugs and that she drugs. Id. at 150. Broadway in Santa Ana’’; and that would either place the orders or tell him Respondent ‘‘rarely went to Annan’s which orders to place. Id. at 116. He The State Proceeding clinic to see patients and/or review would then ‘‘transfer the boxes to her, On June 3, 2009, the Executive medical records.’’ Id. at 10–11. the pills to her.’’ Id. Respondent paid for Director of the Medical Board of The First Cause further alleged that the orders with a credit card but then California (‘‘the Board’’) filed a Fourth Annan asked Respondent to open a was reimbursed in cash by Ms. Annan. Amended Accusation with the Board, second medical clinic on South Id. at 117. According to the DI, citing twelve different causes for Chaparral so that they could order more Respondent said that ‘‘because he was a discipline against Respondent’s state pills and that Respondent asked another doctor he was allowed to order these medical license. Gov’t Mot. Ex. A, at 10, physician, Dr. Scott Bickman, to be the pills and that because they were being 18–37. On June 22, 2009, Respondent medical director of this clinic and paid delivered to Mexico for poor people it signed a Stipulated Surrender of License him $2,000.00 per month; that was okay.’’ Id. at 119. At no point did and Order, in which he agreed that the Respondent then approached another Respondent attempt to confirm Ms. Board ‘‘could establish a factual basis physician, Dr. Thomas Mitchell, about Annan’s statements about where the for the First [Cause for Discipline] * * * opening a third medical clinic at 1421 drugs were going. Id. in the Fourth Amended Accusation and According to Respondent, Ms. Annan that those allegations constitute cause 11 The Stipulated License Surrender further stated that the ‘‘admissions made by Respondent herein approached him in 2007, and requested for discipline.’’ Gov’t Mot., Ex. A, at 4. that he open another clinic through are only for the purposes of this proceeding, or any other proceeding in which the Medical Board of which he could order more pills. Id. at 10 This is further confirmed by two notes written California or other professional licensing agency is 118. At that point, Respondent opened by Dr. Bickman to Harvard. A note dated February involved, and shall not be admissible in any other the second clinic at the South Chaparral 21, 2008, signed by Scott Bickman, M.D., requested criminal, civil, administrative, or other location in Anaheim Hills and asked Dr. that Harvard ‘‘[p]lease change the previous ordering proceeding.’’ Id. DEA is not, however, bound by the arrangement for my account to holding all orders stipulation. See Edmund Chein, 72 FR 6580, 6590 Bickman to serve as the medical director until I have been notified and give verbal (2007), aff’d Chein v. DEA, 533 F.3d 828 (D.C. Cir. so he could order supplies and drugs authorization for them to be honored by The 2008) (stipulated settlement agreed to by a state under his registration. Id. Later, Ms. Harvard Group.’’ GX 22, at 2. Then, in a note dated board does not bind DEA). In any event, in Annan and Respondent ‘‘approached’’ February 27, 2008, Dr. Bickman requested that enforcing the registration provisions of the CSA, Harvard ‘‘DISREGARD ALL PREVIOUS FAXES DEA acts as a professional licensing agency. Dr. Mitchell about a third location, the DEMANDING MANAGEMENT OF MY ACCOUNT 12 This figure is even larger than the ARCOS 1421 North Broadway site, ‘‘as a third AND ALLOW DR. ROBINSON’S OFFICE TO PLACE figures of 265,500 dosage units for Dr. Bickman and office to buy pills.’’ Id. Respondent ORDERS AS NEEDED.’’ GX 23, at 2. 51,500 dosage units for Dr. Mitchell.
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices 61375
North Broadway, Santa Ana, and paid the manufacture, distribution, or 824(a)(3), 802(21). In accordance with him for ‘‘$1,000.00 per month for dispensing of controlled substances. long settled Agency precedent, permission to use [his] DEA registration (4) Compliance with applicable State, Respondent’s loss of his state authority to purchase narcotics and have them Federal, or local laws relating to requires that his CSA registration be shipped to the 1421 North Broadway controlled substances. revoked. See John B. Freitas, D.O., 74 FR office’’; and that while Annan ‘‘claimed (5) Such other conduct which may 17524, 17525 (2009) (collecting cases). she was taking the hydrocodone to threaten the public health and safety. While this provides reason alone to Mexico to give to either the Catholic Id. revoke Respondent’s registration, see 21 health services or a doctor for poor ‘‘[T]hese factors are * * * considered U.S.C. 824(a)(3), because Respondent is people who could not get medication on in the disjunctive.’’ Robert A. Leslie, not permanently barred from seeking their own,’’ Respondent ‘‘did not know M.D., 68 FR 15227, 15230 (2003). I may reinstatement of his State license, I the name of the organization that Annan rely on any one or a combination of conclude that a discussion of the was allegedly giving the narcotics to and factors and may give each factor the remaining and relevant public interest made no efforts to verify Annan’s weight I deem appropriate in factors is warranted. claim.’’ Id. at 11. determining whether to revoke an Factors Four and Five—Respondent’s In the Stipulated Surrender, existing registration or to deny an Compliance With Applicable Controlled Respondent agreed to surrender his application either to renew an existing Substances Laws and Such Other California Physician’s and Surgeon’s registration or for a new registration. Id. Conduct Which May Threaten Public Certificate and that he would ‘‘lose all Moreover, I am ‘‘not required to make Health and Safety rights and privileges as a Physician and findings as to all of the factors.’’ Surgeon in California as of September Volkman v. DEA, 567 F.3d 215, 222 (6th Under the CSA, a registered 30, 2009.’’ Stipulated Surrender and Cir. 2009); see also Morall v. DEA, 412 practitioner is authorized to dispense, Order at 4. On July 20, 2009, the F.3d 165, 173–74 (D.C. Cir. 2005).13 21 U.S.C. 823(f), which is defined as ‘‘to Medical Board of California adopted the deliver a controlled substance to an Factor One—The Recommendation of Stipulated Surrender of License and ultimate user * * * by, or pursuant to the State Licensing Board Order as its decision. The Board further the lawful order of, a practitioner.’’ Id. ordered that its decision would become At the time the ALJ rendered her § 802(10). See also Rose Mary Jacinta effective at 5:00 p.m. on September 30, recommended decision, Respondent Lewis, 72 FR 4035, 4040 (2007) (‘‘A 2009. Gov’t Mot. Ex. A, at 1. had yet to sign the Stipulated Surrender practitioner’s registration * * * grants of License, and the Board had not its holder authority to obtain controlled Discussion entered its Decision rendering the substances for the limited purposes of As an initial matter, I note that surrender of Respondent’s state medical conducting research or dispensing them Respondent initially requested a hearing license effective at 5 p.m. on September to an ultimate user.’’) (citing 21 U.S.C. in this matter. ALJ Ex. 2. While 30, 2009. Based on her finding that 802(10) & (21), 822(b)). Respondent was provided with notice of ‘‘[t]here is no indication that The CSA further defines the ‘‘[t]he the date, time and place of the hearing, Respondent is not fully licensed to term ‘distribute’ [as] mean[ing] to he failed to appear. ALJ Ex 1, at 1. practice medicine in California,’’ the deliver (other than by administering or Accordingly, pursuant to 21 CFR ALJ concluded that this factor weighed dispensing) a controlled substance.’’ Id. 1301.43(d), I conclude that Respondent ‘‘in favor of a finding that § 802(11). Moreover, ‘‘[p]ersons has waived his right to a hearing. [Respondent’s] continued registration registered * * * under [the CSA] to Section 304(a) of the Controlled would be in the public interest.’’ ALJ at * * * dispense controlled substances Substances Act (CSA) provides that a 17. * * * are authorized possess * * * or registration to ‘‘dispense a controlled However, subsequent to the ALJ’s dispense such substances [only] to the substance * * * may be suspended or decision, Respondent agreed to extent authorized by their registration revoked by the Attorney General upon surrender his state medical license and and in conformity with the other a finding that the registrant * * * has that he would ‘‘lose all rights and provisions of’’ the Act. 21 U.S.C. 822(b); committed such acts as would render privileges as a Physician and Surgeon in see also 21 CFR 1301.13(e) (‘‘Any his registration under section 823 of this California as of September 30, 2009.’’ person who engages in more than one title inconsistent with the public Stipulated Surrender and Order at 4. group of independent activities shall interest as determined under such Accordingly, I conclude that obtain a separate registration for each section.’’ 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(2). Moreover, Respondent no longer holds authority to group of activities’’); compare 21 U.S.C. section 303(f) of the CSA provides that dispense controlled substances in 823(e) (requiring registration ‘‘to ‘‘[t]he Attorney General may deny an California, the State in which he distribute controlled substances in application for a [practitioner’s] practiced medicine. Because the schedules’’ registration if he determines that the possession of authority under state law III–V), with id. § 823(f) (requiring issuance of such a registration would be to dispense controlled substances is an registration ‘‘to dispense’’ controlled inconsistent with the public interest.’’ essential condition for holding a substances’’ in schedules III–V). Except 21 U.S.C. 823(f). In making the public registration under the CSA, Respondent for when distributing to another interest determination, the CSA requires is not entitled to maintain his DEA registered practitioner in accordance the consideration of the following registration.14 See 21 U.S.C. 823(f), with 21 CFR 1307.11(a), a practitioner factors: may only engage in dispensing. 21 13 The CSA further provides that ‘‘[t]he Attorney U.S.C. 822(b). (1) The recommendation of the General may, in his discretion, suspend any appropriate State licensing board or registration simultaneously with the institution of Accordingly, a practitioner who professional disciplinary authority. proceedings under this section, in cases where he delivers a controlled substance to a non- (2) The applicant’s experience in finds that there is an imminent danger to the public dispensing * * * controlled substances. health or safety.’’ 21 U.S.C. 824(d). substances) and factor three (Respondent’s 14 I therefore reject the ALJ’s findings as to factor conviction record under laws relating to controlled (3) The applicant’s conviction record one. Having also considered factor two substances), I conclude that it is not necessary to under Federal or State laws relating to (Respondent’s experience in dispensing controlled make findings as to either factor.
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES 61376 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices
registered person outside of the course The evidence further shows that As found above, during the execution of professional practice and without a Respondent ordered more than 300,000 of the search warrants, the Investigators legitimate medical purpose in doing so dosage units using the DEA registrations did not find any of the required records violates Federal law. See 21 U.S.C. of Drs. Bickman and Mitchell (which at either Respondent’s registered 841(a) (‘‘Except as authorized by this drugs were also distributed to Ms. location or at the two other clinics. See subchapter, it shall be unlawful for any Annan), and did so in furtherance of a 21 CFR 1304.04.18 I thus conclude that person knowingly or intentionally conspiracy with Ms. Annan to enable Respondent violated Federal law and * * * to * * * dispense * * * a her to circumvent the maximum order DEA regulations for this reason as well. controlled substance.’’). Cf. id. § 844(a) ceilings of several drug wholesalers. In See 21 U.S.C. 842(a)(5) (‘‘It shall be (‘‘It shall be unlawful for any person addition to constituting violations of 21 unlawful for any person * * * to refuse knowingly or intentionally to possess a U.S.C. 841(a), this conduct was or negligently fail to make, keep, or controlled substance unless such unlawful for the further reason that furnish any record, * * * statement, substance was obtained directly, or federal law prohibits a person from invoice, or information required under pursuant to a valid prescription or ‘‘knowingly or intentionally’’ using ‘‘in this subchapter.’’). order, from a practitioner, while acting the course of the * * * distribution Even if Respondent had not in the course of his professional * * * of a controlled substance, or committed the above violations of practice[.]’’). * * * us[ing] for the purpose of Federal law and DEA regulations, I The evidence clearly establishes that acquiring or obtaining a controlled would nonetheless find that he Respondent violated Federal law by substance, a registration number which committed acts which constitute distributing controlled substances to is * * * issued to another person.’’ 21 ‘‘conduct which may threaten the public Ms. Annan. See id. § 841(a). As found U.S.C. 843(a)(2). health and safety’’ and which render his above, in a period just exceeding twenty Respondent also violated Federal law registration ‘‘inconsistent with the months, Respondent ordered 640,000 and DEA regulations because he failed public interest.’’ Id. §§ 823(f)(5) & dosage units of schedule III controlled to maintain records documenting the 824(a)(4). More specifically, even if substances containing hydrocodone on receipt, sale, delivery, and disposition there had been no conspiracy between his own account, or allowed his co- of controlled substances. See 21 U.S.C. Respondent and Ms. Annan to conspirator Ms. Annan to do so. 827(a)(1) (requiring that ‘‘every unlawfully acquire and distribute the During an interview with a DI, registrant * * * shall * * * as soon drugs, he would still be liable for the Respondent admitted that that he had * * * as such registrant first engages in acts she committed while being allowed distributed the drugs to Ms. Annan, who the manufacture, distribution, or to use his registration. does not hold a DEA registration. dispensing of controlled substances, and Under DEA precedent, a registrant Moreover, Respondent did not maintain every second year thereafter, make a who entrusts his registration to another that he had dispensed the drugs to Ms. complete and accurate record of all person is strictly liable for the latter’s Annan in the course of his professional stocks thereof on hand’’) & (a)(3) (‘‘every misuse of his registration. See Rose practice and pursuant to the rendering registrant under this subchapter * * * of legitimate medical treatment.15 See 21 distributing, or dispensing a controlled ‘‘do not apply’’ to Respondent. ALJ at 18–10 n.22. U.S.C. 802(21) (defining the term substance or substances shall maintain, Apparently, the ALJ reasoned that because ‘‘practitioner’’ as meaning ‘‘a physician Respondent was not registered as a distributor, the on a current basis, a complete and recordkeeping provisions applicable to distributors * * * licensed, registered, or otherwise accurate record of each such substance did not apply to him, and that while he was permitted, by the United States or the * * * received, sold, delivered, or registered as a practitioner, because his conduct did jurisdiction in which he practices * * * otherwise disposed of by him’’). not involve dispensing, but rather distribution, the to dispense * * * a controlled recordkeeping requirements applicable to a Moreover, Respondent was required practitioner also did not apply. Id. Under the ALJ’s substance in the course of professional to maintain these records for at least two strange logic, any practitioner who engages in the practice’’); id. § 822(c) (authorizing ‘‘an years. Id. § 827(b) (‘‘every inventory or criminal distribution of controlled substances ultimate user’’ to possess a controlled other record required under this section would be immunized for failing to maintain records substance’’ for purposes of legitimate documenting his receipt and distribution of * * * shall be kept and be available, for controlled substances. medical treatment without holding a at least two years, for inspection and The ALJ did not cite any authority to support her registration); id. § 802(27) (‘‘The term copying’’). See also 21 CFR 1304.03 reasoning. Contrary to the ALJ’s understanding, the ‘ultimate user’ means a person who has (‘‘Each registrant shall maintain the CSA itself requires that ‘‘every registrant * * * lawfully obtained, and who possesses, a manufacturing, distributing, or dispensing a records and inventories and shall file controlled substance or substances shall maintain, controlled substance for his own use or the reports required by this part, except on a current basis, a complete and accurate record for the use of a member of his as exempted by this section.’’); id. of each such substance manufactured, received, household or for an animal owned by § 1304.04 (mandating that records be sold, delivered, or otherwise disposed of by him.’’ him or by a member of his household.’’). 21 U.S.C. 827(a)(3). This provision does not make maintained for at least two years and be a registrant’s recordkeeping obligations dependent 17 Moreover, Respondent admitted that he available for inspection and copying). on whether the activities he engages in are was paid $10,000 a month by Ms. permitted by, or exceed, the authority of his Annan in exchange for his obtaining the criminal activity. See 21 U.S.C. 953(a) (prohibiting registration. drugs for her. Undoubtedly, the drugs the exporting of any narcotic drug in schedule Moreover, as I have previously explained, found their way into the illicit market, * * * III unless’’ various requirements are met ‘‘[r]ecordkeeping is one of the CSA’s central 16 including that the consignee in the country of features,’’ and ‘‘a registrant’s accurate and diligent either here or in Mexico. import hold ‘‘a permit or license to import such adherence to this obligation is absolutely essential drug [which] has been issued by the country of to protect against the diversion of controlled 15 Respondent’s distributions of hydrocodone to import’’); 957(a) (requiring registration to ‘‘export substances.’’ Paul H. Volkman, 73 FR30630, 30644 Ms. Annan averaged approximately 47,000 dosage from the United States any controlled substance’’); (2008), aff’d 567 F.3d 215, 224 (6th Cir. 2009). units a month. This quantity would supply a 960(a) (rendering unlawful the knowing or Because the ALJ’s conclusion is clearly contrary to significant number of drug abusers. intentional exportation of a controlled substance in the text of the CSA and would gut an essential 16 While Respondent maintained that Annan violation of sections 953 or 957). However, as found feature of the Act, I reject it. claimed that she was taking the drugs to Mexico to above, the record amply demonstrates the absurdity 18 While the Investigators found some invoices at give to either ‘‘Catholic health services or a doctor and disingenuousness of Respondent’s contention. Ms. Annan’s residence, Respondent was not for poor people,’’ he did nothing to verify her story, 17 In her recommended decision, the ALJ authorized to keep his records there. See 21 CFR which even if it was true, still implicated her in concluded that the CSA’s recordkeeping provisions 1304.04(a)(1).
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices 61377
Mary Jacinta Lewis, M.D., 72 FR 4035 MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE DATES: All comments should be (2007) (affirming immediate suspension CORPORATION submitted within 60 calendar days from of practitioner’s registration when she the date of this publication. [MCC FR 10–01] allowed an unregistered person to use ADDRESSES: All comments should be her registration to order controlled Notice of the December 11, 2008 addressed to Mrs. Lori Parker, National substances, supposedly for exportation Millennium Challenge Corporation Aeronautics and Space Administration, to HIV–AIDS patients in Nigeria). DEA Board of Directors Meeting; Sunshine Washington, DC 20546–0001. has repeatedly revoked the registrations Act Meeting FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: of practitioners for such conduct. See Requests for additional information or also Paul Volkman, 73 FR 30630, 30644 AGENCY: Millennium Challenge copies of the information collection & n.42 (2008); Anthony L. Cappelli, 59 Corporation. instrument(s) and instructions should FR 42288 (1994). Respondent is thus TIME AND DATE: 10 a.m. to 12 p.m., be directed to Mrs. Lori Parker, NASA liable for Ms. Annan’s acts of unlawful Wednesday, December 9, 2009. PRA Officer, NASA Headquarters, 300 E possession, distribution, and/or PLACE: Department of State, 2201 C Street SW., JF000, Washington, DC exportation of the controlled substances Street, NW., Washington, DC 20520. 20546, (202) 358–1351, Lori.Parker- that she obtained under his registration. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: [email protected]. As the forgoing demonstrates, Information on the meeting may be SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Respondent engaged in the knowing and obtained from Romell Cummings via e- intentional diversion of controlled mail at [email protected] or by telephone I. Abstract substances and is an egregious violator at (202) 521–3600. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 209, applicants of the CSA. In essence, he leased his for a license under a patent or patent DEA registration to Ms. Annan to enable STATUS: Meeting will be closed to the public. application must submit information in her to obtain extraordinary quantities of support of their request for a license. schedule III narcotics containing MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The Board of Directors (the ‘‘Board’’) of the NASA uses the submitted information hydrocodone, a drug which is highly to grant the license. popular with drug abusers and which Millennium Challenge Corporation was undoubtedly distributed through (‘‘MCC’’) will hold a meeting to consider II. Method of Collection illegitimate channels. Moreover, in the selection of countries that will be The current paper-based system is furtherance of the conspiracy, eligible for FY 2010 Millennium used to collect the information. It is Respondent also paid other doctors to Challenge Account (‘‘MCA’’) assistance deemed not cost effect to collect the obtain their DEA numbers so that he under Section 607 of the Millennium information using a Web site form since could order even more drugs for her. Challenge Act of 2003 (the ‘‘Act’’), the applications submitted vary Respondent’s conduct does not codified at 22 U.S.C. 7706; discuss significantly in format and volume. remotely resemble the legitimate proposed restructuring of the Mongolia practice of medicine. Rather, he engaged Compact; and certain administrative III. Data in a criminal conspiracy to distribute matters. The agenda items are expected Title: Application for Patent License. controlled substances. His conduct to involve the consideration of classified OMB Number: 2700–0039. clearly constituted ‘‘an imminent danger information and the meeting will be Type of review: Extension of currently to the public health or safety,’’ 21 U.S.C. closed to the public. approved collection. 824(d), as well as acts which render his Dated: November 20, 2009. Affected Public: Business or other for- continued registration ‘‘inconsistent Henry C. Pitney, profit, and individuals or households. with the public interest.’’ Id. § 824(a)(4). (Acting) Vice President and General Counsel, Number of Respondents: 60. For these reasons (as well as my finding Millennium Challenge Corporation. Responses per Respondent: 1. that he lacks authority under California [FR Doc. E9–28268 Filed 11–20–09; 4:15 pm] Annual Responses: 60. law to dispense controlled substances, BILLING CODE 9211–03–P Hours per Request: 10 hours. id. § 824(a)(3)), Respondent’s Annual Burden Hours: 600. registration will be revoked and his IV. Request for Comments pending applications will be denied. NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND Comments are invited on: (1) Whether Order SPACE ADMINISTRATION the proposed collection of information Pursuant to the authority vested in me Notice of Information Collection is necessary for the proper performance by 21 U.S.C. 823(f) & 824(a), as well as of the functions of NASA, including 28 CFR 0.100(b) & 0.104, I order that AGENCY: National Aeronautics and whether the information collected has DEA Certificate of Registration, Space Administration (NASA). practical utility; (2) the accuracy of AR8613487, issued to Harrell E. ACTION: Notice of information collection. NASA’s estimate of the burden Robinson, M.D., be, and it hereby is, (including hours and cost) of the revoked. I further order that Notice: (09—101). proposed collection of information; (3) Respondent’s pending applications for SUMMARY: The National Aeronautics and ways to enhance the quality, utility, and the renewal or modification of this Space Administration, as part of its clarity of the information to be registration, as well as for additional continuing effort to reduce paperwork collected; and (4) ways to minimize the registrations, be, and they hereby are, and respondent burden, invites the burden of the collection of information denied. general public and other Federal on respondents, including automated agencies to take this opportunity to collection techniques or the use of other Dated: November 17, 2009. comment on proposed and/or forms of information technology. Michele M. Leonhart, continuing information collections, as Comments submitted in response to Deputy Administrator. required by the Paperwork Reduction this notice will be summarized and [FR Doc. E9–28190 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13, 44 U.S.C. included in the request for OMB BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 3506(c)(2)(A)). approval of this information collection.
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES 61378 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices
They will also become a matter of III. Data and financial resources) is minimized, public record. Title: Patent License Report. collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection Lori Parker, OMB Number: 2700–0010. Type of review: Extension of currently requirements on respondents can be NASA Clearance Officer. properly assessed. The purpose of this [FR Doc. E9–28122 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] approved collection. Affected Public: Business or other for- Notice is to solicit comments BILLING CODE 7510–13–P profit; individuals or households. concerning the proposed IMLS study of Number of Respondents: 90. the impacts of the IMLS Museums for Responses per Respondent: 1. America Grant Program. NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND A copy of the proposed information SPACE ADMINISTRATION Annual Responses: 90. Hours per Request: 0.5 hour. collection request can be obtained by Notice of Information Collection Annual Burden Hours: 45. contacting the individual listed below Frequency of Report: Annually. in the addressee section of this notice. AGENCY: National Aeronautics and DATES: Written comments must be Space Administration (NASA). IV. Request for Comments submitted to the office listed in the Notice: (09–102). Comments are invited on: (1) Whether addressee section below on or before ACTION: Notice of information collection. the proposed collection of information January 15, 2010. IMLS is particularly is necessary for the proper performance interested in comments that help the SUMMARY: The National Aeronautics and of the functions of NASA, including agency to: Space Administration, as part of its whether the information collected has • Evaluate whether the proposed continuing effort to reduce paperwork practical utility; (2) the accuracy of collection of information is necessary and respondent burden, invites the NASA’s estimate of the burden for the proper performance of the general public and other Federal (including hours and cost) of the functions of the agency, including agencies to take this opportunity to proposed collection of information; (3) whether the information will have comment on proposed and/or ways to enhance the quality, utility, and practical utility; • continuing information collections, as clarity of the information to be Evaluate the accuracy of the required by the Paperwork Reduction collected; and (4) ways to minimize the agency’s estimate of the burden of the Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13, 44 U.S.C. burden of the collection of information proposed collection of information 3506(c)(2)(A)). on respondents, including automated including the validity of the collection techniques or the use of other methodology and assumptions used; DATES: All comments should be • Enhance the quality, utility, and submitted within 60 calendar days from forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to clarity of the information to be the date of this publication. this notice will be summarized and collected; and ADDRESSES: All comments should be included in the request for OMB • Minimize the burden of the addressed to Lori Parker, National approval of this information collection. collection of information on those who Aeronautics and Space Administration, They will also become a matter of are to respond, including through the Washington, DC 20546–0001. public record. use of appropriate automated electronic, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: mechanical, or other technological Lori Parker, Requests for additional information or collection techniques, or other forms of copies of the information collection NASA Clearance Officer. information technology, e.g., permitting instrument(s) and instructions should [FR Doc. E9–28123 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] electronic submissions of responses. be directed to Lori Parker, NASA PRA BILLING CODE 7510–13–P ADDRESSES: Send comments to: Erica Officer, NASA Headquarters, 300 E Pastore, Program Analyst, Institute of Street, SW., JF000, Washington, DC Museum and Library Services, 1800 M 20546, (202) 358–1351, THE NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE St., NW., Washington, DC 20036. [email protected]. ARTS AND HUMANITIES Telephone: 202–653–4647, Fax: 202– SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 653–4611 or by e-mail at Proposed Collection, Museums for [email protected]. I. Abstract America Grant Program Evaluation SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NASA grants patent licenses for the AGENCY: Institute of Museum and I. Background commercial application of NASA- Library Services. owned inventions. Each licensee is ACTION: Notice, request for comments, The Institute of Museum and Library required to report annually on it collection of information Services (IMLS) is an independent activities in commercializing its Federal grant-making agency and is the licensed invention(s) and on any SUMMARY: The Institute of Museum and primary source of federal support for the royalties due. NASA attorneys use this Library Services (IMLS), as part of its Nation’s 123,000 libraries and 17,500 information to determine of a licensee is continuing effort to reduce paperwork museums. IMLS provides a variety of achieving and maintaining practical and respondent burden, conducts a grant programs to assist the Nation’s application of the licensed inventions as preclearance consultation program to museums and libraries in improving required by its license agreement. provide the general public and federal their operations and enhancing their agencies with an opportunity to services to the public. IMLS is II. Method of Collection comment on proposed and/or responsible for identifying national The current paper-based system is continuing collections of information in needs for, and trends of, museum and used to collect the information. It is accordance with the Paperwork library services funded by IMLS; deemed not cost effective to collect the Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et reporting on the impact and information using a Web site form since seq.).This program helps to ensure that effectiveness of programs conducted the reports submitted vary significantly requested data can be provided in the with funds made available by IMLS in in format and volume. desired format, reporting burden (time addressing such needs; and identifying,
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices 61379
and disseminating information on, the NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION Week of December 7, 2009—Tentative best practices of such programs. (20 SAFETY BOARD Tuesday, December 8, 2009 U.S.C. 9108). This Notice is to solicit comments on a program evaluation of Sunshine Act Meeting; Agenda 9:30 a.m. Briefing on the Proposed Rule: the IMLS Museums for America Grant Enhancements to Emergency TIME AND DATE: 9:30 a.m., Tuesday, Program, which began in 2004. Preparedness Regulations (Public December 8, 2009. Meeting). (Contact: Lauren II. Current Actions PLACE: NTSB Conference Center, 429 Quin˜ ones, 301–415–2007.) L’Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC A current IMLS research initiative is 20594. This meeting will be webcast live at an analysis of grants made to museums the Web address—http://www.nrc.gov. STATUS: The one item is open to the through the Museums for America public. Week of December 14, 2009—Tentative program between 2004 and 2009. The MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED: 8023A goal is to assess the outcomes and There are no meetings scheduled for Highway Accident Report—Motorcoach impact of such grants on institutions the week of December 14, 2009. and their communities. As part of this Rollover on U.S. Highway 59, Near Week of December 21, 2009—Tentative research initiative, a survey, which is Victoria, Texas, January 2, 2008 (HWY– 08–MH–011) the subject of this Notice, will be There are no meetings scheduled for undertaken to solicit information from NEWS MEDIA CONTACT: Telephone: (202) the week of December 21, 2009. past successful and unsuccessful grant 314–6100. applicants about the application process The press and public may enter the Week of December 28, 2009—Tentative NTSB Conference Center one hour prior and the subsequent results on their There are no meetings scheduled for to the meeting for set up and seating. programs. A small number of museum the week of December 28, 2009. Individuals requesting specific staff will be interviewed by phone or in * * * * * person as part of the project case accommodations should contact * The schedule for Commission studies. These information collections Rochelle Hall at (202) 314–6305 by Friday, December 4, 2009. meetings is subject to change on short will be developed based on what is The public may view the meeting via notice. To verify the status of meetings, needed to undertake an analysis and a live or archived webcast by accessing call (recording)—(301) 415–1292. case studies of grant results. The a link under ‘‘News & Events’’ on the Contact person for more information: information IMLS collects will build on, NTSB home page at http:// Rochelle Bavol, (301) 415–1651. but not duplicate existing or ongoing www.ntsb.gov. collections. * * * * * FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The NRC Commission Meeting Agency: Institute of Museum and Candi Bing, (202) 314–6403. Schedule can be found on the Internet Library Services. Dated: Friday, November 20, 2009. at: http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/policy- Title: Museums for America Grant making/schedule.html. Program Evaluation. Candi R. Bing, Federal Register Liaison Officer. * * * * * OMB Number: To be determined. [FR Doc. E9–28260 Filed 11–20–09; 4:15 pm] The NRC provides reasonable Agency Number: 3137. BILLING CODE 7533–01–P accommodation to individuals with Frequency: One time. disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to Affected Public: Museums. NUCLEAR REGULATORY participate in these public meetings, or Number of Respondents: To be COMMISSION need this meeting notice or the determined. transcript or other information from the Estimated Time per Respondent: To Sunshine Act; Meeting Notice public meetings in another format (e.g. be determined. braille, large print), please notify the AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETINGS: Nuclear NRC’s Disability Program Coordinator, Total Burden Hours: To be Regulatory Commission. Rohn Brown, at 301–492–2279, TDD: determined. DATE: Weeks of November 23, 30, 301–415–2100, or by e-mail at Total Annualized capital/startup December 7, 14, 21, 28, 2009. [email protected]. Determinations on costs: To be determined. PLACE: Commissioners’ Conference requests for reasonable accommodation Total Annual costs: To be determined. Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, will be made on a case-by-case basis. Maryland. * * * * * FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: STATUS: This notice is distributed Erica Pastore, Program Analyst, Office of Public and Closed. electronically to subscribers. If you no Policy, Planning, Research and Week of November 23, 2009 longer wish to receive it, or would like Communication, Institute of Museum There are no meetings scheduled for to be added to the distribution, please and Library Services, 1800 M St., NW., the week of November 23, 2009. contact the Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20036, e-mail: Washington, DC 20555 (301–415–1969), Week of November 30, 2009—Tentative [email protected] or telephone (202) or send an e-mail to 653–4647. Friday, December 4, 2009 [email protected]. Dated: November 17, 2009. 9:30 a.m. Meeting with the Advisory Dated: November 19, 2009. Kim Miller, Committee on Reactor Safeguards Rochelle C. Bavol, Management Analyst, Office of Policy, (Public Meeting). (Contact: Antonio Office of the Secretary. Planning, Research, and Communication. Dias, 301–415–6805.) [FR Doc. E9–28240 Filed 11–20–09; 11:15 [FR Doc. E9–28001 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] This meeting will be webcast live at am] BILLING CODE 7036–01–P the Web address—http://www.nrc.gov. BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES 61380 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices
POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION documents submitted to OMB for Title: Financial Institution review may be obtained from the Confirmation Form. Sunshine Act Meetings Agency Clearance Officer. SBA Form Number: 860. ADDRESSES: Address all comments Frequency: On Occasion. TIME AND DATE: 11 a.m., Wednesday, Description of Respondents: SBIC December 2, 2009. concerning this notice to: Agency Clearance Officer, Jacqueline White, Investment Companies. PLACE: Commission conference room, Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Responses: 1,500. 901 New York Avenue, NW., Suite 200, Street, SW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC Annual Burden: 750. Washington, DC 20268–0001. 20416; and OMB Reviewer, Office of STATUS: Open (most matters) and closed Jacqueline White, Information and Regulatory Affairs, Chief, Administrative Information Branch. (several matters). Office of Management and Budget, New [FR Doc. E9–28128 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1. Review of Executive Office Building, Washington, postal-related Congressional actions DC 20503. BILLING CODE 8025–01–P (open). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 2. Reports on international activities Jacqueline White, Agency Clearance (open). COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING Officer, (202) 205–7044. 3. Status of PRC’s annual report COMMISSION (open). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 4. Review of active cases (open). Title: Disaster Survey Worksheet. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 5. Review of possible future SBA Form Number: 987. COMMISSION rulemakings (open). Frequency: On Occasion. 6. Report on recent activities of Joint Description of Respondents: [Release No. 34–61027] Applications who warrant Disaster Periodical Task Force and status of Joint Order Modifying the Listing Declaration. report to the Congress pursuant to Standards Requirements Under Responses: 2,640. section 708 of the Postal Accountability Section 6(h) of the Securities Annual Burden: 219. and Enhancement Act of 2006 (open). Exchange Act of 1934 and the Criteria 7. Status of pending litigation—USPS Title: Surety Bond Guarantee Under Section 2(a)(1) of the v. PRC (closed). Assistance. Commodity Exchange Act 8. Personnel matters—Discussion of SBA Form Numbers: 990, 991, 994, salaries and discussion of senior staff 994B, 994F, 994H. The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 goals (closed). Frequency: On Occasion. (‘‘Exchange Act’’) and the Commodity FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Description of Respondents: Surety Exchange Act (‘‘CEA’’) set forth the Stephen L. Sharfman, general counsel, Bond Companies. types of securities on which security Postal Regulatory Commission, 202– Responses: 17,916. futures 1 can be based. The Exchange 789–6820 or [email protected]. Annual Burden: 1,959. Act provides that it is unlawful for any Dated: November 20, 2009. Title: U.S. Small Business person to effect transactions in security Administration for Section 504 Loan. Judith M. Grady, futures that are not listed on a national SBA Form Number: 1244. Acting Secretary. securities exchange or a national Frequency: On Occasion. securities association registered [FR Doc. E9–28229 Filed 11–20–09; 11:15 Description of Respondents: 504 am] pursuant to Section 15A of the Participants. 2 BILLING CODE 7710–FW–S Exchange Act. The Exchange Act Responses: 9,100. further provides that such exchange or Annual Burden: 21,210. association is permitted to trade only Title: PCLP Quarterly Loan Loss SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION security futures that conform with Reserve Report and PCLP Guarantee listing standards filed with the Requests. Reporting and Recordkeeping Securities and Exchange Commission SBA Form Number: 2233, 2234 Parts Requirements Under OMB Review (‘‘SEC’’) and that meet the criteria A, B, C. specified in Section 2(a)(1)(D)(i) of the AGENCY: Small Business Administration. Frequency: On Occasion. CEA.3 Section 2(a)(1)(D)(i) of the CEA ACTION: Notice of reporting requirements Description of Respondents: PCLP permits the Commodity Futures Trading submitted for OMB review. Lenders. Commission (‘‘CFTC’’) to designate a Responses: 1,700. board of trade as a contract market with SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Annual Burden: 1,612. respect to, or to register as a derivatives Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Title: Servicing Agent Agreement. transaction execution facility to list or Chapter 35), agencies are required to SBA Form Number: 1506. execute, transactions in security futures submit proposed reporting and Frequency: On Occasion. if the board of trade and the applicable recordkeeping requirements to OMB for Description of Respondents: Certified contract meet the criteria specified in review and approval, and to publish a Development Companies and SBA that section. Similarly, the Exchange notice in the Federal Register notifying Borrowers. Act requires that the listing standards the public that the agency has made Responses: 8,403. filed with the SEC by an exchange or such a submission. Annual Burden: 8,403. DATES: Submit comments on or before Title: Request for Information 1 Security futures are futures contracts on single December 24, 2009. If you intend to Concerning Portfolio Financing. securities and narrow-based security indexes. See comment but cannot prepare comments SBA Form Number: 857. Section 3(a)(55)(A) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. promptly, please advise the OMB Frequency: On Occasion. 3(a)(55)(A), and Section 1a(31) of the CEA, 7 U.S.C. Reviewer and the Agency Clearance Description of Respondents: SBIC 1a(31). 2 Section 6(h)(1) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Officer before the deadline. Investment Companies. 78f(h)(1). Copies: Request for clearance (OMB Responses: 2,160. 3 Section 6(h)(2) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 83–1), supporting statement, and other Annual Burden: 2,160. 78f(h)(2). See also 7 U.S.C. 2(a)(1)(D)(i).
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices 61381
association meet specified CEA 15 provide that the Commissions, appropriate in the public interest, and is requirements.4 by rule, regulation, or order, may jointly consistent with the protection of Among other things, the Exchange Act modify the listing standard investors. and the CEA require that any security requirements specified in Sections To be eligible to underlie options underlying a security future, including 6(h)(3)(A) and (D) of the Exchange Act 16 traded on a national securities each component security of a narrow- and the criteria specified in Sections exchange, and, pursuant to this order, based security index, except as 2(a)(1)(D)(i)(I) and (III) of the CEA 17 to eligible to underlie security futures, a otherwise provided in a rule, regulation, the extent that such modification fosters security must meet securities options or order, be registered pursuant to the development of fair and orderly listing standards of a national securities Section 12 of the Exchange Act.5 In markets in security futures products, is exchange. Options listing standards of a 2006, the SEC and CFTC (together, the necessary or appropriate in the public national securities exchange are rules of ‘‘Commissions’’) adopted SEC Rule 6h– interest, and is consistent with the an exchange, and, as such, must be filed 2 6 and an amendment to CEA Rule protection of investors. For the reasons with the SEC pursuant to Section 19(b) 41.21,7 respectively, to permit security and subject to the conditions discussed of the Exchange Act,22 and comply with futures to be based on individual debt below, the Commissions believe that Section 6(b) of the Exchange Act.23 securities or narrow-based indexes jointly modifying these requirements to Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act,24 in composed of such securities.8 However, permit any security that is eligible to particular, requires, among other things, because most debt securities are not underlie options traded on a national that the rules of a national securities registered under Section 12 of the securities exchange to also underlie exchange be designed to prevent Exchange Act,9 few security futures security futures, and to permit debt fraudulent and manipulative acts and based on debt securities can be listed. securities that are not registered under practices, to promote just and equitable In addition, the Exchange Act 10 and Section 12 of the Exchange Act principles of trade, to remove the CEA 11 require that security futures (‘‘unregistered debt securities’’) to impediments to and perfect the be based upon common stock and such underlie security futures, will foster the mechanism of a free and open market other equity securities as the development of fair and orderly and a national market system and, in Commissions may jointly determine to markets, is necessary or appropriate in general, to protect investors and the be appropriate. Pursuant to this the public interest, and is consistent public interest. The SEC may not authority, the Commissions previously with the protection of investors. approve an options exchange’s proposed issued joint orders to permit depository rule, including a proposed options shares 12 and shares of Exchange-Traded I. Discussion listing standard, unless the SEC finds Funds, Trust Issued Receipts, and A. Security Futures Based on Securities that it is consistent with the shares of registered closed-end Eligible To Underlie Options Traded on requirements of the Exchange Act, management investment companies 13 to a National Securities Exchange including Section 6(b),25 and the rules underlie security futures (together, the Section 6(h)(3)(D) of the Exchange and regulations under the Exchange Act. ‘‘Prior Joint Orders’’). There are, Act 18 and Section 2(a)(1)(D)(i)(III) of the Accordingly, the Commissions believe however, other types of securities that CEA 19 require that security futures be that it is appropriate in the public underlie listed options that are neither based upon common stock and such interest and consistent with the common stock nor covered by the Prior other equity securities as the protection of investors to modify the Joint Orders. Commissions jointly determine listing standard requirements in Section Section 6(h)(4)(A) of the Exchange appropriate. Section 6(h)(4)(A) of the 6(h)(3)(D) of the Exchange Act and Act 14 and Section 2(a)(1)(D)(v)(I) of the Exchange Act 20 and Section Section 2(a)(1)(D)(i)(III) of the CEA to 2(a)(1)(D)(v)(I) of the CEA 21 provide that permit any security that is eligible to 4 Section 6(h)(3) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. underlie options traded on a national 78f(h)(3). the Commissions, by rule, regulation, or 5 Section 6(h)(3)(A) of the Exchange Act, 15 order, may jointly modify this securities exchange to also underlie U.S.C. 78f(h)(3)(A), and Section 2(a)(1)(D)(i)(I) of requirement to the extent that such security futures. In addition, the the CEA, 7 U.S.C. 2(a)(1)(D)(i)(I). modification fosters the development of Commissions believe that this 6 17 CFR 240.6h–2. modification of the listing standard 7 fair and orderly markets in security 17 CFR 41.21. requirements in the Exchange Act and 8 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54106 futures products, is necessary or (July 6, 2006) 71 FR 39534 (July 13, 2006) (‘‘2006 appropriate in the public interest, and is the CEA will reduce impediments to the Rulemaking’’). consistent with the protection of listing of security futures by allowing 9 In this regard, the Commissions note that, in a investors. the creation of potentially useful new 2005 request for exemptive relief to permit its financial instruments, thereby fostering members, brokers, and dealers to trade certain The Commissions now believe that unregistered debt securities, the New York Stock modifying the requirement in Section the development of fair and orderly Exchange (‘‘NYSE’’) estimated that, out of over 6(h)(3)(D) of the Exchange Act and markets in security futures. The 22,000 publicly offered corporate bond issues Section 2(a)(1)(D)(i)(III) of the CEA to Commissions believe, further, that it is having a par value in excess of $3 trillion, only 8% appropriate, in the public interest, and of the $3 trillion par value of these debt securities permit any security that is eligible to was registered under the Exchange Act. See underlie options traded on a national consistent with the protection of Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51998 (July 8, securities exchange to also underlie investors to permit the listing and 2005), 70 FR 40748 (July 14, 2005). The SEC granted trading of security futures based on any the NYSE’s request for exemptive relief, subject to security futures will foster the certain conditions. See Securities Exchange Act development of fair and orderly markets security that is eligible to underlie an Release No. 54766 (November 16, 2006), 71 FR in security futures products, is exchange-listed option because such 67657 (November 22, 2006) (File No. S7–06–05) security futures may facilitate price (‘‘NYSE Exemption’’). 15 discovery in, and be a useful hedge for, 10 15 U.S.C. 78f(h)(3)(D). 7 U.S.C. 2(a)(1)(D)(v)(I). 16 the underlying securities, including 11 7 U.S.C. 2(a)(1)(D)(i)(III). 15 U.S.C. 78f(h)(3)(A) and (D). 17 12 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 44725 7 U.S.C. 2(a)(1)(D)(i)(I) and (III). (August 20, 2001). 18 15 U.S.C. 78f(h)(3)(D). 22 15 U.S.C. 78s(b). 13 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 46090 19 7 U.S.C. 2(a)(1)(D)(i)(III). 23 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). (June 19, 2002), 67 FR 42760 (June 25, 2002). 20 15 U.S.C. 78f(h)(4)(A). 24 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 14 15 U.S.C. 78f(h)(4)(A). 21 7 U.S.C. 2(a)(1)(D)(v)(I). 25 15 U.S.C. 78s(b).
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES 61382 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices
certain unregistered debt securities.26 securities exchange or a national consistent with the protection of Finally, the Commissions note that all securities association is permitted to investors. security futures will continue to be trade only security futures that (A) Pursuant to this authority, the required to meet the requirements of conform with listing standards that the Commissions previously adopted SEC Sections 6(h)(3)(B), (C), and (E)–(L) of exchange or association files with the Rule 6h–2 40 and amended CEA Rule the Exchange Act 27 and Sections SEC under Section 19(b) of the 41.21 41 to modify the statutory listing 2(a)(1)(D)(i)(II) and (IV)–(XI) of the Exchange Act, and (B) meet the criteria standards for security futures to permit CEA.28 specified in Section 2(a)(1)(D)(i) of the the trading of security futures based on Unless the Commissions jointly CEA.31 Such security futures listing debt securities and indexes composed of determine otherwise, some securities standards must also meet the certain debt securities.42 These rules eligible to underlie options traded on a requirements specified in Section permit the listing and trading of new national securities exchange currently 6(h)(3) of the Exchange Act,32 including and potentially useful financial may not be eligible to underlie security the requirement that the listing products. The Commissions similarly futures because such securities may not standards for security futures be no less believe that modifying the statutory be common stock or covered by the restrictive than comparable listing listing standards for security futures to Prior Joint Orders. By permitting any standards for options traded on a permit, under certain conditions, the security eligible to underlie options to national securities exchange or a trading of security futures based on also underlie security futures, the national securities association.33 Before certain unregistered debt securities, and Commissions are modifying the listing listing and trading security futures on narrow-based indexes composed of such standard requirements in the Exchange any security eligible to underlie options securities, will reduce impediments to Act and the criteria in the CEA to traded on a national securities the listing of security futures based on eliminate the requirement that any exchange, a national securities exchange debt securities and serve the public security underlying security futures, or a national securities association must interest by allowing the creation of including each component security of a file with the SEC, pursuant to Section potentially useful new financial narrow-based security index, be 19(b)(7) of the Exchange Act 34 and Rule instruments, thereby fostering the common stock or such other equity 19b–7 thereunder,35 a proposed rule development of fair and orderly markets securities as the Commissions may change relating to its listing standards. in security futures. The Commissions jointly determine. Instead, as long as a An exchange or an association also must also believe it is appropriate, in the security may underlie options traded on concurrently file its proposed listing public interest, and consistent with the a national securities exchange and the standards with the CFTC pursuant to protection of investors to permit, subject listing standards and the criteria for Section 19(b)(7)(B) of the Exchange to the conditions discussed below, the futures on such security meet the Act.36 listing of such security futures because requirements of Sections 6(h)(3)(B), (C), they may facilitate price discovery in, and (E)–(L) of the Exchange Act and B. Security Futures Based on Unregistered Debt Securities and be a useful hedge for, debt Sections 2(a)(1)(D)(i)(II) and (IV)–(XI) of securities. the CEA, such security may underlie Section 6(h)(3)(A) of the Exchange An issuer of debt securities that are security futures.29 Act 37 and Section 2(a)(1)(D)(i)(I) of the registered under Section 12 of the Further, Section 6(h)(2) of the CEA 38 require that any security Exchange Act must provide Exchange Act 30 provides that a national underlying security futures, including comprehensive public information. This each component security of a narrow- 26 The listing standards applicable to options joint order may permit the listing and generally require, among other things, that the based security index, be registered trading of security futures on debt underlying security be registered under Section 12 pursuant to Section 12 of the Exchange securities that are not registered under of the Exchange Act, be an NMS Stock, as defined Act. Thus, although options are Section 12 of the Exchange Act. in Regulation NMS under the Exchange Act, 17 CFR permitted to be listed on unregistered 242.600(b)(47), and have a substantial number of However, because the Commissions outstanding shares that are widely held and actively debt securities under exchange listing believe that the public interest and the traded. See, e.g., CBOE Rule 5.3 (Criteria for standards,39 such securities would not protection of investors is served by Underlying Securities). To date, the only securities be permitted to underlie security futures having information about the not registered under Section 12 of the Exchange Act without modifying this requirement. As (other than U.S. government securities) that the SEC underlying debt securities and their has approved to underlie exchange-listed options stated above, Section 6(h)(4)(A) of the issuers available, the Commissions are are certain corporate debt securities. See Securities Exchange Act and Section placing certain conditions on this order. Exchange Act Release No. 55976 (June 28, 2007), 72 2(a)(1)(D)(v)(I) of the CEA provide that In particular, as discussed below, this FR 37551 (July 10, 2007) (order approving a the Commissions by rule, regulation, or proposal by the CBOE to list options on certain order is conditioned on an issuer of unregistered corporate debt securities). Among order, may jointly modify this unregistered debt securities that other things, these corporate debt securities must requirement to the extent that the underlie security futures being subject have substantial trading volume, initial principal modification fosters the development of to the periodic reporting requirements amount, and outstanding float; the issuer of the fair and orderly markets in security corporate debt security must have at least one class of the Exchange Act. This condition is of equity security registered under Section 12(b) of futures products, is necessary or designed to ensure that information the Exchange Act; and the issuer’s equity securities appropriate in the public interest, and is about the issuers and their securities is must satisfy the exchange’s criteria to underlie available to investors and futures options. See CBOE Rule 5.3.12. 31 7 U.S.C. 2(a)(1)(D)(i). traders. 27 15 U.S.C. 78f(h)(3)(B), (C) and (E)–(L). 32 15 U.S.C. 78f(h)(3). 28 7 U.S.C. 2(a)(1)(D)(i)(II) and (IV)–(XI). More specifically, the listing and 33 See Section 6(h)(3)(C) of the Exchange Act, 15 29 trading of security futures on The Commissions note that Section 6(h)(3)(C) U.S.C. 78f(h)(3)(C). of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 78f(h)(3)(C), which 34 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(7). unregistered debt would be permissible will continue to apply, requires that listing 35 so long as the following four conditions standards for security futures be no less restrictive 17 CFR 240.19b–7. than comparable listing standards for options 36 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(7)(B). traded on a national securities exchange or national 37 15 U.S.C. 78f(h)(3)(A). 40 17 CFR 240.6h–2. securities association. 38 7 U.S.C. 2(a)(1)(D)(i)(I). 41 17 CFR 41.21. 30 15 U.S.C. 78f(h)(2). 39 See supra note 26. 42 See 2006 Rulemaking, supra note 8.
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices 61383
are satisfied.43 First, the offer and sale time of registration of those underlying Accordingly, of the underlying debt securities must debt securities. It is ordered, pursuant to Section have been registered under the As a result, by modifying the listing 6(h)(4) of the Exchange Act and Section Securities Act of 1933 (‘‘Securities standard requirements such that the 2(a)(1)(D)(v)(I) of the CEA, that the Act’’).44 This condition is designed so debt securities need not be registered requirements in Sections 6(h)(3)(A) and that participants in the security futures under Section 12 of the Exchange Act, 6(h)(3)(D) of the Exchange Act and the market have access to the detailed provided that the conditions set forth criteria in Sections 2(a)(1)(D)(i)(I) and disclosure in the Securities Act above are satisfied, the Commissions are 2(a)(1)(D)(i)(III) of the CEA are modified, registration statement for the debt increasing the types of debt securities subject to the conditions set forth above, securities underlying these security on which security futures may be based provided however, this order does not futures. while preserving the requirement that affect the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction Second, the issuer of such securities information important in making under Section 2(a)(1)(C) of the CEA over must have at least one class of equity investment and trading decisions is any futures contract based on an index securities registered under Section 12(b) available. that is not a ‘‘narrow-based security of the Exchange Act.45 The debt II. Conclusion index,’’ as defined in section 3(a)(55) of securities of a wholly-owned subsidiary the Exchange Act and Section 1a(25) of of a parent company with at least one For the reasons discussed above, the the CEA. Accordingly, nothing in this class of equity securities registered Commissions by order are jointly order shall affect or limit the exclusive under Section 12(b) of the Exchange Act modifying the requirement in Section authority and jurisdiction of the CFTC may also underlie a security future.46 6(h)(3)(D) of the Exchange Act 49 and the with respect to any futures contract, This condition is designed so that there criteria specified in Section now or in the future, including the is public availability of information 2(a)(1)(D)(i)(III) of the CEA 50 to permit CFTC’s authority to approve any futures about the issuer and the securities, even any security to underlie a security contract that is based upon an index though the particular debt securities future, provided such security is eligible that is not a ‘‘narrow-based security underlying the security future are not to underlie options traded on a national index.’’ registered under Section 12 of the securities exchange. Dated: November 19, 2009. Exchange Act. Because any security In addition, for the reasons discussed above, the Commissions by order are By the Commodity Futures Trading registered under Section 12(b) is listed Commission.58 on a national securities exchange, this jointly modifying the requirement condition assures that a national specified in Section 6(h)(3)(A) of the David A. Stawick, securities exchange is responsible for Exchange Act 51 and the criterion Secretary. monitoring the listed securities of the specified in Section 2(a)(1)(D)(i)(I) of the By the Securities and Exchange issuer of the debt securities underlying CEA 52 to permit an unregistered debt Commission. a security future and enforcing security, or a narrow-based index Elizabeth M. Murphy, compliance by that issuer with composed of unregistered debt Secretary. comprehensive listing standards of the securities, to underlie a security future [FR Doc. E9–28164 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] if the following conditions are met: applicable national securities exchange. BILLING CODE 6351–01–P; 8011–01–P Third, the transfer agent for the debt (1) Each such security is a note, bond, securities underlying the security future debenture, or evidence of indebtedness must be registered under Section 17A of that is not an equity security as defined SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE the Exchange Act.47 This condition is in Section 3(a)(11) of the Exchange COMMISSION designed so that the transfer agents Act; 53 providing services to issuers of debt (2) The issuer of each such security [Release No. 34–61021; File No. SR– securities underlying security futures has registered the offer and sale of the NYSEArca–2009–103] security under the Securities Act; are subject to SEC oversight and the Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE requirements of the Exchange Act, (3) The issuer of each such security, or the issuer’s parent if the issuer is a Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a including Section 17A, and the rules Proposed Rule Change Regarding thereunder. Fourth, the indenture for wholly-owned subsidiary (as such terms are defined in Rule 1–02 of SEC Listing and Trading of RP Short the unregistered debt securities Duration ETF underlying the security future must be Regulation S–X),54 has at least one class qualified under the Trust Indenture Act of common or preferred equity security November 17, 2009. of 1939 (‘‘Trust Indenture Act’’).48 This registered under Section 12(b) of the Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the condition is designed so that the Exchange Act 55 and listed on a national Securities Exchange Act of 1934 specific protections afforded to debt securities exchange; (‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2 holders under the Trust Indenture Act (4) The transfer agent of each such notice is hereby given that on November apply to debt securities that underlie security is registered under Section 17A 6, 2009, NYSE Arca, Inc. (‘‘NYSE Arca’’ 56 security futures. The trust indenture for of the Exchange Act; and or the ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the underlying debt securities registered (5) The trust indenture for each such Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities Act is qualified security has been qualified under the 57 (‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule under the Trust Indenture Act at the Trust Indenture Act of 1939. change as described in Items I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared 49 43 These four conditions are consistent with the 15 U.S.C. 78f(h)(3)(D). 50 7 U.S.C. 2(a)(1)(D)(i)(III). conditions in the NYSE Exemption, supra note 9. 58 Because the Commissions are jointly modifying 44 51 15 U.S.C. 78f(h)(3)(A). 15 U.S.C. 77a et seq. the listing requirements to permit security futures 52 45 15 U.S.C. 78l(b). 7 U.S.C. 2(a)(1)(D)(i)(I). on any security that is eligible to underlie options 46 The terms ‘‘parent’’ and ‘‘wholly-owned’’ have 53 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(11). contracts traded on a national securities exchange, the same meanings as in Rule 1–02 of SEC 54 17 CFR 210.1–02. this order supersedes and replaces the Prior Joint Regulation S–X, 17 CFR 210.1–02. 55 15 U.S.C. 78l(b). Orders. See supra notes 12 and 13. 47 15 U.S.C. 78q–1. 56 15 U.S.C. 78q–1. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 48 15 U.S.C. 77aaa–77bbbb. 57 15 U.S.C. 77aaa–77bbbb. 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES 61384 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices
by the Exchange. The Commission is managed exchange traded fund which is by Cohanzick to be of comparable publishing this notice to solicit a series of Grail Advisors ETF Trust quality. comments on the proposed rule change (‘‘Trust’’). The Trust is registered with The ETF expects to maintain an from interested persons. the Commission as an investment average-weighted effective maturity of company.4 three years or less.5 Due to the nature of I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s securities in which the ETF invests, Statement of the Terms of Substance of Description of the Shares and the Fund Cohanzick may make frequent changes the Proposed Rule Change Grail Advisors, LLC is the Fund’s to the portfolio and the ETF’s portfolio Pursuant to the provisions of Section investment manager (‘‘Manager’’). turnover may be relatively higher than 19(b)(1) of the Act, NYSE Arca, through RiverPark Advisors, LLC (‘‘RP’’) serves comparable fixed income funds. its wholly-owned subsidiary NYSE Arca as the primary sub-adviser and In selecting portfolio securities for the Equities, Inc., proposes to list and trade Cohanzick Management, LLC ETF, in addition to considering under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600 (‘‘Cohanzick’’) serves as sub-adviser to economic factors such as the effect of the shares of the RP Short Duration ETF, the ETF. The Bank of New York Mellon interest rates and term structure on the a series of the Grail Advisors ETF Trust. Corporation is the administrator, Fund ETF’s investments, Cohanzick applies a The shares of the ETF are collectively accountant, transfer agent and custodian ‘‘bottom-up’’ credit analysis. This means referred to herein as the ‘‘Shares.’’ for the ETF. ALPS Distributors, Inc. that Cohanzick looks at income- The text of the proposed rule change serves as the distributor of Creation producing securities one at a time to is available on the Exchange’s Web site Units for the ETF on an agency basis. determine if a security is a reasonable or at http://www.nyx.com, at the RP Short Duration ETF an attractive investment opportunity, Exchange’s principal office and at the and if it is consistent with the ETF’s Commission’s Public Reference Room. The investment objective of the ETF investment objective. The credit is current income with potential capital analysis may include, but is not limited II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s appreciation consistent with the to, considering the current yield and Statement of the Purpose of, and preservation of capital. yield-to-maturity of a potential Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule The ETF invests, under normal investment relative to similar securities Change circumstances, at least 80% of its net of a similar rating, positive and/or In its filing with the Commission, the assets (plus the amount of any negative credit events that have self-regulatory organization included borrowings for investment purposes) in occurred recently or may occur in the statements concerning the purpose of, debt securities. These securities include future, and fundamental analysis in and basis for, the proposed rule change short- and intermediate-term securities determining value versus perceived and discussed any comments it received issued by the U.S. Government, its credit rating or market pricing. on the proposed rule change. The text agencies and instrumentalities, or The ETF may not invest more than of those statements may be examined at corporate bonds or notes that 20% of its net assets in bank loans. The the places specified in Item IV below. Cohanzick, the ETF’s sub-adviser, ETF expects to invest only in U.S. dollar The Exchange has prepared summaries, believes are consistent with the ETF’s denominated securities. set forth in sections A, B, and C below, investment objective. Under normal Under adverse market conditions, the of the most significant parts of such circumstances, the ETF invests at least ETF may, for temporary defensive statements. 65% of its assets in investment grade purposes, invest up to 100% of its assets obligations, including securities issued in cash or cash equivalents, including A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s or guaranteed by the U.S. Government, investment grade short-term obligations. Statement of the Purpose of, and its agencies and instrumentalities. To the extent the Fund invokes this Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Investment-grade securities are strategy, its ability to achieve its Change securities rated BBB or BAA (or higher) investment objective may be affected 1. Purpose by Standard & Poor’s or Moody’s, adversely. respectively, or the equivalent by a The Fund will not invest in non-U.S. The Exchange proposes to list and nationally recognized statistical rating equity securities. trade the Shares of the RP Short organization rating that security (a Duration ETF (‘‘ETF’’ or ‘‘Fund’’) under ‘‘rating agency’’). The ETF may invest Investment Policies of the ETF NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600, which up to 25% of its net assets in high yield The Registration Statement governs the listing and trading of securities or below investment-grade enumerates investment policies which Managed Fund Shares on the securities, commonly known as ‘‘junk may be changed with respect to the ETF 3 Exchange. The ETF will be an actively bonds,’’ rated BB or BA (or lower) by only by a vote of the holders of a Standard & Poor’s or Moody’s, majority of the ETF’s outstanding voting 3 The Commission approved NYSE Arca Equities respectively, or the equivalent by a Rule 8.600 and the listing and trading of certain securities. Among these policies are the funds of the PowerShares Actively Managed Funds rating agency or, if unrated, determined following: (1) Regarding diversification, Trust on the Exchange pursuant to Rule 8.600 in the ETF may not invest more than 5% Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57619 (April 4, 2009) (SR–NYSEArca–2009–22) (order approving of its total assets (taken at market value) 4, 2008) 73 FR 19544 (April 10, 2008) (SR– listing of Grail American Beacon Large Cap Value NYSEArca–2008–25). The Commission also ETF); 60460 (August 7, 2009), 74 FR 41468 (August in securities of any one issuer, other previously approved listing and trading on the 17, 2009) (SR–NYSEArca–2009–55) (order Exchange, or trading on the Exchange pursuant to approving listing of Dent Tactical ETF); 60717 5 According to the Registration Statement, unlisted trading privileges (‘‘UTP’’) of the following (September 24, 2009), 74 FR 50853 (October 1, ‘‘effective’’ maturity differs from actual maturity, actively managed funds under Rule 8.600: 2009) (SR–NYSEArca–2009–74) (order approving which may be longer. In calculating the ‘‘effective’’ Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 57626 (April listing of four Grail Advisors RP ETFs). maturity, Cohanzick estimates the effect of expected 4, 2008), 73 FR 19923 (April 11, 2008) (SR– 4 See Registration Statement on Form N–1A for principal payments and call provisions on NYSEArca–2008–28) (order approving trading the Trust filed with the Securities and Exchange securities held in the portfolio. This gives the pursuant to UTP of Bear Stearns Active ETF); 57801 Commission on October 7, 2009 (File Nos. 333– portfolio managers additional flexibility in the (May 8, 2008), 73 FR 27878 (May 14, 2008) (SR– 148082 and 811–22154) (the ‘‘Registration securities they purchase, but could also result in NYSEArca–2008–31) (order approving listing of Statement’’). The description of the ETF and the more volatility than if the ETF were to calculate and twelve actively-managed funds of the WisdomTree Shares contained herein are based on information make investments based on an actual maturity Trust); 59826 (April 28, 2009), 74 FR 20512 (May in the Registration Statement. target.
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices 61385
than obligations issued or guaranteed by The ETF also may enter into swap regulatory requirements, the ETF may the U.S. Government, its agencies and agreements with respect to interest rates invest in shares of both open- and instrumentalities, or purchase more and indexes of securities. The ETF may closed-end investment companies than 10% of the voting securities of any invest in structured notes. If other types (including money market funds and one issuer, with respect to 75% of the of financial instruments, including other ETFs). The ETF also may invest in ETF’s total assets; and (2) regarding types of options, futures contracts, or private investment funds, vehicles, or concentration, the ETF may not invest futures options are traded in the future, structures. more than 25% of its total assets in the the ETF also may use those instruments, Commentary .07 to Rule 8.600 securities of companies primarily provided that their use is consistent provides that, if the investment adviser engaged in any one industry or group of with the ETF’s investment objective. to the Investment Company issuing industries provided that: (i) This The ETF may, to the extent specified in Managed Fund Shares is affiliated with limitation does not apply to obligations the Registration Statement, purchase a broker-dealer, such investment adviser issued or guaranteed by the U.S. and sell both put and call options on shall erect a ‘‘fire wall’’ between the Government, its agencies and fixed income or other securities or investment adviser and the broker- instrumentalities; and (ii) municipalities indexes in standardized contracts traded dealer with respect to access to and their agencies and authorities are on foreign or domestic securities information concerning the composition exchanges, boards of trade, or similar and/or changes to such Investment not deemed to be industries. The ETF 8 may not invest more than 15% of its net entities, or on an over-the-counter Company portfolio. In addition, assets in illiquid securities, including market, and agreements, sometimes Commentary .07 further requires that time deposits and repurchase called cash puts, which may accompany personnel who make decisions on the open-end fund’s portfolio composition agreements that mature in more than the purchase of a new issue of bonds must be subject to procedures designed seven days.6 For this purpose, ‘‘illiquid from a dealer. The ETF will write call to prevent the use and dissemination of securities’’ are securities that the ETF options and put options only if they are ‘‘covered.’’ material nonpublic information may not sell or dispose of within seven The ETF may invest in futures regarding the open-end fund’s portfolio. days in the ordinary course of business contracts and options thereon with Grail Advisors, LLC is affiliated with a at approximately the amount at which respect to, but not limited to, interest broker-dealer, Grail Securities, LLC, and the ETF has valued the securities. rates and security indexes. The ETF will has implemented a fire wall with In addition to the investment only enter into futures contracts and respect to such broker-dealer regarding strategies described in the prospectus futures options which are standardized access to information concerning the for the ETF, the ETF may enter into and traded on a U.S. exchange, board of composition and/or changes to a dollar rolls, delayed delivery trade, or similar entity, or quoted on an portfolio. RP and Cohanzick are not transactions and forward commitment automated quotation system. According affiliated with a broker-dealer.9 Any transactions and may buy and sell to the Registration Statement, neither ‘‘when issued’’ securities, as described the Trust nor the Fund are deemed to be 8 An investment adviser to an open-end fund is in the Registration Statement. The ETF ‘‘commodity pools’’ or ‘‘commodity required to be registered under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the ‘‘Advisers Act’’). As a may invest in mortgage- or other asset- pool operators’’ under the Commodity result, the investment adviser is subject to the 7 backed securities. Mortgage-related Exchange Act (‘‘CEA’’), and are not provisions of Rule 204A–1 under the Advisers Act securities include mortgage pass- subject to registration or regulation as relating to codes of ethics. This Rule requires through securities, collateralized such under the CEA. investment advisers to adopt a code of ethics that The ETF may engage in swap reflects the fiduciary nature of the relationship to mortgage obligations (‘‘CMOs’’), clients as well as compliance with other applicable commercial mortgage-backed securities, transactions, including, but not limited securities laws. Accordingly, procedures designed mortgage dollar rolls, CMO residuals, to, swap agreements on interest rates or to prevent the communication and misuse of non- stripped mortgage-backed securities security indexes and specific securities. public information by an investment adviser must The ETF also may enter into options on be consistent with Rule 204A–1 under the Advisers (‘‘SMBSs’’) and other securities that Act. directly or indirectly represent a swap agreements (‘‘swap options’’); 9 The Exchange represents that Grail Advisors, participation in, or are secured by and purchase or otherwise receive warrants LLC, as the investment adviser of the Funds, RP as payable from, mortgage loans on real or rights; enter into repurchase the primary sub-adviser, and Cohanzick as a sub- adviser, and their respective related personnel, are property. In pursuing its individual agreements with banks and broker- dealers; and invest a portion of its assets subject to Investment Advisers Act Rule 204A–1. objectives, the ETF may, to the extent This Rule specifically requires the adoption of a permitted by their investment objective in cash or cash items pending other code of ethics by an investment adviser to include, and policies, purchase and sell (write) investments or to maintain liquid assets at a minimum: (i) Standards of business conduct that reflect the firm’s/personnel fiduciary both put options and call options on required in connection with some of the ETF’s investments. These cash items obligations; (ii) provisions requiring supervised securities, swap agreements, securities persons to comply with applicable Federal indexes, and enter into interest rate and may include money market instruments, securities laws; (iii) provisions that require all index futures contracts and purchase such as securities issued by the U.S. access persons to report, and the firm to review, their personal securities transactions and holdings and sell options on such futures Government and its agencies, bankers’ acceptances, commercial paper, and periodically as specifically set forth in Rule 204A– contracts (‘‘futures options’’) for hedging 1; (iv) provisions requiring supervised persons to purposes or to seek to replicate the bank certificates of deposit. report any violations of the code of ethics promptly composition and performance of a The ETF may invest in pooled real to the chief compliance officer (‘‘CCO’’) or, estate investment vehicles and other provided the CCO also receives reports of all particular index, except that the ETF violations, to other persons designated in the code does not intend to enter into real estate-related investments such as securities of companies principally of ethics; and (v) provisions requiring the transactions involving currency futures investment adviser to provide each of the or options. engaged in the real estate industry. The supervised persons with a copy of the code of ethics ETF may invest in the securities of other with an acknowledgement by said supervised investment companies to the extent persons. In addition, Rule 206(4)–7 under the 6 This is a non-fundamental investment Advisers Act makes it unlawful for an investment restriction applicable to each Fund and may be permitted by law. Subject to applicable adviser to provide investment advice to clients changed with respect to a Fund by a vote of a unless such investment adviser has (i) adopted and majority of the Board. 7 7 U.S.C. 1. Continued
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES 61386 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices
additional Fund sub-advisers that are Rule 8.600 as the ‘‘Portfolio Indicative relating to the Fund that are referred to, affiliated with a broker-dealer will be Value,’’ that reflects an estimated but not defined in, this proposed rule required to implement a fire wall with intraday value of the ETF’s portfolio, change are defined in the Registration respect to such broker-dealer regarding will be disseminated. The Portfolio Statement. access to information concerning the Indicative Value will be based upon the Initial and Continued Listing composition and/or changes to a current value for the components of the portfolio. Disclosed Portfolio and will be updated The Shares will be subject to NYSE and disseminated by one or more major Availability of Information Arca Equities Rule 8.600(d), which sets market data vendors at least every 15 forth the initial and continued listing The ETF’s Web site (http:// seconds during the Core Trading criteria applicable to Managed Fund www.grailadvisors.com), which will be Session. The dissemination of the Shares. The Exchange represents that, publicly available prior to the public Portfolio Indicative Value, together with for initial and/or continued listing, the offering of Shares, will include a form the Disclosed Portfolio, will allow Shares must be in compliance with Rule of the prospectus for the Fund that may investors to determine the value of the 10A–3 13 under the Exchange Act, as be downloaded. The Web site will underlying portfolio of the ETF on a provided by NYSE Arca Equities Rule include additional quantitative daily basis and to provide a close 5.3. A minimum of 100,000 Shares will information updated on a daily basis, estimate of that value throughout the be outstanding at the commencement of including, for the ETF: (1) The prior trading day. trading on the Exchange. The Exchange business day’s reported NAV, mid-point Information regarding market price will obtain a representation from the of the bid/ask spread at the time of and volume of the Shares is and will be issuer of the Shares that the net asset calculation of such NAV (the ‘‘Bid/Ask continually available on a real-time 10 value per Share will be calculated daily Price’’), and a calculation of the basis throughout the day on brokers’ and that the net asset value and the premium and discount of the Bid/Ask computer screens and other electronic Disclosed Portfolio will be made Price against the NAV; and (2) data in services. The previous day’s closing available to all market participants at chart format displaying the frequency price and trading volume information the same time. distribution of discounts and premiums will be published daily in the financial of the daily Bid/Ask Price against the section of newspapers. Quotation and Trading Halts NAV, within appropriate ranges, for last sale information for the Shares will With respect to trading halts, the each of the four previous calendar be available via the Consolidated Tape Exchange may consider all relevant quarters. On each business day, before Association high-speed line. factors in exercising its discretion to commencement of trading in Shares in On a daily basis, the Fund will halt or suspend trading in the Shares of the Core Trading Session 11 on the disclose on the its Web site for each the Fund. Shares of the Fund will be Exchange, the Trust will disclose on its portfolio security or other financial halted if the ‘‘circuit breaker’’ Web site the identities and quantities of instrument of the Fund the following parameters in NYSE Arca Equities Rule the portfolio of securities and other information: ticker symbol (if assets (the ‘‘Disclosed Portfolio’’) held applicable), name of security or 7.12 are reached. Trading may be halted by the ETF that will form the basis for financial instrument, number of shares because of market conditions or for the ETF’s calculation of NAV at the end or dollar value of financial instruments reasons that, in the view of the of the business day.12 The Web site and held in the portfolio, and percentage Exchange, make trading in the Shares information will be publicly available at weighting of the security or financial inadvisable. These may include: (1) The no charge. instrument in the portfolio. extent to which trading is not occurring In addition, for the ETF, an estimated Investors can also obtain the Trust’s in the securities comprising the value, defined in NYSE Arca Equities Statement of Additional Information Disclosed Portfolio and/or the financial (‘‘SAI’’), the Fund’s Shareholder instruments of the Fund; or (2) whether implemented written policies and procedures Reports, and its Form N–CSR and Form other unusual conditions or reasonably designed to prevent violation, by the N–SAR, filed twice a year. The Trust’s circumstances detrimental to the investment adviser and its supervised persons, of maintenance of a fair and orderly the Advisers Act and the Commission rules adopted SAI and Shareholder Reports are thereunder; (ii) implemented, at a minimum, an available free upon request from the market are present. Trading in the annual review regarding the adequacy of the Trust, and those documents and the Shares will be subject to NYSE Arca policies and procedures established pursuant to Form N–CSR and Form N–SAR may be Equities Rule 8.600(d)(2)(D), which sets subparagraph (i) above and the effectiveness of their forth circumstances under which Shares implementation; and (iii) designated an individual viewed on-screen or downloaded from (who is a supervised person) responsible for the Commission’s Web site at http:// of the Fund may be halted. administering the policies and procedures adopted www.sec.gov. Information regarding Trading Rules under subparagraph (i) above. market price and trading volume of the 10 The Bid/Ask Price of the ETF is determined The Exchange deems the Shares to be using the midpoint of the highest bid and the Shares is and will be continually lowest offer on the Exchange as of the time of available on a real-time basis throughout equity securities, thus rendering trading calculation of the NAV. The records relating to Bid/ the day on brokers’ computer screens in the Shares subject to the Exchange’s Ask Prices will be retained by the ETF and its and other electronic services. existing rules governing the trading of service providers. equity securities. Shares will trade on 11 The Core Trading Session is 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. Information regarding the previous Eastern time. day’s closing price and trading volume the NYSE Arca Marketplace from 4 a.m. 12 Under accounting procedures followed by the information will be published daily in to 8 p.m. Eastern time in accordance Fund, trades made on the prior business day (‘‘T’’) the financial section of newspapers. with NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.34 will be booked and reflected in NAV on the current Additional information regarding the (Opening, Core, and Late Trading business day (‘‘T+1’’). Notwithstanding the foregoing, portfolio trades that are executed prior to Shares and the Fund, including Sessions). The Exchange has the opening of the Exchange on any business day investment strategies, risks, creation and appropriate rules to facilitate may be booked and reflected in NAV on such redemption procedures, fees, portfolio transactions in the Shares during all business day. Accordingly, the Fund will be able to holdings disclosure policies, trading sessions. The minimum trading disclose at the beginning of the business day the portfolio that will form the basis for the NAV distributions and taxes is included in calculation at the end of the business day. the Registration Statement. All terms 13 See 17 CFR 240.10A–3.
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices 61387
increment for Shares on the Exchange various fees and expenses described in The Exchange has requested will be $0.01. the Registration Statement. The Bulletin accelerated approval of this proposed will discuss any exemptive, no-action, rule change prior to the 30th day after Surveillance and interpretive relief granted by the the date of publication of the notice in The Exchange intends to utilize its Commission from any rules under the the Federal Register. The Commission existing surveillance procedures Exchange Act. The Bulletin will also is considering granting accelerated applicable to derivative products (which disclose that the NAV for the Shares approval of the proposed rule change at includes Managed Fund Shares) to will be calculated after 4 p.m. Eastern the end of a 15-day comment period. monitor trading in the Shares. The time each trading day. Exchange represents that these IV. Solicitation of Comments procedures are adequate to properly 2. Statutory Basis Interested persons are invited to monitor Exchange trading of the Shares The basis under the Act for this submit written data, views, and in all trading sessions and to deter and proposed rule change is the requirement arguments concerning the foregoing, detect violations of Exchange rules and under Section 6(b)(5) 15 that an including whether the proposed rule applicable Federal securities laws. exchange have rules that are designed to change is consistent with the Act. The Exchange’s current trading prevent fraudulent and manipulative Comments may be submitted by any of surveillance focuses on detecting acts and practices, to promote just and the following methods: securities trading outside their normal equitable principles of trade, to remove patterns. When such situations are Electronic Comments impediments to, and perfect the • detected, surveillance analysis follows mechanism of a free and open market Use the Commission’s Internet and investigations are opened, where and, in general, to protect investors and comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ appropriate, to review the behavior of the public interest. The Exchange rules/sro.shtml); or • Send an e-mail to rule- all relevant parties for all relevant believes that the proposed rule change [email protected]. Please include File trading violations. will facilitate the listing and trading of Number SR–NYSEArca–2009–103 on The Exchange may obtain information an additional type of exchange-traded the subject line. via the Intermarket Surveillance Group products that will enhance competition (‘‘ISG’’) from other exchanges who are 14 among market participants, to the Paper Comments members of ISG. benefit of investors and the marketplace. In addition, the Exchange also has a • Send paper comments in triplicate In addition, the listing and trading general policy prohibiting the to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, criteria set forth in NYSE Arca Equities distribution of material, non-public Securities and Exchange Commission, Rule 8.600 are intended to protect information by its employees. Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., investors and the public interest. Washington, DC 20549–1090. Information Bulletin B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s All submissions should refer to File Prior to the commencement of Statement on Burden on Competition Number SR–NYSEArca–2009–103. This trading, the Exchange will inform its file number should be included on the The Exchange does not believe that ETP Holders in an Information Bulletin subject line if e-mail is used. To help the the proposed rule change will impose (‘‘Bulletin’’) of the special Commission process and review your any burden on competition that is not characteristics and risks associated with comments more efficiently, please use necessary or appropriate in furtherance trading the Shares. Specifically, the only one method. The Commission will of the purposes of the Act. Bulletin will discuss the following: (1) post all comments on the Commission’s The procedures for purchases and C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/ redemptions of Shares in Creation Unit Statement on Comments on the rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the aggregations (and that Shares are not Proposed Rule Change Received From submission, all subsequent individually redeemable); (2) NYSE Members, Participants or Others amendments, all written statements Arca Equities Rule 9.2(a), which No written comments were solicited with respect to the proposed rule imposes a duty of due diligence on its or received with respect to the proposed change that are filed with the ETP Holders to learn the essential facts rule change. Commission, and all written relating to every customer prior to communications relating to the trading the Shares; (3) the risks involved III. Date of Effectiveness of the proposed rule change between the in trading the Shares during the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission and any person, other than Opening and Late Trading Sessions Commission Action those that may be withheld from the when an updated Portfolio Indicative Within 35 days of the date of public in accordance with the Value will not be calculated or publicly publication of this notice in the Federal provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be disseminated; (4) how information Register or within such longer period (i) available for inspection and copying in regarding the Portfolio Indicative Value as the Commission may designate up to the Commission’s Public Reference is disseminated; (5) the requirement that 90 days of such date if it finds such Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, ETP Holders deliver a prospectus to longer period to be appropriate and DC 20549, on official business days investors purchasing newly issued publishes its reasons for so finding or between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Shares prior to or concurrently with the (ii) as to which the self-regulatory Copies of such filing also will be confirmation of a transaction; and (6) organization consents, the Commission available for inspection and copying at trading information. will: the principal office of the Exchange. All In addition, the Bulletin will (A) By order approve the proposed comments received will be posted reference that the Fund is subject to rule change, or without change; the Commission does (B) Institute proceedings to determine not edit personal identifying 14 For a list of the current members of ISG, see whether the proposed rule change information from submissions. You http://www.isgportal.org. The Exchange notes that not all of the components of the Disclosed Portfolio should be disapproved. should submit only information that for the Fund may trade on exchanges that are you wish to make publicly available. All members of ISG. 15 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). submissions should refer to File
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES 61388 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices
Number SR–NYSEArca–2009–103 and The Exchange has prepared summaries, shares, or minimum notional volume should be submitted on or before set forth in sections A, B, and C below, traded per month of $25,000,000, December 9, 2009. of the most significant parts of such averaged over the last six months; For the Commission, by the Division of statements. Currently for international or global indexes, Commentary .01(a)(B)(2) to Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s authority.16 Rule 5.2(j)(3) provides that Component Statement of the Purpose of, and stocks (excluding Derivative Securities Florence E. Harmon, Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Products) that in the aggregate account Deputy Secretary. Change [FR Doc. E9–28118 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] for at least 90% of the weight of the BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 1. Purpose index or portfolio (excluding such The Exchange proposes to amend Derivative Securities Products) each Commentary .01 to NYSE Arca Equities shall have a minimum monthly trading SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE Rule 5.2(j)(3) to amend the index weight volume during each of the last six COMMISSION requirements and adopt notional months of at least 250,000 shares. volume traded per month 3 to the initial The Exchange proposes to amend the [Release No. 34–61022; File No. SR– minimum component stock weight NYSEArca–2009–101] listing standards for Investment Company Units, commonly referred to requirements from 90% to 70% of the Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE as exchange traded funds. The Exchange weight of the underlying index or Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a proposes to amend the minimum portfolio. Further, the Exchange is Proposed Rule Change Amending component stock weight requirement for proposing adopt and average minimum Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3) monthly trading volumes from 90% to trading volume of 250,000 shares over a 70% of the weight of the underlying six month period instead of in each of November 17, 2009. index. In addition, the Exchange’s the last six months and to adopt a Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the proposal to adopt an alternative notional volume traded per month of Securities Exchange Act of 1934 notional volume traded per month $25,000,000 averaged over the last six (‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2 listing standard is based upon NYSE months as an option for meeting the notice is hereby given that on November Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6), the listing requirements. Further, the 5, 2009, NYSE Arca, Inc. (‘‘NYSE Arca’’ Exchanges listing standards for Equity Exchange proposes to clarify that the or the ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the Index-Linked Securities.4 component stock trading volumes are Securities and Exchange Commission Currently for U.S. indexes, determined on a global basis. Proposed (‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule Commentary .01(a)(A)(2) to Rule Commentary .01(a)(B)(2) to Rule 5.2(j)(3) change as described in Items I, II and III sets forth: 5.2(j)(3) provides that Component stocks • below, which Items have been prepared (excluding Derivative Securities Component stocks (excluding by the Exchange. The Commission is Products) that in the aggregate account Derivative Securities Products) that in publishing this notice to solicit for at least 90% of the weight of the the aggregate account for at least 70% of comments on the proposed rule change index or portfolio (excluding such the weight of the index or portfolio from interested persons. Derivative Securities Products) each (excluding such Derivative Securities I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s shall have a minimum monthly trading Products) each shall have a minimum Statement of the Terms of Substance of volume during each of the last six global monthly trading volume of the Proposed Rule Change months of at least 250,000 shares. 250,000 shares, or minimum global notional volume traded per month of The Exchange proposes to amend The Exchange proposes to amend the minimum component stock weight $25,000,000, averaged over the last six Commentary .01 to NYSE Arca Equities months; Rule 5.2(j)(3), the initial listing requirements from 90% to 70% of the weight of the underlying index or With regard to the Exchange’s standards for Investment Company proposal to amend the minimum Units. The text of the proposed rule portfolio. Further, the Exchange is proposing adopt and average minimum component stock weight requirement for change is attached as Exhibit 5 to the monthly trading volumes from 90% to 19b–4 form. A copy of this filing is trading volume of 250,000 shares over a six month period instead of in each of 70% of the weight of the underlying available on the Exchange’s Web site at index, the Exchange believes the http://www.nyse.com, at the Exchange’s the last six months and to adopt a notional volume traded per month of proposed standard reasonably ensures principal office and at the Commission’s that securities with substantial monthly Public Reference Room. $25,000,000 averaged over the last six months as an option for meeting the trading volumes account for a II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s listing requirements. Proposed substantial portion of the underlying Statement of the Purpose of, and Commentary .01(a)(A)(2) to Rule index and, when applied in conjunction Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 5.2(j)(3) sets forth: with the other applicable listing Change • Component stocks (excluding requirements, remain sufficiently broad- based in scope to minimize potential In its filing with the Commission, the Derivative Securities Products) that in the aggregate account for at least 70% of manipulation. The Exchange notes that self-regulatory organization included the Commission has previously statements concerning the purpose of, the weight of the index or portfolio (excluding such Derivative Securities approved the listing and trading of and basis for, the proposed rule change Investment Company Units based upon and discussed any comments it received Products) each shall have a minimum monthly trading volume of 250,000 indices that were composed of stocks on the proposed rule change. The text that did not meet the 90% monthly of those statements may be examined at 5 3 trading volume weight. Instead, these the places specified in Item IV below. The notional volume traded per month is the number of shares traded globally in a calendar month multiplied by the monthly closing price. 5 See Securities and [sic] Exchange Act Release 16 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 4 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58376 No. 46306 (August 2, 2002), 69 [sic] FR 51916 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). (August 18, 2008), 73 FR 49726 (August 22, 2008) (August 9, 2002) (SR–NYSE–2002–28) (approving 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. (SR–NYSEArca–2008–70). the following funds for trading pursuant to unlisted
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices 61389
indices would meet the proposed 70% Act of 1934 (‘‘Act’’) in general, and Electronic Comments monthly trading volume weight criteria. furthers the objectives of Section • With respect to adopting, as an 6(b)(5) 10 in particular in that it is Use the Commission’s Internet alternative to monthly trading volume, designed to prevent fraudulent and comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ the notional volume traded for each of manipulative acts and practices, to rules/sro.shtml); or the last six months to the initial and promote just and equitable principles of • Send an e-mail to rule- listing standards for both domestic and trade, to foster cooperation and [email protected]. Please include File international indexes, the Exchange coordination with persons engaged in Number SR–NYSEArca–2009–101 on believes that notional volume traded facilitating transactions in securities, the subject line. averaged per month is a better measure and to remove impediments to and of the liquidity of component stocks of perfect the mechanisms of a free and Paper Comments the underlying index or indexes.6 open market and a national market • Send paper comments in triplicate Specifically, notional volume nullifies system, and, in general, to protect the volume discrepancies that generally investors and the public interest. The to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, occur between low priced and high Exchange believes that the proposed Securities and Exchange Commission, priced stocks.7 rules applicable to trading pursuant to Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., With respect to adopting a six-month generic listing and trading criteria, Washington, DC 20549–1090. average, instead of in each of the last together with the Exchange’s All submissions should refer to File six-months, criteria for volume and surveillance procedures applicable to Number SR–NYSEArca–2009–101. This notional volume, the Exchange believes trading in the securities covered by the that the averaged six month period is a file number should be included on the proposed rules, serve to foster investor subject line if e-mail is used. To help the better indicator of the current liquidity protection. on an index and serves to eliminate Commission process and review your seasonal volume fluctuations of B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s comments more efficiently, please use component securities.8 Further, Statement on Burden on Competition only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission’s investors, exchange traded fund issuers The Exchange does not believe that and third-party index sponsors would the proposed rule change will impose Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/ also benefit from NYSE Arca’s ability to any burden on competition that is not rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the list—without the delay associated with necessary or appropriate in furtherance submission, all subsequent a stand-alone rule filing—Investment of the purposes of the Act. amendments, all written statements Company Units based on a broader with respect to the proposed rule group of indexes promoting C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s change that are filed with the competition. Statement on Comments on the Commission, and all written Proposed Rule Change Received From 2. Statutory Basis communications relating to the Members, Participants or Others proposed rule change between the The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with No written comments were solicited Commission and any person, other than Section 6(b) 9 of the Securities Exchange or received with respect to the proposed those that may be withheld from the rule change. public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be trading privileges on the NYSE: (1) Vanguard Total III. Date of Effectiveness of the Stock Market VIPERs; (2) iShares Russell 2000 Proposed Rule Change and Timing for available for inspection and copying in Index Funds; (3) iShares Russell 2000 Value Index the Commission’s Public Reference Funds; and (4) iShares Russell 2000 Growth Index Commission Action Fund); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55953 Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, (June 25, 2007), 72 FR 36084 (July 2, 2007) (SR– Within 35 days of the date of DC 20549, on official business days NYSE–2007–46) (approving listing on NYSE of publication of this notice in the Federal between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. HealthShares Orthopedic Repair Exchange-Traded Register or within such longer period (i) Copies of such filing also will be Fund); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56695 as the Commission may designate up to (October 24, 2007), 72 FR 61413 (October 30, 2007) available for inspection and copying at (SR–NYSEArca–2007–111) (approving listing on 90 days of such date if it finds such the principal office of the Exchange. All NYSE Arca of HealthShares Ophthalmology longer period to be appropriate and comments received will be posted Exchange-Traded Fund); Securities Exchange Act publishes its reasons for so finding or without change; the Commission does Release No. 60137 [sic] (February 27, 2009), 72 [sic] (ii) as to which the self-regulatory FR 9862 (March 6, 2009) (SR–NYSEArca–2009–13) not edit personal identifying organization consents, the Commission (approving [sic] listing on NYSE Arca of iShares information from submissions. You MSCI All Peru Index Fund); and Securities will: should submit only information that Exchange Act Release No. 60137 (June 18, 2009), 72 (A) By order approve the proposed FR 30351 [sic] (June 25, 2009) (SR–NYSEArca– you wish to make publicly available. All rule change, or 2009–54) (approving [sic] listing on NYSE Arca of submissions should refer to File iShares MSCI All Peru Capped Index Fund). (B) Institute proceedings to determine 6 Number SR–NYSEArca–2009–101 and Telephone conversation on November 12, 2009 whether the proposed rule change between Timothy J. Malinowski, Director, NYSE should be disapproved. should be submitted on or before Euronext and Christopher W. Chow, Special December 15, 2009. Counsel and Andrew Madar, Special Counsel, IV. Solicitation of Comments Commission. For the Commission, by the Division of 7 For example, a stock priced at $10 per share that Interested persons are invited to Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated trades 2,500,000 shares in a month has a notional submit written data, views, and authority.11 volume of $25,000,000. Conversely, a stock priced at $100 per share that trades 250,000 shares in a arguments concerning the foregoing, Florence E. Harmon, month has a notional volume of $25,000,000. including whether the proposed rule Deputy Secretary. 8 See Footnote 4. Telephone conversation on change is consistent with the Act. [FR Doc. E9–28119 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] November 12, 2009 between Timothy J. Comments may be submitted by any of Malinowski, Director, NYSE Euronext and BILLING CODE 8011–01–P Christopher W. Chow, Special Counsel and Andrew the following methods: Madar, Special Counsel, Commission. 9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 10 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 11 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES 61390 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Series A Preferred to the Silver Lake COMMISSION Statement of the Purpose of, and Affiliates (‘‘Transaction’’). Effective Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule September 28, 2009, the Silver Lake [Release No. 34–61000; File No. SR– Change Affiliates converted Notes into 8,246,680 shares of Common Stock. As BSECC–2009–005] 1. Purpose a result, Silver Lake no longer holds any Self-Regulatory Organizations; Boston NASDAQ OMX is proposing to file Notes and through certain of the Silver Stock Exchange Clearing Corporation; the Certificate of Designation described Lake Affiliates currently is the below. Under Article Fourth, Paragraph Notice of Filing and Immediate beneficial owner of shares of Common B of the Certificate, NASDAQ OMX’s Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Stock that equal less than five percent Board of Directors may authorize the Change To Amend the Restated (5%) of the outstanding voting securities issuance of preferred stock, establish the of NASDAQ OMX. Certificate of Incorporation of The number of shares to be included in such NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. Under the Certificate of Designation, series, and fix the designation, powers, up to two million shares will be November 13, 2009. preferences and rights of the shares of designated for issuance as shares of such series, and the qualifications, Series A Preferred. The Series A Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the limitations, and restrictions thereof. As Preferred will be senior in preference Securities Exchange Act of 1934 provided in Articles XI and XII of the and priority to the Common Stock and 1 2 (‘‘Act’’) and Rule 19b–4 thereunder NASDAQ OMX By-Laws, proposed on parity with all other classes and notice is hereby given that on October amendments to the Certificate are to be series of preferred stock. 1, 2009, Boston Stock Exchange Clearing reviewed by the Board of Directors of The Series A Preferred will have Corporation (‘‘BSECC’’) filed with the each self-regulatory subsidiary of limited voting rights and will not have Securities and Exchange Commission NASDAQ OMX, and if any such the right to vote on any matters that are (‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule proposed amendment must under subject to the vote of the holders of change as described in Items I, II, and Section 19 of the Act and the rules Common Stock. The approval of at least III below, which Items have been promulgated thereunder be filed with, a majority of the then outstanding prepared by BSECC. The Commission is or filed with and approved by the shares of Series A Preferred will be publishing this notice to solicit Commission before such amendment required to approve any amendment to comments on the proposed rule change may be effective, then such amendment the Certificate or the NASDAQ OMX By- from interested persons. shall not be effective until filed with or Laws that would adversely affect the filed with and approved by the rights, preferences, or privileges of the I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Commission, as the case may be. Senior Series A Preferred (including any Statement of the Terms of the Substance management of NASDAQ, PHLX, and change in the dividends payable or of the Proposed Rule Change BX, through delegated authority of their liquidation preference). In addition, any governing boards, have determined that amendments to reduce the dividend BSECC is filing this proposed rule the proposed change should be filed payable to the Series A Preferred, to change with regard to proposed changes with the Commission, and the governing increase the number of authorized to the Restated Certificate of boards of BSECC and SCCP have each shares of the Series A Preferred, or to Incorporation (‘‘Certificate’’) of its reviewed the proposed change and change certain specified provisions of parent corporation, The NASDAQ OMX determined that it should be filed with the Certificate of Designation will Group, Inc. (‘‘NASDAQ OMX’’). The the Commission.3 Under Delaware law, require the written consent of 75% of proposed rule change will be the amendment of the Certificate by the the then outstanding shares of Series A implemented as soon as practicable filing of a Certificate of Designation does Preferred, voting together as a class. following filing with the Commission. not require approval by the stockholders The shares of Series A Preferred will The text of the proposed rule change is of NASDAQ OMX. be convertible into shares of Common available at http:// The issuance of the Series A Preferred Stock. Under the applicable NASDAQ www.nasdaqtrader.com/ is part of a transaction between listing rules, approval by the Trader.aspx?id=BSECCIE2009. NASDAQ OMX and one of its existing stockholders of NASDAQ OMX shareholders, Silver Lake Partners (‘‘Shareholder Approval’’) is required to II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s (‘‘Silver Lake’’), whereby Silver Lake permit the conversion of the Series A Statement of the Purpose of, and agreed to convert all of the 3.75% Series Preferred.5 NASDAQ OMX intends to Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule A Convertible Notes due 2012 (‘‘Notes’’) seek Shareholder Approval at the Change held by certain of its affiliates (‘‘Silver company’s 2010 annual meeting of Lake Affiliates’’) into shares of stockholders. In its filing with the Commission, NASDAQ OMX common stock BSECC included statements concerning Upon the date of Shareholder (‘‘Common Stock’’) prior to the maturity Approval, the Series A Preferred will the purpose of and basis for the 4 date of such Notes. As an inducement mandatorily convert into shares of proposed rule change and discussed any to convert the Notes, NASDAQ OMX Common Stock as provided in the comments it received on the proposed has delivered a cash payment and has Certificate of Designation.6 In the event rule change. The text of these statements agreed to deliver 1,600,000 shares of may be examined at the places specified 5 Pursuant to NASDAQ Listing Rule 5635(c), in Item IV below. BSECC has prepared 3 NASDAQ, PHLX, BX, BSECC, and SCCP are shareholder approval is required when an equity summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, each submitting this filing pursuant to Section compensation arrangement is made pursuant to and C below of the most significant 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii). which stock may be acquired by an issuer’s officers, 4 Under Article Fourth, Section C.1(b) of the directors, employees, or consultants. Pursuant to aspects of such statements. Certificate, the Notes are entitled to vote on an as- agreements relating to the issuance of the Notes, a converted basis on matters that are submitted to a Silver Lake representative currently serves on the vote of the stockholders of NASDAQ OMX, voting NASDAQ OMX Board of Directors. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). together with the holders of the Common Stock and 6 The number of shares of Common Stock to be 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. any other shares of capital stock entitled to vote. issued upon conversion is variable. To the extent
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices 61391
that Shareholder Approval is not C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s those that may be withheld from the obtained, the Series A Preferred will Statement on Comments on the public in accordance with the accrue cumulative dividends, accrued Proposed Rule Change Received From provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be on a daily basis and compounded Members, Participants, or Others available for inspection and copying in quarterly, at a per annum rate equal to Written comments were neither the Commission’s Public Reference 12%. In addition, in the event that solicited nor received. Room on official business days between Shareholder Approval is not obtained, the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies the Series A Preferred will be subject to III. Date of Effectiveness of the of such filing also will be available for optional redemption by NASDAQ OMX Proposed Rule Change and Timing for inspection and copying at the principal subject to the terms of the Certificate of Commission Action offices of the Exchange. All comments Designation. The Series A Preferred will The foregoing rule change has become received will be posted without change; be mandatorily redeemable by NASDAQ effective pursuant to Section the Commission does not edit personal OMX on the fourth anniversary of the 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 10 and identifying information from original issuance date and will be subparagraph (f)(3) of Rule 19b–4 submissions. You should submit only redeemable at the option of the holders thereunder.11 At any time within 60 information that you wish to make upon a Fundamental Change (as defined days of the filing of the proposed rule available publicly. in the Certificate of Designation). change, the Commission may summarily All submissions should refer to File The issuance of Series A Preferred abrogate such rule change if it appears Number SR–BSECC–2009–005, and will result in no substantive change in to the Commission that such action is should be submitted on or before the ownership or governance structure necessary or appropriate in the public December 15, 2009. of NASDAQ OMX since the Series A interest, for the protection of investors, For the Commission, by the Division of Preferred will have no voting rights or otherwise in furtherance of the Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated other than the limited rights described purposes of the Act. authority.12 above. The Transaction also has resulted Florence E. Harmon, IV. Solicitation of Comments in the conversion of most of the Deputy Secretary. outstanding Notes into Common Stock.7 Interested persons are invited to [FR Doc. E9–28094 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] submit written data, views, and BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 2. Statutory Basis arguments concerning the foregoing, BSECC believes that the proposed rule including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions change, as amended, is consistent with SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE of Section 17A of the Act,8 in general, the Act. Comments may be submitted by COMMISSION and with Section 17A(b)(3)(A) of the any of the following methods: 9 [Release No. 34–61001; File No. SR–SCCP– Act, in particular, in that it is designed Electronic Comments 2009–04] to ensure that BSECC is so organized • and has the capacity to be able to Use the Commission’s Internet Self-Regulatory Organizations; Stock facilitate the prompt and accurate comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ Clearing Corporation of Philadelphia; clearance and settlement of securities rules/sro.shtml); or Notice of Filing and Immediate • Send an e-mail to rule- transactions. BSECC believes that the Effectiveness of Proposed Rule [email protected]. Please include File proposed rule change and the issuance Change To Amend the Restated Number SR–BSECC–2009–005 on the of Series A Preferred to existing Certificate of Incorporation of the subject line. investors will result in no substantive NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. change to the corporate ownership Paper Comments structure of its parent NASDAQ OMX. • November 13, 2009. Send paper comments in triplicate Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Statement on Burden on Competition Securities and Exchange Commission, (‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder 2 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC BSECC does not believe that the notice is hereby given that on October 20549–1090. proposed rule change will result in any 1, 2009, Stock Clearing Corporation of burden on competition that is not All submissions should refer to File Philadelphia (‘‘SCCP’’) filed with the necessary or appropriate in furtherance Number SR–BSECC–2009–005. This file Securities and Exchange Commission of the purposes of the Act, as amended. number should be included on the (‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule subject line if e-mail is used. change as described in Items I, II, and that the conversion results in Silver Lake obtaining To help the Commission process and III below, which Items have been beneficial ownership of shares of voting securities review your comments more efficiently, prepared by SCCP. The Commission is in excess of five percent (5%) of the then- please use only one method. The publishing this notice to solicit outstanding shares of stock entitled to vote, Silver Commission will post all comments on Lake will be subject to the existing voting comments on the proposed rule change restrictions in Article Fourth, Section C.3 of the the Commission’s Internet Web site from interested persons. Certificate. This provision provides that no person (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). who is the beneficial owner of voting securities of Copies of the submission, all subsequent I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s NASDAQ OMX in excess of five percent (5%) of the amendments, all written statements Statement of the Terms of the Substance then-outstanding shares of stock generally entitled of the Proposed Rule Change to vote (‘‘Excess Securities’’) may vote such Excess with respect to the proposed rule Securities. change that are filed with the SCCP is filing this proposed rule 7 Prior to the Transaction, the Silver Lake Commission, and all written change with regard to proposed changes Affiliates held approximately $119.5 million in communications relating to the to the Restated Certificate of aggregate principal amount of the outstanding proposed rule change between the Notes. Another holder continues to hold Incorporation (‘‘Certificate’’) of its approximately $500,000 in aggregate principal Commission and any person, other than amount of the outstanding Notes. 12 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 8 15 U.S.C. 78q–1. 10 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(a)(iii). 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 9 15 U.S.C. 78q–1(b)(3)(A). 11 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(3). 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES 61392 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices
parent corporation, The NASDAQ OMX the Commission.3 Under Delaware law, require the written consent of 75 Group, Inc. (‘‘NASDAQ OMX’’). The the amendment of the Certificate by the percent of the then outstanding shares proposed rule change will be filing of a Certificate of Designation does of Series A Preferred, voting together as implemented as soon as practicable not require approval by the stockholders a class. following filing with the Commission. of NASDAQ OMX. The shares of Series A Preferred will The text of the proposed rule change is The issuance of the Series A Preferred be convertible into shares of Common available at http:// is part of a transaction between Stock. Under the applicable NASDAQ www.nasdaqtrader.com/ NASDAQ OMX and one of its existing listing rules, approval by the Trader.aspx?id=SCCPApprovedRules. shareholders, Silver Lake Partners stockholders of NASDAQ OMX (‘‘Silver Lake’’), whereby Silver Lake (‘‘Shareholder Approval’’) is required to II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s agreed to convert all of the 3.75% Series permit the conversion of the Series A Statement of the Purpose of, and A Convertible Notes due 2012 (‘‘Notes’’) Preferred.5 NASDAQ OMX intends to Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule held by certain of its affiliates (‘‘Silver seek Shareholder Approval at the Change Lake Affiliates’’) into shares of company’s 2010 annual meeting of NASDAQ OMX common stock stockholders. In its filing with the Commission, (‘‘Common Stock’’) prior to the maturity Upon the date of Shareholder SCCP included statements concerning date of such Notes.4 As an inducement Approval, the Series A Preferred will the purpose of and basis for the to convert the Notes, NASDAQ OMX mandatorily convert into shares of proposed rule change and discussed any has delivered a cash payment and has Common Stock as provided in the comments it received on the proposed agreed to deliver 1,600,000 shares of Certificate of Designation.6 In the event rule change. The text of these statements Series A Preferred to the Silver Lake that Shareholder Approval is not may be examined at the places specified Affiliates (‘‘Transaction’’). Effective obtained, the Series A Preferred will in Item IV below. SCCP has prepared September 28, 2009, the Silver Lake accrue cumulative dividends, accrued summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, Affiliates converted Notes into on a daily basis and compounded and C below of the most significant 8,246,680 shares of Common Stock. As quarterly, at a per annum rate equal to aspects of such statements. a result, Silver Lake no longer holds any 12%. In addition, in the event that Notes and through certain of the Silver Shareholder Approval is not obtained, A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Lake Affiliates currently is the the Series A Preferred will be subject to Statement of the Purpose of, and beneficial owner of shares of Common optional redemption by NASDAQ OMX Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Stock that equal less than five percent subject to the terms of the Certificate of Change (5%) of the outstanding voting securities Designation. The Series A Preferred will 1. Purpose of NASDAQ OMX. be mandatorily redeemable by NASDAQ Under the Certificate of Designation, OMX on the fourth anniversary of the NASDAQ OMX is proposing to file up to two million shares will be original issuance date and will be the Certificate of Designation described designated for issuance as shares of redeemable at the option of the holders below. Under Article Four, Paragraph B Series A Preferred. The Series A upon a Fundamental Change (as defined of the Certificate, NASDAQ OMX’s Preferred will be senior in preference in the Certificate of Designation). Board of Directors may authorize the and priority to the Common Stock and The issuance of Series A Preferred issuance of preferred stock, establish the on parity with all other classes and will result in no substantive change in number of shares to be included in such series of preferred stock. the ownership or governance structure The Series A Preferred will have series, and fix the designation, powers, of NASDAQ OMX since the Series A limited voting rights and will not have preferences and rights of the shares of Preferred will have no voting rights the right to vote on any matters that are such series, and the qualifications, other than the limited rights described subject to the vote of the holders of above. The Transaction also has resulted limitations, and restrictions thereof. As Common Stock. The approval of at least provided in Articles XI and XII of the in the conversion of most of the a majority of the then outstanding outstanding Notes into Common Stock.7 NASDAQ OMX By-Laws, proposed shares of Series A Preferred will be amendments to the Certificate are to be required to approve any amendment to 5 Pursuant to NASDAQ Listing Rule 5635(c), reviewed by the Board of Directors of the Certificate or the NASDAQ OMX By- shareholder approval is required when an equity each self-regulatory subsidiary of Laws that would adversely affect the compensation arrangement is made pursuant to NASDAQ OMX, and if any such rights, preferences, or privileges of the which stock may be acquired by an issuer’s officers, proposed amendment must under directors, employees, or consultants. Pursuant to Series A Preferred (including any agreements relating to the issuance of the Notes, a Section 19 of the Act and the rules change in the dividends payable or Silver Lake representative currently serves on the promulgated thereunder be filed with or liquidation preference). In addition, any NASDAQ OMX Board of Directors. filed with and approved by the amendments to reduce the dividend 6 The number of shares of Common Stock to be Commission before such amendment issued upon conversion is variable. To the extent payable to the Series A Preferred, to that the conversion results in Silver Lake obtaining may be effective, then such amendment increase the number of authorized beneficial ownership of shares of voting securities shall not be effective until filed with or shares of the Series A Preferred, or to in excess of five percent (5%) of the then- filed with and approved by the change certain specified provisions of outstanding shares of stock entitled to vote, Silver Lake will be subject to the existing voting Commission, as the case may be. Senior the Certificate of Designation will restrictions in Article Fourth, Section C.3 of the management of NASDAQ, PHLX, and Certificate. This provision provides that no person BX, through delegated authority of their 3 NASDAQ, PHLX, BX, BSECC and SCCP are each who is the beneficial owner of voting securities of governing boards, have determined that submitting this filing pursuant to Section NASDAQ OMX in excess of five percent (5%) of the 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii). then-outstanding shares of stock generally entitled the proposed change should be filed 4 Under Article Four, Section C.1(b) of the to vote (‘‘Excess Securities’’) may vote such Excess with the Commission, and the governing Certificate, the Notes are entitled to vote on an as- Securities. boards of BSECC and SCCP have each converted basis on matters that are submitted to a 7 Prior to the Transaction, the Silver Lake reviewed the proposed change and vote of the stockholders of NASDAQ OMX, voting Affiliates held approximately $119.5 million in together with the holders of the Common Stock and aggregate principal amount of the outstanding determined that it should be filed with any other shares of capital stock entitled to vote. Notes. Another holder continues to hold
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices 61393
2. Statutory Basis • Send an e-mail to rule- SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE SCCP believes that the proposed rule [email protected]. Please include File COMMISSION change is consistent with the provisions Number R–SCCP–2009– on the subject [Release No. 34–61016; File No. SR–ISE– of Section 17A of the Act,8 in general, line. 2009–96] and with Section 17A(b)(3)(A) of the Paper Comments Act,9 in particular, in that it is designed Self-Regulatory Organizations; to ensure that SCCP is so organized and • Send paper comments in triplicate International Securities Exchange, has the capacity to be able to facilitate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate the prompt and accurate clearance and Securities and Exchange Commission, Effectiveness of Proposed Rule settlement of securities transactions. 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC Change To Extend the Pilot Program SCCP believes that the proposed rule 20549–1090. To Expose All-Or-None Orders Until change and the issuance of Series A December 31, 2009 Preferred to existing investors will All submissions should refer to File Number SR–SCCP–2009–04. This file November 17, 2009. result in no substantive change to the Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the corporate ownership structure of its number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the parent NASDAQ OMX. ‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2 B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s To help the Commission process and notice is hereby given that on November Statement on Burden on Competition review your comments more efficiently, 13, 2009, the International Securities please use only one method. The Exchange, LLC (the ‘‘Exchange’’ or the SCCP does not believe that the Commission will post all comments on ‘‘ISE’’) filed with the Securities and proposed rule change will result in any the Commission’s Internet Web site Exchange Commission the proposed burden on competition that is not (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). rule change as described in Items I and necessary or appropriate in furtherance Copies of the submission, all subsequent II below, which items have been of the purposes of the Act, as amended. amendments, all written statements prepared by the self-regulatory C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s with respect to the proposed rule organization. The Commission is Statement on Comments on the change that are filed with the publishing this notice to solicit Proposed Rule Change Received From Commission, and all written comments on the proposed rule change Members, Participants, or Others communications relating to the from interested persons. Written comments were neither proposed rule change between the I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s solicited nor received. Commission and any person, other than Statement of the Terms of Substance of those that may be withheld from the the Proposed Rule Change III. Date of Effectiveness of the public in accordance with the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for The Exchange is proposing to amend provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be Commission Action its rules to implement a broadcast available for inspection and copying in message that will inform market The foregoing rule change has become the Commission’s Public Reference participants when a non-marketable all- effective pursuant to Section Room on official business days between or-none limit order is placed on the 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 10 and the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies limit order book. The text of the subparagraph (f)(3) of Rule 19b–4 of such filing also will be available for proposed rule change is as follows, with thereunder.11 At any time within 60 inspection and copying at the principal deletions in [brackets] and additions days of the filing of the proposed rule offices of the Exchange. All comments italicized: change, the Commission may summarily received will be posted without change; Rule 717. Limitations on Orders abrogate such rule change if it appears the Commission does not edit personal to the Commission that such action is * * * * * identifying information from necessary or appropriate in the public submissions. You should submit only Supplementary Material to Rule 717 interest, for the protection of investors, .01–.03 No Change. or otherwise in furtherance of the information that you wish to make available publicly. .04 A non-marketable all-or-none limit purposes of the Act. order shall be deemed ‘‘exposed’’ for the All submissions should refer to File purposes of paragraphs (d) and (e) one IV. Solicitation of Comments Number SR–SCCP–2009–04, and should second following a broadcast notifying Interested persons are invited to be submitted on or before December 15, [members] market participants that such an submit written data, views, and 2009. order to buy or sell a specified number of arguments concerning the foregoing, contracts at a specified price has been For the Commission, by the Division of including whether the proposed rule received in the options series. This provision Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated shall be in effect on a pilot basis expiring change, as amended, is consistent with authority.12 [November 9, 2009] December 31, 2009. the Act. Comments may be submitted by * * * * * any of the following methods: Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Electronic Comments [FR Doc. E9–28095 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] Statement of the Purpose of, and • Use the Commission’s Internet BILLING CODE 8011–01–P Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ Change rules/sro.shtml); or In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included approximately $500,000 in aggregate principal amount of the outstanding Notes. statements concerning the purpose of, 8 15 U.S.C. 78q–1. and basis for, the proposed rule change 9 15 U.S.C. 78q–1(b)(3)(A). 10 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(a)(iii). 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 11 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(3). 12 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES 61394 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices
and discussed any comments it received made available to any market the date of filing.9 However, Rule 19b– on the proposed rule change. The text participant, not just members.6 Thus, all 4(f)(6)(iii) 10 permits the Commission to of these statements may be examined at of the terms of the order will be designate a shorter time if such action the places specified in Item IV below. disclosed to all market participants. is consistent with the protection of The self-regulatory organization has (b) Basis—The basis under the investors and the public interest. ISE prepared summaries, set forth in Securities Exchange Act of 1934 has requested that the Commission sections A, B and C below, of the most (‘‘Exchange Act’’) for this proposed rule waive the 30-day operative delay. The significant aspects of such statements. change is the requirement under Section Commission notes that waiver of the 6(b)(5) that an exchange have rules that operative delay will permit the pilot to A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s are designed to promote just and continue until December 31, 2009 Statement of the Purpose of, and equitable principles of trade, and to without further delay, and will provide Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule remove impediments to and perfect the all market participants, instead of only Change mechanism for a free and open market ISE members, with the opportunity to (a) Purpose—Pursuant to ISE Rule and a national market system, and in receive ISE’s broadcast message with 717(d) and (e), Electronic Access general, to protect investors and the information about the terms of new Members must expose agency orders on public interest. In particular, under the AON orders. The Commission also notes the Exchange for at least one second proposed rule change all-or-none orders that no comments were received to date before entering a contra-side proprietary will continue to be exposed to all on the existing pilot. For these reasons, order or a contra-side order that was market participants so that there is a the Commission believes that waiving solicited from a broker-dealer, or utilize greater opportunity for them to interact the 30-day operative delay is consistent one of the Exchange’s execution with such orders. with the protection of investors and the mechanisms that have one second public interest, and designates the exposure periods built into the B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement on Burden on Competition proposed rule change to be operative functionality.3 upon filing with the Commission.11 The Exchange operates an integrated The proposed rule change does not At any time within 60 days of the system that consolidates all market impose any burden on competition that filing of the proposed rule change, the maker quotes and orders, and is not necessary or appropriate in Commission may summarily abrogate automatically disseminates the best bid furtherance of the purposes of the Act. such rule change if it appears to the and offer. If a limit order is designated C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Commission that such action is as all-or-none (‘‘AON’’), the contingency Statement on Comments on the necessary or appropriate in the public that the order must be executed in full Proposed Rule Change Received From interest, for the protection of investors, makes it ineligible for display in the Members, Participants or Others or otherwise in furtherance of the best bid or offer. Nevertheless, such purposes of the Act. orders are maintained in the system and The Exchange has not solicited, and remain available for execution after all does not intend to solicit, comments on IV. Solicitation of Comments other trading interest at the same price this proposed rule change. The Interested persons are invited to has been exhausted.4 Upon the receipt Exchange has not received any submit written data, views, and of a non-marketable all-or-none limit unsolicited written comments from arguments concerning the foregoing, order, the system automatically will members or other interested parties. including whether the proposed rule send a broadcast message to all market III. Date of Effectiveness of the change is consistent with the Act. participants notifying them that an all- Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Comments may be submitted by any of or-none order to buy or to sell a Commission Action the following methods: specified number of contracts at a Electronic Comments specified price has been placed on the Because the proposed rule change: (i) book. Does not significantly affect the Use the Commission’s Internet On July 9, 2009, the Exchange protection of investors or the public comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ adopted a proposed rule change on a interest; (ii) does not impose any rules/sro.shtml); or three-month pilot basis to specify that a significant burden on competition; and Send an e-mail to rule- non-marketable all-or-none limit order (iii) does not become operative for 30 [email protected]. Please include File is deemed ‘‘exposed’’ for the purposes days after the date of the filing, or such No. SR–ISE–2009–96 on the subject of Rule 717(d) and (e) one second shorter time as the Commission may line. designate if consistent with the following a broadcast notifying Paper Comments members that such an order to buy or protection of investors and the public sell a specified number of contracts at interest, the proposed rule change has Send paper comments in triplicate to a specified price has been received in become effective pursuant to Section Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, 7 the options series. The Exchange 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b– Securities and Exchange Commission, 8 subsequently extended the pilot, which 4(f)(6) thereunder. 9 is set to expire on November 9, 2009.5 A proposed rule change filed under 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule Rule 19b–4(f)(6) normally may not 19b–4(f)(6)(iii) requires that a self-regulatory The Exchange now proposes to extend organization submit to the Commission written the pilot through the end of the year, become operative prior to 30 days after notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, until December 31, 2009. During the along with a brief description and text of the 6 The AON broadcast message is available proposed rule change, at least five business days extension, the broadcast message will be through the Exchange’s application programming prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule interface (‘‘API’’). Any member or non-member change, or such shorter time as designated by the 3 See ISE Rule 716(d) (Facilitation Mechanism), connecting to the API can receive the AON Commission. The Exchange satisfied this Rule 716(e) (Solicited Order Mechanism) and Rule broadcast message. The Exchange is not proposing requirement. 723 (Price Improvement Mechanism for Crossing to adopt a fee associated with receiving this 10 Id. Transactions). message, and any future fee would be filed with the 11 For the purposes only of waiving the 30-day 4 Supplementary Material .02 to ISE Rule 713. Commission. operative delay, the Commission has considered the 5 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60866 7 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). proposed rule’s impact on efficiency, competition, (October 22, 2009), 74 FR 55879 (October 29, 2009). 8 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices 61395
100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC ‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2 national best bid or offer (‘‘NBBO’’). For 20549–1090. notice is hereby given that on May 4, Hybrid 3.0 Classes, the Exchange All submissions should refer to File No. 2009, the Chicago Board Options determines, on a class-by-class basis, SR–ISE–2009–96. This file number Exchange, Incorporated (‘‘Exchange’’ or which electronic matching algorithm should be included on the subject line ‘‘CBOE’’) filed with the Securities and from Rule 6.45B, Priority and Allocation if e-mail is used. To help the Exchange Commission (‘‘Commission’’) of Trades in Index Options and Options Commission process and review your the proposed rule change as described on ETFs on the CBOE Hybrid System, comments more efficiently, please use in Items I, II, and III below, which Items shall apply to SAL executions (e.g., pro- only one method. The Commission will have been prepared by the Exchange. rata, price-time, UMA priority with post all comments on the Commission’s On November 13, 2009, the Exchange public customer, participation Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/ filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposal, entitlement and/or market turner rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the which replaced the original filing in its priority overlays). Additionally, the submission, all subsequent entirety. The Commission is publishing Exchange may establish, on a class-by- amendments, all written statements this notice to solicit comments on the class basis, a DPM/LMM participation with respect to the proposed rule proposed rule change, as amended, from entitlement that is applicable only to change that are filed with the interested persons. SAL executions. Pursuant to Rules 8.15B and 8.87, the participation Commission, and all written I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s entitlement generally is 50% when there communications relating to the Statement of the Terms of Substance of is one other Market-Maker also quoting proposed rule change between the the Proposed Rule Change Commission and any person, other than at the best bid/offer on the Exchange, those that may be withheld from the The Exchange proposes to amend 40% when there are two Market-Makers public in accordance with the Rule 6.13A, Simple Auction Liaison also quoting at the best bid/offer on the (SAL), to revise the Designated Primary provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be Exchange, and 30% when there are Market-Maker (‘‘DPM’’)/Lead Market- available for inspection and copying in three or more Market-Makers also Maker (‘‘LMM’’) participation the Commission’s Public Reference quoting at the best bid/offer on the entitlement formula that is applicable to Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, Exchange. In addition, the participation SAL executions in Hybrid 3.0 classes. DC 20549, on official business days entitlement must be in compliance with The text of the proposed rule change is between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Rule 6.45B(a)(i)(2). In relevant part, Rule available on the Exchange’s Web site Copies of such filing also will be 6.45B(a)(i)(2) provides that the DPM or (http://www.cboe.org/Legal), at the available for inspection and copying at LMM may not be allocated a total Office of the Secretary, CBOE and at the the principal office of ISE. All quantity greater than the quantity that it Commission. comments received will be posted is quoting (including orders not part of without change; the Commission does II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s quotes) at that price. In addition, if pro- not edit personal identifying Statement of the Purpose of, and rata priority is in effect and the DPM or information from submissions. You Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule LMM’s allocation of an order pursuant should submit only information that Change to its participation entitlement is greater you wish to make available publicly. All than its percentage share of quotes/ In its filing with the Commission, the orders at the best price at the time that submissions should refer to File No. self-regulatory organization included SR–ISE–2009–96 and should be the participation entitlement is granted statements concerning the purpose of (the ‘‘pro-rata share’’), the DPM or LMM submitted on or before December 15, and basis for the proposed rule change shall not receive any further allocation 2009. and discussed any comments it received of that order. The rule also provides that For the Commission, by the Division of on the proposed rule change. The text the participation entitlement shall not Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated of those statements may be examined at be in effect unless public customer 12 authority. the places specified in Item IV below. priority is in effect in a priority Florence E. Harmon, The Exchange has prepared summaries, sequence ahead of the participation Deputy Secretary. set forth in sections A, B, and C below, entitlement and then the participation [FR Doc. E9–28098 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] of the most significant parts of such entitlement shall only apply to any statements. BILLING CODE 8011–01–P remaining balance.3 In addition, A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s responses to SAL auctions are capped to Statement of the Purpose of, and the size of the Agency Order for SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule allocation purposes pursuant to Rule COMMISSION Change 6.13A. Thus, for example, assume an 1. Purpose [Release No. 34–61024; File No. SR–CBOE– incoming agency order to buy 250 2009–025] The purpose of Amendment No. 1, contracts is received and at the which replaces the original filing in its conclusion of the SAL auction the LMM Self-Regulatory Organizations; entirety, is to modify the proposed rule is offered at the best price for 200 Chicago Board Options Exchange, change so that the revised DPM/LMM contracts, 1 customer is offered at the Incorporated; Notice of Filing of participation entitlement formula best price for 50 contracts and 4 other Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by applicable to SAL executions in selected Maker-Makers are offered at the best Amendment No. 1, Related to the Hybrid 3.0 classes will operate on a 1- price for 140 contracts each. In this Simple Auction Liaison (SAL) year pilot basis. SAL is a feature within CBOE’s 3 Rule 6.45B(a)(i)(2) also provides that, to be November 18, 2009. Hybrid System that auctions marketable entitled to their participation entitlement, the DPM/ Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the orders for price improvement over the LMM’s order and/or quote must be at the best price Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the on the Exchange. For purposes of SAL executions, the Exchange interprets this to mean that the DPM/ 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). LMM must be at the best price at both the start and 12 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. the conclusion of the SAL auction.
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES 61396 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices
scenario, the customer would be there is one Market-Maker also quoting general, to protect investors and the allocated 50 contracts, the LMM would at the best bid/offer on the Exchange; public interest. In particular, the be allocated 60 contracts (30% × 200 40% where there are two Market-Makers Exchange believes that the proposed remaining contracts), and the 4 other also quoting at the best bid/offer on the change would provide additional Market-Makers would be allocated the Exchange; and 40% where there are incentives for DPMs or LMMs to remaining 140 contract balance on a three or more Market-Makers also support and participate in SAL auctions pro-rata basis with each receiving 35 quoting at the best bid/offer on the in Hybrid 3.0 classes, which would contracts. Exchange. The benchmark percentages, result in additional opportunities to In order to offer additional incentives which in some instances are greater provide orders executions at improved for DPMs or LMMs to support and than CBOE’s DPM/LMM participation prices. participate in SAL auctions in Hybrid entitlement percentages contained in B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 3.0 classes (which currently only Rules 8.15B and 8.87 (see discussion Statement on Burden on Competition includes options on the Standard and above), are based on the market-maker Poor’s 500 Index, SPX), and thus offer participation entitlement percentages CBOE does not believe that the additional opportunities for price that are available on other options proposed rule change will impose any improvement, we are proposing to exchanges.4 burden on competition not necessary or modify the DPM/LMM entitlement During the pilot, the Exchange will appropriate in furtherance of the when the pro-rata algorithm is in effect submit a quarterly report containing purposes of the Act. for SAL in selected Hybrid 3.0 classes certain data related to this evaluation to C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s as part of a pilot program that will the Commission and any such data Statement on Comments on the operate on a 1-year basis. For such pro- submitted will be provided on a Proposed Rule Change Received From rata classes, after all public customer confidential basis. The report will be Members, Participants or Others orders in the book at the best bid/offer submitted within 10 business days of and the DPM/LMM participation the conclusion of each quarter. The No written comments were solicited entitlement have been satisfied, the report will provide data on the total or received with respect to the proposed DPM/LMM shall be eligible to number of SAL executions evaluated rule change. participate in any remaining balance on during the period. It will also provide III. Date of Effectiveness of the a pro-rata basis (regardless of whether data on SAL executions where a DPM/ Proposed Rule Change and Timing for its participation entitlement is greater LMM participation entitlement was Commission Action than its pro-rata share). applied and the allocation was greater Within 35 days of the date of Using the example above, the than it would have been under the pre- customer would be allocated 50 publication of this notice in the Federal pilot allocation algorithm, including Register or within such longer period (i) contracts, the LMM would be allocated information on the number of Market- 60 contracts (30% × 200 remaining as the Commission may designate up to Makers also quoting at the NBBO and on 90 days of such date if it finds such balance), and the LMM and 4 other the actual allocation percentage the Market-Makers would be allocated the longer period to be appropriate and DPM/LMM received per execution as publishes its reasons for so finding or remaining 140 contract balance on a compared to the benchmark. For pro-rata basis with each receiving 28 (ii) as to which the self-regulatory purposes of the report, the ‘‘actual organization consents, the Commission contracts (140 remaining balance/ allocation percentage’’ will be (MM1’s 140 contract offer + MM2’s 140 will: calculated by adding the participation (A) By order approve such proposed contract offer + MM3’s 140 contract entitlement contracts plus the pro-rata offer + MM4’s 140 contract offer + rule change, or share contracts, and dividing the sum by (B) Institute proceedings to determine LMM’s 140 decremented contract offer) the number of contracts executed on whether the proposed rule change × applicable pro-rata share). Thus, the SAL less public customer orders that should be disapproved. LMM would receive a total of 88 were satisfied. contracts under the revised algorithm. IV. Solicitation of Comments As part of the pilot program, on a 2. Statutory Basis Interested persons are invited to quarterly basis the Exchange will The Exchange believes the proposed submit written data, views, and evaluate the number of SAL executions rule change is consistent with Section arguments concerning the foregoing, in each pilot class where the DPM/LMM 6(b) of the Act 5 in general and furthers including whether the proposed rule participation entitlement was applied the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the change is consistent with the Act. and the allocation was greater than what Act 6 in particular in that it is designed Comments may be submitted by any of it would have been under the pre-pilot to foster cooperation and coordination the following methods: allocation algorithm, i.e., the allocation with persons engaged in regulating, Electronic Comments was greater than (i) the DPM/LMM’s clearing, settling, processing pro-rata share as calculated prior to the information with respect to, and • Use the Commission’s Internet pilot and (ii) the DPM/LMM’s facilitating transactions in securities, to comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ participation entitlement share as remove impediments to and perfect the rules/sro.shtml); or • calculated prior to the pilot. The mechanism of a free and open market Send an e-mail to rule- Exchange will reduce the DPM/LMM and a national market system, and, in [email protected]. Please include File participation entitlement for the class if Number SR–CBOE–2009–025 on the the number of SAL executions that 4 See, e.g., International Securities Exchange Rule subject line. exceeded the benchmark is more than 7.13.01(b)(provides a 60% participation right if 1% of the total number of SAL there is only one other Professional Order or market Paper Comments executions in the class evaluated during maker quotation at the best price) and NYSE Arca, • Send paper comments in triplicate Inc. Rule 6.76A(a)(1)(A)(i)(provides a 40% the quarter. This evaluation will be participation right regardless of the number of other to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, based on a random sampling of three market participants at the best price). Securities and Exchange Commission, days for each month in each quarter. 5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC The ‘‘benchmark’’ will be 60% where 6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 20549–1090.
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices 61397
All submissions should refer to File 12, 2009, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (the that was removed from the Fee Number SR–CBOE–2009–025. This file ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the Securities Schedule in SR–BX–2009–071 should number should be included on the and Exchange Commission not have been removed but rather subject line if e-mail is used. To help the (‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule amended to reflect applicability to Commission process and review your change as described in Items I, II, and Eligible Orders that are routed away by comments more efficiently, please use III below, which Items have been Routing Brokers. only one method. The Commission will prepared by the Exchange. The The Exchange proposes to once again post all comments on the Commission’s Exchange filed the proposed rule change include the specific language in the Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/ pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the BOX Fee Schedule, as appropriate, to rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the Act3 and Rule 19b–4(f)(2) thereunder,4 submission, all subsequent which renders the proposal effective reflect its applicability to Eligible amendments, all written statements upon filing with the Commission. The Orders routed to Away Exchanges by with respect to the proposed rule Commission is publishing this notice to Routing Brokers. Specifically, the change that are filed with the solicit comments on the proposed rule Exchange proposes to exempt outbound Commission, and all written change from interested persons. Eligible Orders routed to Away communications relating to the Exchanges by Routing Brokers from the I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s proposed rule change between the fees and credits of Section 7 of the BOX Statement of the Terms of Substance of Commission and any person, other than Fee Schedule, as these transactions are the Proposed Rule Change those that may be withheld from the deemed to neither ‘add’ nor ‘take’ public in accordance with the The Exchange proposes to amend the liquidity from the BOX Book.7 provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be Fee Schedule of the Boston Options Additionally, the Exchange proposes to available for inspection and copying in Exchange Group, LLC (‘‘BOX’’). The text impose of a fee of $0.50 per contract for the Commission’s Public Reference of the proposed rule change is available all Eligible Orders routed to Away Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, from the principal office of the Exchanges by Routing Brokers in excess DC 20549, on official business days Exchange, at the Commission’s Public of 4,000 contracts per month for an between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Reference Room and also on the individual BOX Options Participant, as Copies of the filing also will be available Exchange’s Internet website at http:// was imposed for outbound P/A Orders.8 for inspection and copying at the nasdaqomxbx.cchwallstreet.com/ NASDAQOMXBX/Filings/. Additionally, the Exchange proposes principal office of the Exchange. All a clarifying change to text of Section comments received will be posted II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 7(d) of the BOX Fee Schedule regarding without change; the Commission does Statement of the Purpose of, and the volume discount applied to not edit personal identifying Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule executions in Price Improvement Period information from submissions. You Change (‘‘PIP’’) auctions of the Participant that should submit only information that initiated the PIP which occur at a price you wish to make available publicly. All In its filing with the Commission, the submissions should refer to File self-regulatory organization included at least better than the NBBO. To clarify Number SR–CBOE–2009–025 and statements concerning the purpose of, the application of the volume discount should be submitted on or before and basis for, the proposed rule change the Exchange proposes that the final December 15, 2009. and discussed any comments it received sentence of Section 7(d) will read as on the proposed rule change. The text follows: ‘‘This discount is calculated For the Commission, by the Division of of these statements may be examined at monthly for the Participant’s previous Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.7 the places specified in Item IV below. calendar month’s executions in PIP auctions which it initiated and which Florence E. Harmon, The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in were filled at a price at least better than Deputy Secretary. Sections A, B, and C below, of the most the NBBO.’’ [FR Doc. E9–28100 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] significant aspects of such statements. BILLING CODE 8011–01–P (‘‘Decentralized Plan’’). See Securities Exchange Act A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Release No. 60405 (July 30, 2009), 74 FR 39362 Statement of the Purpose of, and (August 6, 2009) (File No. 4–546) (Order Approving SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule the National Market System Plan Relating to COMMISSION Change Options Order Protection and Locked/Crossed Market Plan). Instead of routing P/A Orders BOX [Release No. 34–61017; File No. SR–BX– 1. Purpose now sends Eligible Orders to Away Exchange(s), 2009–072] when such Away Exchange(s) display the Best Bid The Exchange recently submitted a or Best Offer, in accordance with the Decentralized Self-Regulatory Organizations; proposed rule change, SR–BX–2009– Plan, via certain non-affiliated third party routing NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing 071, which made several changes to the broker/dealers (‘‘Routing Broker(s)’’). See Securities 5 Exchange Act Release No. 60832 (October 16, 2009), and Immediate Effectiveness of BOX Fee Schedule. Certain of these 74 FR 54607 (October 22, 2009) (SR–BX–2009–66). Proposed Rule Change Amending the changes eliminated references to 7 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60504 Fee Schedule of the Boston Options outbound P/A Orders from the Fee (August 14, 2009), 74 FR 42724 (August 24, 2009) Exchange Facility Schedule as these order types are no (SR–BX–2009–047). longer sent by BOX.6 Some of the text 8 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60610 November 17, 2009. (September 1, 2009), 74 FR 46285 (September 8, 2009) (SR–BX–2009–058). The Exchange stated in 3 Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). SR–BX–2009–58 that ‘‘exempting all outbound P/A Securities Exchange Act of 1934 4 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(2). Orders from fees may tempt BOX Options (‘‘Act’’)1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2 5 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60934 Participants to increase non executable order flow notice is hereby given that on November (November 4, 2009), 74 FR 58358 (November 12, to BOX in order to avoid fees on other exchanges.’’ 2009) (SR–BX–2009–071). The BOX Fee Schedule The Exchange proposed the $0.50 fee ‘‘to eliminate can be found on the BOX Website at http:// the abusive use of this exemption.’’ As proposed in 7 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). www.bostonoptions.com. SR–BX–2009–58, the proposed re-inclusion of this 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 6 The Exchange is a participant in the Options fee will have no effect on the billing of orders of 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. Order Protection and Locked/Crossed Market Plan non-BOX Options Participants.
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES 61398 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices
2. Statutory Basis IV. Solicitation of Comments For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated The Exchange believes that the Interested persons are invited to authority.14 proposal is consistent with the submit written data, views and Florence E. Harmon, requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act,9 arguments concerning the foregoing, Deputy Secretary. in general, and Section 6(b)(5) of the including whether the proposed rule [FR Doc. E9–28099 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] 10 Act, in particular, in that it is designed change is consistent with the Act. BILLING CODE 8011–01–P to foster cooperation and coordination Comments may be submitted by any of with persons engaged in regulating, the following methods: clearing, settling, processing SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE information with respect to, and Electronic Comments COMMISSION facilitating transactions in securities, to • Use the Commission’s Internet [Release No. 34–61005; File No. SR–ISE– remove impediments to and perfect the comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ 2009–90] mechanism for a free and open market rules/sro.shtml); or and a national market system and, in Self-Regulatory Organizations; • general, to protect investors and the Send an e-mail to rule- International Securities Exchange, public interest, as well Section 6(b)(4) of [email protected]. Please include File LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule the Act,11 in particular, in that it Number SR–BX–2009–072 on the Change by International Securities provides for the equitable allocation of subject line. Exchange, LLC Relating to Changes to the U.S. Exchange Holdings, Inc. reasonable dues, fees, and other charges Paper Comments among its members and issuers and Corporate Documents and other persons using its facilities. The • Send paper comments in triplicate International Securities Exchange proposed changes will result in to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Trust Agreement in Connection With clarification of the fees charged for Securities and Exchange Commission, the Form 1 Applications of EDGA trading activity on BOX. 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC Exchange, Inc. and EDGX Exchange, Inc. B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 20549–1090. Statement on Burden on Competition All submissions should refer to File November 16, 2009. Number SR–BX–2009–072. This file Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the The Exchange does not believe that Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the number should be included on the the proposed rule change will impose ‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2 subject line if e-mail is used. To help the any burden on competition not notice is hereby given that on November necessary or appropriate in furtherance Commission process and review your 9, 2009, the International Securities of the purposes of the Act. comments more efficiently, please use Exchange, LLC (‘‘ISE’’ or ‘‘Exchange’’), only one method. The Commission will filed with the Securities and Exchange C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s post all comments on the Commission’s Commission ‘‘Commission’’) the Statement on Comments on the Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/ proposed rule change as described in Proposed Rule Change Received From rules/sro/shtml). Copies of the Items I, II, and III below, which Items Members, Participants, or Others submission, all subsequent have been prepared by the Exchange. amendments, all written statements The Exchange has neither solicited The Commission is publishing this with respect to the proposed rule nor received comments on the proposed notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested rule change. change that are filed with the Commission, and all written persons. III. Date of Effectiveness of the communications relating to the I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Proposed Rule Change and Timing for proposed rule change between the Statement of the Terms of Substance of Commission Action Commission and any person, other than the Proposed Rule Change those that may be withheld from the The foregoing rule change has become In connection with a transaction 3 public in accordance with the effective pursuant to Section which closed on December 23, 2008, the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Exchange Act12 and International Securities Exchange, LLC available for inspection and copying in Rule 19b–4(f)(2) thereunder,13 because (‘‘Exchange’’ or ‘‘ISE’’) merged the ISE it establishes or changes a due, fee, or the Commission’s Public Reference Stock Exchange, LLC, a Delaware other charge applicable only to a Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, limited liability company, with and into member. DC 20549, on official business days Maple Merger Sub, LLC, a Delaware between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. limited liability company and a wholly- At any time within 60 days of the Copies of such filing will also be owned subsidiary of Direct Edge filing of the proposed rule change, the available for inspection and copying at Holdings LLC (‘‘Direct Edge’’). As part Commission may summarily abrogate the principal office of the Exchange. All of the same transaction, the parent the rule change if it appears to the comments received will be posted company of the Exchange, International Commission that the action is necessary without change; the Commission does Securities Exchange Holdings, Inc. (‘‘ISE or appropriate in the public interest, for not edit personal identifying Holdings’’), purchased a 31.54% equity the protection of investors, or would interest in Direct Edge. ISE Holdings is otherwise further the purposes of the information from submissions. You a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of Act. should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File No. 14 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 10 SR–BX–2009–072 and should be 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 11 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). submitted on or before December 15, 3 See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 12 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 2009. 59135 (December 22, 2008); 73 FR 79954 (December 13 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(2). 30, 2008) (SR–ISE–2008–85).
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices 61399
U.S. Exchange Holdings, Inc., a II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s the compliance with laws section, the Delaware corporation (‘‘U.S. Exchange Statement of the Purpose of, and jurisdiction section, and the Holdings’’), which in turn is a wholly- Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule amendments section. owned subsidiary of Eurex Frankfurt. Change ISE Trust Agreement Eurex Frankfurt is a wholly-owned In its filing with the Commission, the The Exchange proposes to amend subsidiary of Eurex Zu¨ rich AG (‘‘Eurex self-regulatory organization included certain provisions of the ISE Trust Zu¨ rich’’), which in turn is jointly owned statements concerning the purpose of, Agreement in connection with the by Deutsche Bo¨rse AG (‘‘Deutsche and basis for, the proposed rule change contemplated ownership and operation Bo¨rse’’) and SIX Swiss Exchange and discussed any comments it received of the DE Exchanges. The ISE Trust (‘‘SIX’’). SIX is owned by SIX Group on the proposed rule change. The text serves four general purposes: (i) To (Eurex Frankfurt, Eurex Zu¨ rich, of those statements may be examined at accept, hold and dispose of Trust Deutsche Bo¨rse, SIX, SIX Group, and the places specified in Item IV below. Shares 5 on the terms and subject to the U.S. Exchange Holdings, Inc. are The Exchange has prepared summaries, collectively referred to herein as the set forth in sections A, B, and C below, conditions set forth therein, (ii) ‘‘Upstream Owners’’). of the most significant parts of such determine whether a Material Compliance Event 6 has occurred or is On May 7, 2009, Direct Edge’s direct statements. continuing; (iii) determine whether the subsidiaries, EDGA Exchange, Inc. A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s occurrence and continuation of a (‘‘EDGA’’) and EDGX Exchange, Inc. Statement of the Purpose of, and Material Compliance Event requires the (‘‘EDGX,’’ and together with EDGA, the Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule exercise of the Call Option; 7 and (iv) ‘‘DE Exchanges’’), each filed a Form 1 Change transfer Deposited Shares from the Trust Application 4 (the ‘‘Form 1 to the Trust Beneficiary 8 as provided in Applications’’) with the Securities and 1. Purpose Section 4.2(h) therein. Accordingly, the Exchange Commission (the In this filing, the Exchange is Exchange proposes to broaden certain ‘‘Commission’’), to own and operate a submitting to the Commission: (i) references that are currently limited to registered national securities exchanges. Amendments to the Certificate of ISE (the sole registered national Each of the Upstream Owners will take Incorporation and Bylaws of U.S. securities exchange controlled by ISE appropriate steps to incorporate Exchange Holdings (the ‘‘Corporate Holdings) to also reflect ISE Holdings’ provisions regarding ownership, Documents’’); and (ii) amendments to indirect ownership of the EDGA and jurisdiction, books and records, and the Trust Agreement dated as of EDGX. Thus, the Exchange proposes to other issues related to their control of December 19, 2007, among ISE replace certain references to ISE with EDGA and EDGX. Specifically, each of Holdings, U.S. Exchange Holdings, each ‘‘Controlled National Securities the non-U.S. Upstream Owners (i.e., Wilmington Trust Company, as Exchange.’’ These references appear in Deutsche Bo¨rse, Eurex Frankfurt, Eurex Delaware trustee, and Sharon Brown- Article II through Article VIII, inclusive. Zu¨ rich, SIX, and SIX Group,) will adopt Hruska, Robert Schwartz and Heinz resolutions to incorporate those Zimmermann, as trustees (the ‘‘ISE 2. Statutory Basis concepts with respect to itself, as well Trust Agreement’’). The Exchange believes that the as its board members, officers, proposed rule change is consistent with employees, and agents (as applicable). U.S. Exchange Holdings’ Corporate Documents the provisions of Section 6 of the The U.S. Upstream Owner, U.S. Exchange Act,9 in general, and with Exchange Holdings, will include The Exchange proposes to amend Sections 6(b)(1) and (b)(5),10 in appropriate provisions in its governing certain provisions of the Corporate particular, in that the proposal enables documents to incorporate those Documents of U.S. Exchange Holdings concepts with respect to itself, as well in connection with the contemplated 5 Under the ISE Trust Agreement, the term ‘‘Trust as its directors, officers, employees, and ownership and operation of the DE Shares’’ means either Excess Shares or Deposited agents (as applicable). Exchanges. As a result of ISE Holdings Shares, or both, as the case may be. owning a 31.54 percent equity interest Under the ISE Trust Agreement, the term ‘‘Excess In this filing, the Exchange is Shares’’ means that a Person obtained an ownership submitting to the Commission: (i) in Direct Edge and possessing certain or voting interest in ISE Holdings in excess of Amendments to the Certificate of contractual rights and obligations with certain ownership and voting restrictions pursuant Incorporation and Bylaws of U.S. respect to Direct Edge, ISE Holdings’ to Article Four of the Certificate of Incorporation of parent company, U.S. Exchange ISE Holdings, through ownership of one of the Exchange Holdings (the ‘‘Corporate Upstream Owners, without obtaining the approval Documents’’); and (ii) amendments to Holdings, will control, indirectly, EDGA of the Commission. the Trust Agreement dated as of and EDGX. Accordingly, the Exchange Under the ISE Trust Agreement, the term December 19, 2007, among ISE proposes to broaden certain references ‘‘Deposited Shares’’ means shares that are Holdings, U.S. Exchange Holdings, that are currently limited to ISE (the transferred to the Trust pursuant to the Trust’s sole registered national securities exercise of the Call Option. Wilmington Trust Company, as 6 Under the ISE Trust Agreement, the term Delaware trustee, and Sharon Brown- exchange indirectly controlled by U.S. ‘‘Material Compliance Event’’ means, with respect Hruska, Robert Schwartz and Heinz Exchange Holdings) to also reflect ISE to a non-U.S. Upstream Owner, as any state of facts, Zimmermann, as trustees (the ‘‘ISE Holdings’ indirect ownership of EDGA development, event, circumstance, condition, and EDGX. Thus, the Exchange occurrence or effect that results in the failure of any Trust Agreement’’). The text of the of the non-U.S. Upstream Owners to adhere to their proposed rule change is available on the proposes to replace certain references to respective commitments under the resolutions in Exchange’s Web site http:// ISE with each ‘‘Controlled National any material respect. www.ise.com, at the principal office of Securities Exchange.’’ These references 7 Under the ISE Trust Agreement, the term ‘‘Call the Exchange, and at the Commission’s appear in the ownership and voting Option’’ means the option granted by the Trust limitations sections of the Corporate Beneficiary to the Trust to call the Voting Shares Public Reference Room. as set forth in Section 4.2 therein. Documents, as well as other 8 Under the ISE Trust Agreement, the term ‘‘Trust 4 See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. miscellaneous sections, including, but Beneficiary’’ means U.S. Exchange Holdings, Inc. 60651 (September 11, 2009); 74 FR 179 (September not limited to, the confidentiality 9 See 15 U.S.C. 78f. 17, 2009) (File No. 10–193 and 10–194). section, the books and records section, 10 See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(3), (5) [sic].
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES 61400 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices
the Exchange to be so organized as to Electronic Comments SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE have the capacity to be able to carry out • COMMISSION the purposes of the Exchange Act and to Use the Commission’s Internet comply with and enforce compliance by comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ rules/sro.shtml); or [Release No. 34–61010; File No. SR–ISE– members and persons associated with 2009–87] members with provisions of the • Send an e-mail to rule- Exchange Act, the rules and regulations [email protected]. Please include File Self-Regulatory Organizations; thereunder, and SRO rules, and is No. SR–ISE–2009–90 on the subject International Securities Exchange, designed to prevent fraudulent and line. LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule manipulative acts and practices, to Change Relating to Foreign Currency Paper Comments promote just and equitable principles of Options trade, to remove impediments to and • Send paper comments in triplicate perfect the mechanism for a free and November 16, 2009. open market and a national market to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the system, and, in general, to protect Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the investors and the public interest. 1 2 Moreover, the proposed rule change will Washington, DC 20549–1090. ‘‘Act’’) and Rule 19b–4 thereunder, notice is hereby given that on October ensure that U.S. Exchange Holdings, the All submissions should refer to File direct parent company of ISE Holdings 27, 2009, the International Securities Number SR–ISE–2009–90. This file Exchange, LLC (‘‘ISE’’ or ‘‘Exchange’’), and indirect affiliate of the DE number should be included on the Exchanges, will not act in a way that is filed with the Securities and Exchange subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission (‘‘Commission’’) the inconsistent with the DE Exchanges’ Commission process and review your obligations under the Exchange Act. proposed rule change as described in comments more efficiently, please use Items I, II, and III below, which Items B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s only one method. The Commission will have been prepared by the Exchange. Statement on Burden on Competition post all comments on the Commission’s The Commission is publishing this The Exchange does not believe that Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/ notice to solicit comments on the the proposed rule change will impose rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the proposed rule change from interested any burden on competition that is not submission, all subsequent persons. necessary or appropriate in furtherance amendments, all written statements of the purposes of the Act. with respect to the proposed rule I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s change that are filed with the Statement of the Terms of Substance of C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Commission, and all written the Proposed Rule Change Statement on Comments on the communications relating to the Proposed Rule Change Received From proposed rule change between the The Exchange proposes to amend its Members, Participants or Others Commission and any person, other than rules regarding Foreign Currency 3 The Exchange has not solicited, and those that may be withheld from the Options (‘‘FX Options’’). The text of the does not intend to solicit, comments on public in accordance with the proposed rule change is available on the this proposed rule change. The provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be Exchange’s Web site http:// Exchange has not received any available for inspection and copying in www.ise.com, at the principal office of unsolicited written comments from the Commission’s Public Reference the Exchange, and at the Commission’s members or other interested parties. Room, on official business days between Public Reference Room. III. Date of Effectiveness of the the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Proposed Rule Change and Timing for of such filing also will be available for Statement of the Purpose of, and Commission Action inspection and copying at the principal Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Within 35 days of the date of office of the Exchange. All comments Change publication of this notice in the Federal received will be posted without change; Register or within such longer period (i) the Commission does not edit personal In its filing with the Commission, the as the Commission may designate up to identifying information from self-regulatory organization included 90 days of such date if it finds such submissions. You should submit only statements concerning the purpose of, longer period to be appropriate and information that you wish to make and basis for, the proposed rule change publishes its reasons for so finding or available publicly. All submissions and discussed any comments it received (ii) as to which the Exchange consents, should refer to File Number SR–ISE– on the proposed rule change. The text the Commission will: 2009–90 and should be submitted on or of those statements may be examined at (A) By order approve the proposed before December 15, 2009. the places specified in Item IV below. rule change, or The Exchange has prepared summaries, (B) Institute proceedings to determine For the Commission, by the Division of set forth in sections A, B, and C below, Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated whether the proposed rule change of the most significant parts of such authority.11 should be disapproved. statements. Florence E. Harmon, IV. Solicitation of Comments Deputy Secretary. Interested persons are invited to [FR Doc. E9–28196 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] submit written data, views, and BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). arguments concerning the foregoing, 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. including whether the proposed rule 3 ISE began trading FX options on April 17, 2007. change is consistent with the Act. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55575 Comments may be submitted by any of (April 3, 2007), 72 FR 17963 (April 10, 2007) (SR– the following methods: 11 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). ISE–2006–59) (the ‘‘FX Options Filing’’).
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices 61401
A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s accommodates retail spot foreign unsolicited written comments from Statement of the Purpose of, and currency traders. members or other interested parties. Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule The Exchange also believes that a III. Date of Effectiveness of the Change $0.01 strike price would enable certain Proposed Rule Change and Timing for 1. Purpose trading strategies that were previously Commission Action unavailable to investors. Specifically, ISE proposes to amend its rules investors would be able to engage in Within 35 days of the date of regarding FX Options. Specifically, the strategies that offer similar exposure to publication of this notice in the Federal Exchange proposes to amend ISE Rule a tied-to-spot trade, such as a buy-write Register or within such longer period (i) 2205 by adding a provision that permits trade. The proposed new strike would as the Commission may designate up to the Exchange to list a single strike price also appeal to securities brokers that do 90 days of such date if it finds such of one cent ($0.01) for each expiration not currently offer spot foreign currency longer period to be appropriate and month for FX Options opened for trading. Many online securities brokers publishes its reasons for so finding or trading on the Exchange.4 The proposed have not offered spot foreign currency (ii) as to which the Exchange consents, one cent strike would be in addition to trading to their customers because it is the Commission will: the strike prices listed by the Exchange not a listed and centrally-cleared (A) By order approve the proposed pursuant to ISE Rule 2205. product. ISE’s proposed rule change rule change, or (B) Institute proceedings to determine Currently, pursuant to ISE Rule 2205, offers such brokers an opportunity to whether the proposed rule change after a class of options contracts on any expand their offering beyond equities should be disapproved. underlying currency pair has been and retain customer assets that may approved for listing and trading, the otherwise go to spot foreign currency IV. Solicitation of Comments Exchange may open for trading series of trading venues that operate outside of Interested persons are invited to FX Options that expire in consecutive U.S. regulatory jurisdiction. monthly intervals (ISE Rule submit written data, views, and 2205(a)(1)(A)), in three or ‘‘cycle’’ 2. Statutory Basis arguments concerning the foregoing, month intervals (ISE Rule 2205(a)(1)(B)), including whether the proposed rule The Exchange believes the proposed change is consistent with the Act. or that have up to 36 months to rule change is consistent with the expiration (ISE Rule 2205(a)(1)(C)). For Comments may be submitted by any of Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the the following methods: example, pursuant to ISE Rule ‘‘Act’’) and the rules and regulations 2205(a)(1)(A), with respect to each class under the Act applicable to a national Electronic Comments of FX Options, the Exchange may open securities exchange and, in particular, • Use the Commission’s Internet for trading series of options having up the requirements of Section 6(b) of the comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ to four consecutive expiration months, Act.5 Specifically, the Exchange rules/sro.shtml); or with the shortest term series having no believes the proposed rule change is • Send an e-mail to rule- more than two months to expiration. consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the [email protected]. Please include File The Exchange may also open additional Act’s 6 requirements that the rules of a No. SR–ISE–2009–87 on the subject consecutive month series of the same national securities exchange be line. class for trading at or about the time a designed to promote just and equitable prior consecutive month series expires, principles of trade, to prevent Paper Comments and the expiration month of each such fraudulent and manipulative acts and, • Send paper comments in triplicate new series shall normally be the month in general, to protect investors and the to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, immediately succeeding the expiration public interest. In particular, the Securities and Exchange Commission, month of the then outstanding proposed rule change will allow the Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., consecutive month series of the same Exchange to list a single one cent strike Washington, DC 20549–1090. class of options having the longest for each expiration month of FX Options All submissions should refer to File remaining time to expiration. Under this opened for trading and thereby provide Number SR–ISE–2009–87. This file proposed rule change, for each such investors with the ability to engage in number should be included on the month opened for trading, the Exchange previously unavailable spot foreign subject line if e-mail is used. To help the would list an additional strike price of currency trading strategies. Commission process and review your one cent. comments more efficiently, please use The Exchange notes that adding a one B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s only one method. The Commission will cent strike for FX Options will result in Statement on Burden on Competition post all comments on the Commission’s a single deep in the money call option The proposed rule change does not Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/ to provide investors with exposure impose any burden on competition that rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the similar to that of spot. The Exchange is not necessary or appropriate in submission, all subsequent believes creating such exposure furtherance of the purposes of the Act. amendments, all written statements provides an opportunity to attract a with respect to the proposed rule broader range of market participants by C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s change that are filed with the offering a product that, in particular, Statement on Comments on the Commission, and all written Proposed Rule Change Received From communications relating to the 4 The Commission notes that the proposed text for Members, Participants or Others ISE Rule 2205 is as follows: proposed rule change between the Rule 2205. Series of Foreign Currency Options The Exchange has not solicited, and Commission and any person, other than Open for Trading does not intend to solicit, comments on those that may be withheld from the (a)–(b) No Change. this proposed rule change. The public in accordance with the (c) For each expiration month opened for trading, Exchange has not received any provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be in addition to the strike prices listed by the Exchange pursuant to this Rule 2205, the Exchange available for inspection and copying in shall also list a single strike price of one cent 5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). the Commission’s Public Reference ($0.01). 6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). Room, on official business days between
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES 61402 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices
the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies qualification examinations as of January Examination), and Series 53 (Municipal of such filing also will be available for 4, 2010. Any person associated with a Securities Principal Qualification inspection and copying at the principal broker, dealer or municipal securities Examination) are developed, office of the Exchange. All comments dealer (‘‘dealer’’) engaged in municipal maintained, and owned by the MSRB. received will be posted without change; securities activities who is a municipal These examinations are intended to the Commission does not edit personal securities representative, municipal safeguard the investing public by identifying information from securities principal, or municipal fund helping to ensure that certain persons submissions. You should submit only securities limited principal must take associated with dealers meet minimum information that you wish to make and pass a qualification examination to qualifications to perform their job. available publicly. All submissions demonstrate competence in each area in Given this purpose, the examinations should refer to File Number SR–ISE– which he or she intends to work. The seek to measure accurately and reliably 2009–87 and should be submitted on or Series 51 (Municipal Fund Securities the degree to which each candidate before December 15, 2009. Limited Principal Qualification possesses the knowledge, skills and For the Commission, by the Division of Examination), Series 52 (Municipal abilities necessary to perform his or her 1 Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated Securities Representative Qualification job. The Series 51 examination is 1 ⁄2 authority.7 Examination), and Series 53 (Municipal hours and consists of 60 multiple-choice Florence E. Harmon, Securities Principal Qualification questions, and the Series 52 and 53 Deputy Secretary. Examination) are developed, examinations are 3 hours each and consist of 100 multiple-choice questions [FR Doc. E9–28096 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] maintained, and owned by the MSRB. per examination. BILLING CODE 8011–01–P The new rule will assess a $60 examination development fee on each Currently, the fee assessed by the individual taking the Series 51, 52, or 53 Financial Industry Regulatory Authority SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE examinations. The text of the proposed (‘‘FINRA’’), which administers the COMMISSION rule change is available on the MSRB’s examination on behalf of the MSRB, is Web site at www.msrb.org/msrb1/ $85 for the Series 51 examination, $95 [Release No. 34–61023; File No. SR–MSRB– sec.asp, at the MSRB’s principal office, for the Series 52 examination, and $95 2009–16] and at the Commission’s Public for the Series 53 examination. At Reference Room. present, FINRA receives the entire Self-Regulatory Organizations; amount of the fee for each of the Municipal Securities Rulemaking II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s examinations, which is intended to Board; Notice of Filing and Immediate Statement of the Purpose of, and cover the cost to FINRA to schedule, Effectiveness of New Rule A–16, on Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule administer the examinations, maintain Examination Fees Change records, and undertake systems changes. November 18, 2009. In its filing with the Commission, the Pursuant to the proposed rule change, Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the MSRB included statements concerning the MSRB will assess a development fee Securities Exchange Act of 1934 the purpose of and basis for the of $60 per examination, which will be (‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2 proposed rule change and discussed any collected by FINRA along with FINRA’s notice is hereby given that on November comments it received on the proposed administrative fee. With the addition of 5, 2009, the Municipal Securities rule change. The text of these statements the MSRB development fee, the total fee Rulemaking Board (‘‘MSRB’’ or may be examined at the places specified will be $145 for the Series 51 ‘‘Board’’), filed with the Securities and in Item IV below. The MSRB has examination, $155 for the Series 52 Exchange Commission (‘‘Commission’’) prepared summaries, set forth in examination, and $155 for the Series 53 the proposed rule change as described Sections A, B, and C below, of the most examination. On a periodic basis, in Items I, II and III below, which Items significant aspects of such statements. FINRA will remit the fees it collects on have been prepared by the MSRB. The behalf of the MSRB for development of A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s MSRB has designated the proposed rule the examinations to the MSRB and will Statement of the Purpose of, and change as charging a fee applicable to retain the administrative fees it collects Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule brokers, dealers and municipal for the delivery of the examinations. Change securities dealers pursuant to Section The proposed MSRB development fee 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,3 and Rule 1. Purpose is intended to partially cover costs 4 incurred to develop and implement the 19b–4(f)(2) thereunder, which renders The proposed rule change establishes the proposal effective upon filing with examinations, costs associated with examination fees that shall be assessed monitoring the examinations for the Commission. The Commission is on persons taking certain qualification publishing this notice to solicit effectiveness, and costs associated with examinations as of January 4, 2010. Any updating the examinations’ content and comments on the proposed rule change person associated with a broker, dealer from interested persons. questions. The development fees will be or municipal securities dealer (‘‘dealer’’) effective as of January 4, 2010. I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s engaged in municipal securities Statement of the Terms of Substance of activities who is a municipal securities 2. Statutory Basis the Proposed Rule Change representative, municipal securities The MSRB believes that the proposed principal, or municipal fund securities The MSRB is filing new Rule A–16, rule change is consistent with the limited principal must take and pass a which provides for examination fee requirements of Section 15B(b)(2)(J) of qualification examination to 5 assessments on persons taking certain the Act, which requires, in pertinent demonstrate competence in each area in part, that the MSRB’s rules shall: 7 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). which he or she intends to work. The Provide that each municipal securities 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). Series 51 (Municipal Fund Securities broker and each municipal securities dealer 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. Limited Principal Qualification shall pay to the Board such reasonable fees 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). Examination), Series 52 (Municipal 4 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(2). Securities Representative Qualification 5 15 U.S.C. 78o–4(b)(2)(J).
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices 61403
and charges as may be necessary or Number SR–MSRB–2009–16 on the DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION appropriate to defray the costs and expenses subject line. of operating and administering the Board. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Such rules shall specify the amount of such Paper Comments Safety Administration fees and charges. • The proposed rule change provides Send paper comments in triplicate [Docket No. PHMSA–2009–0375] for reasonable fees to partially offset to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Pipeline Safety: Information Collection costs associated with the development Securities and Exchange Commission, Activities of the Series 51, 52, and 53 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC examinations. 20549–1090. AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s All submissions should refer to File Materials Safety Administration Statement on Burden on Competition Number SR–MSRB–2009–16. This file (PHMSA), DOT. ACTION: Notice and request for The Board does not believe that the number should be included on the comments. proposed rule change will impose any subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your burden on competition not necessary or SUMMARY: comments more efficiently, please use In accordance with the appropriate in furtherance of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, only one method. The Commission will purposes of the Act since it would apply PHMSA invites comments on an post all comments on the Commission’s equally to all individuals who take the information collection under Office of Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/ Series 51, 52, and 53 examinations. Management and Budget (OMB) Control rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the No. 2137–0604, titled ‘‘Pipeline C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s submission, all subsequent Statement on Comments on the Integrity Management in High amendments, all written statements Proposed Rule Change Received From Consequence Areas Operators with with respect to the proposed rule Members, Participants or Others more than 500 Miles of Hazardous change that are filed with the Liquid Pipeline.’’ PHMSA will request Written comments were neither Commission, and all written approval from OMB for a renewal of the solicited nor received. communications relating to the current information collection. III. Date of Effectiveness of the proposed rule change between the DATES: Interested persons are invited to Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission and any person, other than submit comments on or before January Commission Action those that may be withheld from the 25, 2010. public in accordance with the The proposed rule change has become ADDRESSES: Comments may be effective pursuant to Section provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be submitted in the following ways: 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 6 and Rule 19b– available for inspection and copying in E-Gov Web Site: http:// 4(f)(2) thereunder,7 in that new Rule A– the Commission’s Public Reference www.regulations.gov. This site allows 16 charges fees applicable to brokers, Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, the public to enter comments on any dealers and municipal securities DC 20549, on official business days Federal Register notice issued by any dealers. The proposed rule change between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. agency. applies to individuals taking the Series Copies of such filing also will be Fax: 1–202–493–2251. 51, 52, or 53 examinations on or after available for inspection and copying at Mail: Docket Management Facility; January 4, 2010. At any time within 60 the principal office of the MSRB. All U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 days of the filing of the proposed rule comments received will be posted New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, change, the Commission may summarily without change; the Commission does Room W12–140, Washington, DC abrogate such rule change if it appears not edit personal identifying 20590–001. to the Commission that such action is information from submissions. You Hand Delivery: Room W12–140 on the necessary or appropriate in the public should submit only information that ground level of the West Building, 1200 interest, for the protection of investors, you wish to make available publicly. All New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, or otherwise in furtherance of the submissions should refer to File DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 8 purposes of the Act. Number SR–MSRB–2009–16 and should through Friday, except on Federal IV. Solicitation of Comments be submitted on or before December 15, Holidays. 2009. Instructions: Identify the docket Interested persons are invited to number, PHMSA–2009–0375 at the submit written data, views, and For the Commission, by the Division of beginning of your comments. Note that arguments concerning the foregoing, Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated all comments received will be posted including whether the proposed rule authority.9 without change to http:// change is consistent with the Act. Florence E. Harmon, www.regulations.gov, including any Comments may be submitted by any of Deputy Secretary. personal information provided. You the following methods: [FR Doc. E9–28120 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] should know that anyone is able to Electronic Comments BILLING CODE 8011–01–P search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our • Use the Commission’s Internet dockets by the name of the individual comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ submitting the comment (or signing the rules/sro.shtml); or comment, if submitted on behalf of an • Send an e-mail to rule- association, business, labor union, etc.). [email protected]. Please include File Therefore, you may want to review 6 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). DOT’s complete Privacy Act Statement 7 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(2). in the Federal Register published on 8 See Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477) or view 78s(b)(3)(C). 9 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). the Privacy Notice at http://
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES 61404 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices
www.regulations.gov before submitting Abstract: Hazardous liquid operators ADDRESSES: You may submit comments any such comments. with pipelines in high consequence (identified by the Docket ID Number Docket: For access to the docket or to areas (i.e., commercially navigable above) by any of the following methods: read background documents or waterways, high population areas, other • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to comments, go to http:// populated areas, and unusually http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the www.regulations.gov at any time or to sensitive areas as defined in 49 CFR online instructions for submitting Room W12–140 on the ground level of 195.450) are subject to certain comments. the West Building, 1200 New Jersey information collection requirements • Mail: Docket Management Facility: Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between relative to the Integrity Management U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Program provisions of 49 CFR 195.452. New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Friday, except on Federal holidays. This information collection (2137–0604) Ground Floor, Room W12–140, If you wish to receive confirmation of covers each operator that has more than Washington, DC 20590–0001 receipt of your written comments, 500 miles of hazardous liquid pipelines. • Hand Delivery or Courier: West please include a self-addressed, Affected Public: Operators of Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, stamped postcard with the following hazardous liquid pipelines located in 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between statement: ‘‘Comments on PHMSA– high consequence areas that operate 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through 2009–0375’’. The Docket Clerk will more than 500 miles of pipeline. Friday, except Federal holidays. date-stamp the postcard prior to Estimated number of responses: 71. • Fax: 202–493–2251 returning it to you via the U.S. mail. Estimated annual burden hours: Instructions: It is requested, but not Please note that due to delays in the 57,510 hours. required, that 2 copies of the comment delivery of U.S. mail to Federal offices Frequency of collection: Annually. be provided. Note that all comments in Washington, DC, we recommend that Issued in Washington, DC on November 17, received will be posted without change persons consider an alternative method to http://www.regulations.gov, including (Internet, fax, or professional delivery 2009. Jeffrey D. Wiese, any personal information provided. service) of submitting comments to the Please see the Privacy Act heading Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety. docket and ensuring their timely receipt below. at DOT. [FR Doc. E9–28203 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: BILLING CODE 4910–60–P the electronic form of all comments Cameron Satterthwaite by telephone at received into any of our dockets by the 202–366–1319, by fax at 202–366–4566, name of the individual submitting the DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION or by mail at U.S. Department of comment (or signing the comment, if Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous National Highway Traffic Safety submitted on behalf of an association, Materials Safety Administration, 1200 Administration business, labor union, etc.). You may New Jersey Avenue, SE., PHP–30, review DOT’s complete Privacy Act Washington, DC 20590–0001. [U.S. DOT Docket Number NHTSA–2009– Statement in the Federal Register SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 0180] published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 1320.8(d), Title 5, Code of Federal 19477–78). Regulations requires PHMSA to provide Reports, Forms, and Recordkeeping Docket: For access to the docket to interested members of the public and Requirements read background documents or affected agencies an opportunity to AGENCY: National Highway Traffic comments received, go to http:// comment on information collection and Safety Administration (NHTSA), www.regulations.gov or the street recordkeeping requests. This notice Department of Transportation. address listed above. Follow the online identifies an information collection instructions for accessing the dockets. ACTION: request that PHMSA will be submitting Request for public comment on proposed collection of information. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: to OMB for renewal and extension. This Complete copies of each request for information collection is contained in SUMMARY: This notice solicits public collection of information may be the pipeline safety regulations at 49 CFR comments on continuation of the obtained at no charge from Ms. Lori Parts 190–199. The following requirements for the collection of Summers, National Highway Traffic information is provided for each information on safety standards. Before Safety Administration, U.S. Department information collection: (1) Title of the a Federal agency can collect certain of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey information collection; (2) OMB control information from the public, it must Avenue, SE., West Building, number; (3) Type of request; (4) Abstract receive approval from the Office of Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Summers’ of the information collection activity; (5) Management and Budget (OMB). Under telephone number is (202) 366–1740. Description of affected public; (6) procedures established by the Please identify the relevant collection of Estimate of total annual reporting and Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, information by referring to this Docket recordkeeping burden; and (7) before seeking OMB approval, Federal Number. Frequency of collection. PHMSA will agencies must solicit public comment SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the request a three-year term of approval for on proposed collections of information, each information collection activity. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, including extensions and reinstatement PHMSA requests comments on the before a proposed collection of of previously approved collections. following information collection: information is submitted to OMB for Title: Pipeline Integrity Management This document describes a collection approval, Federal agencies must first in High Consequence Areas Operators of information on the advanced air bag publish a document in the Federal with more than 500 Miles of Hazardous phase-in requirements of the Federal Register providing a 60-day comment Liquid Pipeline. motor vehicle safety standard on period and otherwise consult with OMB Control Number: 2137–0604. occupant protection for which NHTSA members of the public and affected Type of Request: Renewal of a intends to seek OMB approval. agencies concerning each proposed currently approved information DATES: Comments must be received on collection of information. The OMB has collection. or before January 25, 2010. promulgated regulations describing
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices 61405
what must be included in such a advanced air bag phase-in began DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION document. Under OMB’s regulation (at September 1, 2003 with 100 percent 5 CFR 1320.8(d)), an agency must ask compliance by September 1, 2005. NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC for public comment on the following: Phase 2 of the advanced air bag phase- SAFETY ADMINISTRATION (i) Whether the proposed collection of in began September 1, 2007 with 100 [U.S. DOT Docket Number NHTSA–2009– information is necessary for the proper percent compliance by September 1, 0179] performance of the functions of the 2009. Phase 3 of the advanced air bag agency, including whether the phase-in began September 1, 2009 with Reports, Forms, and Recordkeeping information will have practical utility; 100 percent compliance by September 1, Requirements (ii) The accuracy of the agency’s 2011. estimate of the burden of the proposed AGENCY: National Highway Traffic collection of information, including the Description of the need for the Safety Administration (NHTSA), validity of the methodology and information and proposed use of the Department of Transportation. assumptions used; information: NHTSA needs this ACTION: Request for public comment on (iii) How to enhance the quality, information to ensure that vehicle proposed collection of information. utility, and clarity of the information to manufacturers are certifying their be collected; and applicable vehicles as meeting the SUMMARY: Before a Federal agency can (iv) How to minimize the burden of advanced air bag requirements of collect certain information from the the collection of information on those FMVSS No. 208. NHTSA will use this public, it must receive approval from who are to respond, including the use information to determine whether a the Office of Management and Budget of appropriate automated, electronic, manufacturer has complied with the (OMB). Under procedures established mechanical, or other technological amended requirements during the by the Paperwork Reduction Act of collection techniques or other forms of phase-in period. 1995, before seeking OMB approval, information technology, e.g., permitting Federal agencies must solicit public Description of the Likely Respondents comment on proposed collections of electronic submission of responses. (Including Estimated Number and In compliance with these information, including extensions and Proposed Frequency of Response to the requirements, NHTSA asks for public reinstatement of previously approved Collection of Information): NHTSA comments on the following proposed collections. estimates that 22 vehicle manufacturers collections of information: This document describes one Title: Part 585—Advanced Air Bag will submit the required information. collection of information for which Phase-In Reporting Requirements. For each report, the manufacturer will NHTSA intends to seek OMB approval. OMB Control Number: 2127–0599. provide, in addition to its identity, DATES: Comments must be received on Form Number: This collection of several numerical items of information. or before January 25, 2010. information uses no standard form. The information includes, but is not ADDRESSES: You may submit comments Requested Expiration Date of limited to, the following items: [identified by DOT Docket No. NHTSA– Approval: Three years from the (a) Total number of vehicles 2009–0179] by any of the following approval date. manufactured for sale during the methods: Type of Request: Extension of a preceding production year, • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to currently approved collection. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the Summary of the Collection of (b) Total number of vehicles manufactured during the production online instructions for submitting Information: 49 U.S.C. 30111 authorizes comments. year that meet the regulatory the issuance of Federal motor vehicle • Mail: Docket Management Facility: requirements, and safety standards (FMVSS) and U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 regulations. The agency, in prescribing (c) Information identifying the New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building a FMVSS or regulation, considers vehicles (by make, model, and vehicle Ground Floor, Room W12–140, available relevant motor vehicle safety identification number (VIN)) that have Washington, DC 20590–0001. data, and consults with other agencies, been certified as complying with the • Hand Delivery or Courier: West as it deems appropriate. Further, the requirements. Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, statute mandates that in issuing any Estimate of the Total Annual 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between FMVSS or regulation, the agency Reporting and Record Keeping Burden 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through considers whether the standard or Resulting from the Collection of Friday, except Federal holidays. regulation is ‘‘reasonable, practicable Information: NHTSA estimates that it Telephone: 1–800–647–5527. and appropriate for the particular type • will annually take each of the 22 Fax: 202–493–2251. of motor vehicle or item of motor Instructions: All submissions must affected manufacturers an average of 61 vehicle equipment for which it is include the agency name and docket hours to comply with these prescribed,’’ and whether such a number for this proposed collection of requirements. Using a cost estimate of standard will contribute to carrying out information. Note that all comments $35 per hour, this results in a total the purpose of the Act. The Secretary is received will be posted without change annual cost of $46,970 (22 authorized to invoke such rules and to http://www.regulations.gov, including manufacturers x 61 hours per regulations as deemed necessary to any personal information provided. carry out these requirements. Using this manufacturer x $35 per hour). Please see the Privacy Act heading authority, the agency issued FMVSS No. Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3506(c); delegation of below. 208, ‘‘Occupant crash protection,’’ to aid authority at 49 CFR 1.50. Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the agency in achieving many of its Issued on: November 19, 2009. the electronic form of all comments safety goals. This notice requests received into any of our dockets by the comments on the extension of the Stephen R. Kratzke, name of the individual submitting the phase-in reporting requirements of this Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. comment (or signing the comment, if FMVSS related to the implementation of [FR Doc. E9–28201 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] submitted on behalf of an association, advanced air bags. Phase 1 of the BILLING CODE 4910–59–P business, labor union, etc.). You may
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES 61406 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices
review DOT’s complete Privacy Act Abstract: If a private individual or DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Statement in the Federal Register lessee wants to install an air bag on-off published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR switch to turn-off either or both frontal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 19477–78) or you may visit http:// air bags, they must complete Form OMB Safety Administration DocketInfo.dot.gov. 2127–0588 to certify certain statements [Docket No. PHMSA–2009–0203] Docket: For access to the docket to regarding use of the switch. The dealer read background documents or or business must, in turn, submit the Pipeline Safety: Meeting of the comments received, go to http:// completed forms to NHTSA within Technical Pipeline Safety Standards www.regulations.gov or the street seven days. The submission of the Committee and the Technical address listed above. Follow the online completed forms by the dealers and Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety instructions for accessing the dockets. repair business to NHTSA, as required, Standards Committee FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: will serve the agency several purposes. AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Complete copies of each request for They will aid the agency in monitoring collection of information may be Materials Safety Administration the number of authorization requests (PHMSA), DOT. obtained at no charge from Shirlene submitted and the pattern in claims of ACTION: Notice of advisory committee Ball, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, risk group membership. The completed SE., W51–217, NPO 420, Washington, meeting. forms will enable the agency to DC 20590. Mrs. Ball’s telephone number determine whether the dealers and is (202) 366–2245. SUMMARY: This notice announces a Please identify the relevant collection repair businesses are complying with public meeting of the Technical of information by referring to its OMB the terms of the exemption, which Pipeline Safety Standards Committee Control Number. include a requirement that the dealers (TPSSC) and the Technical Hazardous and repair businesses accept only fully Liquid Pipeline Safety Standards SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Committee (THLPSSC). The committees Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, completed forms. Finally, submission of will meet to discuss proposed rules on before an agency submits a proposed the completed forms to the agency will reporting requirements and standards collection of information to OMB for promote honesty and accuracy in the publications and several future approval, it must first publish a filling out of the forms by vehicle regulatory initiatives. document in the Federal Register owners. The air bag on-off switches are providing a 60-day comment period and installed only in vehicles in which the DATES: The committees will meet on otherwise consult with members of the risk of harm needs to be minimized on Wednesday, December 9, 2009, from public and affected agencies concerning a case-by-case basis. 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. EST and on Thursday, December 10, 2009, from 9 a.m. to each proposed collection of information. Estimated Annual Burden: 7,500 5 p.m. EST. Attendees should register in The OMB has promulgated regulations hours. describing what must be included in advance at https:// Estimated Number of Respondents: such a document. Under OMB’s primis.phmsa.dot.gov/meetings/ regulation (at 5 CFR 1320.8(d)), an 15,000. Mtg62.mtg. On-site registration will be agency must ask for public comment on Comments are invited on: whether the available starting at noon on the following: proposed collection of information is Wednesday. The meeting will not be (i) Whether the proposed collection of necessary for the proper performance of web cast; however, presentations will be information is necessary for the proper the functions of the Department, available on the meeting Web site performance of the functions of the including whether the information will within 30 days following the meeting. agency, including whether the have practical utility; the accuracy of ADDRESSES: The meeting will be at The information will have practical utility; the Department’s estimate of the burden Westin Alexandria, 400 Courthouse (ii) The accuracy of the agency’s of the proposed information collection; Square, Alexandria, VA 22314. The estimate of the burden of the proposed ways to enhance the quality, utility and phone number is 1–866–837–4210. collection of information, including the clarity of the information to be PHMSA will post any new information validity of the methodology and collected; and ways to minimize the or changes on the PHMSA/Office of assumptions used; burden of the collection of information Pipeline Safety Web page (http:// PHMSA.dot.gov) about 15 days before (iii) How to enhance the quality, on respondents, including the use of utility, and clarity of the information to the meeting takes place. automated collection techniques or be collected; Comments on the meeting may be other forms of information technology. (iv) How to minimize the burden of submitted to the docket in the following the collection of information on those Issued on November 17, 2009. ways: who are to respond, including the use Kevin Mahoney, E–Gov Web Site: http:// of appropriate automated, electronic, Director, Corporate Customer Services. www.regulations.gov. This site allows mechanical, or other technological [FR Doc. E9–28007 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] the public to enter comments on any collection techniques or other forms of Federal Register notice issued by any information technology, e.g. permitting BILLING CODE 4910–59–P agency. electronic submission of responses. Fax: 1–202–493–2251. In compliance with these Mail: Docket Management Facility; requirements, NHTSA asks for public U.S. Department of Transportation comments on the following proposed (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., collections of information: West Building, Room W12–140, Title: Air Bag Deactivation. Washington, DC 20590–0001. OMB Control Number: 2127–0588. Hand Delivery: Room W12–140 on the Affected Public: Private individuals, ground level of the DOT West Building, fleet owners and lessees, motor vehicle 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., dealers, repair businesses. Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices 61407
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Federal holidays. information about the meeting, contact Instructions: Identify the docket Cheryl Whetsel by phone at 202–366– Submission for OMB Review; number, PHMSA–2009–0203 at the 4431 or by e-mail at Comment Request beginning of your comments. Note that [email protected]. November 17, 2009. all comments received will be posted The Department of Treasury will without change to http:// SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: submit the following public information www.regulations.gov, including any I. Meeting Details collection requirement(s) to OMB for personal information provided. You review and clearance under the should know that anyone is able to Members of the public may attend Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, search the electronic form of all and make a statement during the Public Law 104–13 on or after the date comments received into any of our advisory committee meeting. If you of publication of this notice. Copies of dockets by the name of the individual intend to make a statement, please the submission(s) may be obtained by submitting the comment (or signing the notify PHMSA in advance by calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance comment, if submitted on behalf of an forwarding an e-mail to Officer listed. Comments regarding this association, business, labor union, etc.). [email protected] by information collection should be Therefore, you may want to review November 30, 2009. addressed to the OMB reviewer listed DOT’s complete Privacy Act Statement and to the Treasury PRA Department in the Federal Register published on II. Committee Background Clearance Officer, Department of the April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477) or view Treasury, Room 11010, and 1750 the Privacy Notice at http:// The TPSSC and THLPSSC are Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., www.regulations.gov before submitting statutorily mandated advisory Washington, DC 20220. any such comments. committees that advise PHMSA on DATES: Written comments should be Docket: For access to the docket or to proposed safety standards, risk received on or before December 24, 2009 read background documents or assessments, and safety policies for to be assured of consideration. comments, go to http:// natural gas pipelines and for hazardous www.regulations.gov at any time or to liquid pipelines. Both committees were Internal Revenue Service (IRS) established under the Federal Advisory Room W12–140 on the ground level of OMB Number: 1545–0219. the DOT West Building, 1200 New Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463, 5 U.S.C. Type of Review: Revision. Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, App. 1) and the pipeline safety law (49 Title: Work Opportunity Credit. between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday U.S.C. Chap. 601). Each committee Form: 5884. through Friday, except Federal holidays. consists of 15 members—with Description: ICR Section 38(b)(2) If you wish to receive confirmation of membership evenly divided among the allows a credit against income tax to receipt of your written comments, please Federal and State government, the employers hiring individuals from include a self-addressed, stamped regulated industry, and the public. The certain targeted groups such as welfare postcard with the following statement: committees advise PHMSA on the recipients, etc. The employer uses Form ‘‘Comments on PHMSA–2009–0203.’’ technical feasibility, practicability, and 5884 to figure the credit. IRS uses the The Docket Clerk will date-stamp the cost-effectiveness of each proposed information on the form to verify that postcard prior to returning it to you via pipeline safety standard. the correct amount of credit was the U.S. mail. Please note that due to claimed. delays in the delivery of U.S. mail to III. Agenda Respondents: Businesses or other for- Federal offices in Washington, DC, we profits. The agenda will include committee recommend that persons consider an Estimated Total Burden Hours: 77,653 alternative method (Internet, fax, or discussions on two proposed rules: (1) hours. ‘‘Pipeline Safety: Updates to Pipeline professional delivery service) of OMB Number: 1545–0142. submitting comments to the docket and and Liquefied Natural Gas Reporting’’ Type of Review: Revision. ensuring their timely receipt at DOT. published in the Federal Register on Title: Underpayment of Estimated Tax July 2, 2009 (74 FR 31675); and (2) Privacy Act Statement by Corporations. ‘‘Pipeline Safety: Periodic Updates of Form: 2220. Anyone may search the electronic Regulatory References to Technical Description: Form 2220 is used by form of comments received in response Standards and Miscellaneous Edits’’ corporations to determine whether they to any of our dockets by the name of the published in the Federal Register on are subject to the penalty for individual who submitted the comment July 22, 2009 (74 FR 36139). PHMSA underpayment of estimated tax and, if (or signing the comment, if submitted staff will also brief the committees on so, the amount of the penalty. The IRS on behalf of an association, business, several regulatory and policy initiatives. uses Form 2220 to determine if the penalty was correctly computed. labor union, etc.). DOT’s complete Authority: 49 U.S.C. 60102, 60115; 60118. Privacy Act Statement was published in Respondents: Businesses or other for- the Federal Register on April 11, 2000 Issued in Washington, DC, on November profits. (65 FR 19477). 17, 2009. Estimated Total Burden Hours: Jeffrey D. Wiese, 24,206,448. Information on Services for Individuals With Disabilities Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety. OMB Number: 1545–2145. [FR Doc. E9–28114 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] Type of Review: Extension. For information on facilities or Title: Notice 2009–52, Election of BILLING CODE 4910–60–P services for individuals with Investment Tax Credit in Lieu of disabilities, or to seek special assistance Production Tax Credit; Coordination at the meeting, please contact Cheryl with Department of Treasury Grants for Whetsel at 202–366–4431 by Specified Energy Property in Lieu of November 30, 2009. Tax Credit.
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES 61408 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Notices
Description: This notice provides a Respondents: Businesses or other for- and Budget, Room 10235, New description of the procedures that profits. Executive Office Building, Washington, taxpayers will be required to follow to Estimated Total Burden Hours: 100 DC 20503. make an irrevocable election to take the hours. Dawn D. Wolfgang, investment tax credit for energy Clearance Officer: R. Joseph Durbala, property under section 48 of the Internal (202) 622–3634, Internal Revenue Treasury PRA Clearance Officer. Revenue Code in lieu of the production Service, Room 6516, 1111 Constitution [FR Doc. E9–28103 Filed 11–23–09; 8:45 am] Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224. BILLING CODE 4830–01–P tax credit under section 45 of the OMB Reviewer: Shagufta Ahmed, Internal Revenue Code. (202) 395–7873, Office of Management
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Part II
Department of Energy 10 CFR Part 431 Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Small Electric Motors; Proposed Rule
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 61410 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Any comments submitted must Efficiency and Renewable Energy, identify the NOPR for Energy Building Technologies Program, EE–2J, 10 CFR Part 431 Conservation Standards for Small 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Electric Motors, and provide the docket Washington, DC 20585–0121. [Docket Number EERE–2007–BT–STD– number EERE–2007–BT–STD–0007 Telephone: (202) 586–2945. E-mail: 0007] and/or regulatory information number [email protected]. (RIN) number 1904–AB70. Comments RIN 1904–AB70 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: may be submitted using any of the I. Summary of the Proposed Rule Energy Conservation Program: Energy following methods: • II. Introduction Conservation Standards for Small Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// A. Consumer Overview Electric Motors www.regulations.gov. Follow the B. Authority instructions for submitting comments. C. Background AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and • E-mail: small_electric_motors_std. 1. Current Standards Renewable Energy, Department of [email protected]. Include the 2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Energy. docket number and/or RIN in the Small Electric Motors ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking subject line of the message. III. General Discussion A. Test Procedures and public meeting. • Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building B. Technological Feasibility 1. General SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J, 2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Conservation Act authorizes the U.S. 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Levels Department of Energy (DOE) to establish Washington, DC 20585–0121. Please C. Energy Savings energy conservation standards for submit one signed original paper copy. 1. Determination of Savings various consumer products and • Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda 2. Significance of Savings commercial and industrial equipment. Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, D. Economic Justification Such equipment includes those small Building Technologies Program, 950 1. Specific Criteria electric motors for which DOE L’Enfant Plaza, SW., Suite 600, a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and determines that energy conservation Consumers Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: b. Life-Cycle Costs standards would be technologically (202) 586–2945. Please submit one c. Energy Savings feasible and economically justified, and signed original paper copy. d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of would result in significant energy For detailed instructions on Products savings. In this notice, DOE proposes submitting comments and additional e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition energy conservation standards for information on the rulemaking process, f. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy certain small electric motors and is see section VII of this document (Public g. Other Factors announcing a public meeting. Participation). 2. Rebuttable Presumption IV. Methodology and Discussion DATES: Public meeting: DOE will hold a Docket: For access to the docket to A. Market and Technology Assessment public meeting on Thursday, December read background documents or 1. Definition of Small Electric Motor 17, 2009, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., in comments received, visit the U.S. a. Motor Categories Washington, DC. DOE must receive Department of Energy, Resource Room b. Motor Enclosures requests to speak at the public meeting of the Building Technologies Program, c. Service Factors before 4 p.m., Thursday, December 3, 950 L’Enfant Plaza, SW., Suite 600, d. Insulation Class Systems 2009. DOE must receive a signed Washington, DC, (202) 586–2945, e. Metric Equivalents between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday f. Frame Sizes original and an electronic copy of g. Horsepower Ratings statements to be given at the public through Friday, except Federal holidays. 2. Product Classes meeting before 4 p.m., Thursday, Please call Ms. Brenda Edwards at the B. Screening Analysis December 10, 2009. above telephone number for additional C. Engineering Analysis Comments: DOE will also accept information regarding visiting the 1. Approach written comments, data, and Resource Room. Please note: DOE’s 2. Product Classes Analyzed information regarding this notice of Freedom of Information Reading Room 3. Cost Model proposed rulemaking (NOPR) before and is no longer housing rulemaking 4. Baseline Models materials. 5. Design Options and Limitations after the public meeting, but received no a. Manufacturability later than January 25, 2010. See section FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. b. Motor Size VII, ‘‘Public Participation,’’ of this James Raba, U.S. Department of Energy, c. Service Factor NOPR for details. Office of Energy Efficiency and d. Skew and Stay-Load Loss ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be Renewable Energy, Building e. Air Gap held at the U.S. Department of Energy, Technologies Program, EE–2J, 1000 f. Power Factor Forrestal Building, Room 8E–089, 1000 g. Speed Independence Avenue, SW., h. Thermal Performance Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121, (202) 586– i. Slot Fill Washington, DC 20585. Please note that 8654, e-mail: [email protected]. j. Current and Torque Characteristics foreign nationals visiting DOE Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of 6. Scaling Methodology Headquarters are subject to advance Energy, Office of General Counsel, GC– 7. Nominal Efficiency security screening procedures, requiring 72, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 8. Cost-Efficiency Results a 30-day advance notice. If you are a Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586–9507, D. Markups To Determine Equipment Price foreign national and wish to participate e-mail: [email protected]. 1. Distribution Channels in the workshop, please inform DOE of For information on how to submit or 2. Estimation of Markups 3. Summary of Markups this fact as soon as possible by review public comments and on how to E. Energy Use Characterization contacting Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) participate in the public meeting, F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 586–2945 so that the necessary contact Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Analysis procedures can be completed. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 1. Baseline and Standard Level Efficiencies
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 61411
2. Installed Equipment Cost B. Economic Justification and Energy I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 3. Motor Applications Savings J. Review Under the Treasury and General 4. Annual Operating Hours and Energy Use 1. Economic Impacts on Customers Government Appropriations Act of 2001 5. Space Constraints a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 6. Power Factor b. Life-Cycle Cost Sensitivity Calculations L. Review Under the Information Quality 7. Energy Prices c. Customer Sub-Group Analysis Bulletin for Peer Review 8. Energy Price Trend d. Rebuttable Presumption Payback VII. Public Participation 9. Maintenance and Repair Costs 2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers A. Attendance at Public Meeting 10. Equipment Lifetime a. Industry Cash-Flow Analysis Results B. Procedure for Submitting Requests To 11. Discount Rate b. Impacts on Direct Employment Speak 12. Standard Effective Date c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity C. Conduct of Public Meeting G. National Impact Analysis—National d. Impacts on Manufacturer Subgroups D. Submission of Comments Energy Savings and Net Present Value e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment Analysis 3. National Impact Analysis VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 1. Shipments a. Significance of Energy Savings H. Consumer Sub-Group Analysis b. Net Present Value I. Summary of the Proposed Rule I. Manufacturer Impact Analysis c. Impacts on Employment 1. Overview 4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Pursuant to the Energy Policy and 2. Phase 1, Industry Profile Products Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6291 et 3. Phase 2, Industry Cash-Flow Analysis 5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition seq.), as amended, (EPCA or the Act), 4. Phase 3, Sub-Group Impact Analysis 6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy the Department of Energy (DOE) is 5. Government Regulatory Impact Model 7. Other Factors proposing new energy conservation Analysis C. Proposed Standard standards for capacitor-start and 6. Manufacturer Interviews 1. Polyphase Small Electric Motors 7. Government Regulatory Impact Model 2. Capacitor-Start Small Electric Motors polyphase small electric motors. These Key Inputs and Scenarios VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review standards would achieve the maximum a. Base-Case Shipments Forecast A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 improvement in energy efficiency that is b. Standards-Case Shipments Forecast B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility technologically feasible and c. Manufacturing Production Costs Act economically justified for this d. Manufacturing Markup Scenarios C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction equipment, and would result in e. Equipment and Capital Conversion Costs Act significant conservation of energy. The J. Employment Impact Analysis D. Review Under the National proposed standards are shown in Table K. Utility Impact Analysis Environmental Policy Act I.1, Table I.2, and Table I.3, and would L. Environmental Analysis E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 1. Power Sector Emissions F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 apply to all equipment manufactured in, or imported into, the United States on 2. Valuation of CO2 Emissions G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 3. Valuation of Other Emissions Reform Act of 1995 and after 5 years following the V. Analytical Results H. Review Under the Treasury and General publication of the final rule. A. Trial Standard Levels Government Appropriations Act of 1999 BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 61412 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules
BILLING CODE 6450–01–C capacitor-start, induction-run (CSIR) 2 projected energy savings is equivalent to DOE’s analyses indicate that the and capacitor-start, capacitor-run the total energy 7.8 million U.S. citizens proposed standards would save a (CSCR) 3 motors markets, because use in 1 year. The economic impacts on significant amount of energy—an general purpose CSIR and CSCR motors owners (hereafter ‘‘customers’’) of estimated 2.46 quads of cumulative generally meet similar performance equipment containing single-phase energy over 30 years (2015–2045). Of criteria and can often be used in the small electric motors—i.e., the average this, 2.13 quads of savings result from same applications.4 The amount of life-cycle cost (LCC) savings—are standards on capacitor-start (single- positive. Polyphase small electric motor phase) motors and 0.33 quads of savings 2 A capacitor-start induction-run motor is a customers experience, on average, small single-phase motor with a main winding arranged LCC increases as a result of the result from standards on polyphase for direct connection to a source of power and an motors.1 The energy savings results for auxiliary winding connected in series with a standard. single-phase motors represent the capacitor. The motor has a capacitor phase, which The cumulative national net present combined effect of standards on the is in the circuit only during the starting period. value (NPV) of total customer costs and 3 A capacitor-start capacitor-run motor is a single- savings from the proposed standards phase motor which has different values of effective 1 A polyphase motor is an electric motor that uses capacitance for the starting and running conditions. from 2015 to 2065 in 2008$ ranges from three-phase electricity and the phase changes of the 4 Polyphase, CSIR, and CSCR motors can be found electrical supply to induce a rotational magnetic in a range of applications including, but not limited compressors, conveyors and general industrial field, thereby supplying torque to the rotor. to the following: Pumps, blowers, fans, equipment.
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP24NO09.000 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 61413
$1.53 billion (at a 7-percent discount reductions of 124.8 million tons (Mt) of while the CO2 value of reductions is rate) to $14.15 billion (at a 3-percent carbon dioxide (CO2) from 2015 to 2045. based on a central value from a range of discount rate). This is the estimated During this period, the standard would estimates of imputed marginal SCC from total value of future operating-cost result in power plant emission $5 to $56 per metric ton (2008$), which savings minus the estimated increased reductions of 89.6 kilotons (kt) of are meant to reflect the global benefits equipment costs, discounted to 2009. If nitrogen oxides (NOX) and 0.561 tons of of CO2 reductions; and (2) the DOE were to adopt the proposed mercury (Hg). These reductions have a assessments of operating savings and ¥ standards, it expects a 12.86 percent value of up to $2,737 million for CO2, CO2 savings are performed with to 10.69 percent change in manufacturer $67.7 million for NOX, and $5.31 different computer models, leading to industry net present value (INPV) for million for Hg, at a discount rate of different time frames for analysis. The single-phase motors and ¥13.8 percent 7-percent. national operating cost savings is to 16.9 percent change in manufacturer The benefits and costs of today’s measured for the lifetime of small INPV for polyphase motors, which is proposed rule can also be expressed in electric motors shipped in the 31-year ¥ terms of annualized (2008$) values from approximately $44.67 to $40.70 period 2015–2045. The value of CO2, on million total. As a result, the NPV for 2015–2045. Estimates of annualized the other hand, is meant to reflect the customers (at the 7-percent discount values are shown in Table I.4. The present value of all future climate rate) of $1.53 billion would thus exceed annualized monetary values are the sum related impacts, even those beyond industry losses by about 33 times. of the annualized national economic 2065. Additionally, based on DOE’s value of operating savings benefits interviews with the major (energy, maintenance and repair), Using a 7-percent discount rate for the manufacturers of small electric motors, expressed in 2008$, plus the monetary annualized cost analysis, the combined DOE does not expect any plant closings value of the benefits of CO2 emission cost of the standards proposed in or loss of employment. The major small reductions, otherwise known as the today’s proposed rule for small electric electric motor manufacturers include: Social Cost of Carbon (SCC), expressed motors is $515.4 million per year in A.O. Smith Electrical Products as $20 per metric ton of CO2, in 2008$. increased equipment and installation Company, Baldor Electric Company, The $20 value is a central interim value costs, while the annualized benefits are Emerson Motor Technologies, Regal- from a recent interagency process. The $923.1 million per year in reduced Beloit Corporation, and WEG. Except for monetary benefits of cumulative equipment operating costs and $97.8 WEG, all of these manufacturers are emissions reductions are reported in million in CO2 reductions, for a net U.S.-based. WEG is based in Brazil. 2008$ so that they can be compared benefit of $505.5 million per year. Using The proposed standards would have with the other costs and benefits in the a 3-percent discount rate, the cost of the significant environmental benefits. All same dollar units. The derivation of this standards proposed in today’s proposed of the energy saved would be in the value is discussed in section V.B.6. rule is $514.0 million per year in form of electricity. DOE expects the Although comparing the value of increased equipment and installation energy savings to eliminate the need for operating savings to the value of CO2 costs, while the benefits of today’s approximately 2.49 gigawatts (GW) of reductions provides a valuable standards are $1,071.5 million per year generating capacity by 2030. The perspective, please note the following: in reduced operating costs and $131.8 reduction in electricity generation (1) The national operating savings are million in CO2 reductions, for a net would result in cumulative domestic U.S. consumer monetary benefit of $689.3 million per year. (undiscounted) greenhouse gas emission savings found in market transactions BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 61414 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules
BILLING CODE 6450–01–C
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP24NO09.001 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 61415
DOE has tentatively concluded that 26 percent for a 1 hp polyphase motor A–1, which provides definitions, test the proposed standards represent the than the average price of this equipment procedures, labeling provisions, energy maximum improvement in energy today, the energy efficiency gains will conservation standards, and the efficiency that is technologically result in lower energy costs. A 0.5 hp authority to require information and feasible and economically justified and CSIR customer will save an average of reports from manufacturers. The test would result in significant conservation $25 per year on energy costs compared procedures DOE recently adopted for of energy. Based on the analyses with an annual cost of losses of a small electric motors, 74 FR 32059 (July culminating in this proposal, DOE baseline CSIR motor of $48 per year, 7, 2009), appear at Title 10 Code of found the benefits (energy savings, while a 1 hp polyphase customer will Federal Regulations (CFR) sections consumer LCC savings, national NPV save an average of $10 per year 431.343 and 431.344. increase, and emission reductions) compared to an operational cost of The Act defines ‘‘small electric outweigh the burdens (loss of INPV and motor losses of $34 per year for a motors’’ as follows: LCC increases for some small electric baseline motor. A 0.75 hp CSCR The term ‘‘small electric motor’’ means a motor users). For a discussion of the customer will save $36 per year on their NEMA [National Electrical Manufacturers energy savings and NPV results, see energy bill compared with a baseline Association] general purpose alternating TSD chapter 10. For LCC results, see CSCR motor that costs $57 per year in current single-speed induction motor, built TSD chapter 8. For emissions losses to operate on average. DOE in a two-digit frame number series in reductions, see TSD chapter 15. For estimates that the median payback accordance with NEMA Standards INPV, see TSD chapter 12. period (PBP) for equipment meeting the Publication MG1–1987. DOE considered higher efficiency proposed standards will be (42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(F)) levels as trial standard levels, and is still approximately 5 to 14 years. When these Moreover, pursuant to section considering them in this rulemaking; savings are summed over the lifetime of 346(b)(3) of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6317(b)(3)), however, DOE has tentatively the higher efficiency equipment (and no standard prescribed for small electric concluded that the burdens of the discounted to the present), a 0.5 hp motors shall apply to any such motor higher efficiency levels would outweigh CSIR consumer will save $49, on that is a component of a covered the benefits. Based on consideration of average, compared to a baseline 0.5 hp product under section 322(a) of EPCA public comments DOE receives in CSIR motor. A 0.75 hp CSCR consumer (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)) or of covered response to this notice and related will save $28, on average, compared to equipment under section 340 (42 U.S.C. information, DOE may adopt either a baseline CSCR motor, and $121, on 6311). higher or lower efficiency levels than average, compared to a baseline 0.75 hp EPCA provides several criteria that those presented in this proposal or some CSIR motor. A consumer who purchases govern adoption of new standards for level(s) in between. a 1 hp polyphase motor will experience small electric motors. After reviewing an average net increase of $38 relative II. Introduction any comments received regarding to the $1,274 life-cycle cost of a baseline today’s notice, DOE will evaluate the A. Consumer Overview polyphase small electric motor. information before it and decide DOE estimates that even though there Currently, no mandatory Federal whether today’s proposed standards will be a net national savings from the energy conservation standards apply to meet those criteria and are economically standard, a majority of motor customers small electric motors. DOE is proposing justified by determining whether the may not receive net life-cycle cost standards for the small motors shown in benefits of the standard exceed its benefits. This is because many small Table I.1, Table I.2, and Table I.3. The burdens. DOE will make this electric motors are installed in proposed standards would apply to determination by considering, to the applications where the motor is running equipment manufactured for sale in the greatest extent practicable, using the only a few hours per day. On the other United States, beginning 5 years after following seven factors set forth in 42 hand, because a substantial minority of the final rule is published in the Federal U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i): motors is running at nearly all hours of Register. The final rule is expected to be 1. The economic impact of the the day and are replaced more often published by February 28, 2010; standard on manufacturers and than motors that run infrequently, these therefore, the effective date would be consumers of the equipment subject to motors obtain relatively large savings February 28, 2015. the standard; The proposed standards represent an from the standard and yield positive net 2. The savings in operating costs overall reduction of approximately 40 benefits from the standard. throughout the estimated average life of percent in motor energy losses. The B. Authority the covered equipment in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the capacitor-start induction-run (CSIR) Title III of EPCA sets forth a variety price, initial charges, or maintenance standards represent a 45-percent of provisions designed to improve expenses for the covered equipment that reduction in losses for a 0.5 hp CSIR energy efficiency. Part A of Title III (42 are likely to result from the imposition motor, relative to the current market U.S.C. 6291–6309) provides for the of the standard; average. The capacitor-start capacitor- Energy Conservation Program for 3. The total projected energy savings run (CSCR) standards represent a 37- Consumer Products Other Than likely to result directly from the percent reduction in losses for a 0.75 hp Automobiles. Part A–1 of Title III (42 imposition of the standard; CSCR motor. The polyphase standards U.S.C. 6311–6317) establishes a similar 4. Any lessening of the utility or the represent a 45-percent reduction in program for certain types of commercial performance of the covered equipment losses for a 1 hp polyphase motor. and industrial equipment, which DOE’s analyses indicate that likely to result from the imposition of includes small electric motors.5 DOE commercial and industrial customers the standard; publishes today’s notice of proposed would benefit from the proposed 5. The impact of any lessening of rulemaking (NOPR) pursuant to Part standards. Although DOE expects the competition, as determined in writing installed cost of the higher-efficiency 5 These two parts were titled Parts B and C, but by the attorney general, that is likely to small motors to be greater (ranging from were redesignated as Parts A and A–1 by the United result from the imposition of the 9 percent for a 0.75 hp CSCR motor to States Code for editorial reasons. standard;
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 61416 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules
6. The need for national energy Third, in setting standards for a type meet the performance requirements set conservation; and or class of covered product that has two forth for general-purpose alternating- 7. Other factors the Secretary or more subcategories, DOE will specify current motors by NEMA MG1–1987. considers relevant. a different standard level than that DOE then analyzed the likely range of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)–(VII) which applies generally to such type or energy savings and economic benefits Additionally, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. class of equipment ‘‘for any group of that would result from energy 6317(c), DOE will consider the criteria covered products which have the same conservation standards for these small outlined in 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)—whether function or intended use, if * * * motors, and prepared a report the standards will result in a significant products within such group–(A) describing its analysis and provided its conservation of energy, are consume a different kind of energy from projected estimated energy savings from technologically feasible, and are cost that consumed by other covered potential standards. In June 2006, DOE effective as described in 42 U.S.C. products within such type (or class); or made the report, ‘‘Determination 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II) (see criterion 2 listed (B) have a capacity or other Analysis Technical Support Document: above). These criteria are largely folded performance-related feature which other Analysis of Energy Conservation into the seven criteria that DOE products within such type (or class) do Standards for Small Electric Motors,’’ routinely analyzes as part of its not have and such feature justifies a available for public comment at http:// standards rulemaking analyses. higher or lower standard’’ than applies www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ _ Accordingly, DOE will continue to or will apply to the other products. (See appliance standards/commercial/ _ _ conduct its more comprehensive 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1).) In determining small electric motors.html. analyses under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) as part whether a performance-related feature Pursuant to section 346(b)(3) of EPCA of this rulemaking. justifies a different standard for a group (42 U.S.C. 6317(b)(3)), the analysis did DOE also notes that today’s notice of products, DOE considers such factors not include motors that are a component concerns types of ‘‘covered equipment’’ as the utility to the consumer of such a of a covered product or equipment. as defined in EPCA (42 U.S.C. feature and other factors DOE deems Also, the report made no 6311(1)(A)), rather than ‘‘covered appropriate. Any rule prescribing such recommendation as to what products’’ as defined in EPCA (42 U.S.C. a standard will include an explanation determination DOE should make. DOE 6291(2)). Under 42 U.S.C. 6316(a), the of the basis on which DOE established received comments concerning this criteria for prescribing new standards such higher or lower level. (See 42 analysis from NEMA, the Small Motors for consumer products (42 U.S.C. U.S.C. 6295(q)(2)) and Motion Association (SMMA, now 6295(o)) apply when promulgating Federal energy efficiency the Motors and Motion Association), standards for certain specified requirements for equipment covered by and the American Council for an commercial and industrial equipment, 42 U.S.C. 6317 generally supersede Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE). including small electric motors. EPCA State laws or regulations concerning Thereafter, DOE analyzed whether substitutes the term ‘‘equipment’’ for energy conservation testing, labeling, significant energy savings would result ‘‘product’’ when the latter term appears and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a)–(c) from energy conservation standards for in consumer product-related provisions and 6316(a)) DOE can, however, grant the small electric motors considered in that EPCA also applies to commercial waivers of preemption for particular its previous analysis, and incorporated and industrial equipment. (See 42 State laws or regulations, in accordance the results of this additional analysis U.S.C. 6316(a)(3).) with the procedures and other into a technical support document In developing energy conservation provisions of section 327(d) of the Act. (TSD). Based on these results, DOE standards for small electric motors, DOE (42 U.S.C. 6297(d) and 6316(a)) issued the following determination on June 27, 2006: is also applying certain other provisions C. Background of 42 U.S.C. 6295. First, DOE will not Based on its analysis of the information prescribe a standard if interested parties 1. Current Standards now available, the Department [of Energy] have established by a preponderance of has determined that energy conservation As indicated above, there are no standards for certain small electric motors evidence that the standard is likely to national energy conservation standards appear to be technologically feasible and result in the unavailability in the United prescribed for small electric motors. economically justified, and are likely to States of any covered equipment type 2. History of Standards Rulemaking for result in significant energy savings. (or class) with performance Consequently, DOE will initiate the characteristics, features, sizes, Small Electric Motors development of energy efficiency test capacities, and volume that are Pursuant to the requirements of the procedures and standards for certain small substantially the same as those generally Energy Policy Act of 1992 (Pub. L. 102– electric motors. 71 FR 38807. available in the United States. (See 42 486), DOE began to gather and analyze DOE initiated this rulemaking to U.S.C. 6295(o)(4)) information to determine whether develop standards and another Second, DOE is applying 42 U.S.C. standards for small electric motors rulemaking to develop test procedures 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii), which establishes a would meet its criteria. DOE began its for small motors. DOE began this rebuttable presumption that a standard determination analysis, by examining rulemaking by publishing ‘‘Energy is economically justified if the Secretary what motors were covered and Conservation Standards Rulemaking finds that ‘‘the additional cost to the concluded that the EPCA definition of Framework Document for Small Electric consumer of purchasing a product ‘‘small electric motor’’ covers only those Motors’’ on http://www.eere.energy.gov/ complying with an energy conservation motors that meet the definition’s frame- buildings/appliance_standards/ standard level will be less than three size requirements and are either three- commercial/pdfs/ times the value of the energy * * * phase, non-servo motors (polyphase small_motors_framework_073007.pdf. savings during the first year that the motors) or single-phase, capacitor-start DOE also published a notice consumer will receive as a result of the motors, including both CSIR and CSCR announcing the availability of the standard, as calculated under the motors. 71 FR 38799, 38800–01 (July 10, framework document and a public applicable test procedure. * * *’’ in 2006). DOE reached this conclusion meeting on the document, and place for that standard. because only these motor categories can requesting public comments on the
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 61417
matters raised in the document. 72 FR • A screening analysis that reviewed Electric Company (PG&E), Southern 44990 (August 10, 2007). technology options to improve small California Edison (SCE), Southern On September 13, 2007, DOE held the electric motor efficiency and weighed California Gas Company, and San Diego public meeting at which it presented the them against DOE’s four prescribed Gas and Electric (SDGE), a comment contents of the framework document, screening criteria; from NEMA); and a comment from described the analyses it planned to • An engineering analysis that Edison Electric Institute (EEI). This conduct during the rulemaking, sought estimated the manufacturer selling NOPR quotes and summarizes many of comments from interested parties on prices (MSPs) associated with more these comments and responds to the these subjects, and sought to inform energy efficient small electric motors; issues they raised. A parenthetical interested parties about, and facilitate • An energy use and end-use load reference at the end of a quotation or their involvement in, the rulemaking. characterization that estimated the paraphrase provides the location of the Interested parties that participated in annual energy use of small electric item in the public record. the public meeting discussed eight motors; major issues: the scope of covered small • A markup methodology that III. General Discussion electric motors, definitions, test converted average MSPs to consumer- A. Test Procedures procedures, horsepower, and kilowatt installed prices; equivalency, DOE’s engineering • An LCC analysis that calculated, at Final test procedures were published analysis, life-cycle costs, efficiency the consumer level, the discounted on July 7, 2009 (74 FR 32059). The test levels, and energy savings. At the savings in operating costs throughout procedures incorporated by reference meeting and during the framework the estimated average life of the small Institute of Electrical and Electronics document comment period, DOE electric motor, compared to any increase Engineers, Inc. (IEEE) Standard 112– received many comments helping it in installed costs likely to result directly 2004 (Test Method A and Test Method identify and resolve issues involved in from the imposition of the standard; B), IEEE Standard 114–2001, and this rulemaking. • A PBP analysis that estimated the Canadian Standards Association (CAN/ DOE gathered additional information amount of time it takes consumers to CSA) Standard C747–94. and performed preliminary analyses to recover the higher purchase expense of In addition to incorporating by inform the development of energy more energy efficient equipment reference the above industry standard conservation standards. This process through lower operating costs; test procedures, the small electric culminated in DOE’s announcement of • A shipments analysis that estimated motors test procedure final rule also an informal public meeting to discuss shipments of small electric motors over codified the statutory definition for the and receive comments on the following the time period examined in the term ‘‘small electric motor;’’ clarified matters: the product classes DOE analysis, which was used in performing the definition of the term ‘‘basic model’’ planned to analyze; the analytical the national impact analysis; and the relationship of the term to framework, models, and tools that DOE • A national impact analysis that certain product classes and compliance was using to evaluate standards; the assessed the aggregate impacts at the certification reporting requirements; and results of the preliminary analyses DOE national level of potential energy codified the ability of manufacturers to performed; and potential standard levels conservation standards for small motors, use an alternative efficiency that DOE might consider. 73 FR 79723 as measured by the net present value of determination method (AEDM) to (December 30, 2008). DOE also invited total consumer economic impacts and reduce testing burden, while written comments on these subjects and national energy savings; and maintaining accuracy and ensuring announced the availability on its Web • A preliminary manufacturer impact compliance with potential future energy site of a preliminary TSD. Id. A PDF of analysis that took the initial steps in conservation standards. The test the preliminary TSD is available at evaluating the effects on manufacturers procedure notice also discussed matters http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ of new efficiency standards. of laboratory accreditation, compliance appliance_standards/commercial/ The nature and function of the certification, and enforcement of energy small_electric_motors_nopr_tsd.html. analyses in this rulemaking, including conservation standards for small electric Finally, DOE stated its interest in the engineering analysis, energy-use motors. receiving comments on other issues that characterization, markups to determine At the public meeting presenting the participants believe would affect energy installed prices, LCC and PBP analyses, preliminary analyses for the energy conservation standards for small electric and national impact analysis, are conservation standards rulemaking, motors or that DOE should address in summarized in the December 2008 WEG and Emerson voiced their concern this NOPR. Id. at 79725. notice. Id. at 79725. about enforcement of energy efficiency The preliminary TSD provided an The public meeting announced in the standards for small electric motors. overview of the activities DOE December 2008 notice took place on WEG stated that they believe that undertook and discussed the comments January 30, 2009. At this meeting, DOE enforcement will become especially DOE received in developing standards presented the methodologies and results problematic for those small electric for small electric motors. It also of the analyses set forth in the motors that come into the country described the analytical framework that preliminary TSD. The comments embedded in a piece of equipment and DOE used and each analysis DOE received since publication of the are therefore difficult to view the performed up to that point. These December 2008 notice have helped DOE nameplate and to test. (WEG, Public analyses included: resolve the issues in this rulemaking. Meeting Transcript, No. 8.5 at pp. 325– • A market and technology The submitted comments include a joint 26) Additionally, Emerson requested assessment that addressed the scope of comment from Adjuvant Consulting, on that DOE provide further information on this rulemaking, identified the potential behalf of the Northwest Energy how it plans on enforcing standards on classes of this equipment, characterized Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) and small electric motors. (Emerson, Public the small electric motor market, and Northwest Power and Conservation Meeting Transcript, No. 8.5 at p. 297) reviewed techniques and approaches for Council (NPCC); a comment from DOE notes certification and enforcement improving the efficiency of small Earthjustice; a second joint comment provisions for small electric motors electric motors; from Energy Solutions, Pacific Gas and have not yet been developed. DOE plans
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 61418 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules
on proposing such provisions in a other interested parties, DOE develops a screening analysis. Also, section IV.B separate test procedure supplementary list of design options for consideration. includes a discussion of the design NOPR, at which time DOE will welcome Consistent with its Process Rule, DOE options DOE considered, those it comment on how small electric motor then determines which of these means screened out, and those that are the efficiency standards can be effectively for improving efficiency are basis for the trial standard levels (TSLs) enforced. technologically feasible. ‘‘Technologies in this rulemaking. incorporated in commercially available 2. Maximum Technologically Feasible B. Technological Feasibility products or in working prototypes will Levels 1. General be considered technologically feasible.’’ 10 CFR 430, subpart C, appendix A, In the engineering analysis, DOE In each standards rulemaking, DOE section 4(a)(4)(i). determined the maximum conducts a screening analysis, which it DOE evaluates each of the acceptable technologically (max-tech) feasible bases on information it has gathered on design options in light of the following efficiency levels for small electric all current technology options and criteria: (1) Technological feasibility; (2) motors using the most efficient design prototype designs that could improve practicability to manufacture, install, or parameters that lead to the highest the efficiency of the product or service; (3) adverse impacts on product equipment efficiencies. (See TSD equipment that is the subject of the utility or availability; and (4) adverse chapter 5.) Table III.1 lists the max-tech rulemaking. In consultation with impacts on health or safety. Chapter 4 levels that DOE determined for this manufacturers, design engineers, and of the TSD contains a description of the rulemaking.
DOE developed maximum technology absence of new energy conservation trivial.’’ The energy savings for all of the efficiencies by creating motor designs standards. DOE’s base case assumes no TSLs considered in this rulemaking are for each product class analyzed that use change in the efficiency distribution of nontrivial, and therefore DOE considers all of DOE’s viable design options. The motors between 2008 and the end of the them significant. efficiency levels shown in Table III.1 analysis period in 2045. D. Economic Justification correspond to designs that use a The NES spreadsheet model maximum increase in stack length, a calculates the energy savings in site 1. Specific Criteria copper rotor design, an exotic low-loss energy expressed in kilowatt-hours As noted earlier, EPCA provides steel type, a maximum slot fill (kWh). Site energy is the energy directly seven factors to be evaluated in percentage, a change in run-capacitor consumed by small electric motors at determining whether an energy rating (CSCR motors only), and an the locations where they are used. DOE conservation standard is economically optimized end ring design. All of the reports national energy savings in terms justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)) The design options used to create these max- of the source energy savings, which is following sections discuss how DOE has tech motors remain in the analysis and the savings in the energy that is used to addressed each of those seven factors as are options that DOE considers generate and transmit the site energy. To part of its analysis. DOE invites technologically feasible. convert site energy to source energy, comments on each of these elements. C. Energy Savings DOE derived conversion factors, which change with time, from the American a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers 1. Determination of Savings Recovery and Reinvestment Act and Consumers DOE used its national energy savings scenario of the Energy Information In determining the impacts on (NES) spreadsheet to estimate energy Administration’s (EIA) Annual Energy manufacturers of a new or amended savings from new standards for the Outlook 2009 (AEO 2009), which is the standard, DOE first determines the small electric motors that are the subject latest forecast available. quantitative impacts using an annual of this rulemaking. (The NES analysis is 2. Significance of Savings cash-flow approach. This includes both described in section IV.G and in chapter a short-term assessment—based on the 10 of the TSD.) DOE forecasted energy Standards for small electric motors cost and capital requirements during the savings beginning in 2015, the year that must result in ‘‘significant’’ energy period between the announcement of a new standards would go into effect, and savings. (42 U.S.C. 6317(b)) While the regulation and when the regulation ending in 2045 for each TSL. DOE term ‘‘significant’’ is not defined in the comes into effect—and a long-term quantified the energy savings Act, the U.S. Court of Appeals, in assessment. The impacts analyzed attributable to each TSL as the Natural Resources Defense Council v. include INPV (which values the difference in energy consumption Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355, 1373 (DC industry on the basis of expected future between the standards case and the base Cir. 1985), indicated that Congress cash flows), cash flows by year, changes case. The base case represents the intended ‘‘significant’’ energy savings to in revenue and income, and other forecast of energy consumption in the be savings that were not ‘‘genuinely measures, as appropriate. Second, DOE
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP24NO09.002 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 61419
analyzes and reports the impacts on analysis that the consumer purchases Attorney General’s determination in the different types of manufacturers, paying the product in 2015. final rule. particular attention to impacts on small c. Energy Savings f. Need of the Nation To Conserve manufacturers. Third, DOE considers Energy the impact of standards on domestic While significant conservation of manufacturer employment, energy is a separate statutory The non-monetary benefits of the manufacturing capacity, plant closures, requirement for imposing an energy proposed standards are likely to be and loss of capital investment. Finally, conservation standard, DOE considers reflected in reductions in the overall DOE takes into account the cumulative the total projected energy savings that demand for electricity, which will result impact of different DOE regulations on are expected to result directly from the in reduced costs for maintaining manufacturers. standard in determining the economic reliability of the Nation’s electricity For small electric motor customers, justification of that standard. (See 42 system. DOE conducts a utility impact measures of economic impact include U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) DOE used analysis to estimate how standards may the changes in LCC and the PBP for each the NES spreadsheet results in its affect the Nation’s power generation TSL. The LCC, which is also separately consideration of total projected savings. capacity. This analysis captures the specified as one of the seven factors to effects of efficiency improvements on be considered in determining the d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of electricity consumption by the covered economic justification for a new or Products equipment, including the reduction in amended standard, (42 U.S.C. In establishing classes of equipment, electricity generation capacity by fuel 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) is discussed in the and in evaluating design options and type. following section. the impact of potential standard levels, The proposed standards will also result in improvements to the b. Life-Cycle Costs DOE sought to develop standards for environment. In quantifying these The LCC is the sum of the purchase small electric motors that would not lessen the utility or performance of this improvements, DOE has defined a range price of a product (including its of primary energy conversion factors installation) and the operating expense equipment. None of the TSLs DOE considered would reduce the utility or and associated emission reductions (including energy and maintenance based on the estimated level of power expenditures) discounted over the performance of the small electric motors under consideration in the rulemaking. generation displaced by energy lifetime of the product. DOE determines conservation standards. DOE reports the these costs by considering (1) total (See 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV).) The efficiency levels DOE considered environmental effects from each TSL in installed price to the purchaser the environmental assessment in (including manufacturer selling price, maintain motor performance and power factor (i.e., approximately 75 percent for chapter 15 of the TSD. (See 42 U.S.C. distribution channel markups, sales 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI)). taxes, and installation cost), (2) the polyphase motors and greater than 60 operating expenses of the equipment percent for capacitor start motors) so g. Other Factors (energy cost and maintenance and repair that consumer utility is not adversely The Act allows the Secretary of cost), (3) equipment lifetime, and (4) a affected. DOE considered end-user size Energy, in determining whether a discount rate that reflects the real cost constraints by developing designs with standard is economically justified, to of capital and puts the LCC in present size increase restrictions (limited to a consider any other factors that the value terms. 20-percent increase in stack length), as Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 For each representative small electric well as designs with less stringent U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) Under this motor product class, DOE calculated constraints (100-percent increase in provision, DOE considered three factors: both LCC and LCC savings for various stack length). Those designs adhering to (1) Harmonization of the proposed efficiency levels. The LCC analysis the 20-percent increase in stack length standards with standards for similar estimated the LCC for representative maintain all aspects of consumer utility products, (2) the need of some units used in various representative and were created for all efficiency consumers to continue to have access to applications, and accounted for a levels, but they may become very CSIR motors, and (3) the impacts of mixture of space-constrained expensive at higher efficiency levels reactive power 6 on electricity supply applications (20 percent) and non- when compared with DOE’s other costs. space-constrained applications (80 designs. Medium-sized polyphase general- percent) in the commercial, agricultural, e. Impact of Any Lessening of purpose motors in three-digit frame industrial, and residential sectors. Competition series with output power of 1 To account for uncertainty and horsepower and above are currently variability in specific inputs, such as DOE considers any lessening of regulated under the Energy Policy Act of equipment lifetime, annual hours of competition likely to result from 1992 (EPACT 1992). DOE proposes a operation, and discount rate, DOE used standards. Accordingly, DOE has standard for polyphase small motors a distribution of values with requested that the Attorney General with output power of 1 horsepower and probabilities attached to each value. transmit to the Secretary, not later than above that is closely aligned with the DOE sampled a nationally 60 days after the publication of this representative set of input values from proposed rule, a written determination 6 In an alternating current power system, the the distributions to produce a range of of the impact, if any, of any lessening reactive power is the root mean square (RMS) LCC estimates. A distinct advantage of of competition likely to result from voltage multiplied by the RMS current, multiplied by the sine of the phase difference between the this approach is that DOE can identify today’s proposed standards, together voltage and the current. Reactive power occurs the percentage of consumers achieving with an analysis of the nature and when the inductance or capacitance of the load LCC savings or attaining certain payback extent of such impact. (See 42 U.S.C. shifts the phase of the voltage relative to the phase values due to an energy conservation 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (B)(ii).) Along of the current. While reactive power does not consume energy, it can increase losses and costs for standard. Thus, DOE presents the LCC with this request, DOE has transmitted the electricity distribution system. Motors tend to savings as a distribution, with a mean a copy of today’s proposed rule to the create reactive power because the windings in the value and a range. DOE assumed in its Attorney General. DOE will address the motor coils have high inductance.
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 61420 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules
EPACT 1992 standard for medium supporting or rebutting the results of equipment concerned, including the motors. any preliminary determination of purpose of the equipment, the industry Some of the highest TSLs for single- economic justification). structure, and market characteristics. phase motors would lead to very high For comparison with the more This activity includes both quantitative prices for CSIR motors while detailed analysis results, DOE provides and qualitative assessments based maintaining lower prices for CSCR the results of a rebuttable presumption primarily on publicly available motors, or vice versa. This shift in payback calculation in section V.B.1.d. information. The subjects addressed in relative price may cause the effective IV. Methodology and Discussion the market and technology assessment disappearance of the more expensive for this rulemaking include product category of motors from the market. In DOE used three spreadsheet tools to classes, manufacturers, quantities, and many applications, CSCR motors can estimate the impact of today’s proposed types of equipment sold and offered for replace CSIR motors. However, in some standards. The first spreadsheet sale; retail market trends; and regulatory instances, the space required for a calculates the LCCs and payback and non-regulatory programs. See second capacitor is not available so that periods of potential new energy chapter 3 of the TSD for further a CSCR motor may not be used to conservation standards. The second, the discussion of the market and technology replace a CSIR motor in some specific National Impact Analysis (NIA) assessment. applications. Under 42 U.S.C. spreadsheet, provides shipment 6295(o)(4), the Secretary may not forecasts and then calculates national 1. Definition of Small Electric Motor prescribe a standard that is ‘‘likely to energy savings and net present value Except for small electric motors that result in the unavailability in the United impacts of potential new energy are components of other products States in any covered product type (or conservation standards. DOE assessed covered by EPCA (see 42 U.S.C. class).’’ In today’s notice, DOE proposes manufacturer impacts largely through 6317(b)(3)), DOE analyzed all CSIR and standards that it believes will maintain use of the third spreadsheet, the CSCR single-phase motors and a supply of both categories of motors in Government Regulatory Impact Model polyphase motors, including, for the single-phase motor market. (GRIM). example, both open and enclosed DOE also notes that induction motors Additionally, DOE estimated the motors. DOE determined that standards produce reactive power that can result impacts of energy efficiency standards appear to be warranted for all of them. in increased electricity supply costs for small electric motors on utilities and 71 FR 38807–08. However, DOE has because reactive power creates extra the environment. DOE used a version of tentatively concluded that EPCA does electrical currents that can require EIA’s National Energy Modeling System not cover certain small motors for which increased electrical distribution (NEMS) for the utility and the determination concluded standards capacity. Many individual customers environmental analyses. The NEMS were warranted—the most significant are not charged directly for this cost, but model simulates the energy sector of the group being enclosed motors. DOE did consider the economic benefits U.S. economy. EIA uses NEMS to a. Motor Categories of potential reactive power reductions prepare its Annual Energy Outlook, a when evaluating the national benefits of widely known energy forecast for the EPCA’s definition of ‘‘small electric the proposed standards. United States. The version of NEMS motor’’ is tied to the terminology and used for appliance standards analysis is performance requirements in NEMA 2. Rebuttable Presumption called NEMS–BT, and is based on the Standards Publication MG1–1987 Section 325(o)(2)(B)(iii) of EPCA AEO 2009 version with minor (MG1–1987). These requirements were states that there is a rebuttable modifications. The NEMS offers a established for (1) general-purpose presumption that an energy sophisticated picture of the effect of alternating-current motors, (2) single- conservation standard is economically standards because it accounts for the speed induction motors, and (3) the justified if the additional cost to the interactions between the various energy NEMA system for designating (two- consumer that meets the standard level supply and demand sectors and the digit) frames. Single-speed induction is less than three times the value of the economy as a whole. motors, as delineated and described in first-year energy (and as applicable, The EIA approves the use of the name MG1–1987, fall into five categories: water) savings resulting from the ‘‘NEMS’’ to describe only an AEO split-phase, shaded-pole, capacitor-start standard, as calculated under the version of the model without any (both CSIR and CSCR), permanent-split applicable DOE test procedure. (42 modification to code or data. Because capacitor (PSC), and polyphase. U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii) and 42 U.S.C. the present analysis entails some minor Therefore, only motors in these 6316(e)(1)) DOE’s LCC and payback code modifications and runs the model categories meet the single-speed period (PBP) analyses generate values under various policy scenarios that induction motor element of EPCA’s that calculate the PBP for customers of deviate from AEO assumptions, the definition of ‘‘small electric motor.’’ potential energy conservation standards, name ‘‘NEMS–BT’’ refers to the model In paragraph MG1–1.05, MG1–1987 which includes, but is not limited to, used here. (‘‘BT’’ stands for DOE’s defines ‘‘general-purpose alternating- the 3-year PBP contemplated under the Building Technologies Program.) For current motor’’ as follows: rebuttable presumption test discussed more information on NEMS, refer to The A general-purpose alternating-current above. However, DOE routinely National Energy Modeling System: An motor is an induction motor, rated 200 conducts a full economic analysis that Overview, DOE/EIA–0581 (98) (Feb. horsepower and less, which considers the full range of impacts, 1998), available at http:// incorporates all of the following: (1) including those to the customer, tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/ Open construction, (2) rated continuous manufacturer, Nation, and environment, forecasting/058198.pdf. duty, (3) service factor in accordance as required under 42 U.S.C. with MG1–12.47, and (4) Class A 6295(o)(2)(B)(i) and 42 U.S.C. A. Market and Technology Assessment insulation system with a temperature 6316(e)(1). The results of this analysis When beginning an energy rise as specified in MG1–12.42 for small serve as the basis for DOE to evaluate conservation standards rulemaking, motors or Class B insulation system definitively the economic justification DOE develops information that provides with a temperature rise as specified in for a potential standard level (thereby an overall picture of the market for the MG1–12.43 for medium motors. It is
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 61421
designed in standard ratings with the performance requirements set forth MG1 on which DOE should relay, the standard operating characteristics and by the MG1–1987 definition of ‘‘general- 1987 version is the only applicable mechanical construction for use under purpose alternating-current motor’’ and version of NEMA MG1. Accordingly, usual service conditions without are therefore covered by the EPCA consistent with MG1–1987, only CSIR, restriction to a particular application or definition of a small electric motor. CSCR, and polyphase motors with open type of application. During the public meeting, PG&E, construction meet the statutory During the public meeting held on Earthjustice, and ACEEE expressed definition. January 30, 2009, Emerson Motor concern that small electric motors not Technologies commented that split- covered by the scope of coverage of this c. Service Factors phase motors, shaded-pole motors, and rulemaking would be preempted from Additional CSIR, CSCR, and PSC motors do not meet the torque coverage as a result of energy polyphase motors may fail to meet the requirements for NEMA general-purpose conservation for standards for the NEMA definition because, for example, motors. Therefore, Emerson indicated covered small electric motors. (PG&E, they fail to meet the service factor that these motors should be excluded Earthjustice, ACEEE, Public Meeting requirements. Service factor is a from the scope of coverage for this Transcript, No. 8.5 at pp. 320–323) In measure of the overload capacity at rulemaking. (Emerson, Public Meeting their comment, Earthjustice also which a motor can operate without Transcript, No. 8.5 at p. 38) 7 requested that DOE clarify this issue. damage, while operating normally DOE has examined this issue and, (Earthjustice, No. 11 at pp. 3–5) DOE within the correct voltage tolerances. consistent with its position in the appreciates these concerns and would The rated horsepower multiplied by the preliminary analyses, agrees that split- like to clarify the issue of preemption. service factor determines that overload phase, shaded-pole, or PSC motors do The statutory definition of small electric capacity. For example, a 1 horsepower not qualify as general-purpose motors only gives DOE the authority to motor with a 1.25 service factor can alternating-current motors. Because cover, CSIR, CSCR, and polyphase operate at 1.25 horsepower (1 split-phase motors are usually designed motors. Therefore, state standards for horsepower × 1.25 service factor). DOE for specific purposes and applications, other, non-covered motor categories, has concluded that motors that fail to they are not designed ‘‘for use under such as those discussed above, would meet service factor requirements in usual service conditions without not be preempted by the standards set MG1–12.47 are not ‘‘small electric restriction to a particular application or by this rulemaking. motors’’ as EPCA uses that term. type of application.’’ Additionally, split- b. Motor Enclosures Therefore, today’s proposed standards phase, shaded-pole, and PSC motors all do not apply to them. fail to meet MG1–1987’s torque and The first criterion listed in NEMA current requirements for general- MG1–1987’s definition of a ‘‘general- d. Insulation Class Systems purpose motors, and hence are not purpose alternating-current motor’’ is that the motor is of open construction. The statutory definition of a small ‘‘designed in standard ratings with electric motor is bound to the definition standard operating characteristics.’’ The In the latest version of NEMA MG1, MG1–2006 with Revision 1 2007, NEMA of a general-purpose alternating-current requirements that NEMA MG1–1987 motor as defined in NEMA MG 1–1987. defines for single-phase motors are modified this criterion and expanded it to include enclosed motors. At the Part of that NEMA definition says that locked-rotor torque at MG1–12.32.2, a general-purpose motor must locked-rotor current at MG1–12.43, and preliminary analyses public meeting, Earthjustice commented that DOE could incorporate a ‘‘Class A insulation breakdown torque at MG1–12.32. For system with a temperature rise as small polyphase motors, NEMA MG1– reinterpret the statutory definition of small electric motor such that NEMA specified in MG 1–12.42 for small 1987 only defines breakdown torque in motors or Class B insulation system MG1–12.37. Because of these MG1–1987 only applies to the definition of two-digit frame number series and with a temperature rise as specified in restrictions, none of the above motor MG 1–12.43 for medium motors.’’ categories are small electric motors as later versions of MG1 could be used to The issue of insulation classes and EPCA defines that term. DOE’s expand coverage to include enclosed how it pertains to DOE’s scope of determination that standards are motors. Earthjustice reiterated this point coverage was discussed at the warranted for small electric motors in a comment submitted after the public meeting. (Earthjustice, Public Meeting preliminary analysis public meeting. excluded the above motor categories, Transcript, No. 8.5 at pp. 47–50; Advanced Energy spoke about and none are covered by today’s Earthjustice, No. 11 at p. 1) NEMA insulation classes and recommended proposed standards. that DOE’s coverage should include As for CSIR, CSCR, and polyphase disagreed with this interpretation of the Class F insulation systems. (Advanced motors, these motor categories do meet statutory definition, arguing that MG1– 1987 was intended to apply to the entire Energy, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 A notation in the form ‘‘Emerson, Public definition of a small electric motor. 8.5 at pp. 45–46) Advanced Energy Meeting Transcript, No. 8.5 at p. 38’’ refers to (1) Therefore, NEMA recommended that noted that insulation class systems used a statement that was submitted by Emerson Motor DOE only cover open motors. (NEMA, in small electric motors have improved Technologies and is recorded in the docket ‘‘Energy No. 13 at p. 17) since this definition of general purpose Efficiency Program for Certain Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Public Meeting and DOE agrees with NEMA that the was first standardized in NEMA MG1– Availability of the Framework Document for Small reference MG1–1987 applies to all facets 1987. Further, as new insulation Electric Motors,’’ Docket Number EERE–2008–BT– of the statutory definition of a small technologies have improved and STD–0007, as comment number 8.5; and (2) a electric motor. The language of the material costs have decreased, it has passage that appears on page 38 of the transcript, ‘‘Small Electric Motors Energy Conservation statute specifies that the requirements of become increasingly common for Standards Preliminary Analyses Public Meeting,’’ MG1–1987 apply in determining what manufacturers to use insulation classes dated January 30, 2009. Likewise, a notation in the constitutes a small electric motor. DOE’s higher than A. Advanced Energy form ‘‘NEMA, No. 13 at p. 5’’ refers to (1) a application of that definition is requested in written comments that statement by the National Electrical Manufacturers Association and is recorded in the docket as consistent with that language. Similarly, DOE consider all insulation classes as comment number 13; and (2) a passage that appears because the statute specifically covered (Advanced Energy, No. 16 at on page 5 of that document. mentions MG1–1987 as the version of p. 4).
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 61422 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules
Upon further examination of the and defines the relationship between rating. Second, as to electric motors market, DOE agrees with Advanced horsepower and kilowatts. Furthermore, with non-standard kilowatt or Energy. The vast majority of the motors in 10 CFR 431.12, DOE defined ‘‘electric horsepower ratings, section 431.25(b)(3) manufactured, and otherwise covered motor’’ in terms of both NEMA and IEC provides that kilowatt rating would be by this rulemaking, satisfy the equivalents even though EPCA’s arithmetically converted to its requirements for Class B or Class F corresponding definition and standards equivalent horsepower rating, and then, insulation systems. DOE also found that were articulated in terms of MG1–1987 based on whether the motor falls above according to MG1–1.66 and paragraph criteria and English units of or below the midpoint between MG1–12.42, NEMA MG 1–1987 defines measurement. 64 FR 54114 (October 5, consecutive horsepower ratings, would four insulation class systems. They are 1999) be required to meet the corresponding divided into classes based on the DOE received two comments on IEC- higher or lower energy efficiency level, thermal endurance of the system for equivalent motors following the January respectively. DOE proposes to adopt temperature rating purposes. A Class A 30, 2009, public meeting. NEMA similar interpretations for small electric insulation system must have suitable commented that IEC-equivalent motors motors. thermal endurance at a temperature rise. should be considered covered products Class A insulation is a minimum level to prevent the import of virtually f. Frame Sizes identical products that are not of thermal endurance. A Class B As to the frame sizes of motors that compliant with energy efficiency insulation system has a greater thermal would be covered by DOE standards for endurance rating than Class A. standards. (NEMA, No. 13 at p. 17) A small electric motors, EPCA defines Similarly, Class F thermal endurance joint comment submitted by PG&E, SCE, small electric motor, in part, as a motor exceeds Class B and Class H insulation SCGC, and SDGE also stated that IEC- ‘‘built in a two-digit frame number has the highest level of endurance equivalent motors should be covered to series in accordance with MG1–1987.’’ among all four classes. Therefore, the prevent a potential loophole in the (42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(G)) MG1–1987 insulation class systems are defined in standard. (Joint Comment, No. 12 at establishes a system for designating a way that permits a Class H system to p. 2) frames of motors, which consists of a satisfy Classes A, B, and F. DOE believes Although the statutory definition of series of numbers in combination with that this approach satisfies the statute ‘‘small electric motor’’ does not address letters. The 1987 version of MG1 only and avoids creating a loophole through metric or kilowatt-rated motors, DOE which all small electric motors agrees with the submitted comments. In explicitly defines three two-digit frame equipped with non-Class A insulation general, IEC metric or kilowatt- series: 42, 48, and 56. These frame series would be eliminated from coverage. equivalent motors can perform the have standard dimensions and Commenters did not suggest that these identical functions of covered small tolerances necessary for mounting and insulation classes should be exempt electric motors and provide comparable interchangeability that are specified in from coverage and DOE is proposing to rotational mechanical power to the same sections MG1–11.31 and MG1–11.34. consider covering insulation Classes A machines or equipment. Moreover, IEC DOE understands that manufacturers or higher as covered under this rule. metric or kilowatt-equivalent motors produce other two-digit frame sizes, Therefore, DOE interprets the NEMA can be interchangeable with covered namely a 66 frame size. The 66 frame MG1–1987 definition of a ‘‘general- small electric motors. Therefore, DOE size is used for definite-purpose or purpose, alternating-current motor’’ as interprets EPCA to apply the definition special-purpose motors and not used in being applicable to insulation class of a ‘‘small electric motor’’ to any motor general-purpose applications and systems rated A or higher. that is identical or equivalent to a motor therefore not covered under the EPCA constructed and rated in accordance definition of ‘‘small electric motor.’’ e. Metric Equivalents with NEMA MG1. DOE is unaware of any other motors EPCA defines a small electric motor Additionally, as to motors with a with frame sizes that are built in based on the construction and rating standard kilowatt rating, DOE accordance with NEMA MG1–1987. system in MG1–1987. (42 U.S.C. prescribed energy conservation Should such frame sizes appear, DOE 6311(13)(G)) This system uses English standards for medium electric motors will evaluate whether or not they are units of measurement and power output (i.e., NEMA three-digit frame series included equipment at that time. ratings in horsepower. In contrast, motors) in section 431.25(a). In this general-purpose electric motors section of the CFR DOE establishes g. Horsepower Ratings manufactured outside the United States equivalencies of standard horsepower and Canada are defined and described and kilowatt ratings. As demonstrated The definition of a small electric with reference to the International by examination of these specified motor does not explicitly limit the scope Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) equivalencies in section 431.25(a) and of coverage to certain horsepower Standard 60034–1 series, ‘‘Rotating the exact conversions of standard ratings. However, DOE notes that the electrical machines,’’ which employs kilowatt ratings to horsepower ratings small electric motor industry generally terminology and criteria different from laid out in 431.25(b)(3)—no standard considers 3 hp as the upper limit for those in EPCA. The performance kilowatt rating exactly equals a standard rated capacity of such motors. attributes of these IEC motors are rated horsepower rating—and therefore an Nonetheless, some manufacturers pursuant to IEC Standard 60034–1 Part IEC motor with a standard kilowatt produce motors that meet the EPCA 1: ‘‘Rating and performance,’’ which rating must sometimes meet the definition of small electric motor but uses metric units of measurement and efficiency standard for the next higher have higher horsepower ratings. DOE construction standards different from horsepower or the next lower depending has tentatively concluded that such MG1–1987, and a rating system based on what converted horsepower value is motors are still covered by and subject on power output in kilowatts instead of relative to the surrounding standard to standards adopted under EPCA. power output in horsepower. The horsepower ratings. In all cases the Chapter 3 of the TSD provides Institute of Electrical and Electronics standard it must meet is prescribed for additional detail on the nature of the Engineers (IEEE) Standard 112 a horsepower that is very close to an motors covered by the standards recognizes this difference in the market exact conversion from its kilowatt proposed in this NOPR.
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 61423
2. Product Classes of incorporating a run capacitor into the with efficiency, DOE uses this as a When evaluating and establishing small electric motor affects motor criterion for distinguishing among energy conservation standards, DOE efficiency, making it more efficient than product classes. generally divides covered equipment an induction run motor that does not At the public meeting, Emerson and incorporate a run capacitor.8 into classes by the type of energy used, This Baldor commented that frame size design constitutes a performance-related capacity, or other performance-related should be considered as an additional feature that affects efficiency. features that affect efficiency. (42 U.S.C. motor characteristic when establishing Furthermore, DOE notes that it is not 6295(q)) DOE routinely establishes product classes. They both stated that always possible to replace a CSIR motor different energy conservation standards motors of different frame sizes should with a CSCR motor due to the run for different product classes based on not be subjected to the same standards capacitor, which is often mounted in an these criteria. because motors in the smaller frames external housing on the motor. In At the preliminary analyses public will not be able to achieve as high an certain applications, the run capacitor meeting, DOE presented its rationale for energy efficiency rating as the larger mounted on the motor will physically creating 72 product classes. The 72 frame size. (Baldor, Public Meeting prohibit it from replacing a CSIR motor. Transcript, No. 8.5 at pp. 70–71; product classes are based on the This is a design feature that affects combinations of three different ratings Emerson, Public Meeting Transcript, utility. For all of these reasons, DOE No. 8.5 at pp. 75–76) or characteristics of a motor based on treats CSIR and CSCR motors as separate motor category, number of poles, and DOE agrees that motors in a smaller product classes. frame size, and therefore made with a horsepower. As these motor Second, the number of poles in an characteristics change, so does the potentially smaller diameter, will not be electric motor determines the able to achieve the same efficiency utility and efficiency of the small synchronous speed (i.e., revolutions per electric motor. rating as a larger frame. The smaller minute). There is an inverse diameter limits the amount of active The motor category divides the small relationship between the number of material that is used to reduce motor electric motors market into three major poles and the maximum speed a motor losses and therefore limits the motor categories: CSIR, CSCR, and can run at, meaning that an increase in maximum efficiency rating possible as polyphase. For each motor category, the number of poles equates to a well. However, DOE believes that frame DOE broke down the product classes by decrease in the speed of the motor (e.g., size does not adequately account for all combinations of the eight different going from two to four to six poles, the 1 ≥ efficiency limits based on the physical horsepower ratings (i.e., ⁄4 to 3) and synchronous speed drops from 3,600 to size of the motor. The frame size only three different pole configurations (i.e., 1,800 to 1,200 revolutions per minute). dictates what the ‘‘D’’ dimension (i.e., 2, 4, and 6). A number of reasons Since the full range of motor the dimension comprising the length support this approach. applications requires a variety of motor First, the motor category depends on speeds, DOE considers motor speed and, from the bottom of the feet of a motor the type of energy used and its starting therefore, the number of poles to have to the center of its shaft). For example, and running electrical characteristics. a distinct impact on the utility of small a 56 frame motor could have a stator While all small electric motors use electric motors. Therefore, DOE uses the outside diameter ranging from 5.5 electricity, some motors operate on number of poles in a motor as a means inches to 6.15 inches. Therefore, DOE single phase electricity (which requires of differentiating product classes accounts for how changes in diameter certain additional electronics for because it is this design change that can affect product utility and efficiency creating rotational torque) while others creates a change in motor speed in the engineering analysis. operate on polyphase electricity. capabilities. Additionally, if DOE were to add Polyphase motors do not need Third, in general, efficiency scales frame size to the class-setting criterion additional circuitry to create rotational with horsepower, a capacity-related the number of product classes would torque because they use the existing metric of small electric motors. In other increase from 72 to 216, which is a phase difference in the multiple phases words, a 3 horsepower motor is usually change by a factor of three for the frame of electricity applied to the motor. This more efficient than a 1⁄4 horsepower sizes covered: 42, 48, and 56. Such a difference impacts efficiency, and motor. Horsepower is a critical large number of product classes would therefore becomes a factor around performance attribute of an electric result in a large number of basic models, which DOE establishes a separate motor, and since there is a correlation which would be too burdensome on product class for polyphase motors. manufacturers when seeking Within single phase small electric 8 The run-capacitor and auxiliary windings in a certification of compliance. The three motors, there are characteristics which CSCR motor help simulate a balanced two phase tables below lay out the 72 product motor at full load, which helps minimize the classes, including a description of are important because they can affect current required to run the motor, thereby reducing the motor’s utility and potential for the I2R losses (which are losses related to current kilowatt and horsepower equivalents. improving efficiency. The design feature flow). BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 61424 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules
Chapter 3 of the TSD accompanying B. Screening Analysis 1. Technological feasibility. DOE this notice provides additional detail on considers technologies incorporated in the product classes defined for the DOE uses the following four screening commercial products or in working standards proposed in this NOPR. criteria to determine which design prototypes to be technologically options are suitable for further feasible. consideration in a standards rulemaking:
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP24NO09.003 EP24NO09.004 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 61425
2. Practicability to manufacture, losses by as much as 50 percent.9 The manufacturers by NEMA, they stated install, and service. If mass production Lund University team already produces that reducing the air gap could have a and reliable installation and servicing of inductors, transformers, and induction positive effect on efficiency for some a technology in commercial products heating coils using PBIP, but has not yet motor designs, but not necessarily all. could be achieved on the scale produced a small electric motor. In (NEMA, No. 13 at p. 5) NEMA also necessary to serve the relevant market at addition, it appears that PBIP stated that a more practical limit on the the time the standard comes into effect, technology is aimed at torus, claw-pole, air gap for small electric motors is 12.5 then DOE considers that technology and transversal flux motors, none of thousandths of an inch. (NEMA, No. 13 practicable to manufacture, install, and which fit EPCA’s definition of small at p. 3) service. motors. DOE agrees with NEMA’s comments 3. Adverse impacts on product utility Considering the four screening criteria and screened out decreasing the radial or product availability. If DOE for this technology option, DOE air gap below 12.5 thousandths of an determines a technology would have screened out PBIP as a means of inch as a means of improving efficiency. significant adverse impact on the utility improving efficiency. Although PBIP DOE believes air gaps of 10 thousandths of the product to significant subgroups has the potential to improve efficiency of an inch are possible; however, they of consumers, or would result in the while reducing manufacturing costs, are more practical in non-continuous, unavailability of any covered product DOE does not consider this technology stepper motors (motors whose full type with performance characteristics option technologically feasible, because rotation is completed in discrete (including reliability), features, sizes, it has not been incorporated into a movements) where potential contact is capacities, and volumes that are working prototype of a small electric not as much of a concern. DOE substantially the same as products motor. Also, DOE is uncertain whether considers air gap reduction below 12.5 generally available in the United States the material has the structural integrity thousandths of an inch technologically at the time, it will not consider this to form into the necessary shape of a feasible, because smaller air gaps do not technology further. small electric motor steel frame. present any technological barrier. Also, 4. Adverse impacts on health or Furthermore, DOE is uncertain whether DOE is not aware of any adverse safety. If DOE determines that a PBIP is practicable to manufacture, impacts on health or safety associated technology will have significant adverse install, and service, because a prototype with reducing the radial air gap below impacts on health or safety, it will not PBIP small electric motor has not been 12.5 thousandths of an inch. However, consider this technology further. made and little information is available DOE believes that this technology See 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, on the ability to manufacture this option fails the screening criterion of appendix A, (4)(a)(4) and (5)(b). technology. However, DOE is not aware being practicable to manufacture, of any adverse impacts on product install, and service because such a tight DOE identified the following utility, product availability, health, or air gap may cause the rotor to come into technology options that could improve safety that may arise from the use of contact with the stator and cause the efficiency of small electric motors: PBIP in small electric motors. manufacturing and service problems. utilizing a copper die-cast rotor, Reducing the air gap between the This technology option fails the reducing skew on stack (i.e., rotor and stator can improve motor screening criterion of adverse impacts straightening the rotor conductor bars), efficiency as well by reducing the on consumer utility and reliability, increasing the cross-sectional area of magnetomotive force drop (i.e., the force because the motor may experience rotor conductor bars, increasing the end producing the magnetic flux needed to higher failure rates in service when the ring size, changing the copper wire operate the motor), which occurs across manufactured air gaps are less than 12.5 gauge used in the stator, manipulating the air gap. Reducing this drop means thousandths of an inch. the stator slot size, changing capacitor that the motor will require less current DOE received comments on two other ratings, decreasing the air gap between to operate. For small electric motors, the technology options as well—increasing the rotor and stator, improving the air gap is commonly set at 15 stack length and the use of different run grades of electrical steel, using thinner thousandths of an inch. Although capacitors. Baldor suggested that DOE steel laminations, annealing steel reducing this air gap can improve screen out changing the stack length of laminations, adding stack height, using efficiency, there is some point at which the motor because it will force some high efficiency lamination materials, the air gap is too tight and becomes original equipment manufacturers using plastic bonded iron powder impracticable to manufacture. For the (OEMs) that use small electric motors to (PBIP), installing better ball bearings preliminary analyses DOE set an air gap invest in redesigning their equipment to and lubricant, and installing a more reduction limit at 10 thousandths of an fit the potentially larger motor. (Baldor, efficient cooling system. For a inch. Public Meeting Transcript, No. 8.5 at description of how each of these During the public meeting and the pp. 121–22) DOE cannot screen out a technology options improves small comment period following it, DOE technology option because of cost, so electric motor efficiency please see TSD received comments on this technology DOE believes adding stack height and chapter 3. For the NOPR, DOE screened option. At the public meeting, Baldor lengthening a motor is a viable out two of these technology options: stated that reducing the air gap between technology option that passes all four PBIP and decreasing the air gap below the stator and rotor will not improve screening criterion. Accordingly, these .0125″. motor efficiency, but could potentially technology options will be included in PBIP is based on an iron powder alloy worsen it instead. (Baldor, Public the engineering analysis. See the that is suspended in plastic, and is used Meeting Transcript, No. 8.5 at p. 119) engineering analysis, section IV.C. in certain motor applications such as Alternatively, in the comment NEMA recommended that DOE fans, pumps, and household appliances. submitted on behalf of Baldor and other consider varying the rating of capacitors The compound is then shaped into used in small electric motors as a motor components using a centrifugal 9 Horrdin, H., and E. Olsson. Technology Shifts in technology option. (NEMA, No. 13 at p. mold, reducing the number of Power Electronics and Electric Motors for Hybrid 18) In response, DOE notes that though Electric Vehicles: A Study of Silicon Carbide and manufacturing steps. Researchers claim Iron Powder Materials. 2007. Chalmers University varying capacitor ratings was not that this technology option could cut of Technology. Go¨teborg, Sweden. explicitly listed as a technology option,
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 61426 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules
it was utilized in the preliminary modified design-option approach where to conduct a separate engineering engineering analysis. DOE agrees that DOE employed a technical expert with analysis for each and every product changing the capacitor rating, motor design software to develop motor class. Instead, DOE carefully selected specifically the run-capacitor rating designs at several efficiency levels for certain product classes to analyze, and used in CSCR motors, can provide each analyzed product class. Based on then scaled its analytical findings for increases in motor efficiency with these simulated designs and those representative product classes to minimal redesign effort. DOE believes manufacturer and component supplier other product classes that were not that changing the capacitor rating meets data, DOE calculated manufacturing analyzed. Further discussion of this all four screening criterion and is being costs and selling prices associated with issue is presented in section IV.C.6. included in the engineering analysis of each efficiency level. DOE decided on For the engineering analysis this NOPR. this approach after receiving insufficient conducted during the preliminary DOE believes that all of the efficiency response to its request for the analysis, DOE analyzed three levels discussed in today’s notice are manufacturer data needed to execute an representative product classes, all with technologically feasible. The evaluated efficiency-level approach for the the most popular, 4-pole configuration. technologies all have been used (or are preliminary analyses. The design-option In response to that analysis, Baldor being used) in commercially available approach allows DOE to make its commented that two and six-pole products or working prototypes. These engineering analysis methodologies, motors may have significant design technologies all incorporate materials assumptions, and results publicly differences (such as the rotor outer available, thereby permitting all and components that are commercially diameter) from 4-pole motors. (Baldor, interested parties the opportunity to available in today’s supply markets for Public Meeting Transcript, No. 8.5 at review and comment on this the motors that are the subject of this pp. 196–99) Although DOE recognizes information. The design options NOPR. Therefore, DOE believes all of that these design differences exist and considered in the engineering analysis the efficiency levels evaluated in this may affect efficiency, DOE has include: copper die-cast rotor, reduce notice are technologically feasible. continued to directly model only 4-pole skew on stack, increase cross-sectional motors in its engineering analysis C. Engineering Analysis area of rotor conductor bars, increase because it is the most popular The engineering analysis develops end-ring size, change gauge of copper configuration within each motor cost-efficiency relationships to show the wire in stator, manipulate stator slot category and therefore the best basis for manufacturing costs of achieving size, decrease air gap between rotor and scaling. As discussed in section IV.C.3, increased efficiency. DOE has identified stator to 12.5 thousandths of an inch, DOE has revised its scaling the following three methodologies to improve grades of electrical steel, use relationships between product classes to generate the manufacturing costs thinner steel laminations, anneal steel account for efficiency-related needed for the engineering analysis: (1) laminations, add stack height, use high differences between pole configurations. The design-option approach, which efficiency lamination materials, change provides the incremental costs of adding capacitors ratings, install better ball For the NOPR, similar to its approach to a baseline model design options that bearings and lubricant, and install a in the preliminary analyses, DOE will improve its efficiency; (2) the more efficient cooling system. Chapter 5 analyzed the three representative efficiency-level approach, which of the TSD contains a detailed product classes depicted in Table IV.4. provides the relative costs of achieving description of the product classes By choosing these three product classes, increases in energy efficiency levels, analyzed and the analytical models DOE DOE ensures that each motor category without regard to the particular design used to conduct the small electric (polyphase, CSIR, and CSCR) is options used to achieve such increases; motors engineering analysis and chapter represented. In addition, DOE has and (3) the cost-assessment (or reverse 3 of the TSD contains a detailed chosen horsepower ratings for each engineering) approach, which provides description of how all the design motor category that are commonly ‘‘bottom-up’’ manufacturing cost options increase motor efficiency. available across most manufacturers, assessments for achieving various levels thus increasing the quantity of available 2. Product Classes Analyzed of increased efficiency, based on data on which to base the analysis. detailed data as to costs for parts and As discussed in section IV.A.2 of this Finally, DOE chose four-pole motors for material, labor, shipping/packaging, and notice, DOE proposes establishing a each motor category, consistent with investment for models that operate at total of 72 product classes for small NEMA-provided shipments data (see particular efficiency levels. electric motors, based on the motor TSD chapter 9), which indicated that category (polyphase, CSIR, or CSCR), these motors have the highest shipment 1. Approach horsepower, and pole configuration. volume for 2007. See TSD chapter 5 for In this rulemaking, DOE conducted However, due to scheduling and additional detail on the product classes the engineering analysis using a resource constraints, DOE was not able analyzed.
3. Cost Model estimate the manufacturing production software to generate a complete bill of cost (MPC) of small electric motors. The materials, specifying quantities and For the preliminary analyses and this model uses outputs of the design dimensions of parts associated with the NOPR, DOE developed a cost model to
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP24NO09.005 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 61427
manufacturing of each design. The bill to TSD chapter 5 for additional details efficiency levels also corresponded to of materials is multiplied by markups on DOE’s commodities cost scenario. the lowest efficiencies of motors for scrap, overhead 10 (which includes DOE applied a manufacturer markup manufactured and sold in the market by depreciation) and associated non- to the MPC estimates to arrive at the their members at that time. production costs such as interest MSP. MSP is the price of equipment For the preliminary analyses, DOE payments, research and development, sold at which the manufacturer can used the expertise of its subcontractor to and sales and general administration. recover both production and non- develop baseline design parameters that The software output also includes an production costs and earn a profit. DOE included dimensions, steel grades, estimate of labor time associated with developed a market-share-weighted copper wire gauges, operating each step of motor construction. DOE average industry markup by examining temperatures, and other features multiplied these estimates by a fully gross margin information from the necessary to calculate the motor’s burdened labor rate to obtain an annual reports of several major small performance. The subcontractor used a estimate of labor costs. electric motor manufacturers and software program to create a baseline During the public meeting, DOE Securities and Exchange Commission design that had an efficiency rating received two comments regarding (SEC) 10–K reports.11 Because the SEC equivalent to that provided by NEMA inputs to the cost model. Edison Electric 10–K reports do not provide gross and torque and current restrictions Institute expressed concern with how margin information for different product compliant with NEMA MG1–1987. DOE would handle material pricing for line offerings, the estimated markups After the public meeting, a few input commodity prices since the past represent the average markups that the commenters raised issues related to several years have seen drastic company applies over its entire range of baseline models. NEMA stated that DOE fluctuations in these prices. (EEI, Public motor offerings. should use the baseline efficiencies that Meeting Transcript, No. 8.5 at pp. 161– Markups were evaluated for 2003 to had been provided for the preliminary 62) NEEA reiterated these concerns and 2008. The manufacturer markup is analyses to select efficiencies for the suggested that DOE use a distribution of calculated as 100/(100—average gross baseline models in the NOPR. (NEMA, commodity prices and generate various margin), where average gross margin is No. 13 at p. 5) pricing scenarios. (NEEA, Public calculated as revenue—cost of goods For the NOPR analysis, DOE Meeting Transcript, No. 8.5 at p. 164) sold (COGS). To validate the reexamined the baseline units selected. DOE decided to estimate input costs information, DOE reviewed its To establish the baseline motor for the by using an inflation-adjusted 5-year assumptions with motor manufacturers. three representative product classes average of prices for each of the input During interviews (see Chapter 12 of the DOE examined all available catalog data commodities: steel laminations, copper TSD), motor manufacturers stated that to find motors with the lowest efficiency wiring, and aluminum and copper for many manufacturers generate different on the market. The rated efficiencies for rotor die-casting. This method for levels of revenue and profit for different the polyphase and CSIR motors that calculating costs is consistent with past product classes, but generally agreed DOE chose corresponded to the baseline rulemakings where material costs were with the end markup that was efficiency levels that NEMA had a significant part of manufacturers’ generated. For the NOPR engineering recommended. However, for the CSCR costs. In calculating the 5-year average analysis, DOE used an industry-wide motor DOE was unable to find a motor prices for these commodities, DOE manufacturer markup of 1.45 based on with as low an efficiency as that adjusted historical prices to 2008 terms the information described above. recommended by NEMA. Therefore, using the historical Producer Price DOE selected the lowest efficiency level Index (PPI) for that commodity’s 4. Baseline Models it could find in the market, which was industry. DOE also performed a cost As mentioned above, the engineering 72 percent instead of the 66 percent sensitivity analysis in which it analysis calculates the incremental costs recommended by NEMA. After examined both a high and low cost for equipment with efficiency levels purchasing the small electric motors, scenario for commodities. For all above the baseline in each product class DOE had its design subcontractor, as commodity prices, DOE used the PPI to analyzed. During the preliminary well as an accredited laboratory, test the determine the high and low cost points analyses, NEMA provided DOE with motors according to the appropriate and then input those costs into the cost baseline efficiency levels for the four IEEE test procedure. See Table IV.5 for model. This allowed DOE to generate a motors DOE analyzed. The baseline the NEMA recommended efficiencies, high commodities cost case and a low efficiencies reported by NEMA were the catalog rated efficiencies, and the commodities cost case for the from a set of compiled data submitted tested efficiencies of the three baseline engineering analysis results. Please refer by its members. The reported baseline models.
10 DOE used a markup of 17.5% for overhead The difference in markup is to account for 11 Available at: http://www.sec.gov/edgar.shtml. when the motor design used an aluminum rotor and increased depreciation of the manufacturing 18.0% when the motor design used a copper rotor. equipment associated with using a copper rotor.
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP24NO09.006 61428 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules
DOE also received comment on information. Finally, the purchased b. Motor Size removing a motor that was analyzed for motors were created in the designer’s Motor size was a topic repeatedly the preliminary analysis from further software and used as the baseline addressed by interested parties. WEG analysis. In the preliminary analysis, models in each analyzed product class and Emerson both commented that a DOE analyzed two CSIR motors of the for the engineering analysis. Again, the result of energy conservation standards same horsepower and pole three product classes that were analyzed and increasing the efficiency of small 1 configuration, but with different frame were: CSIR, ⁄2 horsepower, 4-pole; electric motors could be that the motor 3 sizes. After the engineering analysis CSCR ⁄4 horsepower, 4-pole; and length, diameter, or both will increase. showed little difference in the cost- polyphase, 1 horsepower, 4-pole motors. (WEG, Public Meeting Transcript, No. efficiency relationship, DOE decided The specifications of the baseline 8.5 at p. 79; Emerson, Public Meeting not to include the motor with the larger models can be found in detail in TSD Transcript, No. 8.5 at pp. 80–81) This frame size in the subsequent NIA and chapter 5. concerned manufacturers because larger LCC analyses. Adjuvant Consulting motors that result from higher efficiency stated that they agreed with this 5. Design Options and Limitations standards may no longer fit into decision (Adjuvant Consulting, No. 9 at In the market and technology applications and OEMs would be forced p. 4) However, NEMA disagreed with assessment for the preliminary analyses, to redesign their equipment. DOE the implication that frame size makes DOE defined an initial list of recognizes that lower cost high little difference on the cost-efficiency technologies that could increase the efficiency motor designs can be relationship in their comment and energy efficiency of small electric produced either with larger diameters or stated that they believed the little motors. In the screening analysis for the a longer stack length. DOE constrained differences shown between the motors preliminary analyses, DOE screened out the motor diameter in its engineering analyzed was due to the differences in two of these technologies (PBIP and an analysis and simplified its analysis of other design characteristics of the air gap less than 12.5 thousandths of an space constrained applications by baseline motor. (NEMA, No. 12 at p. 19) inch) based on four screening criteria: DOE considered both of these addressing space constraint issues in technological feasibility; practicability only the stack length dimension. DOE comments when choosing appropriate to manufacture, install, and service; product classes to analyze. DOE agrees assumes that motor users whose impacts on equipment utility or applications are not space constrained with Adjuvant Consulting and believes availability; and impacts on health or that an analysis of two motors with in terms of diameter, would purchase a safety. The remaining technologies motor with the next higher frame size. different frame sizes, but in the same became inputs to the preliminary product class is not necessary. DOE also At the public meeting, WEG stated analyses engineering analysis as design that there is no set amount of additional agrees with NEMA’s assessment that the options. reason there was little difference stack height that can be added to a between the two CSIR motors was due In addition to the comments DOE design without affecting end-use to the difference in the baseline design received about the list of design options application because manufacturers often and not that there are little differences considered in the screening analysis, push those limits (WEG, Public Meeting in cost-efficiency relationships for DOE also received several comments Transcript, No. 8.5 at p. 129) NEMA motors with the same ratings, but in about design limitations that should be suggested that DOE use a maximum different frame sizes. However, in the considered. Among these design stack length increase of less than 20 NOPR, DOE chose not to analyze two limitations are limits on how much to percent to account for the size motors in the same product class with apply certain design options and motor restrictions that certain motor different frame sizes. Instead, DOE performance characteristics that should applications will have. (NEMA, No. 13 selected motors with the most restricted be monitored and maintained. The at p. 4) frame size seen in the respective comments addressed all of the following When establishing design limitations product classes. DOE believes this is the issues: manufacturability, motor size, for the motor designs produced, DOE best way to assess the efficiency service factor, skew, the air gap between considered these comments. DOE capabilities of motors in the the rotor and stator, power factor, speed, decided that increasing the stack height representative product classes. service factor, slot fill, locked-rotor of a motor can result in the motor no Emerson stated that the software conditions, no-load conditions, longer fitting into certain applications. program used by DOE in developing its breakdown torque, and thermal Taking the concerns raised during the baseline models should be validated by characteristics of the motor. comment period into account, DOE utilized a maximum increase of stack actual motor designs that are produced. a. Manufacturability (Emerson, Public Meeting Transcript, height of no more than 20 percent from No. 8.5 at pp. 148–49) Baldor commented during the public the baseline motor. However, DOE also DOE established dimensional and meeting that manufacturability was its believes that not all applications would performance specifications other than primary concern and urged DOE to be held to this 20 percent limitation. efficiency for the baseline models by consider this factor. (Baldor, Public Because this design limitation has a examining all outputs of the IEEE test Meeting Transcript, No. 8.5 at p. 108) drastic effect on the cost-efficiency procedures and performing teardowns NEMA and the NEEA and the Northwest relationship for small electric motors, of the purchased motors. The IEEE test Power and Conservation Council and not all applications would be bound procedures provide several motor reiterated this view in their respective to that restriction, DOE provides a performance characteristics including comments submitted after the public second set of engineering results for speed, power factor, torque, and line meeting. (NEMA, No. 13 at p. 6; NEEA each product class analyzed. This current at various load points. After and NPCC, No. 9 at p. 4) DOE agrees second set of results has a much less compiling these test data, DOE’s with these comments and believes that stringent limit of increasing the stack subcontractor tore down each motor through the application of the design height, of 100 percent. That is, DOE has purchased to obtain internal limitations that follow in this section, two designs for each motor analyzed, at dimensions, copper wire gauges, steel DOE has maintained manufacturability each efficiency level; one for the motor grade, and any other pertinent design in all motor designs it presents. designs adhering to a maximum stack
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 61429
height increase of 20 percent and one but did assume 1.0 percent for the value maintained for all designs. (Joint adhering to 100 percent. However, for of stray-load loss. Baldor recommended Comment, No. 12 at p. 3) some of the lower efficiency levels, that instead of assuming 1.0 percent, DOE understands that sacrificing where a change in steel grade or an DOE should assume 1.8 percent because power factor to obtain gains in increase of stack height above 20 that is recommended in the IEEE efficiency is counterproductive because percent is not needed, both sets of standard. (Baldor, Public Meeting of the negative effects on line efficiency. designs are the same. DOE uses a Transcript, No. 8.5 at p. 176) After Therefore DOE agrees that power factor weighted average of the MSPs from the examining the IEEE standard, DOE must be considered when designing 20 percent constrained designs and the agrees with Baldor and has assumed 1.8 more efficient small electric motors. 100 percent constrained designs based percent for the amount of stray-load loss However, DOE does not believe that it on the distribution of size-constrained in its motor designs. is necessary to maintain a power factor applications that use small electric e. Air Gap of 75 percent for all designs. Instead, motors. DOE has opted to maintain or increase The air gap between the rotor and c. Service Factor the power factor of the baseline motor stator was another topic discussed at the for each more efficient design and As discussed in section IV.A.1 service preliminary analyses public meeting therefore does not negate any gains in factor is a performance characteristic and DOE received two pertinent efficiency. motor manufacturers must observe comments. As discussed in the when designing their motors. In its screening analysis, Baldor stated that g. Speed comment, NEMA suggested that service reducing the air gap between the rotor DOE also received comment about the factor be considered so that subsequent and stator could have negative effects on rated speed of its designs during the more efficient designs are still proper efficiency. (Baldor, Public Meeting preliminary analyses public meeting. replacements of the baseline motor Transcript, No. 8.5 at p. 119) NEMA Baldor commented that DOE should design. (NEMA, No. 13 at p. 7) DOE added that although reducing the air gap monitor the trend of full-load speed as agrees with this comment and therefore, could improve small electric motor motor designs become more efficient will maintain the service factor of the efficiency, it recommended that DOE and DOE should try to maintain the baseline motor design for each not decrease the air gap in its designs to speed of the baseline as much as subsequent, more efficient design less than 12.5 thousandths of an inch possible. (Baldor, Public Meeting produced. because smaller air gaps could be Transcript, No. 8.5 at pp. 177–78) problematic causing rotor and stator d. Skew and Stay-Load Loss NEMA reaffirmed this position and contact, especially as the motors get Another design limitation that was stated that to maintain utility for some longer. (NEMA, No. 13, pp. 3, 5) applications, for example a fan or pump, discussed at the public meeting was After careful consideration of these as efficiency is increased from design to decreasing the degree of rotor skew. At comments, DOE agrees that decreasing design, full-load speed must be the preliminary analyses public the air gap between the stator and rotor maintained (NEMA, No. 13 at pp. 6–7) meeting, Emerson commented that if down to 12.5 thousandths of an inch is rotor skew is removed in a single-phase a viable design option. Reducing the gap DOE consulted with its own technical motor, the motor will not start. below that amount would increase the expert when setting a design limitation (Emerson, Public Meeting Transcript, risk of creating potential performance for full-load speed. DOE found that a No. 8.5 at p. 134) Regal-Beloit also had and reliability issues that could arise decrease in full-load speed could have concerns about this design option and with contact between the rotor and a negative impact on the utility of the stated that reducing motor skew could stator as well introduce motor design considered a replacement cause the rotor to be noisy when manufacturability concerns regarding of the baseline. Additionally, DOE running. (Regal-Beloit, Public Meeting understands that speed is directly the ability of manufacturers to build 2 12 Transcript, No. 8.5 at p. 135–36) motors with these significantly tighter related to the I R losses found in a DOE agrees that removing all of the tolerances. Therefore, DOE set one of its motor and by maintaining it, those skew from a single-phase motor will losses are kept reasonable. design limitations as maintaining at 2 prevent it from starting. DOE also agrees least 12.5 thousandths of inch for an air Subsequently, by not increasing I R that too much reduction of skew could gap. losses, it is easier to increase the overall cause the motor to become noisy. efficiency of the motor. Therefore, DOE However, DOE does believe that f. Power Factor agreed with the comments and decided reducing the degree of skew could The rated power factor of a motor was that each design created by its provide efficiency gains depending an issue that was raised at the subcontractor should maintain or upon the characteristics of the baseline preliminary analyses public meeting. increase the full-load speed of the model. DOE understands that this Baldor commented that the power baseline motor that was tested and design option is subjective and relies factors of some designs in the modeled. heavily on the baseline motor design preliminary analyses engineering h. Thermal Performance and experience of the motor design analysis were extremely low and that engineer. DOE did not use this design such power factors would result in line After the preliminary analyses public option for the motors analyzed in the losses that can negate gains in motor meeting, NEMA suggested that DOE engineering analysis because the skew efficiency. (Baldor, Public Meeting complete a thermal analysis and urged of the baseline model was optimized. Transcript, No. 8.5 at p. 174) NEMA DOE to examine rotor temperature However DOE did not eliminate it as a followed up this comment suggesting during operation. (NEMA, No. 13 at design option prior to purchasing and that a minimum power factor needs to p. 8) tearing down its baseline motors. be established as a design limitation. Additionally, Baldor said that (NEMA, No. 13 at p. 6) PG&E, SCE, 12 I2R losses stem from the current flow through the copper windings in the stator and conductor changing skew will affect the stray-load SCGC, and SDGE reiterated these bars in the rotor. These losses are manifested as losses in a motor. As mentioned DOE sentiments and suggested that a power waste heat, which can shorten the service life of a did not implement this design option, factor of 75 percent should be motor.
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 61430 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules
DOE carefully considered this locked-rotor torque, a maximum locked- translating efficiency standards for comment for the NOPR phase of this rotor current, a minimum breakdown medium motors into motor losses. DOE rulemaking. DOE decided to create a torque, and a maximum no-load current. used two equations to obtain motor baseline design modeled after a small NEMA pointed out that MG1–1987 does losses. DOE then examined these data electric motor manufactured and sold not establish locked-rotor torque sets to find a mathematical relationship on the market today. DOE purchased a standards for polyphase motors, but it explaining the change of motor losses baseline motor for each of the product made no suggestion of what alternative relative to changes in horsepower and classes analyzed in the engineering should be used. NEMA also pointed out number of poles for medium motors. analysis. This motor was tested that MG1–1987 does not require a Finally, DOE assumed the relationships according to the corresponding IEEE test maximum locked-rotor current for small found in medium motors could be procedure and the rotor squirrel-cage polyphase motors, but suggested that extrapolated to describe how losses, and temperature was monitored using DOE use the standards for medium thus efficiency, would scale for small thermocouples. DOE believes that by motors of corresponding horsepower, electric motors. maintaining speed and increasing which are shown in MG 1–12.35. DOE received comments on the efficiency, the thermal integrity of the (NEMA, No. 13 at p. 6) Breakdown scaling methodology that was presented baseline motor will be maintained for torque was another motor performance at the preliminary analyses public each subsequent design of increased characteristic for which NEMA directed meeting. Baldor stated that using efficiency. By maintaining the baseline DOE to specific sections of MG1–1987 medium motor efficiency standards may speed the rotor resistance is not for both single and polyphase motors. not be accurate because medium motors increased and by increasing efficiency (NEMA, No. 13 at p. 6) Finally, NEMA are manufactured in three-digit frame there is less heat that must be dissipated discussed no-load characteristics in sizes, and thus, the relationships found in the motor. DOE believes the thermal their comment. While they made no in medium motors may not be accurate integrity of each motor design produced suggestions for single-phase motors, for small electric motors with two-digit for this rulemaking’s analysis is NEMA believed that an average no-load frames. (Baldor, Public Meeting preserved as a result these factors. current for polyphase small electric Transcript, No. 8.5 at p. 191) motors should be 25–35 percent of the Additionally, NEMA noted that for i. Slot Fill rated-load current. (NEMA, No. 13 at p. medium motor efficiency standards, DOE received comments on the 7) frame size changes with each change in percentages of slot fill used in the DOE appreciates NEMA’s comments horsepower. This is not the case for designs presented for the preliminary clarifying the performance small electric motors where frame sizes analyses public meeting. The maximum specifications set forth by NEMA MG1– are used for a range of horsepower level of slot fill DOE allowed in the 1987 for general-purpose small electric ratings, and in some instances overlap. preliminary engineering analysis was 75 motors. DOE agrees with NEMA that Therefore, NEMA said medium motors percent. NEMA stated that a more any motor design produced should meet data are not applicable to small electric typical limit of slot fill is 65 percent. the specifications shown in MG1–1987. motors and should not be used. (NEMA, (NEMA, No. 13 at p. 3) Emerson stated That is, for single-phase motors all No. 13 at p. 10) that manufacturers could surpass designs should meet the locked-rotor DOE appreciates these comments and current limits on slot fill, but this would torque shown in MG1–12.32.2, the considered them when reevaluating require a hand winding technique by locked-rotor current shown in MG1– scaling relationships for small electric individual workers instead of using 12.33.2, and the breakdown torque motors in the NOPR. Because there are automated winding machinery. shown in MG1–12.32.1. For polyphase no current standards for small electric (Emerson, Public Meeting Transcript, motors, the breakdown torque should be motors, efficiency data are not as widely No. 8.5 at p. 130) Lastly, NEMA also in the range shown in MG1–12.37. DOE accessible for them. However, DOE did recommended that DOE use a minimum agrees that the locked-rotor current examine catalog efficiency data for slot fill. (NEMA, No. 13 at p. 8) specifications for medium polyphase small electric motors to determine if the DOE agrees that the level of slot fill motors are a fair gauge, and therefore relationships gleaned from medium is bound by a minimum and a design limitation for small polyphase motors may be an appropriate maximum. DOE understands that a motors of corresponding horsepower approximation for small electric motors. minimum slot fill is necessary in order ratings because of the similarities in After examining publicly available for a motor to work. After consultation design and performance. For the catalog data, DOE agrees with the with technical experts DOE decided that performance requirements not specified conjectures made by Baldor and NEMA a minimum slot fill of 50 percent should in NEMA MG1–1987, DOE believes that that the relationships found in medium be maintained for all designs. DOE also the best design limitation is to meet or motors are not an accurate agrees with the comments that a exceed the performance of the baseline representation of the relationships maximum level of slot fill is necessary motor used for each product class found in small electric motors. and that that level should be 65 percent. analyzed because this prevents over- Therefore, DOE has foregone the use of Although it is possible to exceed this restricting the design. medium motors efficiency data and has slot fill percentage and get closer to 75 used publicly available catalog data, as 6. Scaling Methodology percent, DOE found that this would take well as test data, to scale the results of uncommon techniques that could As has been discussed in sections the three analyzed product classes to the inhibit mass production. IV.C.2 and IV.C.4, DOE only analyzed remaining 69. three of the 72 product classes defined Baldor made another comment about j. Current and Torque Characteristics for small electric motors. Therefore, the two equations DOE used to describe NEMA discussed in its written DOE needed to scale the results for motor losses. Baldor stated that it was comments the performance these three product classes to the other inaccurate to use the first equation DOE characteristics that should be met for all 69. DOE presented an approach for presented, 100 ¥ efficiency, to describe motor designs produced by DOE for its scaling at the preliminary analyses motor losses. Instead, DOE should only analysis. These performance public meeting. The first step in the use the second equation they presented, specifications include a minimum previous scaling methodology was which is also the accepted industry
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 61431
equation, 100 × [(100/efficiency) ¥ 1]. data. An accredited lab performed IEEE of motors tested, and by utilizing the Baldor, along with NEMA, standard 112, test methods A and B, and look-up tables referenced, medium recommended that DOE only use the IEEE standard 114 to find efficiency electric motor manufacturers report a latter equation when describing motor data for 19 small electric motors. The ‘‘nominal’’ efficiency from these tables losses. (Baldor, Public Meeting motors selected for testing were pulled for compliance and labeling purposes. Transcript, No. 8.5 at pp. 188–90; from the same product line for a given As the industry standard states, NEMA, No. 13 at p. 9) manufacturer. All three motor ‘‘nominal efficiency’’ represents a value DOE agrees with Baldor’s and categories, pole configurations, and a that characterizes the energy NEMA’s comments about motor losses full range of horsepower ratings were consumption of a group of motors, and has only used the industry accepted represented. accounting for variations in materials, equation to calculate them for the Once these data sets were prepared, manufacturing processes, and tests that NOPR. DOE hopes that by using the one DOE then converted the efficiency into result in motor-to-motor efficiency equation it will promote good, industry- motor losses using the industry- variations. accepted equations and also simplify accepted equation mentioned above. As ‘‘nominal efficiency’’ is a widely the methodology used to scale This allowed DOE to use the most used and appropriate metric to efficiencies to all product classes. accurate line of best fit to fill in any gaps characterize the efficiency of electric As discussed in section IV.A.2. Baldor of data, which then enabled DOE to motors, if an equivalent table for small and Emerson commented at the public obtain an aggregated picture of motor electric polyphase and single phase meeting that frame size should be a losses (and thus efficiency) for the motors exists, DOE would support its criterion for distinguishing product market based on both catalog data and use for the calculation of small electric classes. (Baldor, Public Meeting laboratory accredited test data. Finally, motor efficiency. However, to DOE’s Transcript, No. 8.5 at pp. 70–71; the motor loss levels seen for each knowledge, and corroborated by Emerson, Public Meeting Transcript, product class were shifted by a NEMA’s comment, no such table exists. No. 8.5 at pp. 75–76) DOE addressed percentage increase corresponding to In addition, DOE agrees with NEMA this comment again when developing the difference in efficiency level for the that the ‘‘minimum efficiency’’ values scaling relationships for small electric three analyzed motors. associated with the ‘‘nominal motors. However, because information on efficiency’’ values in the referenced For the NOPR analyses, DOE’s scaling CSCR motors was not as widely tables are not necessarily appropriate for approach leveraged a combination of attainable, DOE relied on the small electric motors. Additionally, the publicly available catalog data and test relationships that it ascertained for CSIR increments of the ‘‘nominal efficiency’’ data. First, DOE developed a database of motors to scale the results for CSCR values in Table 12–10 of NEMA MG1– over 3,000 motors built in a NEMA two- motors. From the available catalog data, 2006 range from 0.1 percent to 2.0 digit frame size. The database was then DOE found that efficiency tracked with percent. Since these increments in filtered to create a comprehensive list of horsepower the same way for both efficiency do not follow a regular motors that meet the statutory definition motor categories, but CSCR motors were pattern and can, at the larger intervals, of a small electric motor. Through this more efficient. constitute significant changes in database, DOE could address the issue 7. Nominal Efficiency efficiency, particularly for small electric of frame size and how it pertains to motors, DOE feels that they cannot product classes. DOE used the database With regard to the efficiency levels simply replicate a similar table without to find the most restricted frame size analyzed for small electric motors, a significant amount of test data that seen at each product class. Having these NEMA recommended that DOE select would need to be provided by data, DOE filtered the database again to efficiency values that coincide with manufacturers and verified by technical remove all efficiency data points for ‘‘nominal’’ efficiencies listed in Table experts. In consideration of the motors with an unrestricted frame size. 12–10 of NEMA MG1–2006, currently inapplicability of the referenced For example, for a polyphase 3⁄4 hp 4- being used for polyphase medium medium motor tables and the lack of pole motor, manufacturers use 48 and motors. NEMA also stated that DOE data to produce a similar table for small 56 frames. Therefore, DOE removed all should not reference the column of electric motors, DOE does not feel that efficiency points for motors with a 56 ‘‘minimum’’ efficiencies seen in that it is appropriate to set efficiency frame size because its achievable table because those values are based on standards for small electric motors efficiency is not as restricted as the 48 tolerances in the determination of total based on the values in Table 12–10 of frame size motor. losses or efficiency through testing NEMA MG1–2006. DOE filtered the database again to polyphase medium motors in DOE also notes that the test procedure ensure an accurate assessment of market accordance with IEEE standard 112 test for small electric motors requires efficiency levels. DOE sorted the method B. (NEMA, No. 13 at pp. 10–11) manufacturers to report a ‘‘nominal full- database by manufacturer and examined Polyphase medium electric motors load efficiency.’’ This term, when individual product lines. If (those motors manufactured in three- discussed within the context of electric manufacturers produce two lines of digit frame series) are currently motors generally, is defined by EPCA as motors based on differences in regulated by DOE as a result of EPACT the average efficiency of a population of efficiency, DOE examined that data 1992 and EISA 2007. The efficiency motors of duplicate design as separately. Product lines for each levels established by these Acts determined in accordance with MG1– manufacturer included efficiency data correspond to ‘‘nominal’’ efficiencies 1987. 42 U.S.C. 6311((13)(I). As this for two, four, and six pole motors where selected from a table in NEMA MG1 term is not defined for small electric available. This approach allowed DOE (Table 12–6A for NEMA MG1–1987 and motors, to ensure consistency with the to examine how efficiency changes with table 12–10 for NEMA MG1–2006). Each statute, DOE proposes to apply this respect to horsepower and number of ‘‘nominal’’ efficiency level shown in the definition for ‘‘nominal full-load poles. table contains a corresponding efficiency’’ to small electric motors and DOE supplemented the catalog data ‘‘minimum’’ efficiency. By calculating to adopt a definition consistent with with actual test data to validate both an average efficiency and a such an application into its regulations. conclusions drawn from that catalog minimum efficiency from a population Because MG1–1987 (or any later edition
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 61432 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules
of the industry standard) does not ‘‘nominal full-load efficiency’’ of small for subsequent analyses in the NOPR. contain provisions for nominal full-load electric motors that is equivalent to the DOE developed two curves for each efficiency for small electric motors, DOE average full-load efficiency of a product class analyzed, one for the set proposes to adopt a definition for population of small electric motors. If, of designs restricted by a 20 percent ‘‘nominal full-load efficiency’’ of small in the future, a table for small electric increase and one for those restricted by electric motors that is equivalent to the motors similar to Table 12–10 of NEMA a 100 percent increase in stack height average full-load efficiency of a MG1–2006 is developed, DOE may from the baseline. The methodology for population of small electric motors. conduct a separate rulemaking to developing the curves started with While DOE considered amending the consider amending the definition of determining the energy efficiency for definition of ‘‘nominal full-load ‘‘nominal full-load efficiency’’ to make baseline models and MPCs for each efficiency’’ for small electric motors to it consistent with the approach taken for product class analyzed. Above the create a parallel definition as the one medium motors, which makes reference baseline, DOE implemented various used for electric motors (which utilizes to a specific table of efficiencies for combinations of design options. Design tables of minimum and nominal ‘‘nominal full-load efficiency.’’ efficiencies), this would require a options were implemented until all significant amount of testing and 8. Cost-Efficiency Results available technologies were employed industry collaboration that has not yet The results of the engineering analysis (i.e., at a max-tech level). See TSD occurred. Therefore, to ensure a are reported as cost-efficiency data (or chapter 5 for additional detail on the complete test procedure and fully- ‘‘curves’’) in the form of MSP (in engineering analysis and the complete defined energy conservation standards, dollars) versus full-load efficiency (in set of cost-efficiency results. DOE proposes to adopt a definition for percentage). These data form the basis BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 61433
BILLING CODE 6450–01–C
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP24NO09.007 61434 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules
D. Markups To Determine Equipment reported to the BES reflect costs. DOE OEM equipment (Public Meeting Price organized the financial data into balance Transcript, No. 8.5 at pp. 244–48). The The markups analysis develops sheets that break down cost components markup factors that DOE derived for supply-chain markups and sales taxes incurred by firms that sell the products OEMs include average administrative that DOE uses to convert MSPs to and related these cost components to and regulatory overhead costs such as revenues to estimate the markups that might occur with certification and customer or consumer equipment prices determine sales price. testing of products for safety. Therefore, for small electric motors. DOE’s markup analysis developed when the manufacturer selling price of 1. Distribution Channels both baseline and incremental markups a more efficient motor is marked up by to transform the manufacturer sales Before it could develop markups, DOE an OEM, DOE’s analysis provides some price into an end-user equipment price. needed to identify distribution channels accounting of increased regulatory DOE used the baseline markups to (i.e., how the equipment is distributed overhead costs. In addition, DOE uses determine the price of baseline models. from the manufacturer to the end user) the OEM markups to estimate product Incremental markups are coefficients for each category of motor addressed in prices and regulation cost impacts for an that relate the change in the this rulemaking. Because most of the analysis period that spans 2015 through manufacturer sales price of higher- 2045, so initial regulatory costs can be small electric motors are used as efficiency models to the change in the averaged over several years. DOE components in larger pieces of OEM, retailer, or distributor sales price. believes that over this forecast period, equipment, most of the market passes These markups refer to higher-efficiency recertification and testing costs are through OEMs that design, assemble, models sold under market conditions included in the OEM markups that it and brand products that contain small with new energy conservation estimated. electric motors. OEMs obtain their standards. During the presentation of the motors either directly from the motor DOE used financial data from the BES preliminary analysis, WEG noted that manufacturers or from distributors. for the ‘‘Electrical Goods Merchant shipping costs to the customer should For small electric motors, DOE Wholesalers’’ category to calculate be explicitly included in the defined three distribution channels and markups used by distributors of motors distribution costs (WEG, Public Meeting estimated their respective shares of for direct distribution; for the Transcript, No. 8.5 at p. 223). DOE shipments in its determination analysis: ‘‘Machinery, Equipment, and Supplies agrees with this comment. To estimate (1) From manufacturers to OEMs and Merchant Wholesalers’’ category to shipping costs, DOE surveyed shipping then to end users through OEM calculate markups used by distributors and freight costs quotes available on the distribution; (2) from manufacturers to of equipment containing small electric Internet and found a median value of wholesale distributors to OEMs and motors; and for the ‘‘Building materials, $0.5 per pound. In the LCC analysis then to end users through OEM hardware, garden supply and mobile DOE added shipping costs to the equipment distribution; and (3) from home dealers’’ category to calculate installed cost of the motor based on manufacturers to end users through markups used by OEMs that apply to specific motor weight estimates for each distributors and retailers. Contractors products containing motors. efficiency level from the engineering also play a role in installing motors in DOE based the OEM markups and analysis. The engineering analysis equipment. DOE used the same distributor markups on data from the designs provided motor weights for both distribution channel types and market ‘‘2002 Economic Census Manufacturing space-constrained and non-space- shares in the preliminary analysis as it Industry Series,’’ which reports on the constrained motors. used in the determination analysis. payroll (production and total), cost of Emerson also commented during the NEMA and Emerson commented that materials, capital expenditures, and preliminary analysis presentation that the proportion of shipments through the total value of shipments for more efficient, larger motors with three channels as specified in the manufacturers of various types of increased stack length could create large determination analysis was incorrect, machinery. Six years of data are costs for OEMs that use small motors in and the correct market shares for each reported for each manufacturer type. space-constrained equipment designs distribution channel are: 65 Percent for DOE collected data for 11 types of and that this should be included in direct shipments to OEMs, 30 percent OEMs. distribution costs (Emerson, Public for shipments to OEMs through DOE calculated baseline markups for Meeting Transcript, No. 8.5 at p. 241). distributors, and 5 percent for each Census industry category. The DOE addressed this issue in the shipments directly to users (Emerson, resulting markups range between 1.20 engineering and life-cycle cost analyses Public Meeting Transcript, No. 8.5 at (industrial machinery, machine tools) by estimating cost and performance pp. 218–19; NEMA, No. 13 at p. 19). The and 1.56 (heating equipment), with an characteristics for motors at all NEEA and the Northwest Power average of 1.37. DOE estimated efficiency levels for both space- Planning Council recommended that incremental markups using a least constrained and less-constrained DOE should corroborate distribution squares regression of the value of designs. DOE assumed that OEMs channel market shares with industry shipments on payroll and cost of addressed their space requirements by input (NEEA and NPCC, No. 9 at p. 5). materials. Because there is a large range purchasing a more expensive space- DOE used the distribution market shares in the size of OEM types, companies constrained design for their space- recommended by NEMA and Emerson with sales values greater than $10 constrained application. DOE then in the NOPR analysis. billion were separated from those with modeled the increased cost of the space sales values less than $10 billion. The constraint by using the higher, space- 2. Estimation of Markups incremental markup for larger constrained manufacturer selling price DOE based its markups on financial companies was 1.28; the incremental and by applying the same markup data from the U.S. Census Business markup for smaller companies was 1.33. factors to these higher incremental costs Expenses Survey (BES). DOE assumed WEG and Emerson commented that to estimate the incremental cost to the that the sales revenues reported by firms DOE should include recertification and consumer. reflect the prices that they charge for retesting costs that OEMs may incur due For installation costs, DOE used products, while the expenses that they to a change in the motor that is used in information from RS Means Electrical
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 61435
Cost Data 13 to estimate markups used include county and city rates. DOE then 3. Summary of Markups by contractors who install motors and derived population-weighted average Table IV.9 summarizes the markups at OEM equipment. RS Means estimates tax values for each Census division and each stage in the distribution channel material expense markups for electrical large state, and then derived U.S. and the overall baseline and contractors as 10 percent, leading to a average tax values using a populated- incremental markups, and sales taxes, markup factor of 1.10. weighted average of the Census division for each of the three identified channels. The sales tax represents state and and large State values. This approach Weighting the markups in each channel local sales taxes that are applied to the provides a national average tax rate of by its share of shipments yields an end-user equipment price. DOE derived 6.84 percent. average overall baseline markup of 2.49 state and local taxes from data provided and an average overall incremental by the Sales Tax Clearinghouse. These markup of 1.83. DOE used these data represent weighted averages that markups for each product class.
Using these markups, DOE generated power.14 Motor losses consist of I2R reactive power charges and also motor end-user prices for each losses, core losses, stray losses and estimated losses from reactive power efficiency level it considered, assuming friction and windage losses. Core losses that may occur in the electrical system. that each level represents a new and friction and windage losses are In the preliminary analysis public minimum efficiency standard. Because relatively constant with variations in meeting, DOE presented an analysis of 2 it generated a range of price estimates, motor loading, while I R losses increase energy use that separated motor losses DOE describes prices within a range of with the square of the motor loading. into a constant component and a uncertainty. Stray losses are also dependent upon component that depends on motor Chapter 7 of the TSD provides loading. To estimate motor losses, DOE loading. Both Baldor and NEMA additional detail on the markups used the empirical estimates of losses as commented that the approach that DOE analysis. a function of loading for the specific used was non-standard and the motor designs that were developed in E. Energy Use Characterization equations proposed for estimating motor the engineering analysis. losses were imprecise (Public Meeting DOE’s characterization of the energy In practice, reactive power may result Transcript, No. 8.5 at pp. 228–33; use for small electric motors estimated in significant increases in energy NEMA, No. 13 at pp. 12–14). the annual energy use and end-use load consumption before capacitors in the Responding to this comment, DOE of small electric motors in the field. The electrical system compensate (i.e., modified its approach for the NOPR energy use by small electric motors mitigate) the reactive power that is analysis. Rather than model motor derives from three components: energy generated by end-user loads. DOE losses with a potentially imprecise converted to useful mechanical shaft estimated reactive power costs in the simplified equation, DOE used the power, motor losses, and reactive LCC analysis that may arise from direct loss estimates provided by the
13 RS Means Construction Publishers & current multiplied by the sine of the phase distribution system. Motors tend to create reactive Consultants, ‘‘Electrical Cost Data, 31st Annual difference between the voltage and the current. power because the windings in the motor coils have Edition.’’ 2008. J.H. Chiang, ed. Kingston, MA. Reactive power occurs when the inductance or high inductance which shifts the phase of the 14 In an alternating current power system, the capacitance of the load shifts the phase of the voltage relative to the current. reactive power is created when voltage and current voltage relative to the phase of the current. While are shifted in phase and is calculated from the root reactive power does not consume energy, it can mean square (RMS) voltage multiplied by the RMS increase losses and costs for the electricity
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP24NO09.009 61436 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules
engineering analysis which are available increasing hours of operation) with a and variability. For example, DOE as an empirical function of motor small population of motors that run created a probability distribution of loading. DOE provides motor losses as 100% of the time. DOE found in its annual energy consumption based in a function of loading for each design in analysis that the typical hours of part on a range of annual operating motor loading increments of 25 percent operation as provided by NEMA are hours. This range of annual operating for all designs evaluated in the analysis. substantially lower than average hours hours is based on a derived sample of A more detailed description and of operation as estimated by DOE, but end-use applications for small electric accompanying motor loss tables are are consistent with DOE’s median motors. According to this range, the contained in chapter 6 of the TSD. estimates of annual operating hours for majority of these motors operates only a The final step in estimating annual four out of five application categories. few hours per day, while a substantial energy use from motor losses is Details regarding DOE’s estimates of minority of motors run nearly all hours estimating the annual hours of motor hours of operation are available in of the day. LCC values reflect the operation. DOE estimated the annual chapter 6 of the TSD. aggregate effect of inputs weighted energy consumed by motor losses as the according to a combination of point loss (in watts) times the annual hours of F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis values and probability distributions. operation. The annual hours of DOE also used probability distributions The LCC analysis calculates, at the operation of small electric motors is to characterize variability in markups, consumer level, the discounted savings dependent mostly on the particular discount rates and product lifetime. in operating costs throughout the application to which the motor is being Details of all the inputs to the LCC and estimated average life of the small applied. PBP analysis are contained in chapter 8 In its preliminary analysis, DOE electric motor, compared to any increase of the TSD. modeled each motor in a given in installed costs likely to result directly application as operating for a fixed from the imposition of the standard. The As described above, DOE used number of hours, equal to the average payback period analysis estimates the samples of a population of motors and hours of operation determined for that amount of time it takes consumers to motor applications to characterize the application. As part of updating its recover the higher purchase expense of variability in energy consumption and motor application and operation more energy efficient equipment energy prices for this equipment. DOE analysis, DOE examined published data through lower operating costs. also used a simple partitioning of motor regarding the distribution of hours of The LCC is the total consumer applications to space-constrained and operation for motors. DOE concluded expense over the life of the equipment, unconstrained applications. that the available data regarding the including purchase expense and The computer model DOE uses to distribution of hours of operation of operating costs (including energy calculate LCC and PBP, which expenditures). To compute LCCs for general-purpose motors could be well incorporates Crystal Ball (a equipment users, DOE discounts future characterized as the superposition of an commercially available software operating costs to the time of purchase exponential distribution and a fraction program), relies on a Monte Carlo and sums them over the lifetime of the of motors run nearly continuously (8760 simulation to incorporate uncertainty equipment. The payback period is the hours per year). DOE used this and variability into the analysis. The change in purchase expense due to an information to develop distributions for Monte Carlo simulations randomly increased efficiency standard, divided each motor application as a function of sample input values from the by the change in annual operating cost the average annual hours of operation. probability distributions and equipment In written comments submitted that results from the standard. That is, user samples. The model calculated the following the January 30, 2009, public the payback period is the time period it LCC and PBP for equipment at each meeting, NEMA provided estimates for takes to recoup the increased purchase efficiency level for 10,000 motor units typical hours of operation for motors in cost (including installation) of a more per simulation run. Details of the compressor, small pumping, and efficient product through energy spreadsheet model DOE used for ‘‘general industry’’ applications (NEMA, savings. No. 13 at p. 19). DOE developed a model Inputs to the calculation of total analyzing the economic impacts of for the national distribution of annual installed cost include the cost of the possible standards on individual hours of operation within each motor product—which includes manufacturer consumers, and of all the inputs to the application that maintained as much costs and markups, retailer or LCC and PBP analysis, are contained in consistency as possible with all distributor markups, and sales taxes— chapter 8 of the TSD. available sources of data including and installation costs. Inputs to the Table IV.10 summarizes the approach NEMA’s comment, estimates developed calculation of operating expenses and data DOE used to derive inputs to earlier in the rulemaking, and operating include annual energy consumption, the LCC and PBP calculations. The table hour distributions available in the energy prices and price projections, provides the data and approach used for technical literature. The operating hour repair and maintenance costs, product the preliminary TSD and the changes distributions developed by DOE take the lifetimes, discount rates, and the year made for today’s NOPR. The following form of the superposition of an that proposed standards take effect. DOE subsections discuss the initial inputs exponential distribution (in which the created distributions of values for some and the changes made to them. number of motors decreases with inputs to account for their uncertainty BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 61437
BILLING CODE 6450–01–C
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP24NO09.010 61438 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules
1. Baseline and Standard Level distribution channels. DOE applied the they are incorporated in the ‘‘general Efficiencies same markups for each product class. industry’’ category described below. DOE derived installation costs for For the preliminary analysis, DOE To improve the classification of motor small electric motors from data in the used mathematical interpolation of applications, DOE studied motor ‘‘RS Means Electrical Cost Data, specific engineering designs to estimate manufacturer and OEM catalogs that are 2008,’’ 15 the costs and losses of motors at which provides estimates on publicly available on the Internet to baseline efficiencies and a set of the labor required to install electric adjust the categories and the proportion candidate standard levels that had motors. DOE estimated that the average of small electric motors covered by this performance characteristics different installation cost is $253. Since it found rule used in each application category. from the initial engineering designs. no information to indicate differences in DOE consolidated and narrowed the NEMA commented that it is important installation costs among motor applications of covered small electric for the efficiency levels used in the applications, DOE used the same motors to four major categories: (1) consumer economic analysis to match installation cost for each product class. Commercial and industrial fans and the efficiency levels in the engineering DOE determined that installation costs blowers; (2) conveyors, packaging, and analysis so that interested parties can would not be affected with increased material handling; (3) air and gas have confidence that concrete designs energy efficiency levels. compressors (outside of HVAC); and (4) In response to the preliminary exist that can satisfy the proposed pumps. In addition, covered motors are analysis, DOE received several standard levels (NEMA, No. 13 at p. 16). used in a wide and various array of comments from interested parties DOE agrees with this comment and for other applications, which DOE regarding factors that can affect product this NOPR it analyzed efficiency levels characterized under the heading prices. The comments, along with DOE’s for which it developed specific ‘‘general industry.’’ responses, are described in the engineering designs. appropriate sections of this notice that 4. Annual Operating Hours and Energy In response to DOE’s preliminary address the particular cost component: Use analysis, EEI commented that since Costs associated with satisfying motor medium motors are already regulated by To estimate annual energy use, DOE space and size constraints are addressed DOE under Section 313(b) of the Energy multiplied motor losses by the annual in the engineering analysis in IV.C Independence and Security Act of 2007, hours of operation. DOE obtained motor above; costs incurred by OEMs within Pub. L. 110–140 (Dec. 19, 2007) (EISA losses as a function of motor loading the motor distribution chain are 2007), and since polyphase general from the performance data for specific addressed in the markup analysis in purpose small electric motors are very designs developed and analyzed in the section IV.D; and costs associated with similar to polyphase general purpose engineering analysis. DOE estimated retooling and investments needed to medium electric motors, it is important motor loading as a function of the motor manufacture more efficient motors are for DOE to consider standard levels for application. DOE modeled variability in addressed in the manufacturer impact small electric motors that are closely both motor loading and annual analysis described in section IV.I. aligned with the standard for medium operating hours by using distributions electric motors (EEI, No. 14 at p. 2). DOE 3. Motor Applications for both operational characteristics. In response to the preliminary agrees with this comment and designed For electric motors, the hours of analysis, NEMA commented that motors TSL 5 for polyphase small electric operation and loading characteristics of in small compressors have estimated motors to be closely aligned with the motor use depend on the particular annual hours of operation of 200 to 400 efficiency level for medium motors application to which the motor is hours per year, motors used in small regulated under EISA 2007. applied. In its preliminary analysis, pumps have annual operating hours of DOE used the same distribution of 2. Installed Equipment Cost 1,500 to 2,000 hours per year, while motor applications that it used in the small motors used in general machinery DOE determined the baseline MSP determination analysis. This in clean environments such as medical and the MSP increases associated with distribution included a wide range of equipment will have estimated annual increases in product efficiency for each applications, including food processing, hours of operation of 500 to 1,000 hours small electric motor product class in the woodworking tools, and farm per year (NEMA, No. 13 at p. 19). DOE engineering analysis (section IV.C.7 of machinery. Comments received at the agrees that these figures represent this NOPR and chapter 5 of the TSD). January 30, 2009, public meeting from approximate median hours of operation MSPs are the prices of the equipment at Emerson, WEG, and Regal-Beloit, for small compressors, small pumps and the factory door. They do not include (Public Meeting Transcript, No. 8.5 at medical equipment with small electric distribution markups, but do include pp. 270–76) and from NEMA (NEMA, motors. DOE included medical manufacturer markups. No. 13 at p. 19) indicated that many of DOE determined the installed cost of equipment in a category of ‘‘general these applications utilize enclosed small electric motors by adding industry and miscellaneous,’’ which it motors (as opposed to those that have an distribution markups and installation estimates has a significant fraction of ‘‘open construction’’ design), and such costs to the MSPs determined in the applications in the range of 500 to 1,000 motors are not covered under this engineering analysis. DOE determined hours per year, but which also includes rulemaking. DOE agrees with these the baseline and incremental markups a large variety of miscellaneous comments, and has removed these for each point in the small electric equipment that DOE estimates has applications from its analysis. To the motor supply chain, as well as shipping typical operating hours in the range of extent that some motors in the costs and sales taxes, in the markups 1,000 to 2,000 hours per year. This latter applications no longer analyzed in analysis (section II.E of this ANOPR and estimate is consistent with the average detail may be open construction, and chapter 7 of the TSD). The overall hours of operation estimates developed covered by this rule, DOE assumed that baseline (2.35) and incremental (1.70) during the determination analysis phase markups, which include sales tax, are 15 RS Means Construction Publishers & and is consistent with equipment that weighted averages based on the share of Consultants, ‘‘Electrical Cost Data, 31st Annual runs four to eight hours a day during shipments in each of the three identified Edition.’’ 2008. J.H. Chiang, ed. Kingston, MA. normal working hours.
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 61439
5. Space Constraints electric motor efficiency. EEI provided Energy Management Program (FEMP) by In response to DOE’s preliminary DOE with the results of a 2003 survey EIA and used the average rate of change analysis, several interested parties of power factor charges and costs taken from 2020 to 2030 for electricity prices. DOE calculated LCC and PBP using commented on the possibility that of its members (EEI, No. 14 at p. 6). three separate projections from AEO energy conservation standards may NEMA noted inaccuracies in the 2009: Reference, Low Price Case, and affect motors used in space-constrained reactive power equations proposed by High Price Case. These three cases applications. Baldor commented that DOE in the preliminary analysis and reflect the uncertainty of energy prices DOE needs to correct the statement that urged DOE to carefully estimate and in the forecast period. For the LCC a ‘‘majority of small motor applications consider power factor effects and constraints (NEMA, No. 13 at pp. 14– results presented in this NOPR, DOE are not constrained by motor length’’ 15). used only the energy price forecasts and that the LCC analysis needs to take DOE appreciates the comments and from the Reference case. into account what it will cost to data provided on this issue and agrees DOE received several comments from redesign OEM equipment to fit larger with the interested parties that this interested parties regarding its motors (Baldor, Public Meeting information can contribute to a more electricity price projection. At the Transcript, No. 8.5 at pp. 119–21). WEG complete and precise analysis of the preliminary analysis public meeting, commented that changes in stack length consumer and utility impacts of power Earthjustice and NEEA commented that can force OEMs to redesign their factor changes that may result from DOE should monetize greenhouse gas product (WEG, Public Meeting energy conservation standards. DOE emissions reductions benefits, possibly Transcript, No. 8.5 at p. 244). A joint addressed power factor and reactive by including the cost of carbon comment by PG&E, SCE, SCGC, and power by first estimating power factor regulation in its forecasted price of SDGE stated that users with space- as a function of motor loading for each electricity. Interested parties also noted constrained applications may be able to of the motor designs analyzed in the that DOE should avoid double counting resolve the space constraint by changing engineering analysis. DOE then and need only account for the monetary the motor type (Joint Comment, No. 12 included these data in the LCC analysis value of emissions reductions or the at p. 3). tools so that the analysis included potential impact on electricity prices In the NOPR analysis, DOE addressed estimates of power factor as a function and should not count both impacts at the issue of space constraints by of both motor loading and efficiency the same time. Earthjustice commented calculating the cost and performance level. In the LCC spreadsheet, DOE that the Energy Information characteristics for both tightly estimated reactive power for each motor Administration (EIA) had performed an constrained and less-constrained analyzed. DOE then used the data analysis of Lieberman-Warner cap and engineering designs for motors at each provided by EEI to estimate a reactive trade legislation and that DOE could use efficiency level. DOE then reviewed the power cost associated with the reactive this forecast to describe electricity range of applications and OEM power. It included this cost in both the prices with carbon caps (Earthjustice, equipment that uses the motors covered LCC analysis and in the national impact Public Meeting Transcript, No. 8.5 at by the rulemaking and estimated that analysis. pp. 249–54). approximately 20 percent of covered DOE responds to these comments motors are likely to be used in 7. Energy Prices primarily in the environmental analysis constrained applications. In the LCC DOE developed nationally where DOE provides estimates of the analysis, DOE assigned 20 percent of representative distributions of potential monetary value of greenhouse motors to such constrained applications electricity prices for different customer gas emissions reductions. DOE also and used the engineering costs and categories (industrial, commercial, and provides a sensitivity analysis in both performance associated with the residential) from 2007 EIA form 861 the LCC and the national impact constrained design when calculating data. DOE estimates that marginal analysis that includes an electricity consumer economic impacts. At low energy prices for electric motors are price trend estimated by EIA for the case efficiency levels there is no difference close to average prices, which vary by of cap and trade emissions control between more and less constrained customer type and utility. The average regulation. Details on the sensitivity motors, but at the highest efficiency prices (in 2008$) for each sector are 6.4 analyses performed by DOE for the LCC levels, the space-constrained cents for the industrial and agricultural are provided in chapter 8 of the TSD, applications can only be served by the sectors, 8.8 cents for the commercial while the sensitivity analyses for the most expensive motor designs because sector, and 10.1 cents for the residential national impact analysis are detailed in the less expensive motors are too large sector. DOE also estimated an average TSD chapter 10. to fit within constrained spaces. In reactive power charge of $0.47 per 9. Maintenance and Repair Costs addition, DOE provides the LCC results kilovolt-amps reactive (kVAr) per month for space-constrained applications as using data provided by EEI for those Small electric motors are not usually one of the consumer subgroups in the customers that are subject to a reactive repaired, because they often outlast the LCC subgroup analysis. power charge. equipment wherein they are a component. DOE found no evidence 6. Power Factor 8. Energy Price Trend that repair or maintenance costs would In its preliminary analysis, DOE DOE used recent price forecasts by increase with higher motor energy presented real power losses and EIA to estimate future trends in efficiency. In response to the requested comment on power factor electricity prices in each sector. To preliminary analysis, no interested effects and the importance of including arrive at prices in future years through parties provided any comments or data reactive power in its engineering, 2030, DOE multiplied the average prices indicating that maintenance or repair economic and national impact analyses. described in the preceding section by costs are likely to change with motor EEI commented that utilities like to see the forecast of annual average price efficiency. Thus, DOE did not include facility-wide power factor above 90 changes in EIA’s AEO 2009. To estimate changes in repair and maintenance costs percent and that power factor penalties the trend after 2030, DOE followed past for motors that are more efficient than may affect the economics of small guidelines provided to the Federal baseline products.
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 61440 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules
10. Equipment Lifetime discount rate distribution for each be expected to result from new In the preliminary analysis, DOE used product class DOE analyzed in the LCC standards at specific efficiency levels. the information it gathered for the analysis is a weighted sample that To make the analysis more accessible determination analysis to estimate the combines estimated ownership and transparent to all interested parties, motor lifetime, which DOE defined as percentages with their respective DOE used an MS Excel spreadsheet the age when the equipment containing discount rates. DOE used the same model to calculate the NES and NPV the motor is retired from service. Based distribution of discount rates for the from new standards. MS Excel is the on this information, DOE used lifetime industrial and agricultural sectors. The most widely used spreadsheet distributions with a mean lifetime of 7 average discount rates in DOE’s calculation tool in the United States and years for capacitor-start motors and 9 analysis, weighted by the shares of each there is general familiarity with its basic years for polyphase motors. rate value in the sectoral distributions, features. Thus, DOE’s use of MS Excel In response to the preliminary are 5.86 percent for commercial end as the basis for the spreadsheet models analysis, DOE received comments users and 5.92 percent for industrial and provides interested parties with access indicating that motor lifetimes should agricultural end users. to the models within a familiar context. be dependent on the annual hours of For the residential sector, DOE In addition, the TSD and other operation. The NEEA and Northwest assembled a distribution of interest or documentation that DOE provides Power and Conservation Council return rates on various equity during the rulemaking help explain the requested that DOE further justify the investments and debt types from a models and how to use them, and relatively short motor lifetimes used in variety of financial sources, including interested parties can review DOE’s its analysis and take into account the the Federal Reserve Board’s ‘‘Survey of analyses by changing various input inverse relationship between operating Consumer Finances’’ (SCF) in 1989, quantities within the spreadsheet. hours and lifetime (NEEA and NPCC, 1992, 1995, 1998, 2001, and 2004. DOE DOE uses the NIA spreadsheets to No. 9 at p. 5). In response to the assigned weights in the distribution calculate NES and NPV based on the rulemaking framework meeting, NEMA based on the shares of each financial annual energy consumption and total stated that motor lifetimes depend on instrument in household financial installed cost data employed in the LCC the annual hours of use in addition to holdings according to SCF data. The analysis. DOE forecasts the energy the variances of motor loading for weighted-average discount rate for savings, energy cost savings, equipment various applications (NEMA, No. 5.1 at residential product owners is 5.5 costs, and NPV for each product class p. 7). DOE agrees that motor lifetime percent. from 2015 through 2045. The forecasts In response to the preliminary and annual hours of operation should be provide annual and cumulative values analysis, DOE did not receive any inversely related and the NOPR analysis for all four output parameters. DOE also comments regarding consumer discount has modified the lifetime distribution to examines impact sensitivities by rates. account for the effect of annual hours of analyzing various scenarios. operation. DOE did not account for the 12. Standard Effective Date DOE develops a base-case forecast for impact of motor loading variance on The effective date is the future date each small electric motor product class motor lifetimes because doing so would when a new standard becomes that characterizes energy use and likely result in an overly complicated operative. Under both the report to customer costs (purchase and operation) consumer economic analysis model Congress and the November 6, 2006 in the absence of new energy without changing the overall analytical Consent Decree entered for the conservation standards. To evaluate the results. The details of how DOE consolidated cases of New York v. impacts of such standards, DOE estimated the dependence of motor Bodman, No. 05 Civ. 7807 (S.D.N.Y. compares the base-case projection with lifetime on annual operating hours are projections characterizing the market if provided in chapter 8 of the TSD. filed Sept. 7, 2005) and Natural Resources Defense Council v. Bodman, DOE promulgated new standards at 11. Discount Rate No. 05 Civ. 7808 (S.D.N.Y. filed Sept. 7, specific efficiency levels (i.e., the standards case). In characterizing the The discount rate is the rate at which 2005), DOE is required to publish a final base and standards cases, DOE future expenditures are discounted to rule addressing energy conservation considers the mix of efficiencies sold in estimate their present value. DOE used standards for small electric motors no the absence of any new standards, and the classic economic definition that later than February 28, 2010. According how that mix might change over time. discount rates are equal to the cost of to 42 U.S.C. 6317(b)(3), ‘‘(3) Any capital. The cost of capital is a standard prescribed under paragraph (2) DOE did not find evidence of combination of debt interest rates and shall apply to small electric motors historical trends toward increasing the cost of equity capital to the affected manufactured 60 months after the date market share for more efficient motors firms and industries. For each end-use such rule is published * * *’’ within the realm of covered products in sector, DOE developed a distribution of Therefore, the effective date of any new this rulemaking. DOE therefore assumed discount rates from which the Monte energy conservation standards for these that, in the base case, the market share Carlo simulations sample. products will be February 2015. DOE of different levels of efficiency would For the industrial and commercial calculated the LCC for all end users as remain fixed at current values over the sectors, DOE assembled data on debt if each one would purchase a new piece analysis period. For its forecast of interest rates and the cost of equity of equipment in the year the standard standards-case efficiencies, DOE used a capital for representative firms that use takes effect. ‘‘roll-up’’ scenario. In this approach, product energy efficiencies in the base small electric motors. DOE determined G. National Impact Analysis—National a distribution of the weighted-average case that do not meet the standard level Energy Savings and Net Present Value under consideration would ‘‘roll up’’ to cost of capital for each class of potential Analysis owners using data from the Damodaran meet the new standard level. The online investment survey.16 The DOE’s NIA assesses the national market share of energy efficiencies that energy savings (NES) and the national exceed the standard level under 16 The survey is available at http:// net present value (NPV) of total consideration would be the same in the pages.stern.nyu.edu/adamodar. customer costs and savings that would standards case as in the base case.
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 61441
DOE analyzed the relationship small electric motors not covered in this greater detail and provide NES and NPV between cost and efficiency for three rulemaking in chapter 10 of the TSD. results calculated within each scenario representative product classes (1 hp to illustrate the effect of this scenario 1. Shipments polyphase, 3⁄4 hp CSCR, and 1⁄2 hp choice. CSIR). In order to calculate the national Product shipment forecasts are an 2. Elasticity Scenarios energy savings and NPV of each TSL, important component of any estimate of DOE scaled both the energy the future impact of a standard. DOE DOE modeled three elasticity consumption and equipment price to all determined forecasts of small motor scenarios that estimate the change in other product classes. The national shipments for the base case and motor shipments in response to energy savings and NPV are developed standards cases using the NES increasing customer equipment prices: a from shipment-weighted sums of the spreadsheet. The shipments portion of scenario with no elasticity, a scenario energy use and equipment price for each the spreadsheet forecasts polyphase and with an elasticity of ¥0.25, and a product class. See section IV.C.6 for a capacitor-start motor shipments from scenario with an elasticity of ¥0.50. In discussion of the scaling of energy 2015 to 2045. DOE developed shipments the preliminary analysis, DOE chose the consumption. In order to scale prices, forecasts by accounting for (1) the inelastic scenario as its reference case. DOE examined motor catalog data from combined effects of equipment price, At the January 30, 2009, public meeting, 10 motor manufacturers, available on operating cost, and business income DOE asked for input regarding the the Internet. DOE developed an average level; and (2) different market segments. likelihood of customers moving from price for motors in each product class, Additional details on the shipments covered motors to other motor examined the price trend within each forecasts are in chapter 9 of the TSD. categories if standards cause prices of motor category (polyphase, CSCR, or DOE developed four shipment the former to increase. In particular, in CSIR) and number of poles, and scenarios, modeling a range of possible its preliminary analysis DOE stated that developed a scaling relation to enable growth for the market of covered small if the price of a baseline motor were to forecasts of price changes related to motors. For three of these scenarios, increase by more than 18 percent, some increasing efficiency. The price scaling DOE assumed that shipments of covered consumers may switch to enclosed model is discussed in chapter 8 of the small electric motors would be driven motors. DOE believed the 18 percent accompanying TSD. by growth in the sectors into which the increase was representative of the In the preliminary analysis, DOE used motors are sold (industrial, commercial, difference in price seen between an data submitted by NEMA for the and residential). DOE’s reference case is open motor and an enclosed motor with determination analysis to develop based on the American Recovery and the same ratings. However, NEMA shipments in each product class. It also Reinvestment Act scenario released as a stated that 18 percent, which was determined the national impacts of each supplement to AEO 2009. DOE also derived from the difference in catalog motor category by multiplying the modeled shipments driven by the High prices, may not include the additional results for a single product class by the Growth and Low Growth scenarios in installation costs if the enclosed motor shipments of the category as a whole. the AEO 2009 release. These three AEO is a different size. NEMA also stated that For the analysis presented in this NOPR, scenarios are updated versions of the the difference in cooling requirements DOE modified these shipment estimates scenarios analyzed in the preliminary would need to be considered. Finally, based on the distribution of currently analysis. For the NOPR analysis, DOE NEMA said that they were unaware of available motor models to develop also analyzed a ‘‘falling market share’’ a study of the costs of replacing an open updated estimates for shipments in each scenario. At the January 30, 2009, public motor with an enclosed motor. (NEMA, product class. DOE then used these meeting (Public Meeting Transcript, No. No. 13 at p. 20) During manufacturer estimated 2008 shipments for each 8.5 at pp 268–70) and during interviews, manufacturers commented product class to develop NES and NPV manufacturer interviews (see section that an increased purchase cost of estimates that better reflect the IV.I), manufacturers predicted that the covered motors would increase the rate distribution of motor shipments among market share for motors covered by this of consumers switching to other motor motor categories, output powers and rule will fall over time as customers technologies, for example, electronically speeds. NEMA criticized DOE’s scaling increase their use of other motor commutated motors (ECMs). However, approach in the preliminary analysis as technologies. The ‘‘falling market share’’ interested parties did not provide confusing energy savings and net scenario reflects this assessment by quantitative data which DOE could use present value results from a particular modeling a scenario in which motor to estimate the elasticity of small motor product class with the results for the shipments are fixed at their 2008 levels, shipments. DOE’s reference case for the full distribution of motor sizes and regardless of economic growth between NOPR analysis retains the ‘‘no speeds (NEMA, No. 13 at p. 20). DOE 2008 and 2015 or during the analysis elasticity’’ scenario. Although there is agrees with this comment, and replaced period. DOE’s examination of the potential for consumers to switch to its preliminary analysis with a more equipment product catalogues and other products, DOE believes that comprehensive accounting. economic census data did not support a consumers are not likely to do so, even During the preliminary analysis, DOE conclusion of falling market shares for as prices for covered motors increase. received requests from interested parties general purpose motors in the Motor technologies such as ECMs are of to provide an estimate of size of the application categories in DOE’s analysis. a different physical size and require the potential savings from the standard DOE therefore provided the ‘‘falling use of an electronic controller to convert relative to the amount of energy used by market share’’ scenario as a sensitivity AC power into DC power. Whereas the all small electric motors, including analysis rather than incorporating it into ECM motor is itself typically larger than those not covered under the present the reference case analysis. DOE seeks a capacitor start motor, the AC to DC rulemaking (ACEEE, Public Meeting further information regarding alternative control must also be physically attached Transcript, No. 8.5 at p. 234; Joint small motor technologies and how they to the motor or remotely located. Thus, Comment, No. 12 at p. 2). While such could potentially affect the projected consumers wishing to replace a motor detailed estimates are beyond the scope shipments. Chapters 9 and 10 of the covered by this rulemaking with an of this rulemaking, DOE provides a TSD, along with the appendices to ECM motor will have additional costs rough estimate of the energy use of chapter 10, discuss the scenarios in associated with redesigning their
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 61442 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules
application due to the physical size which treats the market share shift in shipments, and revenues. The key and/or electrical compatibility. Given space-constrained and non-space- output is the INPV. For this rulemaking, these complexities, replacing a motor constrained applications separately. the impact on INPV is reported covered by this rule with an ECM motor Further details regarding this model and separately for polyphase and single- would require significant installer sensitivities are in TSD chapter 10. DOE phase motors. Due to the market knowledge and higher installation costs. recognizes that there are significant interaction between CSIR and CSCR, all Furthermore, potential substitution uncertainties in the inputs to its cross- single-phase motor results are presented motor technologies such as ECMs are elasticity model, and the resulting together. Different sets of assumptions not currently available in distribution in parameters of the model, and welcomes (scenarios) will produce different the full range of speeds, service factors, comments on each of these inputs as results. The qualitative part of the MIA and frame sizes to adequately service well as on the model itself. DOE also addresses factors such as motor the replacement market. DOE seeks welcomes comments regarding the characteristics, characteristics of input and data regarding how the small resulting forecast of the impact of particular firms, market trends, and an motor market will respond to the standards on motor shipments and assessment of the impacts of standards proposed standards, particularly product class market shares. on manufacturer subgroups. The regarding elasticity between covered complete MIA is outlined in chapter 12 H. Consumer Sub-Group Analysis motors and other motor technologies, of the TSD. such as ECMs. In analyzing the potential impact of DOE conducted the MIA in three phases. Phase 1, Industry Profile, DOE notes that capacitor-start motors new or amended standards on consisted of preparing an industry form a single market in which customers, DOE evaluates the impact on characterization. Phase 2, Industry Cash customers may choose a CSIR or CSCR identifiable groups of customers (i.e., Flow, focused on the industry as a motor to best meet their requirements. subgroups), such as small businesses, whole. In this phase, DOE used the DOE developed a cross-elasticity model that may not be equally affected by a GRIM to prepare an industry cash-flow to incorporate the market dynamics of national standard level. In this analysis. DOE used publicly available CSIR and CSCR motors within this rulemaking, this analysis examined the information developed in Phase 1 to single market. This CSIR/CSCR market economic impacts on different groups of adapt the GRIM structure to analyze share cross-elasticity is independent of customers by estimating the average small electric motors energy the elasticity of the market as a whole, change in LCC and by calculating the fraction of customers that would benefit. conservation standards. In Phase 3, discussed above, which could change Subgroup Impact Analysis, DOE the size of the capacitor-start market. DOE analyzed the potential effect of standards for small businesses and interviewed manufacturers representing DOE calibrated its reference CSIR/CSCR the majority of domestic small electric market share model using its estimates customers with space-constrained applications, two consumer sub-groups motors sales. During these interviews, of the current market share for CSCR DOE discussed engineering, and CSIR motors within each matched of interest identified by DOE. Interested parties also supported these selections. manufacturing, procurement, and pair of product classes sharing a motor financial topics specific to each power and number of poles. DOE For small businesses, DOE analyzed the potential impacts of standards by company, and also obtained each recognizes that there are significant manufacturer’s view of the industry as uncertainties in its cross-elasticity conducting the analysis with different discount rates, as small businesses do a whole. The interviews provided model. The model utilizes DOE’s valuable information DOE used to help shipments estimates in each capacitor- not have the same access to capital as larger businesses. DOE estimated that evaluate the impacts of a new standard start product class, which are based in on manufacturer cash flows, part on the number of models currently for businesses purchasing small motors, small companies have an average manufacturing capacities, and available, in the absence of direct employment levels. shipments data from motor discount rate which is 4.2 percent manufacturers. In addition, the model higher than the industry average. DOE 2. Phase 1, Industry Profile relies on DOE’s scaling relations for assumed that customers with space- For phase 1 of the MIA, DOE prepared motor losses and motor prices described constrained applications constitute 20 a profile of the small electric motors earlier in this NOPR and detailed in the percent of all customers, and are industry based on the market and TSD. DOE provides two alternate model distributed across all applications. technology assessment prepared for this scenarios (‘‘High CSCR’’ and ‘‘Low More details on the subgroup analysis rulemaking. Before initiating the CSCR’’ scenarios), described by sets of and the results can be found in Chapter detailed impact studies, DOE collected cross-elasticity model parameters, 11 of the TSD accompanying this notice. information on the market which it believes bracket the range of I. Manufacturer Impact Analysis characteristics of the small electric possible market share responses to motors industry. This industry profile standards. DOE modeled two cases for 1. Overview includes further detail on the overall the timescale of market share response DOE performed an MIA to estimate market, motor characteristics, estimated to standards. One case assumed that the the financial impact of energy manufacturer market shares, and the market would take 10 years to adjust to conservation standards on small electric trends in the number of firms in the the market shares predicted, following motor manufacturers, and to calculate small electric motors industry. the implementation of standards in the impact of such standards on The industry profile included a top- 2015, while the other assumed that the domestic manufacturing employment down cost analysis of the small electric market shares would adjust prior to the and capacity. The MIA has both motors manufacturers that DOE used to effective date of the standards in 2015. quantitative and qualitative aspects. The derive preliminary financial inputs for DOE treats these two cases as its quantitative part of the MIA primarily the GRIM (e.g., revenues; material, reference cases. DOE analyzed several relies on the GRIM, an industry-cash- labor, overhead, depreciation costs; alternate scenarios as sensitivities, flow model customized for this selling, general, and administration including the ‘‘High CSCR’’ and ‘‘Low rulemaking. The GRIM inputs are data expenses (SG&A); and research and CSCR’’ model parameters and a case on the industry cost structure, development (R&D) expenses). DOE also
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 61443
used public information to further employees. DOE attempted to interview applications. If existing motor sizes calibrate its initial characterization of companies from each subgroup, were increased, end users could choose the industry, including U.S. Securities including subsidiaries, independent to use other horsepower motors or a and Exchange Commission (SEC) 10–K firms, and public and private different motor category that is not reports, Hoovers company financial corporations to develop an covered by today’s rulemaking rather reports, and U.S. Census data. understanding of how manufacturer than modify the application to allow impacts vary by TSL. installation of the standards-compliant 3. Phase 2, Industry Cash-Flow Analysis small electric motor. Manufacturers 5. Government Regulatory Impact Model Phase 2 of the MIA focused on the were also concerned that energy Analysis financial impacts of potential energy conservation standards could conservation standards on the industry The GRIM analysis is a standard consolidate horsepower ratings by as a whole. In Phase 2, DOE used the annual cash-flow analysis that eliminating some of today’s standard GRIM to perform a preliminary industry incorporates MSPs, manufacturing ratings from the market. cash-flow analysis to calculate the production costs, shipments, and Significant Capital Conversion financial impacts of energy conservation industry financial information as inputs. Costs—Manufacturers expressed standards on manufacturers. In The analysis models changes in costs, concern over the potentially large performing this analysis, DOE used the distribution of shipments, investments, conversion costs required to financial values determined in Phase 1 and associated margins that would manufacturer standards-compliant small and the shipment scenarios used in the result from new energy conservation electric motors. Large manufacturers NIA analysis. standards. The GRIM spreadsheet uses a that produce the vast majority of motors number of inputs to arrive at a series of 4. Phase 3, Sub-Group Impact Analysis covered by this rulemaking typically annual cash flows, beginning with the also manufacturer many other categories In Phase 3, DOE conducts interviews base year of the analysis (2010) and of motors. The majority of with manufacturers, refines its continuing to 2044. DOE calculated manufacturers interviewed indicated preliminary cash flow analysis, and uses INPVs by summing the stream of annual that the proportion of covered small its initial market characterization to discounted cash flows during this electric motors represents a small share evaluate the how groups of period. of the manufacturer’s overall business. manufacturers could be differentially DOE used the GRIM to calculate cash The increased stringency at each impacted. During the course of the MIA, flows using standard accounting standard level will require DOE interviewed manufacturers principles and to compare changes in manufacturers to increase the amount of representing the majority of domestic INPV between a base case and various capital conversion costs, potentially small electric motors sales. Many of TSLs (the standards case). The necessitating an investment in new these same companies also participated difference in INPV between the base lamination dies, winding tooling, testing in interviews for the engineering case and a standards case represents the equipment, and even re-allotting factory analysis. The MIA interviews broadened financial impact of energy conservation floor space. According to the majority of the discussion from primarily standards on manufacturers. DOE manufacturers, if the standard forces a technology-related issues to include collected this information from a substantial increase in motor business-related topics. One key number of sources, including publicly dimensions or redesign costs, objective for DOE was to obtain available data and interviews with manufacturers could simply exit the feedback from the industry on the manufacturers. The GRIM results are small electric motors market rather than assumptions used in the GRIM and to shown in Table V.18 through Table develop standards-compliant motors. isolate key issues and concerns. See V.21. Additional details about the GRIM Manufacturers indicated that the section IV.I.6 for a description of the key can be found in chapter 12 of the TSD. resources for manufacturing standard- issues raised by manufacturers during compliant motors would be taken away 6. Manufacturer Interviews interviews. from other motor technologies that Using average cost assumptions to During interviews with could potentially provide greater energy develop an industry cash-flow estimate manufacturers, manufacturers discussed savings, such as variable speed motors. does not adequately assess differential several key issues of concern if new Substitutes—Manufacturers expressed impacts among manufacturer subgroups. regulations were imposed. The most concerns that standard-compliant motor For example, small manufacturers, significant of these issues are outlined prices would be greater due to more niche players, or manufacturers below. costly components and to compensate exhibiting a cost structure that greatly Maintaining Product Availability and the company for the required capital differs from the industry average could Features—Manufacturers expressed investment. Manufacturers stated that be more negatively affected by new concern about the impact on typical because the small electric motor market energy conservation standards than motor characteristics that may result is highly price sensitive, higher selling larger manufacturers. DOE established after the adoption of new energy prices could push customers towards two subgroups for the MIA conservation standards. Specifically, other technologies (e.g., ECMs). corresponding to large and small manufacturers were concerned that Manufacturers believed that the business manufacturers of small electric standards-compliant small electric economics for customers with motors. Small electric motor motors might require larger housing equipment that use motors sparingly manufacturing is classified under the diameters and shaft lengths. could not justify using the more- North American Industry Classification Manufacturers were also greatly efficient, standards-compliant motors System (NAICS) code 335312 (Motor concerned that larger dimensions could covered by this rulemaking because the and Generator Manufacturing). In order eliminate the ability to retrofit newer, energy savings would not compensate to be considered a small business under potentially larger motors into existing for the higher first costs of these motors. NAICS 335312, small businesses are applications. However, manufacturers Narrow Focus of the Rulemaking— defined by the Small Business are concerned that their sales could be Manufacturers were concerned that the Administration (SBA) as manufacturing impacted if larger motors required end- rulemaking only applies to a small enterprises with 1,000 or fewer users to modify their existing number of motors. Some manufacturers
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 61444 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules
indicated they or some of their specifically referenced the lack of manufacturers at a competitive competitors could exit the small electric availability and unproven nature of disadvantage. motor market if energy conservation exotic steels like Hiperco as variables 7. Government Regulatory Impact Model standards were too stringent because that could reduce energy use. Finally, Key Inputs and Scenarios this rulemaking applies to a small all interviewed manufacturers were percentage of their total sales. concerned that the extremely higher a. Base-Case Shipments Forecast Uses of Alternative Metals—All prices of motors that use these metals interviewed manufacturers expressed could force significant conversion costs The GRIM estimates manufacturer concerned about the use of copper and that would not be recouped if higher revenues based on shipment forecasts exotic steels in redesigning their motors. price points led to a decline in sales. and the distribution by product class According to manufacturers, copper Manufacturers reported that most likely and efficiency. Changes in the efficiency mix at each standard level are a key rotor designs would require new they would exit the market if exotic driver of manufacturer finances. For this specialized tooling that manufacturers steels were required to meet the energy currently do not employ. Some analysis, the GRIM used the NIA conservation standard. manufacturers reported the need for shipments forecasts from 2010 to 2044. significant changes to their plants if Enforcement of Standards— The NIA shipments forecast contains copper rotors are required to meet Manufacturers expressed concern about several scenarios that account for standards, including the use of special the feasibility of enforcing an energy various economic conditions, motor smelting and casting operations. Also, conservation standard, particularly for price elasticity, and shipment manufacturers indicated that the use of motors embedded in other equipment. interaction between single-phase copper in rotors would require a This concern was a particular concern motors. For all scenarios, the NIA significant R&D effort because of their for domestic manufacturers that shipments forecast maintains total lack of experience with the materials indicated foreign companies could industry-wide shipments. Total and determining how to optimize potentially import non-compliant shipments forecasted by the NIA for the manufacturing these types of rotors in motors as a component in other non- base case in 2015 are shown in Table high volumes. Manufacturers regulated equipment and put U.S. IV.11.
Additional shipment scenarios the MIA DOE used the reference scenarios, see Chapter 12 of the TSD. analyzed in the NIA include any scenario for the MIA. This scenario uses For more information on the different combination of the scenarios listed in baseline economic growth, no shipment possible shipment scenarios analyzed in Table IV.12. While the GRIM is able to elasticity, and baseline market share the NIA, see chapter 10 of the TSD. model any of the possible combinations, between CSIR and CSCR motors. To see to calculate the likely INPV impacts in a complete set of results for all
In the shipments analysis, DOE also (chapter 9 of the TSD). Table IV.13 case for the polyphase, CSIR, and CSCR estimated the distribution of efficiencies through Table IV.15 show the representative units, respectively. in the base case for small electric motors distribution of efficiencies in the base
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP24NO09.011 EP24NO09.012 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 61445
b. Standards-Case Shipments Forecast calculated projected MSPs is found in typically only offer one line for each chapter 5 of the TSD. To determine product class and that the efficiency For each standards case, DOE manufacturer production costs from levels offered fall near the baseline assumed that shipments at efficiencies MSP, DOE divided MSPs by the efficiency level. DOE also learned that below the projected standard levels manufacturer markup. The manufacturers maintain a constant would roll up to those efficiency levels manufacturer markup is a multiplier markup among different product in response to an energy conservation that converts the manufacturer classes. In the base case, DOE applied standard. This scenario assumes that production costs to MSPs. The the same standard manufacturer markup demand for high-efficiency motors is a manufacturer markup covers all non- of 1.45 for all product classes. function of its price without regard to production costs (i.e., selling, general, For the standards case, DOE the standard level. In the standards-case and administrative expenses, shipping, considered two markup scenarios: (1) scenarios used to calculate INPV, and research and development) and The preservation of return on invested shipments for polyphase and single- profit. The manufacturer markup was capital scenario, and (2) the phase motors are independent of each calculated using the revenues and cost preservation of operating profit other. However, for single-phase motors, of goods sold from the annual reports of scenario. the NIA shipments forecast modeled an publicly-traded companies. For Return on invested capital is defined interaction between shipments of CSIR additional information on DOE’s scaling as net operating profit after taxes and CSCR motors at each TSL. This of MSPs, see section IV.G of today’s (NOPAT) divided by the total invested interaction is also captured in the MIA notice. capital. The total invested capital in the standards-case shipments. For includes fixed assets and working further information on the interaction of d. Manufacturing Markup Scenarios capital, or net plant, property, and CSIR and CSCR motors shipments, see To understand how baseline and more equipment plus working capital. In the chapter 10 of the TSD. efficient motors are differentiated, DOE preservation of return on invested reviewed manufacturer catalogs and c. Manufacturing Production Costs capital scenario, the markups are set so information gathered by manufacturers. that the return on invested capital the Manufacturer production costs In the base case, DOE used the MSPs year after the effective date of the energy include all direct manufacturing costs from the engineering analysis. For the conservation standards is the same as in (i.e., labor, material and overhead). DOE MIA, DOE considered different the base case. This scenario models the derived manufacturing production costs manufacturer markup scenarios for situation in which manufacturers by using the MSPs found in the small electric motors. Markup scenarios maintain a similar level of profitability engineering analysis. In the MIA, DOE were used to provide bounds to the from the investments required by used the weighted average MSPs that range of expected small electric motor amended energy conservation standards combined prices for space constrained prices following new energy as they do from their current business and non-spaced constrained motor conservation standards. DOE learned operations. Under this scenario, after designs. Further discussion of how DOE from interviews that manufacturers standards, manufacturers have higher
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP24NO09.013 61446 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules
net operating profits but also greater would have space constraints, requiring J. Employment Impact Analysis working capital and investment higher product conversion costs in Employment impacts are among the requirements. This scenario represents comparison to non-space constrained factors DOE considers in selecting a the high bound to profitability following motors. To take space constrained proposed standard. Employment standards. designs into account in the equipment impacts are the total impact on The implicit assumption behind the conversion costs, at each TSL DOE used employment in the national economy, ‘‘preservation-of-operating profit’’ a weighted average of its estimate of the including the sector that manufactures scenario is that the industry can only product development costs to develop the equipment being regulated. Thus, maintain its base-case operating profit both space constrained and non-space DOE estimated both the direct impact of (earnings before interest and taxes) in constrained motors. DOE also used the standards on employment (i.e., any the year after implementation of the information provided by manufacturers changes in the number of employees for standard. The industry impacts occur in and industry experts to validate its small motors manufacturers, their this scenario when manufacturers make estimates. However, because DOE suppliers, and related service firms), the required capital and equipment received limited feedback from and the indirect employment impact of conversion costs in order to manufacturers about the required standards (i.e., changes in employment manufacturer more expensive motors, capital and equipment conversion costs, by energy suppliers and by other sectors but the operating profit does not change DOE seeks additional comment from from current conditions. DOE of the economy). The MIA addresses interested parties on the estimated only the employment impacts on implemented this markup scenario in equipment conversion costs. the GRIM by setting the manufacturer manufacturers of the product being markups at each TSL to yield DOE also evaluated the level of regulated. Indirect employment impacts from approximately the same operating profit capital conversion costs manufacturers standards are the net jobs created or in both the base case and the standards would incur to comply with energy case in the year after standards take conservation standards. DOE used the eliminated in the national economy, effect. manufacturer interviews to gather data other than in the manufacturing sector on the level of capital investment being regulated, as a consequence of (1) e. Equipment and Capital Conversion required at each TSL. Manufacturers reduced spending by end users on Costs explained how different TSLs affected energy, (2) reduced spending on new Energy conservation standards their ability to use existing plants, energy supply by the utility industry, (3) typically cause manufacturers to incur tooling, and equipment. DOE estimated increased spending on the purchase one-time conversion costs to bring their the tooling and capital that would be price of new small motors, and (4) the production facilities and designs into necessary to achieve subsequent effects of those three factors throughout compliance with the energy efficiency levels given the majority of the economy. DOE expects the net conservation standard. For the purpose current shipments are at the baseline monetary savings from standards to be of the MIA, DOE classified these efficiency. Additionally, DOE redirected to other forms of economic conversion costs into two major groups: maintained the assumption from the activity. DOE also expects these shifts in (1) Equipment conversion costs, and (2) engineering analysis that a portion of spending and economic activity to affect capital conversion costs. Equipment manufactured motors would have space the demand for labor, but there is no conversion costs are one-time constraints. At each TSL, DOE estimated standard method for estimating these investments in research, development, the total capital conversion costs that effects. One method for assessing the possible testing, and marketing, focused on would be required to manufacturer effects on the demand for labor of such making motor designs comply with the exclusively space constrained and non- shifts in economic activity is to compare new energy conservation standard. space constrained motors. DOE sectoral employment statistics Capital conversion costs are one-time weighted these two estimates by the developed by the Labor Department’s investments in property, plant, and percentage of motors that would be Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). BLS equipment to adapt or change existing space constrained and non-spaced production facilities so that new motor regularly publishes its estimates of the constrained to calculate the estimate of designs can be fabricated and number of jobs per million dollars of the industry-wide capital conversion assembled. economic activity in different sectors of DOE assessed the equipment costs at each TSL. DOE gathered the economy, as well as the jobs created conversion costs manufacturers would information from industry experts to elsewhere in the economy by this same be required to make at each TSL. DOE validate its assumptions for capital economic activity. Data from BLS considered a number of manufacturer conversion costs. However, DOE indicate that expenditures in the utility responses for small electric motors at received limited input from sector generally create fewer jobs (both each TSL. In order to estimate the manufacturers regarding the required directly and indirectly) than required equipment conversion costs, capital conversion costs to reach the expenditures in other sectors of the DOE used the technology options in its max-tech efficiency levels that require economy. (See Bureau of Economic engineering analysis to estimate the alternative steel such as Hiperco. Analysis, ‘‘Regional Multipliers: A User engineering and product development Consequently, DOE seeks additional Handbook for the Regional Input-Output resources needed at each TSL. comment from interested parties on its Modeling System (RIMS II),’’ Specifically, DOE estimated the assumptions and estimates for the Washington, DC., U.S. Department of equipment conversion costs by the effort capital conversion costs. Commerce, 1992). Because reduced required to redesign existing motors as The investment figures used in the consumer expenditures for energy likely the stack length increases and changes GRIM can be found in section V.B.2.a of lead to increased expenditures in other in material to copper for rotors and today’s notice. For additional sectors of the economy, the general exotic steels for laminations are information on the estimated equipment effect of efficiency standards is to shift required. Additionally, DOE maintained conversion and capital conversion costs economic activity from a less labor- the engineering analysis assumption and assumptions, see chapter 12 of the intensive sector (i.e., the utility sector) that a portion of manufactured motors TSD. to more labor-intensive sectors (e.g., the
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 61447
retail and manufacturing sectors). Thus, innovation-induced employment energy consumption. The estimates of based on BLS data alone, DOE believes impacts in its analysis at this time. the losses (or savings) from power factor net national employment will increase Baldor and NEMA commented that and reactive power effects are included due to shifts in economic activity DOE needs to make sure that the ImSET in the inputs to the utility impact resulting from the proposed small model properly includes pertinent analysis. motors standard. industries that use small electric Chapter 13 of the TSD accompanying To investigate the indirect motors—i.e., OEM manufacturers this notice presents details on the utility employment impacts, DOE used the (Baldor, Public Meeting Transcript, No. impact analysis. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 8.5 at 312–13; NEMA, No. 13 at p. 16). L. Environmental Analysis (PNNL)’s Impact of Sector Energy DOE has confirmed that ImSET includes Technologies (ImSET) model. PNNL the various OEM manufacturing sectors DOE has prepared a draft developed ImSET, a spreadsheet model in its analysis. Although commenters environmental assessment (EA) of the U.S. economy that focuses on 188 expected OEM employment to be pursuant to the National Environmental sectors most relevant to industrial, adversely impacted, ImSET forecasts Policy Act and the requirements of 42 commercial, and residential building increased employment by OEMs. ImSET U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI) and 6316(a) energy use, for DOE’s Office of Energy forecasts employment impacts based on to determine the environmental impacts Efficiency and Renewable Energy. changes in expenditures made in a of the proposed standards. DOE ImSET is a special-purpose version of particular sector. With the estimated the reduction in power sector the U.S. Benchmark National Input- implementation of energy conservation emissions of CO2, NOX, and Hg using Output (I–O) model, which has been standards, small electric motors become the NEMS–BT model. designed to estimate the national more expensive and as the equipment is 1. Power Sector Emissions employment and income effects of marked up during OEM product energy saving technologies that are manufacture, the total revenues going to NEMS–BT is run similarly to the AEO deployed by DOE’s Office of Energy OEMs increases. Because DOE assumes NEMS, except that small electric motor Efficiency and Renewable Energy. The that OEMs are able to pass the increased energy use is reduced by the amount of ImSET software includes a computer- cost of the motors to their customers, energy saved due to each TSL. The based I–O model with structural these increased revenues going to the inputs of national energy savings come coefficients to characterize economic OEM sector result in a forecast of from the NIA spreadsheet model; the flows among 188 sectors. ImSET’s increased employment for OEMs. output is the forecasted physical national economic I–O structure is For more details on the employment emissions at each TSL. The net benefit based on the 1997 Benchmark Input- impact analysis, see TSD chapter 14. of the standard is the difference between emissions estimated by NEMS–BT at Output Data, which have been specially K. Utility Impact Analysis aggregated to cover 188 sectors. each TSL and the AEO Reference Case. In response to the preliminary The utility impact analysis estimates NEMS–BT tracks CO2 emissions using a analysis, DOE received two comments the effects of reduced energy detailed module that provides results regarding the employment analysis. consumption due to improved with broad coverage of all sectors and NEEA and NPCC recommended that appliance efficiency on the utility inclusion of interactive effects. For the DOE consider a ‘‘2008 study’’ on the industry. This utility analysis compares preliminary NOPR analysis, DOE used employment impacts of energy forecast results for a case comparable to AEO2008. For today’s NOPR, DOE used efficiency in California and attempt to the AEO2009 Reference Case and the AEO2009 NEMS (stimulus version). extrapolate them to the national scale forecasts for policy cases incorporating For the final rule, DOE intends to revise (NEEA and NPCC, No. 9 at p. 6). DOE each of the small motors trial standard the emissions analysis using the most examined the study referred to in the levels. current AEO. comment: ‘‘Energy Efficiency, The utility impact analysis reports the DOE has preliminarily determined Innovation, and Job Creation in changes in installed capacity and that SO2 emissions from affected California’’ by David Roland-Holst. DOE generation by plant type that result for Electric Generating Units (EGUs) are concluded that one component of the each trial standard level, as well as subject to nationwide and regional study that addresses indirect changes in electricity sales to the emissions cap and trading programs that employment impacts due to decreased residential, commercial and industrial create uncertainty about standard’s energy expenditures is similar to DOE’s sectors. The estimated impacts of the impact on SO2 emissions. Title IV of the current approach. The second standard are the difference between the Clean Air Act sets an annual emissions component of the study hypothesizes value forecasted by NEMS–BT and the cap on SO2 for all affected EGUs. SO2 that ‘‘innovation’’ will create additional AEO 2009 Reference Case. emissions from 28 eastern States and the employment impact and estimated that DOE also received a comment from District of Columbia (D.C.) are also this impact is approximately the same EEI noting that low motor power factors limited under the Clean Air Interstate size as the indirect impacts due to can have adverse impacts on the utility Rule (CAIR, published in the Federal decreased energy expenditures. But the power distribution system (EEI, No. 14 Register on May 12, 2005. 70 FR 25162 report notes that is forecast is highly at p. 2). DOE responded to this comment (May 12, 2005)), which creates an uncertain: ‘‘The overall process of by including an estimate of utility costs allowance-based trading program that technological change is notoriously as a function of changes in power factor will gradually replace the Title IV difficult to forecast, and individual and motor losses with changing program in those States and D.C. (The innovation events virtually impossible,’’ standard level. These impacts include recent legal history surrounding CAIR is (David Roland-Holst, ‘‘Energy costs and energy losses. The national discussed below.) The attainment of the Efficiency, Innovation, and Job Creation impact analysis estimates costs and emissions caps is flexible among EGUs in California’’ at p. 81). Given the benefits of changing power factor and and is enforced through the use of acknowledged exploratory and reactive power. DOE’s model estimates emissions allowances and tradable potentially speculative nature of that the utility system losses due to permits. The standard could lead EGUs employment impacts due to innovation, power factor effects are generally in the to trade allowances and increase SO2 DOE does not include an estimate of range of 10 to 20 percent of total source emissions that offset some or all SO2
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 61448 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules
emissions reductions attributable to the mercury from new and existing coal- For today’s proposed rule, DOE is standard. DOE is not certain that there fired plants in all States beginning in relying on a set of values recently will be reduced overall SO2 emissions 2010 (70 FR 28606). However, the developed by an interagency process from the standards. The NEMS–BT CAMR was vacated by the D.C. Circuit that conducted a more thorough review modeling system that DOE plans to use in its decision in New Jersey v. of existing estimates of the social cost of to forecast emissions reductions Environmental Protection Agency, 517 F carbon (SCC). currently indicates that no physical 3d 574 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Thus, DOE was The SCC is intended to be a monetary reductions in power sector emissions able to use the NEMS–BT model to measure of the incremental damage would occur for SO2. However, estimate the changes in Hg emissions resulting from greenhouse gas (GHG) remaining uncertainty prevents DOE resulting from the proposed rule. emissions, including, but not limited to, from estimating SO2 reductions from the EEI stated that DOE’s analysis should net agricultural productivity loss, standard at this time. take into consideration trends in human health effects, property damage Even though DOE is not certain that from sea level rise, and changes in emissions reduction for CO2, NOX, SO2 there will be reduced overall emissions and Hg (EEI, No. 14 at p. 3). DOE’s ecosystem services. Any effort to from the standard, there may be an emissions forecasts are based on quantify and to monetize the harms economic benefit from reduced demand estimates produced by the AEO2009 associated with climate change will for SO2 emission allowances. Electricity version of NEMS which include the raise serious questions of science, savings decrease the generation of SO2 future impacts of current regulation economics, and ethics. But with full emissions from power production, both in the reference and the standard regard for the limits of both which can lessen the need to purchase case, but which do not include the quantification and monetization, the SO2 emissions allowance credits, and impact of future regulations. With SCC can be used to provide estimates of thereby decrease the costs of complying existing regulations, the model the social benefits of reductions in GHG with regulatory caps on emissions. estimates a steady decline in NO and emissions. Much like SO , NO emissions from X For at least three reasons, any single 2 X Hg emissions from the power sector 28 eastern States and the District of estimate of the SCC will be contestable. based on the future impacts of current Columbia (D.C.) are limited under the First, scientific and economic regulation. But because of the CAIR. Although CAIR has been knowledge about the impacts of climate speculative nature of forecasting future remanded to EPA by the D.C. Circuit, it change continues to grow. With new regulations, DOE does not in general will remain in effect until it is replaced and better information about relevant include the impact of possible future by a rule consistent with the Court’s questions, including the cost, burdens, regulations in its reference case July 11, 2008, opinion in North Carolina and possibility of adaptation, current forecasts. However, DOE may examine v. EPA. 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008); estimates will inevitably change over see also North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d the impact of specific possible future time. Second, some of the likely and 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Because all States regulations in a sensitivity analysis. potential damages from climate DOE’s projections of CO2 emissions covered by CAIR opted to reduce NOX change—for example, the value society emissions through participation in cap- from electric power generation are based places on adverse impacts on and-trade programs for electric on the AEO2009 version of NEMS. The endangered species—are not included generating units, emissions from these emissions projections reflect market in all of the existing economic analyses. sources are capped across the CAIR factors and policies that affect utility These omissions may turn out to be region. choice of power plants for electricity significant, in the sense that they may The proposed standard would reduce generation, including existing mean that the best current estimates are NOX emissions in those 22 States not renewable portfolio standards. In too low. Third, controversial ethical affected by the CAIR. As a result, DOE conducting the AEO, EIA generally judgments, including those involving used the NEMS–BT to forecast emission includes only those policies that are the treatment of future generations, play reductions from the standard that are already enacted. As enactment and the a role in judgments about the SCC (see considered in today’s NOPR. features of a national CO2 cap and trade in particular the discussion of the In contrast, in the 28 eastern States program are uncertain at this point, DOE discount rate, below). and D.C. where CAIR is in effect, DOE’s believes it would be inappropriate to To date, regulations have used a range forecasts indicate that no NOX speculate on the nature and timing of of values for the SCC. For example, a emissions reductions will occur: This is such a policy at this stage of this regulation proposed by the U.S. because of the permanent cap. Energy rulemaking. Department of Transportation (DOT) in
conservation standards have the 2. Valuation of CO Emissions 2008 assumed a value of $7 per ton CO2 potential to produce environmentally 2 (2006$) for 2011 emission reductions related economic impact in the form of DOE received comments on the (with a range of $0–14 for sensitivity lower prices for emissions allowance desirability of valuing the CO2 analysis). Regulation finalized by DOE credits, if they were large enough. emissions reductions that result from used a range of $0–$20 (2007$). Both of However, DOE has preliminarily standards. Both NEEA and Earthjustice these ranges were designed to reflect the concluded that the SEM standard would urged DOE to value CO2 emissions value of damages to the United States not have such an effect because the reductions and recommended potential resulting from carbon emissions, or the estimated reduction in NOX emissions models that DOE could use to do so ‘‘domestic’’ SCC. In the final Model or the corresponding allowance credits (NEEA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. Year 2011 Corporate Average Fuel in States covered by the CAIR cap 8.5 at pp. 251–254; Earthjustice, No. 11 Economy rule, DOT used both a would be too small to affect allowance at pp. 2–3). AHRI commented that DOE domestic SCC value of $2/tCO2 and a prices for NOX under the CAIR. needs to be careful to examine the global SCC value of $33/tCO2 (with Similar to emissions of SO2 and NOX, uncertainty in potential CO2 emissions sensitivity analysis at $80/tCO2), future emissions of Hg would have been reductions values and how costs may be increasing at 2.4 percent per year subject to emissions caps. The Clean Air allocated to different sectors (AHRI, thereafter. Mercury Rule (CAMR) would have Public Meeting Transcript, No. 8.5 at In recent months, a variety of agencies permanently capped emissions of pp. 255–256). have worked to develop an objective
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 61449
methodology for selecting a range of international perspective is optional. 2. Filtering existing analyses. There interim SCC estimates to use in The domestic decisions of one nation are numerous SCC estimates in the regulatory analyses until improved SCC are not typically based on a judgment existing literature, and it is legitimate to estimates are developed. The following about the effects of those decisions on make use of those estimates to produce summary reflects the initial results of other nations. But the climate change a figure for current use. A reasonable these efforts and proposes ranges and problem is highly unusual in the sense starting point is provided by the meta- values for interim social costs of carbon that it involves (a) a global public good analysis in Richard Tol, ‘‘The Social used in this rule. It should be in which (b) the emissions of one nation Cost of Carbon: Trends, Outliers, and emphasized that the analysis described may inflict significant damages on other Catastrophes, Economics: The Open- below is preliminary. These complex nations and (c) the United States is Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal,’’ issues are of course undergoing a actively engaged in promoting an Vol. 2, 2008–25. http://www.economics- process of continuing review. Relevant international agreement to reduce ejournal.org/economics/journalarticles/ agencies will be evaluating and seeking worldwide emissions. 2008-25 (2008). With that starting point, comment on all of the scientific, In these circumstances, the global it is proposed to ‘‘filter’’ existing SCC economic, and ethical issues before measure is preferred. Use of a global estimates by using those that (1) are establishing final estimates for use in measure reflects the reality of the derived from peer-reviewed studies; (2) future rulemakings. problem and is expected to contribute to do not weight the monetized damages to The interim judgments resulting from the continuing efforts of the United one country more than those in other the recent interagency review process States to ensure that emission countries; (3) use a ‘‘business as usual’’ can be summarized as follows: (a) DOE reductions occur in many nations. climate scenario; and (4) are based on and other Federal agencies should Domestic SCC values are also the most recent published version of consider the global benefits associated presented. The development of a each of the three major integrated with the reductions of CO2 emissions domestic SCC is greatly complicated by assessment models (IAMs): FUND, DICE resulting from efficiency standards and the relatively few region- or country- and PAGE (Policy Analysis of the other similar rulemakings, rather specific estimates of the SCC in the Greenhouse Effect) Policy. continuing the previous focus on literature. One potential estimate comes Proposal (1) is based on the view that domestic benefits; (b) these global from the DICE (Dynamic Integrated those studies that have been subject to benefits should be based on SCC Climate Economy, William Nordhaus) peer review are more likely to be estimates (in 2007$) of $55, $33, $19, model. In an unpublished paper, reliable than those that have not been. $10, and $5 per ton of CO equivalent Proposal (2) is based on a principle of 2 Nordhaus (2007) produced emitted (or avoided) in 2007; (c) the neutrality and simplicity; it does not disaggregated SCC estimates using a SCC value of emissions that occur (or treat the citizens of one nation regional version of the DICE model. He are avoided) in future years should be differently on the basis of speculative or reported a U.S. estimate of $1/tCO escalated using an annual growth rate of 2 controversial considerations. Proposal (2007 value, 2007$), which is roughly 3-percent from the current values); and (3) stems from the judgment that as a 11 percent of the global value. (d) domestic benefits are estimated to be general rule, the proper way to assess a approximately 6 percent of the global An alternative source of estimates policy decision is by comparing the values. DOE has escalated the 2007$ comes from a recent EPA modeling implementation of the policy against a values to 2008$ for consistency with effort using the FUND (Climate counterfactual state where the policy is other dollar values presented in this Framework for Uncertainty, Negotiation not implemented. A departure from this notice, resulting in SCC estimates (in and Distribution, Center for Integrated approach would be to consider a more 2008$) of approximately $5, $10, $20, Study of the Human Dimensions of dynamic setting in which other $34, and $56. These interim judgments Global Change) model. The resulting countries might implement policies to are based on the following: estimates suggest that the ratio of reduce GHG emissions at an unknown 1. Global and domestic estimates of domestic to global benefits varies with future date, and the United States could SCC. Because of the distinctive nature of key parameter assumptions. With a 3- choose to implement such a policy now the climate change problem, estimates percent discount rate, for example, the or in the future. of both global and domestic SCC values US benefit is about 6 percent of the Proposal (4) is based on three should be considered, but the global global benefit for the ‘‘central’’ (mean) complementary judgments. First, the measure should be ‘‘primary.’’ This FUND results, while, for the FUND, PAGE, and DICE models now approach represents a departure from corresponding ‘‘high’’ estimates stand as the most comprehensive and past practices, which relied, for the associated with a higher climate reliable efforts to measure the damages most part, on measures of only domestic sensitivity and lower global economic from climate change. Second, the latest impacts. As a matter of law, both global growth, the US benefit is less than 4 versions of the three IAMs are likely to and domestic values are permissible; the percent of the global benefit. With a 2 reflect the most recent evidence and relevant statutory provisions are percent discount rate, the U.S. share is learning, and hence they are presumed ambiguous and allow the agency to about 2 to 5 percent of the global to be superior to those that preceded choose either measure. (It is true that estimate. them. It is acknowledged that earlier Federal statutes are presumed not to Based on this available evidence, a versions may contain information that is have extraterritorial effect, in part to domestic SCC value equal to 6 percent missing from the latest versions. Third, ensure that the laws of the United States of the global damages is used in this any effort to choose among them, or to respect the interests of foreign rulemaking. This figure is in the middle reject one in favor of the others, would sovereigns. But use of a global measure of the range of available estimates from be difficult to defend at this time. In the for the SCC does not give extraterritorial the literature. It is recognized that the 6 absence of a clear reason to choose effect to Federal law and hence does not percent figure is approximate and among them, it is reasonable to base the intrude on such interests.) highly speculative and alternative SCC on all of them. It is true that under OMB guidance, approaches will be explored before The agency is keenly aware that the analysis from the domestic perspective establishing final values for future current IAMs fail to include all relevant is required, while analysis from the rulemakings. information about the likely impacts
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 61450 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules
from greenhouse gas emissions. For developed within the general context of Second, 5 percent, and not 3-percent, example, ecosystem impacts, including the current guidance. is roughly consistent with estimates species loss, do not appear to be The choice of a discount rate, implied by reasonable inputs to the included in at least two of the models. especially over long periods of time, theoretically derived Ramsey equation, Some human health impacts, including raises highly contested and exceedingly which specifies the optimal time path increases in food-borne illnesses and in difficult questions of science, for consumption. That equation the quantity and toxicity of airborne economics, philosophy, and law. See, specifies the optimal discount rate as allergens, also appear to be excluded. In e.g., William Nordhaus, ‘‘The Challenge the sum of two components. The first addition, there has been considerable of Global Warming (2008); Nicholas reflects the fact that consumption in the recent discussion of the risk of Stern, The Economics of Climate future is likely to be higher than catastrophe and of how best to account Change’’ (2007); ‘‘Discounting and consumption today (even accounting for for worst-case scenarios. It is not clear Intergenerational Equity’’ (Paul Portney climate impacts), so diminishing whether the three IAMs take adequate and John Weyant, eds., 1999). Under marginal utility implies that the same account of these potential effects. imaginable assumptions, decisions monetary damage will cause a smaller 3. Use a model-weighted average of based on cost-benefit analysis with high reduction of utility in the future. the estimates at each discount rate. At discount rates might harm future Standard estimates of this term from the this time, there appears to be no generations—at least if investments are economics literature are in the range of scientifically valid reason to prefer any not made for the benefit of those 3 to 5 percent. The second component of the three major IAMs (FUND, PAGE, generations. See Robert Lind, ‘‘Analysis reflects the possibility that a lower and DICE). Consequently, the estimates for Intergenerational Discounting,’’ id. at weight should be placed on utility in are based on an equal weighting of 173, 176–177. At the same time, use of the future, to account for social estimates from each of the models. low discount rates for particular projects impatience or extinction risk, which is Among estimates that remain after might itself harm future generations, by specified by a pure rate of time applying the filter, the average of all ensuring that resources are not used in preference (PRTP). A conventional estimates within a model is derived. a way that would greatly benefit them. estimate of the PRTP is 2 percent. (Some The estimated SCC is then calculated as In the context of climate change, observers believe that a principle of the average of the three model-specific questions of intergenerational equity are intergenerational equity suggests that averages. This approach ensures that the especially important. the PRTP should be close to zero.) It interim estimate is not biased towards Reasonable arguments support the use follows that discount rate of 5 percent specific models or more prolific authors. of a 3-percent discount rate. First, that is within the range of values which are 4. Apply a 3-percent annual growth rate is among the two figures suggested able to be derived from the Ramsey equation, albeit at the low end of the rate to the chosen SCC values. SCC is by OMB guidance, and hence it fits with range of estimates usually associated assumed to increase over time, because existing National policy. Second, it is with Ramsey discounting. future emissions are expected to standard to base the discount rate on the It is recognized that the arguments produce larger incremental damages as compensation that people receive for above—for use of market behavior and physical and economic systems become delaying consumption, and the 3- the Ramsey equation—face objections in more stressed as the magnitude of percent rate is close to the risk-free rate the context of climate change, and of climate change increases. Indeed, an of return, proxied by the return on long course there are alternative approaches. implied growth rate in the SCC is term inflation-adjusted US Treasury In light of climate change, it is possible produced by most studies that estimate Bonds. (In the context of climate that consumption in the future will not economic damages caused by increased change, it is possible to object to this be higher than consumption today, and GHG emissions in future years. But standard method for deriving the if so, the Ramsey equation will suggest neither the rate itself nor the discount rate.) Although these rates are a lower figure. Some people have information necessary to derive its currently closer to 2.5 percent, the use suggested that a very low discount rate, implied value is commonly reported. In of 3-percent provides an adjustment for below 3-percent, is justified in light of light of the limited amount of debate the liquidity premium that is reflected the ethical considerations calling for a thus far about the appropriate growth in these bonds’ returns. principle of intergenerational neutrality. rate of the SCC, applying a rate of 3- At the same time, other arguments See Nicholas Stern, ‘‘The Economics of percent per year seems appropriate at support use of a 5 percent discount rate. Climate Change’’ (2007); for contrary this stage. This value is consistent with First, that rate can also be justified by views, see William Nordhaus, The A the range recommended by IPCC (2007) reference to the level of compensation Question of Balance (2008); Martin and close to the latest published for delaying consumption, because it fits Weitzman, ‘‘Review of the Stern Review estimate (Hope, 2008). with market behavior with respect to on the Economics of Climate Change.’’ For climate change, one of the most individuals’ willingness to trade off Journal of Economic Literature, 45(3): complex issues involves the appropriate consumption across periods as 703–724 (2007). Additionally, some discount rate. OMB’s current guidance measured by the estimated post-tax analyses attempt to deal with offers a detailed discussion of the average real returns to private uncertainty with respect to interest rates relevant issues and calls for discount investment (e.g., the S&P 500). In the over time; a possible approach enabling rates of 3-percent and 7-percent. It also climate setting, the 5 percent discount the consideration of such uncertainties permits a sensitivity analysis with low rate may be preferable to the riskless is discussed below. Richard Newell and rates for intergenerational problems. (‘‘If rate because it is based on risky William Pizer, ‘‘Discounting the Distant your rule will have important investments and the return to projects to Future: How Much do Uncertain Rates intergenerational benefits or costs you mitigate climate change is also risky. In Increase Valuations?’’ J. Environ. Econ. might consider a further sensitivity contrast, the 3-percent riskless rate may Manage. 46 (2003) 52–71. analysis using a lower but positive be a more appropriate discount rate for The application of the methodology discount rate in addition to calculating projects where the return is known with outlined above yields estimates of the net benefits using discount rates of 3 a high degree of confidence (e.g., SCC that are reported in Table IV.16. and 7-percent.’’) The SCC is being highway guardrails). These estimates are reported separately
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 61451
using 3-percent and 5 percent discount report estimates of the SCC at a 3- or summary row; they are $33 per tCO2 rates. The cells are empty in rows 10 percent discount rate. The model- at a 3% discount rate and $5 per tCO2 and 11, because these studies did not weighted means are reported in the final with a 5% discount rate.
Analyses have been conducted at $34 horizons. Recognizing that point, approach would assume that there is a and $5 (in 2008$, escalated from 2007$) Newell and Pizer have made a careful single discount rate with equal as these represent the estimates effort to adjust for that uncertainty. See probability of 3-percent and 5 percent. associated with the 3-percent and 5 Newell and Pizer, supra. This is a Table IV.17 reports on the application percent discount rates, respectively. The relatively recent contribution to the of the Newell-Pizer adjustments. The 3-percent and 5 percent estimates have literature. precise numbers depend on the independent appeal and at this time a There are several concerns with using clear preference for one over the other this approach in this context. First, it assumptions about the data generating is not warranted. Thus, DOE has also would be a departure from current OMB process that governs interest rates. included—and centered its current guidance. Second, an approach that Columns (1a) and (1b) assume that attention on—the average of the would average what emerges from ‘‘random walk’’ model best describes estimates associated with these discount discount rates of 3-percent and 5 the data and uses 3-percent and 5 rates, which is approximately $20. percent reflects uncertainty about the percent discount rates, respectively. (Based on the $20 global value, the discount rate, but based on a different Columns (2a) and (2b) repeat this, domestic value would be approximately model of uncertainty. The Newell-Pizer except that it assumes a ‘‘mean- $1 per ton of CO2 equivalent.) approach models discount rate reverting’’ process. As Newell and Pizer It is true that there is uncertainty uncertainty as something that evolves report, there is stronger empirical about interest rates over long time over time; in contrast, one alternative support for the random walk model.
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP24NO09.014 61452 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules
The resulting estimates of the social rulemaking on reducing CO2 emissions emissions allowances in cap-and-trade cost of carbon are necessarily greater. is subject to change. markets. Estimating this effect is very When the adjustments from the random DOE, together with other Federal difficult because such factors as credit walk model are applied, the estimates of agencies, will continue to review banking can change the trajectory of the social cost of carbon are $10 and $56 various methodologies for estimating prices. From its modeling to date, DOE (2008$), with the 5 percent and 3 the monetary value of reductions in CO2 is unable to estimate a benefit from SO2 percent discount rates, respectively. The and other greenhouse gas emissions. emissions reductions at this time. See application of the mean-reverting This ongoing review will consider the chapter 15 of the TSD for further details. adjustment yields estimates of $6 and comments on this subject that are part Because the courts have decided to $37 (in 2008$). of the public record for this and other Since the random walk model has rulemakings, as well as other allow the CAIR rule to remain in effect, greater support from the data, analyses methodological assumptions and issues. projected annual NOX allowances from are also conducted with the value of the However, consistent with DOE’s legal NEMS–BT are relevant. The update to SCC set at $10 and $56 (2008$). obligations, and taking into account the the AEO2009-based version of NEMS– In summary, DOE considered in its uncertainty involved with this BT includes the representation of CAIR. decision process for this notice of particular issue, DOE has included in As noted above, standards would not proposed rulemaking the potential this proposed rule the most recent produce an economic impact in the global benefits resulting from reduced values and analyses resulting from the form of lower prices for emissions CO2 emissions valued at $5, $10, $20, ongoing interagency review process. allowance credits in the 28 eastern $34 and $56 per metric ton, and has also States and D.C. covered by the CAIR presented the domestic benefits derived 3. Valuation of Other Emissions cap. New or amended energy using a value of approximately $1 per DOE also investigated the potential conservation standards would reduce metric ton. All of these unit values monetary benefit of reduced SO2, NOX, NOX emissions in those 22 States that represent emissions that are valued in and Hg emissions from the TSLs it are not affected by the CAIR. For the 2008$ and final net present values for considered. As previously stated, DOE’s area of the United States not covered by cumulative emissions are also reported initial analysis assumed the presence of the CAIR, DOE estimated the monetized in 2008$ so that they can be compared nationwide emission caps on SO2 and value of NOX emissions reductions with other rulemaking analyses in the caps on NOX emissions in the 28 States resulting from each of the TSLs same dollar units. covered by the CAIR. In the presence of considered for today’s proposed rule DOE recognizes that scientific and these caps, the NEMS–BT modeling based on environmental damage economic knowledge about the system that DOE used to forecast estimates from the literature. Available contribution of CO2 and other GHG to emissions reduction indicated that no estimates suggest a very wide range of changes in the future global climate and physical reductions in power sector monetary values for NOX emissions, the potential resulting damages to the emissions would occur for SO2, but that ranging from $370 per ton to $3,800 per world economy continues to evolve the standards could put slight ton of NOX from stationary sources, rapidly. Thus, any value placed in this downward pressure on the prices of measured in 2001$ (equivalent to a
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP24NO09.015 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 61453
range of $442 to $4,540 per ton in estimate is $0.66 million per ton emitted exposure to PM usually occurs at a 2008$). Refer to the OMB, Office of (in 2004$) or $0.745 million per ton in significant distance from the power Information and Regulatory Affairs, 2008$. DOE derived this estimate from plants that are emitting particulates and ‘‘2006 Report to Congress on the Costs a published evaluation of mercury particulate precursors. When power and Benefits of Federal Regulations and control using different methods and plant emissions travel this distance they Unfunded Mandates on State, Local, assumptions from the first study but undergo highly complex atmospheric and Tribal Entities,’’ Washington, DC, also based on the present value of the chemical reactions. While the for additional information. lifetime earnings of children exposed. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) For Hg emissions reductions, DOE See Ted Gayer and Robert Hahn, does keep inventories of direct PM estimated the national monetized values ‘‘Designing Environmental Policy: emissions of power plants, in its source resulting from the TSLs considered for Lessons from the Regulation of Mercury attribution reviews the EPA does not today’s rule based on environmental Emissions,’’ Regulatory Analysis 05–01, separate direct PM emissions from damage estimates from the literature. AEI–Brookings Joint Center for power plants from the particulates DOE conducted research for today’s Regulatory Studies, Washington, DC indirectly produced through complex proposed rule and determined that the (2004). A version of this paper was atmospheric chemical reactions. This is impact of mercury emissions from published in the Journal of Regulatory in part because SO2 emissions react power plants on humans is considered Economics in 2006. The estimate was with direct PM emissions particles to highly uncertain. However, DOE derived by back-calculating the annual produce combined sulfate particulates. identified two estimates of the benefits per ton from the net present Thus it is not useful to examine how the environmental damage of mercury based value of benefits reported in the study. standard impacts direct PM emissions on two estimates of the adverse impact Earthjustice stated that DOE must also independent of indirect PM production of childhood exposure to methyl calculate and monetize the value of the and atmospheric dynamics. DOE is not mercury on intelligence quotient (IQ) for reductions in emissions of particulate currently able to run a model that can American children, and subsequent loss matter (PM) that will result from make these estimates reliably at the of lifetime economic productivity standards; even if DOE cannot consider national level. See chapter 15 of the resulting from these IQ losses. The high- secondary PM emissions, it must TSD for a more detailed discussion. end estimate is based on an estimate of consider primary emissions. the current aggregate cost of the loss of (Earthjustice, No. 11 at pp. 5–6). V. Analytical Results IQ in American children that results DOE agrees that PM impacts are of A. Trial Standard Levels from exposure to mercury of U.S. power concern due to human exposures that plant origin ($1.3 billion per year in can impact health. But impacts of PM DOE analyzed the benefits and year 2000$), which works out to $33.3 emissions reduction are much more burdens of a number of TSLs for the million per ton emitted per year difficult to estimate than other small electric motors that are the subject (2008$). Refer to L. Trasande et al., emissions reductions due to the of today’s proposed rule. Table V.1 and ‘‘Applying Cost Analyses to Drive complex interactions between PM, other Table V.2 present the trial standard Policy that Protects Children,’’ 1076 power plant emissions, meteorology and levels and the corresponding Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 911 (2006) for atmospheric chemistry that impact efficiencies for the three representative additional information. The low-end human exposure to particulates. Human product classes.
DOE’s polyphase TSLs represent the series medium electric motor that meets increase in stack height of 20 percent increasing efficiency of the range of the NEMA Premium level, which will and increased grades of steel. At this motors DOE modeled in its engineering become an energy conservation standard level, DOE has also implemented an analysis. TSLs 1, 2, and 3 represent for medium motors as prescribed by exotic steel type (Hiperco 50), a copper incremental improvements in efficiency Section 313(b) of EISA 2007. TSL 6 die-cast rotor, a max slot fill percentage as a result of increasing the stack height represents a level at which DOE has of nearly 65 percent. For the lesser and the slot fill percentage. TSL 4 is reached the 20 percent limit of space constrained design, DOE has comparable to the efficiency of a three- increased stack height, increased grades decreased the stack height from that digit frame series medium electric motor of steel and included a copper die-cast seen for the design at TSL 6, however, that meets the efficiency requirements rotor. At TSL 7, the ‘‘max-tech’’ level, and has moved to a copper rotor, while of EPACT. TSL 5 is comparable to the for the restricted designs DOE has also reaching the design limitation efficiency standard of a three-digit frame reached the design limitation maximum maximum slot fill percentage.
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP24NO09.016 61454 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules
Each TSL for capacitor-start small engineering design options for both TSL 6 represents ‘‘max-tech’’ levels motors consists of a combination of CSIR and CSCR motors, and the for CSIR and CSCR motors, as efficiency levels for induction-run efficiency levels correspond to what determined by DOE’s engineering motors and capacitor-run motors. CSIR manufacturers would consider an analysis; at this level CSCR motors are and CSCR motors are used in similar EPACT 1992 equivalent efficiency very expensive relative to CSIR motors, applications and generally can be used standard. TSL 2 increases the efficiency and DOE forecasts almost complete interchangeably provided the level of the CSCR motor to the third market shift to CSIR motors. TSLs 7 and applications are not bound by strict efficiency level, which corresponds to 8 represent cases in which CSIR motors space constraints and will allow the the minimum life-cycle cost. The are, on average, very expensive relative presence of a second capacitor shell on efficiency level for the CSIR motor to CSCR motors as a result of standards, the motor. Standards may impact the remains the same as in TSL 1. TSL 3 and DOE forecasts almost complete relative market share of CSIR and CSCR raises the CSIR efficiency level, which market shifts to CSCR motors in both of motors for general-purpose single-phase DOE meets by implementing a copper its reference scenarios. Because CSCR applications by changing the upfront die-cast rotor, increasing slot fill, and motors are more efficient at these levels, cost of motors as well as their estimated reaching the 20 percent limit on national energy savings are increased losses. Section IV.G of this NOPR and increased stack height, or by doubling beyond that of the ‘‘max-tech’’ level, chapter 10 of the TSD describe DOE’s the original stack height and increasing TSL 6. TSL 7 pairs the ‘‘max-tech’’ model of this market dynamic. slot fill. However, the CSCR efficiency DOE developed seven possible level remains at the minimum LCC. requirements for CSIR motors with the efficiency levels for CSIR motors and TSLs 4, and 5, both show the same minimum LCC efficiency level for CSCR eight possible efficiency levels for CSCR efficiency level for CSIR motors, but motors, while TSL 8 level pairs max- motors. Rather than present all possible different efficiency levels for CSCR tech CSIR requirements with the combinations of these efficiency levels, motors. To obtain the efficiency level for second-highest CSCR motor efficiency DOE chose a representative set of 8 CSIR motors, DOE had to use either a level that DOE analyzed. The ordering TSLs that span the range from low copper rotor in combination with a of TSLs 5, 6, 7, and 8, with respect to energy savings to the maximum national thinner and higher grade of steel and a energy savings is robust in the face of energy savings. Because of the stack increase of 20 percent, or only a uncertainties in the inputs to, and the interaction between the combined CSIR higher grade of steel with a stack parameters of, DOE’s cross-elasticity and CSCR market share, there is not a exceeding a 20 percent increase. The model. simple relationship between the 80.3 percent efficiency level for CSCR B. Economic Justification and Energy combination of efficiency levels and the motors in TSL 5 corresponds again to resulting energy savings. DOE’s the same design and efficiency level for Savings capacitor-start cross-elasticity model TSL 2 and 3. To achieve the 81.6 In examining the potential for energy was used to evaluate the impacts of each percent efficiency level for CSCR savings for small electric motors, DOE TSL on motor shipments in each motors, DOE created designs with a 20 analyzed whether standards would be product class. The model predicts that percent increase in stack height and a economically justified. As part of this TSLs 1 through 5 result in relatively higher grade of steel or used a copper examination, a variety of elements were minor changes in product class market rotor with a stack height above a 20 examined. These elements are based on percent increase. TSL 4 represents the shares, while TSLs 6, 7, and 8 result in the various criteria specified in EPCA. more significant changes. Uncertainties combination of the highest CSIR and See generally, 42 U.S.C. 6295. in the cross-elasticity model, and in the CSCR levels which have more timescale of market share response to customers who benefit than customers 1. Economic Impacts on Customers standards, lead to greater uncertainty in who are harmed according to DOE’s the national impacts of TSLs 6, 7, and LCC analysis. TSL 5 increases energy DOE analyzed the economic impacts 8, than of TSLs 1 through 5. A summary savings relative to TSL 4 because DOE on small electric motor customers by of results for all combinations of CSIR estimates greater CSCR market share, looking at the effects standards would and CSCR efficiency levels is presented and the CSCR efficiency level again have on the LCC, PBP, and various in chapter 10 of the TSD. corresponds with the minimum LCC. At subgroups. DOE also examined the TSL 1 is a combination consists of the this TSL, the efficiency levels for both effects of the rebuttable presumption fourth efficiency level analyzed for CSIR CSIR and CSCR motors equate to what payback period set out in 42 U.S.C. motors and the second efficiency level manufacturers would consider a NEMA 6295. All of these analyses are discussed for CSCR motors. This TSL uses similar Premium level. below.
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP24NO09.017 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 61455
a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period The key outputs of the LCC analysis some types of applications (e.g. portable are average LCC savings for each compressors) a majority of motors may To evaluate the net economic impact product class for each considered run only a few hours per day. Because of the trial standard levels on customers, efficiency level, relative to the base case, of the large benefits seen by a minority DOE conducted LCC and PBP analyses as well as a probability distribution of of motors that run at all times, a for each of these levels. Higher- LCC reduction or increase. The LCC majority of motors may see a net LCC efficiency small electric motors would analysis also estimates, for each product cost even when on average for all affect customers in two ways: annual class, the fraction of customers for motors there is a net LCC benefit. operating expense would decrease and which the LCC will either decrease (net Other key outputs of the LCC analysis purchase price would increase. DOE benefit), or increase (net cost), or exhibit are the mean and median payback analyzed the net effect by calculating no change (no impact) relative to the periods at each efficiency level. Table the LCC. Section IV.F discusses the base case forecast. No impacts occur V.3, Table V.4, and Table V.5 show the inputs used for calculating the LCC and when the equipment efficiencies of the results for the three representative PBP. Inputs used for calculating the LCC base case forecast already equal or product classes: 1 hp, four-pole, include total installed costs (equipment exceed the considered efficiency level. polyphase; 0.5 hp, four-pole, CSIR; and price plus installation costs), annual Small electric motors are used in 0.75 hp, four-pole, CSCR motors. energy savings, electricity rates, applications that can have a wide range of operating hours. Motors that are Frequency plots of the distributions of electricity price trends, repair costs, running at all hours will tend to have a life-cycle costs and payback periods for maintenance costs, equipment lifetime, large net LCC benefit because of the all three motor categories are available and discount rates. large operating cost savings, while for in chapter 8 of the TSD.
For polyphase small electric motors, average life-cycle cost. The long average DOE feels that the median payback customers experience net LCC savings, payback periods are due to the period better characterizes the on average, through efficiency level 4. significant fraction of customers with distribution. Efficiency level 3 has the minimum relatively few annual operating hours.
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP24NO09.018 61456 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules
For CSIR small electric motors, CSCR efficiency level 3 has the greatest DOE’s national energy savings customers experience net LCC savings, average life-cycle cost savings. Table V.5 calculations, described in sections IV.G on average, through efficiency level 6. also includes the life-cycle cost of a and V.B.3, model the market share of CSIR efficiency level 4 has the baseline 0.75 horsepower CSIR motor. CSIR and CSCR motors in each product minimum average life-cycle cost. This motor has an installed cost similar class in order to account for customers For CSCR small electric motors, to the baseline-efficient CSCR motor, selecting CSIR or CSCR motors to customers experience net LCC savings, but significantly higher annual reduce their life-cycle costs. on average, through efficiency level 5. operating costs and life-cycle cost.
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP24NO09.019 EP24NO09.020 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 61457
b. Life-Cycle Cost Sensitivity purchase year of the motor, the motor middle of the forecast period). This Calculations capacity, the number of poles and other sensitivity calculation also examines the inputs and assumptions of the analysis. proportion of motors with <2% life- In addition to the reference case DOE reports the details of the sensitivity cycle cost impact as a measure of the results reported in the tables above, calculations in chapter 8 of the TSD and fraction of motors that may have DOE performed extensive sensitivity the accompanying appendices. relatively small impacts from a analyses of the LCC estimates. These For polyphase motors, DOE standard. Table V.6 provides the results sensitivity analyses examined the performed a sensitivity calculation of this sensitivity calculation. Under magnitude by which the estimates using a full distribution of motor sizes this analytical scenario, life-cycle cost varied depending on analysis inputs and poles, the full cost of reactive savings increase slightly. such as the cost of electricity, the power, and a purchase year of 2030 (the
For comparison purposes, DOE single-phase motors including CSIR and sensitivity calculations are provided in calculated the same sensitivity for CSCR motors. The results of these Table V.7 and Table V.8.
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP24NO09.021 61458 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules
DOE also made sensitivity V.A above describes the relationship price for CSCR motors, DOE forecasts calculations for the case where CSIR between efficiency levels for the two that a large fraction of CSIR motor motor owners switch to CSCR motors. categories of capacitor-start motors and customers will switch to CSCR motors. DOE reports the details of the sensitivity the TSLs. For TSLs where there is a Table V.7 shows the shipments- calculations in chapter 8 of the TSD and large increase in first cost for CSIR weighted average of the LCC for CSIR the accompanying appendices. Section motors and only a moderate increase in motors including those users that switch
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP24NO09.022 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 61459
to CSCR. The table shows a negative which is that level where both CSIR and technologically feasible efficiency for average LCC is forecast for only TSL 6 CSCR motors are at the maximum space-constrained designs.
c. Customer Sub-Group Analysis payback periods for small businesses motors, LCC savings are positive for Using the LCC spreadsheet model, purchasing polyphase, CSIR, and CSCR efficiency levels 1 through 5 for motor DOE determined the impact of the trial motors, respectively. For polyphase customers as a whole, but level 5 has standard levels on the following motors, LCC savings are positive for negative savings for small businesses. customer sub-groups: small businesses efficiency levels 1, 2, 3, and 4 for motor Efficiency level 3 shows the greatest and customers with space-constrained customers as a whole, but level 1 has savings for all customers as well as for applications. negative savings for small businesses. small businesses. Small businesses do Efficiency level 3 shows the greatest not have as attractive consumer benefits Small Businesses savings for all customers as well as for as the general population because they For small business owners, the LCC small businesses. For CSIR motors, LCC do not have the same access to capital impacts and payback periods are savings are somewhat smaller for small as larger businesses, resulting in higher different than for the general businesses, but the results are generally average discount rates than the industry population. Table V.10, Table V.11, and similar between small businesses and average. Table V.12 show the LCC impacts and motor customers as a whole. For CSCR
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP24NO09.023 61460 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP24NO09.024 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 61461
Customers With Space-Constrained other, more costly, design options are Table V.13, Table V.14, and Table Applications used. Customers with these constraints, V.15 show the results of the LCC therefore, have less attractive economic analysis for the space-constrained One of the design options DOE benefits to efficiency, particularly for subgroup. Polyphase levels 1 through 4, considered in developing more efficient motors at the higher efficiency levels CSIR levels 1 through 3 and 5, and motors was to increase the motor stack considered by DOE. The LCC results CSCR level 1 are unchanged for space- length. Increasing stack length can presented in section IV.F assume that 20 constrained consumers because motor increase motor efficiency by lowering percent of customers face space designs meeting these efficiency levels core losses.17 Customers with space- constraints, while 80 percent of have stack length increases of less than constrained applications (defined as customers may use any stack length (up or equal to 20 percent. CSIR efficiency those customers whose motor stack to the 100 percent increase considered level 6 and CSCR efficiency level 5 are length can increase no more than 20 by DOE). Customers without space the only levels which change from percent), cannot use this design option constraints have customer economic positive LCC average savings for all as effectively as those without benefits which are more attractive than customers to negative LCC savings for constraints. In order to meet efficiency the overall results, particularly at higher targets without increasing stack length, levels of efficiency. space-constrained customers.
17 Core losses are generated in the steel Hysteresis losses are caused by magnetic domains currents are physical currents that are induced in components of the motor by two electromagnetic resisting reorientation to the alternating magnetic the steel laminations by the magnetic flux of the phenomena: hysteresis losses and eddy currents. field (i.e., 60 times per second, or 60 hertz). Eddy windings.
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP24NO09.025 61462 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP24NO09.026 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 61463
d. Rebuttable Presumption Payback conducts a full economic analysis that supporting or rebutting the results of As discussed in section II.C, EPCA considers the full range of impacts, any preliminary determination of provides a rebuttable presumption that, including those to the customer, economic justification). in essence, an energy conservation manufacturer, Nation, and environment, For comparison with the more standard is economically justified if the as required under 42 U.S.C. detailed analysis results, DOE increased purchase cost for a product 6295(o)(2)(B)(i) and 42 U.S.C. calculated a rebuttable presumption that meets the standard is less than 6316(e)(1). The results of this analysis payback period for each TSL. Table V.16 three times the value of the first-year serve as the basis for DOE to evaluate and Table V.17 show the rebuttable energy savings resulting from the definitively the economic justification presumption payback periods for the standard. However, DOE routinely for a potential standard level (thereby representative product classes.
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP24NO09.027 61464 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules
No polyphase TSL has a rebuttable in a unique set of cash flows and invested capital after new energy presumption payback period of less corresponding industry value at each conservation standards. To assess the than 3 years. For CSIR and CSCR TSL. The difference in INPV between higher end of the range of potential motors, TSLs 1 through 3 have the base case and a standards case is an impacts on the small electric motors rebuttable presumption payback periods estimate of the economic impacts that industry, DOE considered the of less than 3 years. implementing that standard level would preservation of operating profit markup have on the entire industry. 2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers scenario. This scenario assumes that the industry can only maintain its operating DOE used the INPV in the MIA to a. Industry Cash-Flow Analysis Results compare the financial impacts of To assess the potential impacts on profit (i.e., earnings before interest and different TSLs on small electric motor manufacturers, DOE used the two taxes) after the effective date of the manufacturers. The INPV is the sum of markup scenarios described in section standard. The industry would do so by all net cash flows discounted by the IV.I. For both markup scenarios, DOE not passing through all of the higher industry’s cost of capital (discount rate). considered the shipment scenario that costs to customers. Table V.18 through DOE used the GRIM to compare the uses a reference level of economic Table V.21 show the low end and high INPV in the base case (i.e., no new growth, no elasticity, and a baseline end of the range of MIA results, energy conservation standards) with the market share between CSCR and CSIR respectively, for each TSL using the INPV for each TSL in the standards motors. To assess the lower end of the scenarios described above. The results case. To evaluate the range of cash-flow range of potential impacts on the small present the impacts of energy impacts on the small electric motors electric motors industry, DOE conservation standards for polyphase industry, DOE modeled two different considered the preservation of return on small electric motors separately and scenarios using different assumptions invested capital markup scenario. This combine the impacts for CSIR and CSCR for markups and shipments that scenario assumes that manufacturers small electric motors. correspond to the range of anticipated would be able to maintain the ratio of BILLING CODE 6450–01–P market responses. Each scenario results net operating profit (after taxes) to
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP24NO09.028 EP24NO09.029 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 61465
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP24NO09.030 61466 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules
BILLING CODE 6450–01–C standards. TSL 2 represents an motors. These changes do not result in Polyphase Small Electric Motors efficiency increase of 4 percent over the significant impacts on INPV. baseline for polyphase motors. Similar At TSL 4, DOE estimated the impacts DOE estimated the impacts on INPV to TSL 1, at TSL 2 manufacturers stated in INPV to range from $2.41 million to at TSL 1 to range from $0.52 million to ¥$2.39 million, or a change in INPV of ¥ that their existing motor designs allows $1.14 million, or a change in INPV of 3.76 percent to ¥3.73 percent. At this ¥ for simple modifications that would 0.80 percent to 1.78 percent. At this entail only minor capital and equipment level industry cash flow decreases by level industry cash flow decreases by conversion costs. A possible approximately 13.44 percent, to $4.46 approximately 9.1 percent, to $4.68 modification analyzed in the million, compared to the base-case million, compared to the base-case engineering analysis increases the value of $5.15 million in the year value of $5.15 million in the year number of laminations by leading up to the energy conservation leading up to the energy conservation approximately 15-percent from the standards. TSL 4 represents an standards. TSL 1 represents an baseline within both space constrained efficiency increase of 7-percent over the efficiency increase of 2 percent over the and non-spaced constrained motors. baseline for polyphase motors. Most baseline for polyphase motors. The Manufacturers indicated that these manufacturers that were interviewed are majority of manufacturers have motors modifications could be made within able to reach this level without that meet this efficiency. All baseline motor designs without significant redesigns. At TSL 4, a manufacturers that were interviewed significantly changing their size. At TSL possible design pathway for stated that their existing motor designs 2, the production costs of standards manufacturers could be to increase the allow for simple modifications that compliant motors do not increase number of laminations by would require minor capital and enough to significantly affect INPV. approximately 20 percent over the equipment conversion costs to reach baseline designs within space TSL 1. A possible modification analyzed At TSL 3, DOE estimated the impacts constrained and non-space constrained in the engineering analysis is a roughly in INPV to range from $1.83 million to motors. However, manufacturers ¥ 7 percent increase in number of $2.01 million, or a change in INPV of reported that TSL 4 would be the ¥ laminations within both space 2.86 percent to 3.14 percent. At this highest efficiency level achievable constrained and non-space constrained level industry cash flow decreases by before required efficiencies could motors. Manufacturers indicated that approximately 12.35 percent, to $4.51 significantly change motor designs and modifications like an increase in million, compared to the base-case production equipment. However, past laminations could be made within value of $5.15 million in the year TSL 4 the size of the motors may need existing baseline motor designs without leading up to the energy conservation to be significantly modified. significantly altering their size. In standards. TSL 3 represents an At TSL 5, DOE estimated the impacts addition, these minor design changes efficiency increase of 6-percent over the in INPV to range from $10.85 million to will not raise the production costs baseline for polyphase motors. Similar ¥$8.83 million, or a change in INPV of beyond the cost of most motors sold to TSL 1 and TSL 2, at TSL 3 16.91 percent to ¥13.76 percent. At this today, resulting in minimal impacts on manufacturers stated that their existing level industry cash flow decreases by industry value. motor designs would still allow for approximately 46.20 percent, to $2.77 DOE estimated the impacts in INPV at simple modifications that would not million, compared to the base-case TSL 2 to range from $1.11 million to require significant capital and value of $5.15 million in the year ¥$1.56 million, or a change in INPV of equipment conversion costs. In the leading up to the energy conservation 1.74 percent to ¥2.42 percent. At this engineering analysis, standards standards. TSL 5 represents an level industry cash flow decreases by compliant motors that meet the efficiency increase of 10-percent over approximately 11.53 percent, to $4.55 efficiency requirements at TSL 3 have the baseline for polyphase motors. TSL million, compared to the base-case 17-percent more laminations than the 5 is equivalent to the current NEMA value of $5.15 million in the year baseline design within both space premium level that manufacturers leading up to the energy conservation constrained and non-spaced constrained produce for medium-sized electric
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP24NO09.031 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 61467
motors. Although some manufacturers number of laminations of a thinner and unsure about the required conversion reported having existing small electric higher grade of steel. These changes costs to reach TSL 7 because of the motors that reach TSL 5, the designs would cause manufacturers to incur unproven properties and applicability of necessary are more complex than their significant capital and equipment the technology in the general purpose cost optimized designs at lower TSLs. A conversion costs to redesign their space motors covered by this rulemaking. possible redesign for non-space constrained motors due to the lack of Significant R&D for both manufacturing constrained motors would include experience in using copper. According processes and motor redesigns would be adding up to 49 percent more to manufacturers, copper tooling is necessary to understand the laminations relative to the baseline significantly costlier and not currently applications of exotic steels to general motor design and improving the grade used by any manufacturers for the purpose small electric motors. of steel. For space constrained motors, production of small electric motors. If According to manufacturers, requiring redesigns could require up to 114 copper rotor designs are required, this technology could possibly cause percent more laminations of a thinner manufacturers with in-house die-casting some competitors to exit the small and higher grade of steel. Manufacturers capabilities will need completely new electric motor market. If manufacturers’ are concerned that redesigns at TSL 5 machinery to process copper. concerns of having to use both copper could possibly increase the size of the Manufacturers that outsource rotor rotors and new steels materialize, motors if they do not currently have production would pay higher prices for manufactures could be significantly motors that reach the NEMA premium their rotor designs. In both cases, TSL 6 impacted. For non-space constrained efficiency levels. A shift to larger motors results in significant equipment motors, DOE estimates that could be detrimental to sales due to the conversion costs to modify current manufacturers would require the use of inability of OEMs to use standards- manufacturing processes in addition to copper rotors but not exotic steels. If compliant motors as direct replacements redesigning motors to use copper in the manufacturers are required to redesign in some applications. According to applications of general purpose small non-spaced constrained motors with manufacturers, at TSL 5 the industry electric motors. Largely due to the copper, the total conversion for the would incur significantly higher capital significant changes to space constrained industry increases greatly because all and equipment conversion costs in motors, at TSL 6 DOE estimates that motors require substantially different comparison to the lower efficiency manufacturers would incur close to six production equipment. Finally, the levels analyzed. DOE estimates that the times the total conversion costs required production costs of motors that meet capital and equipment conversion costs at TSL 1 (a total of approximately $9.2 TSL 7 could be up to 18 times higher required to make the redesigns at TSL million). However, for non-space than the production costs of baseline 5 would be approximately four times constrained motors, manufacturers are motors. The cost to manufacture the amount required to meet TSL 1. At able to redesign their existing motors standards-compliant motors could have TSL 5 manufacturers would also be without the use of copper rotors by a significant impact on the industry if required to shift their entire production using twice the number of laminations operating profit does not increase with of baseline motors to higher priced and that are contained in the baseline production costs. higher efficiency motors, making their design. Therefore, for non-space Capacitor-Start, Induction Run and current cost-optimized designs obsolete. constrained motors the impacts at TSL Capacitor-Start, Capacitor-Run Small These higher production costs could 6 are significantly less because Electric Motors have a greater impact on the industry manufacturers can maintain existing At TSL 1, DOE estimated the impacts value if operating profit does not manufacturing processes without the in INPV to range from $11.21 million to increase. Manufacturers indicated that potentially significant changes ¥$14.87 million, or a change in INPV setting energy conservation standards at associated with copper rotors. At TSL 6 of 4.02 percent to ¥5.33 percent. At this TSL 5 could cause some manufacturers the impacts for non-space constrained level, industry cash flow decreases by to consider exiting the small electric motors are mainly due to higher motor approximately 28.51 percent, to $15.99 motor market because of the lack of costs and the possible decrease in million, compared to the base-case resources, potentially unjustifiable profitability if manufacturers are unable value of $22.34 million in the year investments for a small segment of their to fully pass through their higher leading up to the energy conservation business, and the possibility of lower production costs. standards. TSL 1 represents an revenues if OEMs will not accept large At TSL 7, DOE estimated the impacts efficiency increase of 19-percent over motors. in INPV to range from $85.23 million to the baseline for CSIR motors and 10- At TSL 6, DOE estimated the impacts ¥$59.74 million, or a change in INPV percent over the baseline for CSCR in INPV to range from $15.94 million to of 132.87 percent to ¥93.14 percent. At motors. At TSL 1 for CSIR motors, DOE ¥$13.09 million, or a change in INPV this level industry cash flow decreases estimates manufacturers would need to of 24.84 percent to ¥20.41 percent. At by approximately 258.82 percent, to increase the number of laminations for this level industry cash flow decreases ¥$8.18 million, compared to the base- space constrained motors by by approximately 71.78 percent, to case value of $5.15 million in the year approximately 33-percent and use a $1.45 million, compared to the base- leading up to the energy conservation thinner and higher grade of steel. For case value of $5.15 million in the year standards. TSL 7 represents an non-space constrained CSIR motors, leading up to the energy conservation efficiency increase of 14-percent over manufacturers could increase standards. TSL 6 represents an the baseline for polyphase motors. laminations by approximately 61- efficiency increase of 12-percent over Currently, the market does not have any percent with the use of a thinner grade the baseline for polyphase motors. motors that reach TSL 7. In addition to steel. For space constrained CSCR Currently, no small electric motors are possibly using copper rotors, at TSL 7 motors, manufacturers could increase rated above the equivalent to the NEMA space constrained motor designs could laminations by ten percent and use a premium standard (TSL 5). Possible also require exotic steels. There is some higher grade of steel. For non-space redesigns for space constrained motors uncertainty about the magnitude of the constrained CSCR motors, manufactures at TSL 6 include the use of copper impacts on the industry of using could increase laminations by rotors and a 114-percent increase in the Hiperco steel. Manufacturers were approximately 37 percent. For both
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 61468 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules
CSIR and CSCR motors, the additional capabilities would need completely new $13.17 million, compared to the base- stack length needed to reach TSL 1 is machinery to process copper and the case value of $22.34 million in the year still within the tolerances of many alternative of outsourcing rotor leading up to the energy conservation manufacturers existing motors. DOE production would greatly increase standards. TSL 5 represents an estimates that these changes would material costs. For non-space efficiency increase of 27-percent over cause the industry to incur capital and constrained CSIR motors, manufacturers the baseline for CSIR motors and 13- equipment conversion costs of could redesign motors by increasing the percent over the baseline for CSCR approximately $17 million to reach number of laminations without the use motors. TSL 5 represents NEMA TSL 1. TSL 1 would increase production of copper rotors, resulting in premium equivalent efficiency levels for costs, but the cost increases are not significantly smaller impacts. At TSL 3, both CSIR and CSCR motors. At TSL 5, enough to severely affect INPV under the impacts for non-space constrained space constrained CSIR motors could the scenarios analyzed. motors are mainly due to higher motor require the use of copper rotors. The At TSL 2, DOE estimated the impacts material costs and a possible decline in required efficiencies for non-space in INPV to range from $12.22 million to profit margins. TSL 3 represents what constrained CSIR motors could be met ¥$15.64 million, or a change in INPV manufacturers would consider a NEMA by manufacturers by increasing the of 4.38 percent to ¥5.61 percent. At this Premium equivalent efficiency level for number of laminations by 82-percent level industry cash flow decreases by CSCR motors. The required efficiencies and using a higher grade of steel. The approximately 30.58 percent, to $15.53 for space constrained CSCR motors required efficiencies for space million, compared to the base-case could possibly be met by manufacturers constrained CSCR motors could be met value of $22.34 million in the year by increasing the number of laminations by manufacturers by increasing the leading up to the energy conservation by 15-percent and using higher steel number of laminations by 15-percent standards. TSL 2 represents an grades. The required efficiencies for and using higher steel grades. The efficiency increase of 19-percent over non-spaced constrained CSCR motors required efficiencies for non-spaced the baseline for CSIR motors and 13- could be met by increasing the number constrained CSCR motors could be met percent over the baseline for CSCR of laminations by 53-percent. Because by increasing the number of laminations motors. For CSIR motors, the same the redesigns for CSCR motors are less by 53-percent. Although manufacturers changes to meet TSL 1 are necessary for substantial, the impacts at TSL 3 are reported that meeting TSL 5 is feasible, TSL 2. For CSCR motors, TSL 2 driven largely by the required CSIR the production costs of motors at TSL 5 represents what manufacturers would efficiencies. increase substantially and require consider a NEMA Premium equivalent At TSL 4, DOE estimated the impacts approximately $25 million in total efficiency level. The changes required in INPV to range from $31.21 million to capital and equipment conversion costs. for CSCR motors could cause ¥$31.57 million, or a change in INPV ¥ The negative impacts at TSL 5 are manufacturers to incur additional of 11.19 percent to 11.32 percent. At driven by these conversion costs that capital conversion costs to this level industry cash flow decreases potentially require some CSIR motors to accommodate the required increase in by approximately 46.63 percent, to use copper rotors, and the impacts on laminations. Imposing standards would $11.94 million, compared to the base- profitability if the higher production increase production costs for both CSIR case value of $22.34 million in the year costs of standards-compliant motors and CSCR motors, but the cost increases leading up to the energy conservation cannot be fully passed through to for both types of motors are not enough standards. TSL 4 represents an customers. to severely affect INPV. efficiency increase of 27-percent over At TSL 3, DOE estimated the impacts the baseline for CSIR motors and 15- At TSL 6, DOE estimated the impacts in INPV to range from $18.03 million to percent over the baseline for CSCR in INPV to range from $187.88 million ¥ ¥$22.87 million, or a change in INPV motors. TSL 4 currently represents a to $137.53 million, or a change in ¥ of 6.47 percent to ¥8.20 percent. At this NEMA premium equivalent level for INPV of 67.39 percent to 49.33 level, industry cash flow decreases by CSIR motors. Possible redesigns for both percent. At this level, industry cash approximately 41.16 percent, to $13.17 CSIR and CSCR motors to meet TSL 4 flow decreases by approximately 131.38 ¥ million, compared to the base-case involve both increasing the number of percent, to $7.02 million, compared to value of $22.34 million in the year laminations as well as using higher the base-case value of $22.34 million in leading up to the energy conservation grades of steel. For space constrained the year leading up to the energy standards. TSL 3 represents an CSIR motors, redesigns could require conservation standards. TSL 6 efficiency increase of 23-percent over the use of copper rotors. Because of represents an efficiency increase of 33- the baseline for CSIR motors and 13- these redesigns, standards-compliant percent over the baseline for CSIR percent over the baseline for CSCR motors at TSL 4 have significantly motors and 23-percent over the baseline motors. At TSL 3, space constrained higher costs than manufacturers’ for CSCR motors. Currently, the market CSIR motors could require redesigns baseline motors. These changes increase does not have any CSIR and CSCR that use copper rotors. Using copper the engineering and capital resources motors that reach TSL 6. TSL 6 rotors for space constrained CSIR that must be employed, especially for represents the max-tech level for both motors could cause manufacturers to CSCR motors. The negative impacts at CSIR and CSCR motors. In addition to incur approximately $25 million in TSL 4 are driven by the conversion costs the possibility of using copper rotors for capital and equipment conversion costs, that potentially require some single- both CSIR and CSCR motors, at TSL 6 largely to purchase the equipment phase motors to use copper rotors, and space constrained motor designs could necessary to produce these redesigned the higher production costs of require exotic steels. There is a great motors. As with polyphase motors, standards-compliant motors. deal of uncertainty about the impact of manufacturers reported that copper At TSL 5, DOE estimated the impacts Hiperco steel on the industry, primarily rotor tooling is significantly costlier in INPV to range from $27.96 million to due to uncertainty about capital than traditional aluminum rotor tooling ¥$29.01 million, or a change in INPV conversion costs required to use a new, and not currently used by the industry of 10.03 percent to ¥10.41 percent. At exotic steel. Significant R&D in for the production of small electric this level industry cash flow decreases manufacturing processes would be motors. Similarly, in-house die-casting by approximately 41.16 percent, to necessary to understand the
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 61469
applications of exotic steels in general severe than at TSL 6 due to a change in U.S. Census Bureau’s 2006 Annual purpose small electric motors. Because balance of shipments between CSIR and Survey of Manufacturers (2006 ASM), all space constrained motors could CSCR motors. At TSL 7, the high cost results from other analyses, and require copper rotors and exotic steel of CSIR motors would likely cause interviews with manufacturers to and all non-spaced constrained motors customers to migrate to CSCR motors. estimate the inputs necessary to could require copper rotors, the capital For the analysis, DOE assumes that calculate industry-wide domestic labor conversion costs are a significant driver manufacturers would invest in the expenditures and employment levels. In of INPV at TSL 6. Finally, the alternative technologies for CSIR motors the GRIM, total labor expenditures are a production costs of motors that meet regardless of the modeled migration to function of the labor content, the sales TSL 6 can be as high as 13 times the CSCR motors because of the variability volume, and the wage rate which production cost of baseline motors, in that migration. The industry is remains fixed in real terms over time. which impact profitability if the higher impacted by the high conversion costs The total employment figures presented production costs cannot be fully passed for CSIR motors even though these are for the small electric motor industry through to OEMs. Manufacturers a small portion of total shipments after includes both production and non- indicated that the potentially large standards. However, because the total production workers. impacts on the industry at TSL 6 could volume of single-phase motors does not DOE estimates that there are force some manufacturers to exit the decline with the shift from CSIR to approximately 1,800 U.S. production small electric motor market because of CSCR motors, the higher revenues from and non-production workers in the the lack of resources and unjustifiable standards-compliant CSCR mitigate the small electric motors industry. investment for a small segment of their significant redesign costs for CSIR DOE does not believe that standards total business. motors. would materially alter the domestic At TSL 8, DOE estimated the impacts employment levels of the small electric At TSL 7, DOE estimated the impacts in INPV to range from $56.70 million to motors industry. Most manufacturers in INPV to range from $29.80 million to ¥$53.30 million, or a change in INPV indicated that employment levels would ¥$35.84 million, or a change in INPV of 20.34 percent to ¥19.12 percent. At stay constant regardless of any changes of 10.69 percent to ¥12.86 percent. At this level, industry cash flow decreases in regulations. However, some this level, industry cash flow decreases by approximately 90.42 percent, to manufacturers stated that if efficiency by approximately 81.21 percent, to $2.14 million, compared to the base- levels were raised significantly enough $4.20 million, compared to the base- case value of $22.34 million in the year for the company to exit the small case value of $22.34 million in the year leading up to the energy conservation electric motor market, a small number of leading up to the energy conservation standards. TSL 8 represents an jobs could be eliminated. Even in the standards. TSL 7 represents an efficiency increase of 33-percent over event that some manufacturers exit the efficiency increase of 33-percent over the baseline for CSIR motors and 20- market, the direct employment impact the baseline for CSIR motors and 13- percent over the baseline for CSCR will likely be minimal. Most covered percent over the baseline for CSCR motors. As with TSL 7, CSIR motors are small motors are manufactured on motors. TSL 7 corresponds to the NEMA at the max-tech level at TSL 8. However, shared production lines and in factories premium equivalent efficiency for CSCR the impacts on INPV are worse at TSL that also produce a substantial number motors. The required efficiencies for 7 because the efficiency requirements of other products. If a manufacturer space constrained CSCR motors could for CSCR motors increase. At TSL 8, decided to exit the market, these be met by manufacturers by increasing both space constrained and non-space employees would likely be used in some the number of laminations by constrained CSCR motors could require other capacity, reducing the number of 15-percent and using higher steel the use of copper, which increases the headcount reductions. These grades. The required efficiencies for total conversion costs for the industry. manufacturers estimated that no non-spaced constrained CSCR motors Manufacturers continue to share the production jobs would be lost due to could be met by increasing the number same concerns about the copper and energy conservation standards, but of laminations by 53-percent. exotic steel investments for CSCR and rather the engineering departments Consequently, the industry is not CSIR motors as at TSL 6 and TSL 7. Like could be reduced by up to one engineer severely impacted by the CSCR TSL 7, TSL 8 causes a migration of CSIR per dropped product line. efficiency requirements at TSL 7 motors to CSCR motors. DOE assumed The employment impacts calculated because these design changes could be that manufacturers would incur the by DOE are independent of the met with relatively minor changes to required conversion costs for both CSCR employment impacts from the broader baseline designs. However, there are no and CSIR motors, despite the low U.S. economy, which are documented CSIR motors currently on the market market share of CSIR motors after the in chapter 15 of the TSD accompanying that reach TSL 7 (the max-tech level for effective date of the energy conservation this notice. For further information and CSIR). At TSL 7 space constrained CSIR standards. After standards, the shift to results on direct employment see redesigns could require the use of both CSCR motors increases total industry chapter 12 of the TSD. copper rotors and exotic steels while revenue and helps to mitigate the c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity non-space constrained CSIR motors significant capital conversion costs could require only copper rotors. necessary for CSIR motors to use both New energy conservation standards Manufacturers continue to have the copper and exotic metals. would not significantly affect the same concerns about copper rotors and production capacity of small electric exotic steels for CSIR motors as with b. Impacts on Direct Employment motor manufacturers. For small electric other efficiency levels that may require To assess the impacts of energy motor manufacturers, any necessary these technologies. The impacts on conservation standards on small electric redesign will not change the INPV for non-spaced constrained CSIR motors direct manufacturing fundamental assembly of the products motors are significantly less because of employment, DOE used the GRIM to and there will likely be no long-term the exclusion of exotic steels in motor estimate domestic labor expenditures capacity constraints. Manufacturers redesigns. The INPV impacts for all and employment levels. DOE used the indicated that producing more efficient single-phase motors at TSL 7 are less latest available statistical data from the small electric motors would not be
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 61470 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules
technically difficult and that they would cumulative regulatory burden. For this also had to ascertain the cumulative not need to build new facilities to reason, DOE conducts an analysis of benefits and costs that a standard would accommodate the manufacturing of a cumulative regulatory burden as part of be likely to bring. Finally, DOE analyzed more efficient motor. Additionally, its appliance efficiency rulemakings. the projected employment impacts manufacturers indicated that the In addition to the energy conservation resulting from a standard. industry is currently experiencing over standards for small electric motors, capacity. As a result, manufacturers other regulations can significantly affect a. Significance of Energy Savings have scaled back manufacturing to cut manufacturers’ financial operations. To estimate the energy savings due to costs and inventory. Accordingly, DOE Multiple regulations affecting the same revised and new energy efficiency believes manufacturers can use any manufacturer can quickly strain profits standards, DOE compared the energy available excess capacity to mitigate any and possibly cause it to exit the market. consumption of small electric motors possible capacity constraint as a result DOE has identified other regulations under the base case to energy of energy conservation standards. The these manufacturers are facing for other consumption of these products under real risk is that some motors would be products and equipment they the trial standard levels. As described in discontinued due to lower demand after manufacture within 3 years prior to and section IV.G, DOE used scaling relations standard rather than constrained 3 years after the effective date of the for energy use and equipment price to capacity. For further explanation of the new energy conservation standards for extend its average energy use and price impacts on manufacturing capacity for small electric motors. for representative product classes Small electric motor manufacturers small electric motors, see chapter 12 of (analyzed in the LCC analysis) to all described some of the current the TSD. product classes, and then developed regulations affecting their business shipment-weighted sums to estimate the d. Impacts on Manufacturer Subgroups during manufacturer interviews. national energy savings. As described in As discussed above, using average Manufacturers mentioned the European section IV.G, DOE conducted separate cost assumptions to develop an industry Union’s Restriction of Hazardous national impact analyses for polyphase cash-flow estimate is inadequate for Substances (RoHS) and the Registration, and capacitor-start (single-phase) assessing differential impacts among Evaluation, Authorization and motors. Standards for CSIR and CSCR manufacturer subgroups. Small Restriction of Chemical Substances motors are reflected in the capacitor- manufacturers, niche players, and (REACH). Also, manufacturers indicated start energy savings and NPV results, manufacturers exhibiting a cost both the International Electrotechnical which account for the interchangeability structure that differs largely from the Commission (IEC) and the National of CSIR and CSCR motors in many industry average could be affected Electric Manufacturers Association applications. differently. DOE used the results of the (NEMA) have implemented voluntary industry characterization to group standards for small electric motors. Table V.22 through Table V.23 show manufacturers exhibiting similar Some manufacturers also indicated that the forecasted national energy savings characteristics, which reduced the need the Canadian Standards Association through 2045 at each of the TSLs. The to analyze manufacturer subgroups to (CSA) would likely to apply the same tables also show the magnitude of the only investigating small businesses. standards set by DOE in the final rule. energy savings if the savings are However, during interviews DOE did In addition to the energy conservation discounted at rates of 7 and 3-percent. not identify any small manufacturers of standards on small electric motor Discounted energy savings represent a covered motors. After conducting products, several other DOE regulations policy perspective where energy savings further research, including the and pending regulations apply to other farther in the future are less significant examination of catalogs and contacting products produced by the same than energy savings closer to the manufacturers to discuss their product manufacturers. DOE recognizes that present. The energy savings lines, DOE still did not identify any each regulation has the potential to (undiscounted) due to possible small manufacturers in the small impact manufacturers’ financial standards for polyphase small electric electric motor industry. operations. For a detail explanation and motors range from 0.04 to 0.41 quads, results for the cumulative regulatory and the savings for capacitor-start small e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden burden, see chapter 12 of the TSD. electric motors range from 1.08 to 2.51 While any one regulation may not quads. Capacitor-start results are impose a significant burden on 3. National Impact Analysis presented as a range of values between manufacturers, DOE understands the Examining the national impact of DOE’s two reference scenarios, which combined effects of several existing and small electric motor standards required correspond to 1) market share shifts in impending regulations may have serious DOE to assess a variety of factors. DOE response to standards complete by 2015 consequences for some manufacturers, needed to assess the significance of the and 2) market shares in 2015 equal to groups of manufacturers, or an entire projected amount of energy savings DOE’s estimated market shares in 2009, industry. Assessing the impact of a flowing from an energy conservation and a shift over 10 years to the shares single regulation may overlook this standard for small electric motors. It forecast by DOE’s cross-elasticity model.
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 61471
DOE conducted a wide range of assumptions. In general, however, they energy savings estimated for each sensitivity analyses, including scenarios do not dramatically change the scenario. demonstrating the effects of variation in relationship between results at one TSL For the shipments sensitivity analysis, shipments, response of customers to with those at another TSL with the DOE analyzed the total energy savings higher motor prices, the cost of relative economic savings and energy from capacitor-start motors in ‘‘low electricity due to a carbon cap and trade savings of different TSLs remaining CSCR’’ and ‘‘high CSCR’’ scenarios, regime, reactive power costs, and (for roughly the same. The estimated overall capacitor-start motors) the dynamics of magnitude of savings, however, can which model different market barriers to CSIR/CSCR consumer choice. These change substantially, which can be due adoption of CSCR motors. These scenarios show a range of possible to a change in the estimated total scenarios can have a significant impact outcomes from projected energy number of small electric motors in use. on the relative energy savings in conservation standards, and illustrate Details of each scenario are available in different TSLs. Table V.24 shows the the sensitivity of these results to chapter 10 of the TSD and its results for the national energy savings different input and modeling appendices, along with the national (through 2045) in these scenarios.
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP24NO09.032 61472 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules
b. Net Present Value The NPV was calculated using DOE’s cycle cost increases. On the other hand, reference shipments forecast, which is a substantial minority of motors run at The NPV analysis provides a measure based on the American Recovery and nearly all hours of the day and thus of the cumulative benefit or cost to the Reinvestment Act scenario of the AEO obtain relatively large savings from the Nation from customer costs and savings 2009 forecast. In this scenario, standard. from the proposed standards. In shipments are inelastic with respect to DOE’s National Impacts Analysis accordance with the Office of motor price, and DOE used its calibrated (NIA) estimates positive NPV based on Management and Budget (OMB)’s reference model for the market several assumptions. First, DOE guidelines on regulatory analysis (OMB dynamics of CSIR and CSCR motors. assumes a higher replacement rate for Circular A–4, section E, September 17, DOE’s reference scenario also includes the substantial minority of high 100 percent of the cost or benefit from 2003), DOE calculated NPV using both operating hour motors installed in changes in reactive power charges, a 7-percent and a 3-percent real certain applications. Second, based on which are faced either by electricity discount rate. The 7-percent rate is an EIA’s AEO forecast, DOE assumes that estimate of the average before-tax rate of customers or by utilities (which then include them in electricity rates). Table electricity prices in the year 2015 will return to private capital in the U.S. be significantly lower than those later in economy, and reflects the returns to real V.25 and Table V.26 show the estimated NPV at each of the TSLs for polyphase the analysis period. Because the NIA estate and small business capital as well takes into account purchases beyond the as corporate capital. DOE used this and capacitor-start small electric motors. For polyphase motors, the NPV year 2015 (in which consumers obtain discount rate to approximate the larger electricity cost savings), the opportunity cost of capital in the private is positive at TSLs 1 through 5. For capacitor-start motors, NPV is positive overall national savings from the sector, since recent OMB analysis has at all TSLs except TSL 6. The latter TSL standard exceed the life-cycle cost found the average rate of return to corresponds with max-tech for both increases calculated. Third, DOE capital to be near this rate. DOE used CSIR and CSCR motors, which have accounts for reactive power differently the 3-percent rate to capture the high installed costs and negative in the customer life-cycle cost and NIA potential effects of standards on private lifecycle cost savings. models. In life-cycle cost, 25 percent of consumption (e.g., through higher prices DOE notes that across motors, for customers were assumed to face a direct for products and purchase of reduced certain for TSLs, DOE estimates there cost due to reactive power (a percentage amounts of energy). This rate represents will be a net national savings or positive consistent with national data for the rate at which ‘‘society’’ discounts NPV from the standard, even though a commercial and industrial customers). future consumption flows to their majority of motor customers may face By contrast, the NIA analysis includes present value. This rate can be life-cycle cost increases. Life-cycle cost 100 percent of the cost of reactive power approximated by the real rate of return increases result from the large number in order to reflect costs to utilities as on long-term government debt (i.e., of small electric motors installed in well as motor users. DOE seeks yield on Treasury notes minus annual applications with very low operating comment on its use of these rate of change in the Consumer Price hours. The consumers of these motors assumptions in reaching a positive NPV Index), which has averaged about 3- cannot recuperate the increased where the majority of consumers for percent on a pre-tax basis for the last 30 equipment costs through decreased certain TSLs face life-cycle cost years. electricity costs, thus experiencing life- increases.
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP24NO09.033 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 61473
As discussed above, DOE conducted a shipments sensitivity analysis, DOE CSCR motors. Table V.27 and Table wide range of sensitivity analyses, analyzed the NPV from capacitor-start V.28 show the NPV results in these which can have a significant impact on motor standards in the ‘‘low CSCR’’ and scenarios. the relative net present value of ‘‘high CSCR’’ scenarios, which model different trial standard levels. For the different market barriers to adoption of
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP24NO09.034 EP24NO09.035 61474 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules
Future regulation of greenhouse gas trade scenario. Table V.29 and Table significantly increase the NPV of each emissions would have a significant V.30 show the NPV results in this TSL compared with the reference cases. impact on electricity prices and on the scenario. These results show that the Chapter 10 of the NOPR TSD, along annual operating cost of small electric significantly higher electricity prices with its appendices, presents NPV motors. DOE analyzed the NPV of trial (particularly late in the analysis period) results for the other sensitivity analyses standard levels in such a carbon cap and modeled under this scenario would that DOE conducted.
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP24NO09.036 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 61475
c. Impacts on Employment forms of economic activity. These shifts Neither the BLS data set nor the in spending and economic activity input/output model DOE uses includes In accordance with the Process Rule, could affect the demand for labor. To the quality or wage level of the jobs. section 4(d)(7)(vi), DOE estimated the estimate these effects, DOE used an Taking into consideration these employment impacts of proposed input/output model of the U.S. economy concerns about employment impacts, standards on the economy in general. (as described in section, IV.J). As shown DOE concludes that the proposed small See 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, in Table V.31 and Table V.32, both of electric motors standards are likely to appendix A. As discussed above, DOE which are detailed in chapter 14 of the result in no appreciable job losses to the expects energy conservation standards TSD, DOE estimates that net indirect Nation because direct employment for small electric motors to reduce employment impacts from the proposed impacts are expected to be small, while energy bills for customers, with the standards are positive. indirect employment impacts are resulting net savings redirected to other positive.
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP24NO09.037 61476 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules
4. Impact on Utility or Performance of such determination to the Secretary, capacity and, in 2030, to save an Products together with an analysis of the nature amount of electricity greater than that and extent of such impact. (See 42 generated by nine 250 megawatt power As presented in section III.D.1.d of U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (B)(ii)) plants. this notice, DOE concluded that none of To assist the Attorney General in Enhanced energy efficiency also the efficiency levels considered in this making such a determination, DOE has produces environmental benefits. The notice reduces the utility or provided the U.S. Department of Justice performance of the small electric motors (DOJ) with copies of this notice and the expected energy savings from the under consideration in this rulemaking. TSD for review. DOE will consider proposed small electric motors Furthermore, manufacturers of these DOJ’s comments on the proposed rule in standards will reduce the emissions of products currently offer small electric preparing the final rule. air pollutants and greenhouse gases motors that meet or exceed the proposed associated with electricity production. standards or are capable of 6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Table V.33 and Table V.34 show the manufacturing motors that meet or Energy cumulative CO2, NOX, and Hg emissions exceed the proposed standards. (See 42 An improvement in the energy reductions over the analysis period at U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) efficiency of small electric motors is each TSL. The cumulative CO2, NOX, likely to improve the security of the and Hg emissions reductions from 5. Impact of Any Lessening of Nation’s energy system by reducing polyphase motors range up to 23.8 Mt, Competition overall demand for energy. Reduced 17.1 kt, and 0.13 tons, respectively, and DOE considers any lessening of electricity demand also may improve up to 127.0 Mt, 91.2 kt, and 0.53 tons, competition likely to result from the reliability of the electricity system. respectively, from single-phase motors. standards. The Attorney General As a measure of this reduced demand, DOE reports annual CO2, NOX, and Hg determines the impact, if any, of any DOE expects the proposed standard to emissions reductions for each trial lessening of competition likely to result eliminate the need for the construction standard level in the environmental from a proposed standard, and transmits of approximately 2.45 GW of generating assessment, chapter 15 of the TSD.
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP24NO09.038 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 61477
DOE estimated the cumulative NPV of reduced CO2 emissions valued at percent discount rate for each emission the monetized benefits associated with approximately $5, $10, $20, $34, and type so that they can be compared CO2, NOX, and Hg emissions reductions $56 (2008$), and has also presented the directly to other economic quantities resulting from amended standards on domestic benefits derived using a value that DOE calculated for this proposed small electric motors. As discussed in of approximately $1 per metric ton. DOE rule (Table V.35 through Table V.42). section IV.L, DOE estimated the calculated the present value for each BILLING CODE 6450–01–P potential global benefits resulting from TSL using both a 7-percent and 3-
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP24NO09.039 EP24NO09.040 61478 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP24NO09.041 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 61479
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP24NO09.042 61480 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP24NO09.043 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 61481
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP24NO09.044 EP24NO09.045 61482 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP24NO09.046 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 61483
BILLING CODE 6450–01–C
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP24NO09.047 61484 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules
The NPV of the monetized benefits benefits or costs, into its analysis and electric motors. For the capacitor-start associated with emissions reductions models, and also on suggested motor categories, DOE developed TSLs can be viewed as a complement to the alternatives to the current approach. as a combination of CSIR and CSCR NPV of the consumer savings calculated efficiency levels. DOE combined CSCR 7. Other Factors for each TSL considered in this and CSIR motors into a single set of rulemaking. Table V.43 presents the The Secretary of Energy, in TSLs because motors in these categories NPV values for polyphase small electric determining whether a standard is may be used interchangeably in most motors that would result if DOE were to economically justified, may consider applications. As a result of this apply the low- and high-end estimates any other factors that the Secretary interchangeability, the standard level for of the potential benefits resulting from deems to be relevant. (See 42 U.S.C. CSIR motors affects the demand for reduced CO2, NOX and Hg emissions to 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI))) The Secretary has CSCR motors, and vice versa. DOE the NPV of consumer savings calculated decided that harmonization with considered 7 TSLs for polyphase motors for each TSL considered in this medium motors was another relevant and 8 TSLs for capacitor start motors. rulemaking, at both a 7- and 3-percent factor to consider. In selecting the proposed energy discount rate. Table V.44 presents the California utilities expressed concern conservation standards for both classes same NPV values for capacitor-start in their joint comments over the of small electric motors for small electric motors. Table V.45 possible differences in energy efficiency consideration in today’s notice of presents the NPV values for polyphase standards between medium electric proposed rulemaking, DOE started by small electric motors that would result motors and small electric motors. They examining the standard levels with the if DOE were to apply the low- and high- believe that if a significantly lower highest energy savings, and determined end estimates of the potential global efficiency standard is set for those small whether those levels were economically benefits resulting from reduced CO2 electric motors that share overlapping justified. If DOE found those levels not emissions to the NPV of consumer horsepower ratings with medium to be justified, DOE considered TSLs savings calculated for each TSL motors, the medium motor standard sequentially lower in energy savings considered in this rulemaking, at both a would be rendered meaningless, since until it reached the level with the 7- and 3-percent discount rate. Table there would be a risk that demand greatest energy savings that was both V.46 presents the same NPV values for would shift toward using less efficient technologically feasible and capacitor-start small electric motors. For (and presumably cheaper) small electric economically justified. For polyphase CO2, only the range of global benefit motors instead. The utilities small electric motors, the standard level values are used, $5 and $56 in 2008$. recommended that the new energy with the highest energy savings Although comparing the value of efficiency standards for small electric corresponded to the max-tech level. consumer savings to the values of motors be comparable to the medium However, due to the interaction of the emission reductions provides a valuable motor standards in order to avoid CSIR and CSCR markets and the perspective, please note the following: ‘‘gaming of the regulatory system.’’ efficiency differences between the two (1) The national consumer savings are (Joint Comment, No. 12 at p. 3) products, the highest energy savings domestic U.S. consumer monetary DOE appreciates this comment and level for capacitor-start motors does not savings found in market transactions considered it when proposing new necessarily correspond to the ‘‘max- while the values of emission reductions standards for small electric motors in tech’’ level. With certain combinations are based on ranges of estimates of this notice. Although harmonization is of efficiency levels (or TSLs) for the two imputed marginal social costs, which, in not a specifically enumerated factor that motor categories it becomes the case of CO2, are meant to reflect DOE must consider under EPCA, it was economically beneficial to purchase a global benefits; and (2) the assessments an additional factor considered as CSCR motor instead of a CSIR motor. of consumer savings and emission- permitted by the statute. DOE agrees This migration can cause the energy related benefits are performed with with the California utilities and savings for these TSLs to be higher than different computer models, leading to recognizes that the harmonization of the TSLs corresponding to ‘‘max-tech’’ different time frames for the analyses polyphase small electric motors with for both motor categories. The present value of national consumer medium electric motors is an added To aid the reader as DOE discusses savings is measured for the period benefit of the proposed standard level. the benefits and/or burdens of each TSL, 2015–2065 (31 years from 2015 to 2045 Table V.47, Table V.48 and Table V.49, C. Proposed Standard inclusive, plus the longest lifetime of collectively, present summaries of the equipment shipped in the 31st year). EPCA 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A), quantitative analysis results for each However, the timeframes of the benefits specifies that any new or amended TSL for polyphase and capacitor-start associated with the emission reductions energy conservation standard for any small electric motors, based on the differ. For example, the value of CO2 type (or class) of covered product shall assumptions and methodology emission reductions is meant to reflect be designed to achieve the maximum discussed above. These tables present the present value of all future climate improvement in energy efficiency that the results or, in some cases, a range of related impacts, even those beyond the Secretary determines is results, for each TSL. The range of 2065. technologically feasible and values reported in these tables for DOE seeks comment on the above economically justified. In determining industry impacts represents the results presentation of NPV values and on the whether a standard is economically for the different markup scenarios that consideration of GHG emissions in justified, the Secretary must determine DOE used to estimate manufacturer future energy efficiency standards whether the benefits of the standard impacts as shown in section IV.I. rulemakings, including alternative exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C. Additional quantitative results, methodological approaches to including 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The new or amended including the expected migration of GHG emissions in its analysis. More standard must also ‘‘result in significant shipments between CSIR and CSCR specifically, DOE seeks comment on conservation of energy.’’ (42 U.S.C. motors, are provided in section IV.G. both how it integrates monetized GHG 6295(o)(3)(B)) In addition to the quantitative results, emissions or Social Cost of Carbon DOE developed TSLs independently DOE also considers other burdens and values, as well as other monetized for polyphase and capacitor-start small benefits that affect economic
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 61485
justification. These include pending 1. Polyphase Small Electric Motors standards for medium motors as a result Table V.47 presents a summary of the of EISA 2007. quantitative analysis results for each TSL for polyphase small electric motors. BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 61486 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules
BILLING CODE 6450–01–C
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP24NO09.048 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 61487
First, DOE considered TSL 7, the most After carefully considering the reduced profit margins are realized. In efficient level for polyphase small analysis and weighing the benefits and particular, if the high end of the range electric motors. TSL 7 would save an burdens of TSL 7, the Secretary has of impacts is reached as DOE expects, estimated 0.41 quads of energy through reached the following initial conclusion: TSL 6 could result in a net loss of 20.4 2045, an amount DOE considers At TSL 7, the benefits of energy savings, percent in INPV to the polyphase small significant. Discounted at 7-percent, the emissions reductions (both in physical motor industry. DOE believes projected energy savings through 2045 reductions and the monetized value of manufacturers would likely have a more would be 0.10 quads. For the Nation as those reductions), would be outweighed difficult time maintaining current gross a whole, DOE projects that TSL 7 would by the economic burden of a net cost to margin levels with larger increases in result in a net decrease of $6.38 billion the Nation (over 30 years), the economic manufacturing production costs, as in NPV, using a discount rate of burden to customers (as indicated by the standards increase the need for capital 7-percent. The emissions reductions at large increase in life-cycle cost) and the conversion costs, equipment retooling, TSL 7 are 23.8 Mt of CO2, up to 17.1 kt potentially large reduction in INPV for and increased research and of NOX, and up to 0.130 tons of Hg. manufacturers resulting from large development spending. Specifically, at These reductions have a value of up to conversion costs and reduced gross this TSL, the majority of manufacturers $493 million for CO2, $11.6 million for margins. Consequently, the Secretary would need to significantly redesign all NOX, and $1.102 million for Hg, at a has tentatively concluded that trial of their polyphase small electric motors. discount rate of 7-percent. At a $20 per standard level 7 is not economically After carefully considering the ton value for the social cost of carbon, justified. analysis and weighing the benefits and the estimated monetized benefit of CO2 DOE then considered TSL 6, which burdens of TSL 6, the Secretary has emissions reductions is $170 million at would likely save an estimated 0.36 reached the following initial conclusion: a discount rate of 7-percent. DOE also quads of energy through 2045, an At TSL 6, the benefits of energy savings, estimates that at TSL 7, total electric amount DOE considers significant. emissions reductions (both in physical generating capacity in 2030 will Discounted at 7-percent, the projected reductions and the monetized value of decrease compared to the base case by energy savings through 2045 would be those reductions), would be outweighed 0.48 GW. 0.09 quads. For the Nation as a whole, by the economic burden of a net cost to At TSL 7, DOE projects that the DOE projects that TSL 6 would result in the Nation (over 30 years), the economic average polyphase small electric motor a net decrease of $290 million in NPV, burden to consumers (as indicated by customer purchasing equipment in 2015 using a discount rate of 7-percent. The the increased life-cycle cost), and the will experience an increase in LCC of estimated emissions reductions at TSL 6 potential reduction in INPV for $818 compared to the baseline. DOE are 20.5 Mt of CO2, up to 14.7 kt of NOX, manufacturers resulting from large estimates the fraction of customers and up to 0.112 tons of Hg. These conversion costs and reduced gross experiencing LCC increases will be 98.1 reductions have a value of up to $424 margins. Consequently, the Secretary percent. The median PBP for the average million for CO2, $10.0 million for NOX, has tentatively concluded that trial polyphase small electric motor customer and $0.947 for Hg, at a discount rate of standard level 6 is not economically at TSL 7, 55.1 years, is projected to be 7-percent. At a $20 per ton value for the justified. substantially longer than the mean social cost of carbon, the estimated DOE then considered TSL 5, which lifetime of the equipment. When all monetized benefit of CO2 emissions provides for polyphase small electric polyphase product classes are reductions is $146 million at a discount motors the maximum efficiency level considered and weighted by shipments, rate of 7-percent. Total electric that the analysis showed to have DOE estimates that small electric motor generating capacity in 2030 is estimated positive NPV for the Nation. TSL 5 customers experience slightly lower to decrease compared to the base case would likely save an estimated 0.33 increases in LCC of $778. by 0.41 GW under TSL 6. quads of energy through 2045, an The projected change in industry At TSL 6, DOE projects that the amount DOE considers significant. value ranges from a decrease of $59.7 average polyphase small electric motor Discounted at 7-percent, the projected million to an increase of $149 million. customer purchasing equipment in 2015 energy savings through 2045 would be The impacts are driven primarily by the will experience an increase in LCC of 0.08 quads. For the Nation as a whole, assumptions regarding the ability to $85 compared to the baseline. DOE DOE projects that TSL 5 would result in pass on larger increases in MPCs to the estimates the fraction of customers a net increase of $60 million in NPV, customer. At TSL 7, DOE recognizes the experiencing LCC increases will be 82 using a discount rate of 7-percent. The risk of very large negative impacts if percent. The median PBP for the average estimated emissions reductions at TSL 5 manufacturers’ expectations about polyphase small electric motor customer are 18.6 Mt of CO2, up to 13.3 kt of NOX, reduced profit margins are realized. In at TSL 6, 18.9 years, is projected to be and up to 0.102 tons of Hg. These particular, if the high end of the range substantially longer than the mean reductions have a value of up to $385 of impacts is reached as DOE expects, lifetime of the equipment. When all million for CO2, $9.1 million for NOX, TSL 7 could result in a net loss of 93.1 polyphase product classes are and $0.861 million for Hg, at a discount percent in INPV to the polyphase small considered and weighted by shipments, rate of 7-percent. At a $20 per ton value motor industry. DOE believes DOE estimates that small electric motor for the social cost of carbon, the manufacturers would likely have a more customers experience slightly lower estimated benefits of CO2 emissions difficult time maintaining current gross increases in LCC of $54. reductions is $133 million at a discount margin levels with larger increases in The projected change in industry rate of 7-percent. Total electric manufacturing production costs, as value ranges from a decrease of $13.1 generating capacity in 2030 is estimated standards increase the need for capital million to an increase of $15.9 million. to decrease compared to the base case conversion costs, equipment retooling, The impacts are driven primarily by the by 0.37 GW under TSL 5. and increased research and assumptions regarding the ability to At TSL 5, DOE projects that the development spending. Specifically, at pass on larger increases in MPCs to the average polyphase small electric motor this TSL, the majority of manufacturers customer. At TSL 6, DOE recognizes the customer purchasing the equipment in would need to significantly redesign all risk of very large negative impacts if 2015 will experience an increase in LCC of their polyphase small electric motors. manufacturers’ expectations about of $38 compared to the baseline
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 61488 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules
representative unit for analysis (1 hp, 4 The impacts are driven primarily by the significant risk to experience highly pole polyphase motor). This assumptions regarding the ability to negative impacts. corresponds to approximately a 2.9 pass on larger increases in MPCs to the After considering the analysis and the percent increase in average LCC. Based customer. At TSL 5, DOE recognizes the benefits and burdens of trial standard on this analysis, DOE estimates that risk of negative impacts if level 5, the Secretary has reached the approximately 71 percent of customers manufacturers’ expectations about following tentative conclusion: Trial would experience LCC increases and reduced profit margins are realized. If standard level 5 offers the maximum that the median PBP would be 13.8 the high end of the range of impacts is improvement in energy efficiency that is years, which is longer than the mean reached, TSL 5 could result in a net loss technologically feasible and lifetime of the equipment. However, in of 13.8 percent in INPV to the polyphase economically justified, and will result consideration of the relatively small small motor industry. in significant conservation of energy. percentage increase in LCC at TSL 5, The Secretary has reached the initial Trial standard level 5 has other DOE examined sensitivity analyses to conclusion that the benefits of energy advantages that are not directly assess the likelihood of consumers in savings, emissions reductions (both in fact experiencing significant LCC economic. This level is approximately physical reductions and the monetized increases. These included calculating a harmonized with the efficiency level for value of those reductions), the positive shipment-weighted LCC savings and medium motors to be implemented in net economic savings and benefits of examining the impacts on consumers 2010 which requires four-pole, 1 hp harmonization with the existing who purchase motors after the year polyphase motors to be at least 85.5% medium polyphase electric motor 2015. efficient. Since many—but not all— standards outweigh the potential At TSL 5, when accounting for the three digit frame size polyphase motors reduction in INPV for manufacturers full-range of horsepowers and pole of this size can also be used in two-digit and the economic burden on consumers, configurations of polyphase motors, the frames with minimal adjustment, DOE which is relatively small on average. average LCC increase is reduced to $10. believes that there is a benefit to Therefore, DOE today proposes to adopt This corresponds to approximately 54.5 harmonizing small polyphase and the energy conservation standards for percent of customers experiencing medium polyphase motor efficiency polyphase small electric motors at trial greater than 2-percent increases. The standards in this size range. In standard level 5. remaining 44 percent of customers, particular, DOE does not believe the 2. Capacitor-Start Small Electric Motors those with greater operating hours, design changes necessary for TSL 5 experience either very small losses (less would force all manufacturers to Table V.48 and Table V.49 present a than 2-percent) or net savings. significantly redesign all of their summary of the quantitative analysis The projected change in industry polyphase small electric motors or their results for each TSL for capacitor-start value ranges from a decrease of $8.83 production processes. Therefore, DOE small electric motors. million to an increase of $10.9 million. believes manufacturers are not at a BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 61489
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP24NO09.049 61490 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP24NO09.050 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 61491
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP24NO09.051 61492 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules
BILLING CODE 6450–01–C forecast period (i.e., the year 2030), with the large increase in LCC) and the First, DOE considered TSL 8, the a full distribution of motor sizes and potentially large reduction in INPV for combination of CSIR and CSCR speeds and where the full cost of manufacturers resulting from large efficiency levels generating the greatest reactive power was included. Under conversion costs and reduced gross national energy savings. TSL 8 would these conditions, for the average margins. Consequently, the Secretary likely save an estimated 2.51 to 2.61 customer, the LCC of a CSIR and CSCR has tentatively concluded that trial quads of energy through 2045, an motor will increase by $315 and standard level 8 is not economically amount DOE considers significant. decrease by $34, respectively, compared justified. Discounted at 7-percent, the projected to the baseline. DOE also examined energy savings through 2045 would be DOE then considered TSL 7, which what fraction of motors would have 0.59 to 0.64 quads. For the Nation as a would likely save an estimated 2.10 to changes in LCC that are greater than whole, DOE projects that TSL 8 would 2.13 quads of energy through 2045, an 2-percent. At TSL 8, DOE estimates the result in a net benefit of $290 million to amount DOE considers significant. fraction of customers experiencing LCC $4.09 billion in NPV, using a discount Discounted at 7-percent, the projected increases of greater than 2-percent will rate of 7-percent. The estimated energy savings through 2045 would be be 53.0 percent for CSIR motors and emissions reductions at TSL 8 are up to 0.51 to 0.52 quads. For the Nation as a 46.1 percent for CSCR motors. whole, DOE projects that TSL 7 would 127.0 Mt of CO2, up to 91.2 kt of NOX, and up to 0.529 tons of Hg. These The projected change in industry result in a net benefit of $1.47 to $5.67 reductions have a value of up to $2,715 value ranges from a decrease of $53.3 billion in NPV, using a discount rate of million to an increase of $56.7 million. 7-percent. The estimated emissions million for CO2, $67.7 million for NOX, and $5.14 million for Hg, at a discount The impacts are driven primarily by the reductions at TSL 7 are up to 110.0 Mt rate of 7-percent. At a $20 per ton assumptions regarding the ability to of CO2, up to 79.0 kt of NOX, and up to (2008$) value for the social cost of pass on larger increases in MPCs to the 0.459 tons of Hg. These reductions have customer. At TSL 8, DOE recognizes the a value of up to $2,352 million for CO2, carbon, the estimated benefits of CO2 emissions reductions is $910 to $938 risk of negative impacts if $58.6 million for NOX, and $4.45 million at a discount rate of 7-percent. manufacturers’ expectations about million for Hg, at a discount rate of 7- DOE also estimates that at TSL 8, total reduced profit margins are realized. In percent. At a $20 per ton value for the electric generating capacity in 2030 will particular, if the high end of the range social cost of carbon, the estimated decrease compared to the base case by of impacts is reached as DOE expects, benefits of CO2 emissions reductions is 2.37 to 2.44 GW. TSL 8 could result in a net loss of 19.1 $785 to $812 million at a discount rate At TSL 8, DOE projects that for the percent in INPV to the capacitor-start of 7-percent. Total electric generating average customer, compared to the small motor industry. DOE believes capacity in 2030 is estimated to baseline, the LCC of a CSIR and CSCR manufacturers would likely have a more decrease compared to the base case by motor will increase by $346 and $47, difficult time maintaining current gross 2.05 to 2.12 GW under TSL 7. respectively. At TSL 8, DOE estimates margin levels with larger increases in At TSL 7, DOE projects that for the the fraction of customers experiencing manufacturing production costs, as average customer, the LCC of capacitor- LCC increases will be 64 percent for standards increase the need for capital start small electric motors will increase CSIR motors and 72.6 percent for CSCR conversion costs, equipment retooling, by $346 for CSIR motors and decrease motors. The median PBP for the average and increased research and by $28 for CSCR motors compared to the capacitor-start small electric motor development spending. Specifically, at baseline. At TSL 7, DOE estimates the customers at TSL 8, 11.2 years for CSIR this TSL, the majority of manufacturers fraction of CSIR customers experiencing motors and 12.1 years for CSCR motors, would need to significantly redesign all LCC increases will be 64 percent, but is projected to be substantially longer of their capacitor-start small electric only 46.3 percent for CSCR motor than the mean lifetime of the motors. customers. However, DOE believes that equipment. DOE also considered market After carefully considering the at this TSL, which is the ‘‘max-tech’’ migration between CSIR and CSCR users analysis and weighing the benefits and level for CSIR motors, the relative and how that would affect the LCC of burdens of TSL 8, the Secretary has difference in cost between a CSIR motor CSIR users at TSL 8. When considering reached the following initial conclusion: and a CSCR motor becomes substantial that some CSIR consumers will choose At TSL 8, the benefits of energy savings, and will have large effects on customers. to purchase CSCR motors, the CSIR emissions reductions (both in physical Rather than buy an expensive CSIR customers still experience on average reductions and the monetized value of motor, those customers whose LCC savings of approximately $20. This those reductions), and the positive net applications permit them to, will corresponds to 58 percent of CSIR economic savings (over 30 years) would purchase a CSCR motor with the same consumers experiencing LCC increases. be outweighed by the economic burden number of poles and horsepower DOE also examined LCC savings for a on existing CSCR customers and CSIR ratings. DOE is unsure of the magnitude sensitivity case where the calculation customers who do not migrate from of the migration of CSIR users to CSCR was performed in the middle of the CSIR to CSCR motors (as indicated by users, but believes that the market share
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP24NO09.052 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 61493
of CSCR motors could grow from 5 rate between current consumption and However, DOE recognizes that this percent to 80 to 99 percent once uncertain future energy cost savings. conclusion assumes that CSIR standards are effective. This would While DOE is not prepared at present to customers can and will migrate to CSCR mean that the high LCC increases that provide a fuller quantifiable framework motors at this level. This shift in motor CSIR motor users would experience for this discussion, DOE seeks usage and the magnitude of its impacts would be mitigated and many of those comments on how to assess these are based on several assumptions made users would switch to CSCR motors possibilities. throughout the analyses, including: the with a decrease in LCC on average. The projected change in industry costs associated with purchasing motors When taking into account this potential value ranges from a decrease of $35.8 for space-constrained applications, the migration, the average CSIR customer million to an increase of $29.8 million. portion of space-constrained experiences net LCC savings of $49. The impacts are driven primarily by the applications in the market, shipments in Even though CSIR motors with assumptions regarding the ability to each product class, the scaling of motor switching may result in a net LCC pass on larger increases in MPCs to the losses and prices between product savings, DOE estimates that customer. At TSL 7, DOE recognizes the classes, and the mathematical form of approximately 51 percent of CSIR risk of negative impacts if DOE’s cross-elasticity model. DOE customers would still experience an manufacturers’ expectations about requests comment on these assumptions LCC increase. reduced profit margins are realized. In and the combined effect that they may DOE also examined LCC savings for a particular, if the high end of the range have on the uncertainties in DOE’s sensitivity case where the calculation of impacts is reached as DOE expects, forecasts. DOE also invites comment on was performed in the middle of the TSL 7 could result in a net loss of 12.9 what migration levels would be forecast period (i.e., the year 2030), with percent in INPV to the capacitor-start expected at TSL 7, and whether it a full distribution of motor sizes and small motor industry. At this TSL, the should adopt a different TSL for speeds and where the full cost of combination of efficiency levels could capacitor-start small electric motors reactive power was included. Under cause a migration from CSIR motors to given the range of uncertainty in its these conditions, for the average CSCR motors; however, DOE believes forecasts. customer, compared to the baseline, the that the capital conversion costs, LCC of a CSIR and CSCR motor will VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory equipment retooling and R&D spending Review increase by $315 and decrease by $89, associated with this migration would respectively. DOE also examined what not be severe. A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 fraction of motors would have changes in LCC that are greater than 2-percent. After carefully considering the Section 1(b)(1) of Executive Order At TSL 8, DOE estimates the fraction of analysis and weighing the benefits and 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and customers experiencing LCC increases burdens of TSL 7, the Secretary has Review,’’ 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993), of greater than 2-percent will be 53.0 reached the following initial conclusion: requires each agency to identify the percent for CSIR motors and 18.7 Trial standard level 7 offers the problem the agency intends to address percent for CSCR motors. maximum improvement in energy that warrants new agency action The economics literature provides a efficiency that is technologically (including, where applicable, the wide-ranging discussion of how feasible and economically justified and failures of private markets or public consumers trade-off upfront costs and will result in significant conservation of institutions), as well as assess the energy savings in the absence of energy. The Secretary has reached the significance of that problem, to enable government intervention. Much of this initial conclusion that the benefits of assessment of whether any new literature attempts to explain why energy savings, emissions reductions regulation is warranted. EPCA requires consumers appear to undervalue energy (both in physical reductions and the DOE to establish standards for the small efficiency improvements. This monetized value of those reductions), motors covered in today’s rulemaking, undervaluation suggests that regulation the positive net economic savings to the In addition, today’s proposed standards that promotes energy efficiency can Nation (over 30 years) and the also address the following: produce significant net private gains (as harmonization of efficiency (1) Misplaced incentives, which well as producing social gains by, for requirements between CSIR and CSCR separate responsibility for selecting example, reducing pollution). There is motors would outweigh the potential equipment and for paying their evidence that consumers undervalue reduction in INPV for manufacturers operating costs; and (2) Lack of future energy savings as a result of (1) and the economic burden on those CSIR consumer information and/or a lack of information, (2) a lack of customers who are unable to switch to information processing capability about sufficient savings to warrant delaying or CSCR motors. Further, benefits from energy efficiency opportunities. The altering purchases (e.g., an inefficient carbon dioxide reductions (at a central market for small electric motors is ventilation fan in a new building or the value of $20) would increase NPV by dominated by the presence and actions delayed replacement of a water pump), between $785 million and $812 million of OEMs, who sell small electric motors (3) inconsistent (e.g., excessive short- (2008$) at a 7% discount rate and to end-users as a component of a larger term) weighting of future energy cost between $2.12 billion and $2.20 billion piece of equipment. There is a very large savings relative to available returns on at a 3% discount rate. These benefits diversity of equipment types that use other investments, (4) computational or from carbon dioxide emission small electric motors and the market for other difficulties associated with the reductions, when considered in any particular type of equipment may be evaluation of relevant tradeoffs, and (5) conjunction with the consumer savings very small. Consumers lack information a divergence in incentives (e.g., renter NPV and other factors described above and choice regarding the motor versus owner; builder v. purchaser). support DOE’s tentative conclusion that component. OEMs and consumers may Other literature indicates that with less trial standard level 7 is economically be more concerned with other aspects of than perfect foresight and a high degree justified. Therefore, DOE today proposes the application system than with of uncertainty about the future, to adopt the energy conservation selecting the most cost effective motor consumers may tradeoff these types of standards for capacitor-start small for the end user. Space constraints may investments at a higher than expected electric motors at trial standard level 7. also restrict the ability of the consumer
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 61494 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules
to replace the motor with a more Monday through Friday, except Federal alternatives using a series of regulatory efficient model. holidays. scenarios as inputs to the NES/ In addition, DOE has determined that The RIA is contained in the TSD shipments model for small electric today’s regulatory action is a prepared for the rulemaking. The RIA motors, which it modified to allow ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under consists of (1) A statement of the inputs for these measures. section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866. problem addressed by this regulation DOE identified the following major Accordingly, section 6(a)(3) of the and the mandate for government action, policy alternatives for achieving Executive Order required that DOE (2) a description and analysis of the increased energy efficiency in small prepare a regulatory impact analysis feasible policy alternatives to this electric motors: (RIA) on today’s proposed rule and that regulation, (3) a quantitative comparison • No new regulatory action the Office of Information and Regulatory of the impacts of the alternatives, and • Financial incentives Affairs (OIRA) in the OMB review this (4) the national economic impacts of the fl Tax credits proposed rule. DOE presented to OIRA proposed standards. fl Rebates for review the draft proposed rule and The RIA calculates the effects of • other documents prepared for this feasible policy alternatives to small Voluntary energy efficiency targets • rulemaking, including the RIA, and has electric motors standards, and provides Bulk government purchases • included these documents in the a quantitative comparison of the The proposed approach (performance rulemaking record. They are available impacts of the alternatives. DOE standards) for public review in the Resource Room evaluated each alternative in terms of its DOE evaluated each alternative in of DOE’s Building Technologies ability to achieve significant energy terms of its ability to achieve significant Program, 950 L’Enfant Plaza, SW., Suite savings at reasonable costs, and energy savings at reasonable costs (see 600, Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586– compared it to the effectiveness of the Table IV.1), and compared it to the 2945, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., proposed rule. DOE analyzed these effectiveness of the proposed rule.
The net present value amounts shown be required. The NES and NPV in the quads of primary energy (in the form of in Table VI.1 refer to the NPV for case of the proposed standard are shown losses), while polyphase small electric consumers. The costs to the government as a range between this scenario and a motors purchased in or after 2015 are of each policy (such as rebates or tax scenario in which the market shift takes expected to consume 0.90 quads of credits) are not included in the costs for ten years to complete, and begins in primary energy. Since this is the base the NPV since, on balance, consumers 2015 . The following paragraphs discuss case, energy savings and NPV are zero are both paying for (through taxes) and each of the policy alternatives listed in by definition. receiving the benefits of the payments. Table VI.1. (See TSD, RIA.) Rebates. DOE evaluated the possible No new regulatory action. The case in effect of a rebate consistent with current For each of the policy alternatives other which no regulatory action is taken with motor rebate practices in the promotion than standards, Table VI.1 shows the regard to small electric motors of premium efficiency motors which energy savings and NPV in the case constitutes the ‘‘base case’’ (or ‘‘No cover a portion of the incremental price where the CSIR and CSCR market share Action’’) scenario. In this case, between difference between equipment meeting shift in response to the policy prior to 2015 and 2045, capacitor-start small baseline efficiency levels and 2015, or immediately in 2015 when electric motors purchased in or after equipment meeting improved efficiency compliance with the standards would 2015 are expected to consume 3.65 requirements. The current average
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP24NO09.053 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 61495
motor rebate for an efficient 1 analyzed rebate for CSCR motors which result from availability of a horsepower motor is approximately $25, meet the requirements of TSL 7 (a $50 manufacturer tax credit program that and DOE scaled this rebate to be rebate for a 1 HP motor, scaled to other would effectively result in a lower price approximately proportional to the retail product classes), and no rebates for to the consumer by an amount that price of the motor. DOE evaluated CSIR motors. DOE estimates that these covers part of the incremental price rebates targeting TSL 5 for polyphase rebates would have no effect on the difference between products meeting motors, and evaluated several target efficiency distribution of capacitor-start baseline efficiency levels and those efficiency levels for capacitor-start induction-run motors, and would meeting trial standard level 5 for motors (including TSLs 7, 5, and 2). increase the market share among polyphase small electric motors and Existing rebate programs for polyphase capacitor-start capacitor-run motors trial standard level 5 for capacitor-start motors target three-digit frame series meeting TSL 7 by 23.9 percent to 44.9 small electric motors. Because these tax motors with efficiencies equivalent to percent. In addition, DOE estimates that credits would go to manufacturers TSL 5 for small polyphase motors. At this rebate would increase shipments of instead of customers, DOE believes that rebate efficiency levels corresponding to capacitor-start capacitor-run motors fewer customers would be aware of this TSL 7 for capacitor-start motors, DOE over the period from 2015 to 2045 by 5.7 program relative to a consumer tax estimates that rebates consistent with million to 12.6 million. Combined with credit program. DOE assumes that 50 current practice would have an unchanged polyphase motor rebates at percent of the customers who would insignificant impact on increasing the TSL 5, DOE estimates these rebates take advantage of consumer tax credits market share of CSIR motors. For this would provide 0.13 quads of national would buy more-efficient products case, meeting the target level requires energy savings and an NPV of $0.43 offered through a manufacturer tax the purchase of a motor with a very high billion (at a 7-percent discount rate). credit program. Thus, as a result of the average first cost because for TSL 7, Although DOE estimates that rebates manufacturer tax credit, the percentage CSIR motors are at the maximum will provide national benefits, they are of customers purchasing the more- technologically feasible efficiency. As a much smaller than the benefits resulting efficient products would increase by result, rebates targeting TSLs 5 and 2 from national performance standards. 0.04 percent to 0.04 percent (i.e., 50 have larger energy savings. TSLs 7, 5, Thus, DOE rejected rebates as a policy percent of the impact of consumer tax and 2 correspond to the same efficiency alternative to national performance credits) for polyphase motors, by 0.1 level (EL 3) for CSCR motors. standards. percent to 0.1 percent for capacitor-start, For rebate programs TSL 5 for both Consumer Tax Credits. If customers induction-run motors, and by 2.6 polyphase and capacitor start motors, were offered a tax credit equivalent to percent to 23.6 percent for capacitor- DOE estimates the market share of the amount mentioned above for start, capacitor-run motors. equipment meeting the energy rebates, DOE’s research suggests that the DOE assumed the impact of this efficiency levels targeted would increase number of customers buying a small policy would be to permanently from 0 percent to 0.4 percent for electric motor that would take transform the market so that the polyphase motors, from 0 percent to 0.3 advantage of the tax credit would be shipment-weighted efficiency gain seen percent for capacitor-start, induction- approximately 60 percent of the number in the first year of the program will be run motors, and from 21.0 to 29.5 that would take advantage of rebates. maintained throughout the forecast percent for capacitor-start, capacitor-run Thus, as a result of the tax credit, the period. DOE estimated that motors. DOE assumed the impact of this percentage of customers purchasing the manufacturer tax credits would yield a policy would be to permanently products with efficiencies fraction of the benefits that consumer transform the market so that the corresponding to TSL 5 for both tax credits would provide. DOE rejected shipment-weighted efficiency gain seen polyphase and capacitor-start motors consumer tax credits as a policy in the first year of the program would would increase by 0.1 percent to 0.1 alternative to national performance be maintained throughout the forecast percent for polyphase motors, by 0.2 standards because the benefits that period. At the estimated participation percent to 0.2 percent for capacitor-start, consumer tax credits provide are much rates, the rebates would provide 0.07 induction-run motors, and by 5.1 smaller than those resulting from quads of national energy savings and an percent to 26.1 percent for capacitor- performance standards. Thus, because NPV of $0.25 billion (at a 7-percent start, capacitor-run motors. DOE manufacturer tax credits provide even discount rate). assumed the impact of this policy smaller benefits than consumer tax DOE found that a rebate targeting the would be to permanently transform the credits, DOE also rejected manufacturer efficiency levels corresponding to TSL 2 market so that the shipment-weighted tax credits as a policy alternative to for capacitor-start motors would result efficiency gain seen in the first year of national performance standards. in larger energy savings than one the program would be maintained Voluntary Energy-Efficiency Targets. targeting the efficiency levels of TSL 5 throughout the forecast period. DOE There are no current federal or industry or TSL 7. Such rebates would increase estimated that tax credits would yield a marketing efforts to increase the use of the market share among capacitor-start fraction of the benefits that rebates efficient small electric motors which induction-run motors meeting the would provide. DOE rejected rebates, as meet the requirements of trial standard efficiency level corresponding to TSL 2 a policy alternative to national level 5 for polyphase small electric from 3.0 percent to 13.2 percent. performance standards, because the motors or trial standard level 7 for Combined with unchanged polyphase benefits that rebates provide are much capacitor-start small electric motors. motor rebates targeting TSL 5, DOE smaller than those resulting from NEMA and the Consortium for Energy estimates these rebates would provide performance standards. Thus, because Efficiency promote ‘‘NEMA Premium’’ 0.19 quads of national energy savings consumer tax credits provide even efficient three-digit frame series motors, and an NPV of $0.52 billion (at a 7- smaller benefits than rebates, DOE also and DOE analyzed this program as a percent discount rate). rejected consumer tax credits as a policy model for the market effects of a similar DOE also analyzed an alternative alternative to national performance program for small electric motors. DOE rebate program for capacitor-start standards. evaluated the potential impacts of such motors which would give rebates of Manufacturer Tax Credits. DOE a program that would encourage twice the value of the previously- believes even smaller benefits would purchase of products meeting the trial
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 61496 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules
standard level efficiency levels. DOE promulgated, will not have a significant company to determine if it sold covered modeled the voluntary efficiency economic impact on a substantial small electric motors. Based on its program based on this scenario and number of small entities. As required by research, DOE screened out companies assumed that the resulting shipment- Executive Order 13272, ‘‘Proper that did not offer motors covered by this weighted efficiency gain would be Consideration of Small Entities in rulemaking. Consequently, DOE maintained throughout the forecast Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461 estimated that only one out of 11 period. DOE estimated that the (August 16, 2002), DOE published companies listed were potentially small enhanced effectiveness of voluntary procedures and policies on February 19, business manufacturers of covered energy-efficiency targets would provide 2003, to ensure that the potential products. DOE then contacted this 0.82 quads of national energy savings impacts of its rules on small entities are potential small business manufacturer and an NPV of $0.35 billion (at a 7- properly considered during the and determined that the company’s percent discount rate). Although this rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE equipment would not be covered by this would provide national benefits, they has made its procedures and policies proposed rulemaking. Thus, based on its are much smaller than the benefits available on the Office of the General initial screening and subsequent resulting from national performance Counsel’s Web site, http:// interviews, DOE did not identify any standards. Thus, DOE rejected use of www.gc.doe.gov. company as a small business voluntary energy-efficiency targets as a DOE reviewed today’s proposed rule manufacturer based on SBA’s definition policy alternative to national under the provisions of the Regulatory of a small business manufacturer for this performance standards. Flexibility Act and the procedures and industry. Bulk Government Purchases. Under policies published on February 19, On the basis of the foregoing, DOE this policy alternative, the government 2003. A regulatory flexibility analysis certifies that the proposed rule, if sector would be encouraged to purchase examines the impact of the rule on promulgated, would have no significant increased amounts of polyphase small entities and considers alternative economic impact on a substantial equipment that meet the efficiency ways of reducing negative impacts. number of small entities. Accordingly, levels in trial standard level 5 and In the context of this rulemaking, DOE has not prepared a regulatory capacitor-start equipment that meets the ‘‘small businesses,’’ as defined by the flexibility analysis for this rulemaking. efficiency levels in trial standard level SBA, for the small electric motor DOE will transmit the certification and 7. Federal, State, and local government manufacturing industry are supporting statement of factual basis to agencies could administer such a manufacturing enterprises with 1,000 the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the program. At the Federal level, this employees or fewer. See http://www. Small Business Administration for would be an enhancement to the sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/ review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b). existing Federal Energy Management sba_homepage/serv_sstd_tablepdf. DOE seeks comment on the above Program (FEMP). DOE modeled this DOE used this small business analysis, as well as any information program by assuming an increase in definition to determine whether any concerning small businesses that may be installation of equipment meeting the small entities would be required to impacted by this rulemaking and what efficiency levels of the target standard comply with the rule. (65 FR 30836, those impacts may be. levels among the commercial and public 30850 (May 15, 2000), as amended at 65 C. Review Under the Paperwork buildings and operations which are run FR 53533, 53545 (September 5, 2000) Reduction Act by government agencies. DOE estimated and codified at 13 CFR part 121. The that bulk government purchases would size standards are listed by NAICS code This rulemaking will impose no new provide 0.34 quads of national energy and industry description. The information or record-keeping savings and an NPV of ¥$0.01 billion manufacturers impacted by this rule are requirements. Accordingly, OMB (at a 7-percent discount rate), benefits generally classified under NAICS clearance is not required under the which are much smaller than those 335312, ‘‘Motor and Generator Paperwork Reduction Act. (44 U.S.C. estimated for national performance Manufacturing,’’ which sets a threshold 3501 et seq.) of 1,000 employees or less for an entity standards. DOE rejected bulk D. Review Under the National in this category to be considered a small government purchases as a policy Environmental Policy Act alternative to national performance business. standards. DOE identified producers of DOE has prepared a draft National Performance Standards. equipment covered by this rulemaking, environmental assessment (EA) of the DOE proposes to adopt the efficiency which have manufacturing facilities impacts of the proposed rule pursuant levels listed in section VI.C. As located within the United States and to the National Environmental Policy indicated in the paragraphs above, none could be considered small entities, by Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the of the alternatives DOE examined would two methods: (1) Asking larger regulations of the Council on save as much energy as today’s manufacturers in MIA interviews to Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts proposed standards. Also, several of the identify any competitors they believe 1500–1508), and DOE’s regulations for alternatives would require new enabling may be a small business, and (2) compliance with the National legislation, since authority to carry out researching NEMA-identified fractional Environmental Policy Act (10 CFR part those alternatives does not presently horsepower motor manufacturers. DOE 1021). This assessment includes an exist. then looked at publicly-available data examination of the potential effects of and contacted manufacturers, as emission reductions likely to result from B. Review Under the Regulatory necessary, to determine if they meet the the rule in the context of global climate Flexibility Act Small Business Administration (SBA) change, as well as other types of The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 definition of a small manufacturing environmental impacts. The draft EA U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation company. In total, DOE identified 11 has been incorporated into the TSD. of an initial regulatory flexibility companies that could potentially be Before issuing a final rule for small analysis for any rule that by law must small businesses. During initial review electric motors, DOE will consider be proposed for public comment, unless of the 11 companies in its list, DOE public comments and, as appropriate, the agency certifies that the rule, if either contacted or researched each determine whether to issue a finding of
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 61497
no significant impact as part of a final legal standard for affected conduct expressed as annualized values are EA or to prepare an environmental while promoting simplification and $923–$1,137 million in total annualized impact statement (EIS) for this burden reduction; (4) specifies the benefits from the proposed rule, $292– rulemaking. retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately $786 million in annualized costs, and defines key terms; and (6) addresses $183–$845 million in annualized net E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 other important issues affecting clarity benefits. Details are provided in chapter Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ and general draftsmanship under any 10 of the TSD. Therefore, DOE must 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999) imposes guidelines issued by the Attorney publish a written statement assessing certain requirements on agencies General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order the costs, benefits, and other effects of formulating and implementing policies 12988 requires Executive agencies to the rule on the national economy. or regulations that preempt State law or review regulations in light of applicable Section 205 of UMRA also requires DOE that have federalism implications. The standards in section 3(a) and section to identify and consider a reasonable Executive Order requires agencies to 3(b) to determine whether they are met number of regulatory alternatives before examine the constitutional and statutory or it is unreasonable to meet one or promulgating a rule for which UMRA authority supporting any action that more of them. DOE has completed the requires such a written statement. DOE would limit the policymaking discretion required review and determined that, to must select from those alternatives the of the States and to carefully assess the the extent permitted by law, this most cost-effective and least necessity for such actions. The proposed rule meets the relevant burdensome alternative that achieves Executive Order also requires agencies standards of Executive Order 12988. the objectives of the rule, unless DOE to have an accountable process to publishes an explanation for doing G. Review Under the Unfunded ensure meaningful and timely input by otherwise or the selection of such an Mandates Reform Act of 1995 State and local officials in the alternative is inconsistent with law. development of regulatory policies that DOE reviewed this regulatory action Today’s proposed energy conservation have federalism implications. On March under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates standards for small electric motors 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) would achieve the maximum policy describing the intergovernmental (UMRA), which requires each Federal improvement in energy efficiency that consultation process it will follow in the agency to assess the effects of Federal DOE has determined to be both development of such regulations. 65 FR regulatory actions on State, local and technologically feasible and 13735. DOE has examined today’s Tribal governments and the private economically justified. A discussion of proposed rule and has determined that sector. For a proposed regulatory action the alternatives considered by DOE is it would not preempt State law or have likely to result in a rule that may cause presented in the regulatory impact a substantial direct effect on the States, the expenditure by State, local, and analysis section of the TSD for this on the relationship between the national Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or proposed rule. Also, Section 202(c) of government and the States, or on the by the private sector of $100 million or UMRA authorizes an agency to prepare distribution of power and more in any one year (adjusted for the written statement required by responsibilities among the various inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires UMRA in conjunction with or as part of levels of government. EPCA governs and an agency to publish a written statement any other statement or analysis that prescribes Federal preemption of State assessing the costs, benefits, and other accompanies the proposed rule. (2 regulations as to energy conservation for effects of the rule on the national U.S.C. 1532(c)) The TSD, preamble, and the products that are the subject of economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The regulatory impact analysis for today’s today’s proposed rule. States can UMRA also requires a Federal agency to proposed rule contain a full discussion petition DOE for exemption from such develop an effective process to permit of the rule’s costs, benefits, and other preemption to the extent, and based on timely input by elected officers of State, effects on the national economy, and criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. local, and Tribal governments on a therefore satisfy UMRA’s written 6297) No further action is required by proposed ‘‘significant intergovernmental statement requirement. Executive Order 13132. mandate,’’ and requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for H. Review Under the Treasury and F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 timely input to potentially affected General Government Appropriations With respect to the review of existing small governments before establishing Act of 1999 regulations and the promulgation of any requirements that might Section 654 of the Treasury and new regulations, section 3(a) of significantly or uniquely affect small General Government Appropriations Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires Reform’’ (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996) published a statement of policy on its Federal agencies to issue a Family imposes on Federal agencies the general process for intergovernmental Policymaking Assessment for any rule duty to adhere to the following consultation under UMRA (62 FR that may affect family well-being. This requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting 12820) (also available at http:// rule would not have any impact on the errors and ambiguity, (2) write www.gc.doe.gov). autonomy or integrity of the family as regulations to minimize litigation, and Although today’s proposed rule does an institution. Accordingly, DOE has (3) provide a clear legal standard for not contain a Federal intergovernmental concluded that it is not necessary to affected conduct rather than a general mandate, today’s proposed rule will prepare a Family Policymaking standard and promote simplification likely result in a final rule that could Assessment. and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of impose expenditures of $100 million or Executive Order 12988 specifically more after 2015 for private sector I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 requires that Executive agencies make commercial and industrial users of DOE has determined, under Executive every reasonable effort to ensure that the equipment with small electric motors. Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the DOE estimated annualized impacts for and Interference with Constitutionally preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly the proposed rule using the results of Protected Property Rights,’’ 53 FR 8859 specifies any effect on existing Federal the national impacts analysis. The (March 18, 1988), that this regulation law or regulation; (3) provides a clear national impact analysis results would not result in any takings that
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 61498 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules
might require compensation under the issued on December 16, 2004, its ‘‘Final also be sent by mail, or by e-mail to Fifth Amendment to the United States Information Quality Bulletin for Peer [email protected]. Constitution. Review’’ (the Bulletin). 70 FR 2664. Persons requesting to speak should (January 14, 2005) The Bulletin briefly describe the nature of their J. Review Under the Treasury and establishes that certain scientific interest in this rulemaking and provide General Government Appropriations a telephone number for contact. DOE Act of 2001 information shall be peer reviewed by qualified specialists before it is requests persons selected to be heard to The Treasury and General disseminated by the Federal submit an advance copy of their Government Appropriations Act, 2001 government, including influential statements at least one week before the (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for scientific information related to agency public meeting. At its discretion, DOE agencies to review most disseminations regulatory actions. The purpose of the may permit any person who cannot of information to the public under bulletin is to enhance the quality and supply an advance copy of their guidelines established by each agency credibility of the Government’s statement to participate, if that person pursuant to general guidelines issued by scientific information. Under the has made advance alternative OMB. OMB’s guidelines were published Bulletin, the energy conservation arrangements with the Building at 67 FR 8452 (February 22, 2002); standards rulemaking analyses are Technologies Program. The request to DOE’s guidelines were published at 67 ‘‘influential scientific information.’’ The give an oral presentation should ask for FR 62446 (October 7, 2002). DOE has Bulletin defines ‘‘influential scientific such alternative arrangements. reviewed today’s notice under the OMB information’’ as ‘‘scientific information C. Conduct of Public Meeting and DOE guidelines and has concluded the agency reasonably can determine that it is consistent with applicable will have, or does have, a clear and DOE will designate a DOE official to policies in those guidelines. substantial impact on important public preside at the public meeting and may also use a professional facilitator to aid policies or private sector decisions.’’ 70 K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 discussion. The meeting will not be a FR 2667 (January 14, 2005). Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions In response to OMB’s Bulletin, DOE judicial or evidentiary-type public Concerning Regulations That conducted formal in-progress peer hearing, but DOE will conduct it in Significantly Affect Energy Supply, accordance with section 336 of EPCA, reviews of the energy conservation Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 FR 28355 (May 42 U.S.C. 6306. A court reporter will be standards development process and 22, 2001) requires Federal agencies to present to record the proceedings and analyses. DOE prepared the ‘‘Energy prepare and submit to the Office of prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the Conservation Standards Rulemaking Information and Regulatory Affairs right to schedule the order of Peer Review Report,’’ dated February (OIRA) a Statement of Energy Effects for presentations and to establish the 2007, which pertains to these any proposed significant energy action. procedures governing the conduct of the rulemaking analyses. DOE disseminated A ‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined public meeting. After the public the report, and it is available at http:// as any action by an agency that meeting, interested parties may submit www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ promulgates or is expected to lead to further comments on the proceedings as appliance_standards/peer_review.html. promulgation of a final rule, and that: well as on any aspect of the rulemaking (1) Is a significant regulatory action VII. Public Participation until the end of the comment period. under Executive Order 12866, or any The public meeting will be conducted A. Attendance at Public Meeting successor order; and (2) is likely to have in an informal, conference style. DOE a significant adverse effect on the The time, date, and location of the will present summaries of comments supply, distribution, or use of energy, or public meeting are listed in the DATES received before the public meeting, (3) is designated by the Administrator of and ADDRESSES sections at the beginning allow time for presentations by OIRA as a significant energy action. For of this document. To attend the public participants, and encourage all any proposed significant energy action, meeting, please notify Ms. Brenda interested parties to share their views on the agency must give a detailed Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or issues affecting this rulemaking. Each statement of any adverse effects on [email protected]. As participant will be allowed to make a energy supply, distribution, or use explained in the ADDRESSES section, prepared general statement (within time should the proposal be implemented, foreign nationals visiting DOE limits determined by DOE), before the and of reasonable alternatives to the Headquarters are subject to advance discussion of specific topics. DOE will action and their expected benefits on security screening procedures. permit other participants to comment energy supply, distribution, and use. briefly on any general statements. B. Procedure for Submitting Requests To At the end of all prepared statements Today’s regulatory action, which Speak proposes standards to increase the on a topic, DOE will permit participants energy efficiency of 72 product classes Any person who has an interest in to clarify their statements briefly and of small electric motors, would not have today’s notice, or who is a comment on statements made by others. a significant adverse effect on the representative of a group or class of Participants should be prepared to supply, distribution, or use of energy. persons that has an interest in these answer questions from DOE and from The rule was also not designated by issues, may request an opportunity to other participants concerning these OIRA as a significant energy action. make an oral presentation. Such persons issues. DOE representatives may also Therefore, today’s proposed rule is not may hand-deliver requests to speak, ask questions of participants concerning a significant energy action. Accordingly, along with a computer diskette or CD in other matters relevant to this DOE has not prepared a Statement of WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, PDF, or rulemaking. The official conducting the Energy Effects. text (ASCII) file format, to the address public meeting will accept additional shown in the ADDRESSES section at the comments or questions from those L. Review Under the Information beginning of this notice of proposed attending, as time permits. The Quality Bulletin for Peer Review rulemaking between the hours of 9 a.m. presiding official will announce any In consultation with the Office of and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, further procedural rules or modification Science and Technology (OSTP), OMB except Federal holidays. Requests may of the above procedures that may be
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 61499
needed for the proper conduct of the E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment technologies and the market for covered public meeting. DOE is particularly interested in motors could potentially affect the DOE will make the entire record of receiving comments and views of projected shipments and energy savings. this proposed rulemaking, including the interested parties concerning the 12. The behavior of customers with transcript from the public meeting, following issues: space-constrained applications, the available for inspection at the U.S. 1. The proposal of product classes costs they face, and the time-frame over Department of Energy, Resource Room based on motor category, pole which they may need to redesign a of the Building Technologies Program, configuration, and horsepower. system or large piece of equipment to 950 L’Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, 2. The proposal to include other accommodate a larger-component small DC 20024, (202) 586–2945, between 9 insulation class systems besides A, in electric motor. DOE also seeks further a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through particular B and F insulation class information regarding the population Friday, except Federal holidays. Any systems. and distribution of space-constrained person may purchase a copy of the 3. The baseline models and customers among motor applications. transcript from the transcribing reporter. efficiencies used in the engineering 13. The combined effect of the several D. Submission of Comments analysis. assumptions and estimates that DOE makes in order to estimate the impact of DOE will accept comments, data, and 4. The various markups used in the engineering analysis, in particular the standards under expected market shifts. information regarding the proposed rule DOE seeks comment regarding its before or after the public meeting, but difference in overhead markups for designs that use a copper rotor and approach and suggestions on how no later than the date provided at the forecast uncertainty can be estimated beginning of this notice of proposed those that use an aluminum rotor. 5. The design options and limitations and weighed against the potential rulemaking. Comments, data, and increases in benefits when selecting a information submitted to DOE’s e-mail presented in the engineering analysis such as the limitations on motor size, higher standard level that may induce a address for this rulemaking should be shift in motor purchases. provided in WordPerfect, Microsoft the air gap between the rotor and stator, and the power factor. 14. The appropriateness of using other Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file format. discount rates in addition to seven Interested parties should avoid the use 6. The approach to scale the engineering analysis results to product percent and three percent real to of special characters or any form of discount future emissions reductions; encryption and, wherever possible, classes for which a complete analysis was not performed, especially the and comments should carry the electronic 15. The determination of the signature of the author. Comments, data, decision to use the relationships found for CSIR motors to scale results for anticipated environmental impacts of and information submitted to DOE via the proposed rule, particularly with mail or hand delivery/courier should CSCR motors. 7. The proposal to define nominal respect to the methods for valuing the include one signed original paper copy. expected CO and NO emissions No telefacsimiles (faxes) will be efficiency as the average full-load 2 X efficiency of a large population of savings due to the proposed standards. accepted. 16. The proposed standard level for According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any motors of the same design. 8. The preservation of operating polyphase small electric motors. person submitting information that he 17. The proposed standard level for or she believes to be confidential and profits as the lower bound scenario and single-phase (capacitor-start) small exempt by law from public disclosure the preservation of return on invested electric motors. should submit two copies: One copy of capital as the upper bound scenario for the document including all the the INPV results generated in the VIII. Approval of the Office of the information believed to be confidential, manufacturer impact analysis. Secretary and one copy of the document with the 9. The capital investment costs The Secretary of Energy has approved information believed to be confidential needed to reach each efficiency level. publication of today’s proposed rule. deleted. DOE will make its own 10. Input and data regarding how the determination about the confidential single-phase small motor market will List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431 status of the information and treat it respond to the proposed standards. In Administrative practice and according to its determination. particular, DOE seeks comment procedure, Confidential business Factors of interest to DOE when regarding its CSIR/CSCR cross-elasticity information, Energy conservation, evaluating requests to treat submitted model; the current market shares of Reporting and recordkeeping information as confidential include (1) a CSIR and CSCR motors in each requirements. description of the items; (2) whether combination of motor power and and why such items are customarily number of poles; the barriers the Issued in Washington, DC, on October 27, 2009. treated as confidential within the customers face if they switch from CSIR industry; (3) whether the information is to CSCR motors or vice versa; and the Cathy Zoi, generally known by or available from timescale over which market share Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and other sources; (4) whether the shifts would take place in response to Renewable Energy. information has previously been made standards. DOE also welcomes For the reasons stated in the available to others without obligation additional comments and data regarding preamble, DOE proposes to amend concerning its confidentiality; (5) an the scaling of motor losses and prices chapter II of title 10, Code of Federal explanation of the competitive injury to between product classes. Regulations, part 431 as set forth below. the submitting person which would 11. Input and data regarding how the PART 431—ENERGY EFFICIENCY result from public disclosure; (6) when small electric motors market will PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN such information might lose its respond to the proposed standards. In COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL confidential character due to the particular, DOE seeks comment EQUIPMENT passage of time; and (7) why disclosure regarding alternative small electric of the information would be contrary to motor technologies and how elasticity 1. The authority citation for part 431 the public interest. between the market for these alternative continues to read as follows:
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 61500 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317. efficiencies of a population of electric § 431.446 Small electric motors energy motors of duplicate design, where the conservation standards and their effective 2. Section 431.442 is amended by dates. adding, in alphabetical order, a new full load efficiency of each motor in the definition for ‘‘nominal full load population is the ratio (expressed as a (a) Each small electric motor efficiency’’ to read as follows: percentage) of the motor’s useful power manufactured (alone or as a component output to its total power input when the of another piece of non-covered § 431.442 Definitions concerning small motor is operated at its full rated load, equipment) after February 28, 2015, electric motors. rated voltage, and rated frequency. shall have a nominal full load efficiency * * * * * * * * * * of not less than the following: Nominal Full Load Efficiency means 3. Section 431.446 is added to read as the arithmetic mean of the full load follows:
(b) For purposes of determining the horsepower ratings shall be rounded up significant decimal places, and the required minimum nominal full load to the higher of the two horsepower resulting horsepower shall be rounded efficiency of an electric motor that has ratings; in accordance with paragraphs (b)(1) or a horsepower or kilowatt rating between (2) A horsepower below the midpoint (b)(2) of this section, whichever applies. two horsepower or two kilowatt ratings between the two consecutive [FR Doc. E9–27914 Filed 11–18–09; 11:15 listed in any table of efficiency horsepower ratings shall be rounded am] standards in paragraph (a) of this down to the lower of the two section, each such motor shall be horsepower ratings; or BILLING CODE 6450–01–P deemed to have a listed horsepower or (3) A kilowatt rating shall be directly kilowatt rating, determined as follows: converted from kilowatts to horsepower (1) A horsepower at or above the using the formula 1 kilowatt = (1/0.746) midpoint between the two consecutive hp, without calculating beyond three
VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:17 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP2.SGM 24NOP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP24NO09.054 i
Reader Aids Federal Register Vol. 74, No. 225 Tuesday, November 24, 2009
CUSTOMER SERVICE AND INFORMATION CFR PARTS AFFECTED DURING NOVEMBER
Federal Register/Code of Federal Regulations At the end of each month, the Office of the Federal Register General Information, indexes and other finding 202–741–6000 publishes separately a List of CFR Sections Affected (LSA), which aids lists parts and sections affected by documents published since Laws 741–6000 the revision date of each title. Presidential Documents 2 CFR 984...... 56693 Executive orders and proclamations 741–6000 987...... 56697, 61265 382...... 58189 The United States Government Manual 741–6000 1710...... 56542 Proposed Rules: Other Services 3 CFR 42...... 59920 Electronic and on-line services (voice) 741–6020 Proclamations: 457...... 59108, 61286 8444...... 57225 Privacy Act Compilation 741–6064 920...... 58216 8445...... 57227 Public Laws Update Service (numbers, dates, etc.) 741–6043 948...... 61053 8446...... 57229 TTY for the deaf-and-hard-of-hearing 741–6086 1710...... 56569 8447...... 57231 8448...... 57233 ELECTRONIC RESEARCH 8 CFR 8449...... 57235 World Wide Web 8450...... 57237 Proposed Rules: 103...... 59932 Full text of the daily Federal Register, CFR and other publications 8451...... 58529 235...... 59932 is located at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html 8452...... 58531 Federal Register information and research tools, including Public 8453...... 59473 9 CFR Inspection List, indexes, and links to GPO Access are located at: 8454...... 61259 http://www.archives.gov/federallregister 8455...... 61261 78...... 57245 E-mail Executive Orders: 10 CFR FEDREGTOC-L (Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV) is 13183 (amended by an open e-mail service that provides subscribers with a digital 13517) ...... 57239 Proposed Rules: form of the Federal Register Table of Contents. The digital form 13271 (revoked by 430...... 56928, 58915 of the Federal Register Table of Contents includes HTML and 13519) ...... 60123 431...... 57738, 61410 PDF links to the full text of each document. 13462 (amended by 12 CFR To join or leave, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select 13516) ...... 57241 Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list 13494 (amended by 3...... 60137 (or change settings); then follow the instructions. 13517) ...... 57239 205...... 59033 PENS (Public Law Electronic Notification Service) is an e-mail 13516...... 56521, 57241 208...... 60137 service that notifies subscribers of recently enacted laws. 13517...... 57239 225...... 60137 To subscribe, go to http://listserv.gsa.gov/archives/publaws-l.html 13518...... 58533 226...... 60143 and select Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow 13519...... 60123 229...... 58537 325...... 60137 the instructions. Administrative Orders: FEDREGTOC-L and PENS are mailing lists only. We cannot Memorandums: 327...... 59056 respond to specific inquiries. Memo. of Nov. 5, 360...... 59066 567...... 60137 Reference questions. Send questions and comments about the 2009 ...... 57881 Federal Register system to: [email protected] Notices: Proposed Rules: The Federal Register staff cannot interpret specific documents or Notice of Nov. 6, 205...... 60986 2009 ...... 58187 regulations. 13 CFR Reminders. Effective January 1, 2009, the Reminders, including Notice of November Rules Going Into Effect and Comments Due Next Week, no longer 12, 2009 ...... 58841 120...... 59891 appear in the Reader Aids section of the Federal Register. This 126...... 56699 4 CFR information can be found online at http://www.regulations.gov. 14 CFR CFR Checklist. Effective January 1, 2009, the CFR Checklist no 200...... 60127 longer appears in the Federal Register. This information can be 201...... 60130 23...... 57060 found online at http://bookstore.gpo.gov/. 25...... 56702, 56706 5 CFR 39 ...... 56710, 56713, 56717, FEDERAL REGISTER PAGES AND DATE, NOVEMBER 337...... 61263 57402, 57405, 57408, 57411, Proposed Rules: 57559, 57561, 57564, 57567, 56521–56692...... 2 61259–61500...... 24 731...... 56747 57571, 57574, 57577, 57578, 56693–57056...... 3 1604...... 57125 58191, 58195, 58539, 61018, 57057–57238...... 4 1651...... 57125 61021, 61023 57239–57400...... 5 1653...... 57125 71 ...... 57246, 59475, 59902 57401–57558...... 6 1690...... 57125 93...... 59902 57559–57882...... 9 97 ...... 58200, 58202, 61024, 57883–58188...... 10 7 CFR 61027 58189–58532...... 12 11...... 57401 1245...... 59476 58533–58842...... 13 301...... 57243 Proposed Rules: 58843–59032...... 16 319...... 56523 1...... 58918 59033–59472...... 17 354...... 57057 23...... 58918 59473–59890...... 18 457...... 61013 39 ...... 56748, 57264, 57266, 59891–60126...... 19 959...... 61263 57268, 57271, 57273, 57277, 60127–61012...... 20 966...... 57057 58919, 59480, 59483, 59488, 61013–61258...... 23 983...... 56526, 565231 59941, 60215
VerDate Nov 24 2008 17:52 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4712 E:\FR\FM\24NOCU.LOC 24NOCU sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with FRONTMATTER ii Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Reader Aids
71 ...... 57616, 57617, 57618, 602...... 57252 111...... 57899 15...... 59354 57620, 57621, 58569, 58570, Proposed Rules: 3001...... 57252 Proposed Rules: 58571, 58573, 59491, 59492, 1...... 58574, 61294 3004...... 57252 10...... 59502 61289 31...... 61294 3020...... 56544 11...... 59502 73...... 61291 53...... 58574 Proposed Rules: 12...... 59502 91...... 60218 301...... 59943, 61294 111...... 59494 15...... 59502 119...... 60218 3050...... 57280 540...... 56756 121...... 61055, 61067 28 CFR 125...... 60218 2...... 58540 40 CFR 133...... 60218 3...... 59104 47 CFR 29 CFR 135...... 61067 51...... 56721 2...... 57092 137...... 60218 2550...... 59092, 60156 52 ...... 56721, 57048, 57051, 25...... 57092 141...... 60218 4001...... 59093 57074, 57612, 57904, 57907, 73 ...... 56726, 56727, 57103, 142...... 60218 4022...... 58544, 59093 58553, 60194, 60199, 60199, 57104, 57260, 58851, 59912 145...... 60218 Proposed Rules: 61037 Proposed Rules: 147...... 60218 1202...... 56750, 57427 63...... 61037 36...... 57982 1206...... 56750, 57427 81...... 58687 54...... 57982 15 CFR 1910...... 57278, 57976 112...... 58783 73 ...... 57281, 57282, 57283, 744...... 57061 1915...... 57278 141...... 57908 58936, 61308 774...... 57581 1926...... 57278 180 ...... 57076, 57078, 57081, Proposed Rules: 4000...... 61248 59608 48 CFR 902...... 60050 4001...... 61248 261...... 57418 922...... 58923 4041...... 61074 300...... 57085, 58554 203...... 59913, 59914 4043...... 61248 721...... 57424 205...... 59914 16 CFR 4204...... 61248 Proposed Rules: 208...... 59914 4206...... 61248 Proposed Rules: 51...... 57126 209...... 59913 4211...... 61248 305...... 57950 52 ...... 56754, 57049, 57055, 212...... 59916 4231...... 61248 57126, 57622, 57978, 59496, 225...... 59916 17 CFR 31 CFR 59943, 60227 227...... 61043 60...... 58574 236...... 59916 4...... 57585 103...... 59096 61...... 58574 252 ...... 59913, 59914, 59916, 211...... 57062 285...... 56719 63...... 58574, 61077 61043, 61045 248...... 58204 501...... 57593 70...... 57126 3009...... 58851 Proposed Rules: 538...... 61030 71...... 57126 3052...... 58851 242...... 61208 560...... 61030 81...... 59943 594...... 61036 Proposed Rules: 18 CFR 82...... 61078 3...... 58584 Proposed Rules: 271...... 59497 358...... 60153 103...... 58926 52...... 58584 375...... 57246 300...... 58575 410...... 60154 32 CFR 721...... 57430 1515...... 58576 49 CFR 239...... 58846 234...... 58560 19 CFR 311...... 58205 42 CFR 564...... 58213 24...... 61267 806b...... 57414 34...... 56547 571...... 58213, 58562 Proposed Rules: Proposed Rules: 52...... 57918 113...... 57125 806b...... 57427 Proposed Rules: 409...... 58078 234...... 58589 191...... 57125 33 CFR 410...... 60316 571...... 57623 416...... 60316 20 CFR 117 ...... 57884, 58209, 58210, 580...... 59503 419...... 60316 59476, 59477 633...... 57986 655...... 59069 424...... 58078 165 ...... 57070, 57415, 57886, 1520...... 59874 1910...... 57883 484...... 58078 57888, 58211, 58545, 59098, 1554...... 59874 Proposed Rules: Proposed Rules: 404 ...... 57970, 57971, 57972, 60157, 61278 334...... 58846, 58848 84...... 59501 61292 410...... 57127 50 CFR Proposed Rules: 416...... 61292 413...... 57127 17...... 56978, 59444 117 ...... 57975, 58931, 58933 414...... 57127 20...... 57615 21 CFR 161...... 58223 440...... 61096 229...... 58859 165 ...... 57427, 58223, 61305 73...... 57248, 58843 441...... 61096 300...... 57105, 61046q 520...... 60155 34 CFR 622...... 57261, 58902 528...... 58205 44 CFR 668...... 61240 648 ...... 56562, 58567, 59917, 529...... 59073 65...... 57921 61283 558...... 59911, 61028 686...... 61240 690...... 61240 67 ...... 57923, 57928, 57944 660 ...... 57117, 57425, 61284 Proposed Rules: 691...... 61240 206...... 58849, 60203 679 ...... 56728, 56734, 57262, 4...... 57973 Ch. 11...... 58436, 59688 Proposed Rules: 57949, 59106, 59479, 59918 501...... 61068 67...... 57979 Proposed Rules: 1308...... 59108 36 CFR 17 ...... 56757, 56770, 57804, 45 CFR 7...... 60159, 60183 57987, 59956, 61100 22 CFR 82...... 58189 92...... 60228 Proposed Rules: 38 CFR Proposed Rules: 222...... 59508 125...... 61292 3...... 57072, 58232 89...... 61096 223...... 57436, 60050 9...... 59478 224...... 57436 26 CFR 200...... 57608 46 CFR 404...... 60050 1 ...... 57251, 57252, 59074, 10...... 59354 635...... 57128 59087, 61270 39 CFR 11...... 59354 648...... 57134, 58234 54...... 61294 20...... 57890 12...... 59354 665...... 60050
VerDate Nov 24 2008 17:52 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4712 E:\FR\FM\24NOCU.LOC 24NOCU sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with FRONTMATTER Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / Reader Aids iii
Register but may be ordered S. 509/P.L. 111–98 enacted public laws. To in ‘‘slip law’’ (individual To authorize a major medical subscribe, go to http:// LIST OF PUBLIC LAWS pamphlet) form from the facility project at the listserv.gsa.gov/archives/ Superintendent of Documents, Department of Veterans Affairs publaws-l.html This is a continuing list of U.S. Government Printing Medical Center, Walla Walla, public bills from the current Office, Washington, DC 20402 Washington, and for other session of Congress which (phone, 202–512–1808). The purposes. (Nov. 11, 2009; 123 Note: This service is strictly have become Federal laws. It text will also be made Stat. 3010) for E-mail notification of new may be used in conjunction available on the Internet from Last List November 10, 2009 laws. The text of laws is not with ‘‘P L U S’’ (Public Laws GPO Access at http:// available through this service. Update Service) on 202–741– www.gpoaccess.gov/plaws/ PENS cannot respond to 6043. This list is also index.html. Some laws may Public Laws Electronic specific inquiries sent to this available online at http:// not yet be available. Notification Service address. www.archives.gov/federal- (PENS) register/laws.html. S. 475/P.L. 111–97 Military Spouses Residency The text of laws is not Relief Act (Nov. 11, 2009; 123 PENS is a free electronic mail published in the Federal Stat. 3007) notification service of newly
VerDate Nov 24 2008 17:52 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\24NOCU.LOC 24NOCU sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with FRONTMATTER