Rural Utilities Service
Engineers Corps
National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Engineers Corps
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Western Area Power Administration
Children and Families Administration
Community Living Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
Indian Health Service
Coast Guard
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Indian Health Service
Drug Enforcement Administration
Copyright Office, Library of Congress
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Maritime Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Surface Transportation Board
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this page for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action modifies the Colorado Springs, CO, Class C airspace area by amending the legal description to reflect the current airport reference point (ARP) information for the City of Colorado Springs Municipal Airport. The operating requirements remain the same.
Colby Abbott, Airspace, Regulations and ATC Procedures Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
Class C airspace areas are designed to improve air safety by reducing the risk of midair collisions in high volume airport terminal areas and to enhance the management of air traffic operations in that area. The FAA recently attempted to modify the Class E airspace at City of Colorado Springs Municipal Airport (COS), CO, to ensure containment of new instrument procedures within controlled airspace. As a result of that effort, it was determined the COS ARP geographic position information contained in the Colorado Springs, CO, Class C legal description was no longer accurate due to an airfield survey accomplished previously and required updating. This amendment action ensures the COS ARP described in the Colorado Springs, CO, Class C and Class E legal descriptions match the FAA aeronautical database information so the airspace areas will chart correctly with a shared boundary depicted.
Accordingly, since this action merely reflects the geographic coordinates to be in concert with the FAA's current aeronautical database, and does not change the dimensions or operating requirements of that airspace, notice and public procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary.
This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by amending the Class C airspace area at Colorado Springs, CO. Specifically, the ARP for the City of Colorado Springs Municipal Airport is changed to reflect “lat. 38°48′21″ N., long. 104°42′03″ W.” This minor correction amends the ARP geographic position coordinates to reflect the information currently contained in the FAA's aeronautical database.
Class C airspace areas are published in paragraph 4000 of FAA Order 7400.9V, dated August 9, 2011 and effective September 15, 2011, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class C airspace area amendment in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends Class C airspace at Colorado Springs, CO.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p.389.
That airspace within a 5-mile radius of the City of Colorado Springs Municipal Airport extending upward from the surface to and including 10,200 feet MSL; and that airspace extending upward from 8,500 feet MSL to 10,200 feet MSL between the 5- and 10-mile radius beginning at a line drawn from the 270° bearing from the airport at 5 miles direct to the 333° bearing from the airport at 10 miles clockwise to Colorado State Highway 94, excluding that airspace east of Meridian Road and north of Garret Road; and that airspace extending upward from 7,500 feet MSL to 10,200 feet MSL from Colorado State Highway 94 clockwise to a line drawn from the 188° bearing from the airport at 10 miles direct to the 197° bearing from the airport at 5 miles.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action establishes two new low-altitude RNAV routes, designated T-306 and T-310, in the southwestern United States. The new routes expand the availability of RNAV within the National Airspace System (NAS) and provide substitute route segments for portions of VOR Federal airways V-16 and V-202.
Effective date 0901 UTC, July 26, 2012. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.
Paul Gallant, Airspace, Regulations and ATC Procedures Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
On April 23, 2012, the FAA published in the
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. No comments objecting to the proposal were received.
The FAA is amending Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 establishing two RNAV routes, designated T-306 and T-310, in the southwestern United States. T-306 extends between Los Angeles, CA, and El Paso, TX; and T-310 extends between Tucson, AZ, and Truth or Consequences, NM. The routes expand the availability of RNAV within the NAS and provides substitute route segments for portions of VOR Federal airways V-16 and V-202 that will be affected by the scheduled decommissioning of the Cochise, NM, VORTAC in the Fall of 2012.
Low altitude RNAV routes are published in paragraph 6011 of FAA Order 7400.9V dated August 9, 2011, and effective September 15, 2011, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The RNAV routes listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes RNAV routes to enhance the safe and efficient flow of traffic in the southwestern United States.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on Presque Isle Bay, Erie, PA. This safety zone is intended to restrict vessels from a portion of Presque Isle Bay during the Old Fashion 4th July Fireworks display. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with a fireworks display.
This rule will be effective between 9:15 p.m. until 10:45 p.m. on July 4, 2012.
Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket USCG-2012-0465 and are available online by going to
If you have questions on this temporary rule, call or email LT Christopher Mercurio, Chief of Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo; telephone 716-843-9343, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable. The final details for this event were not known to the Coast Guard until there was insufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be impracticable because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with a maritime fireworks display, which are discussed further below.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
Between 9:45 p.m. and 10:15 p.m. on July 4, 2012, a fireworks display will be held on Presque Isle Bay near Erie, PA. The Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that fireworks launched proximate to a gathering of watercraft pose a significant risk to public safety and property. Such hazards include premature and accidental detonations, dangerous projectiles, and falling or burning debris.
With the aforementioned hazards in mind, the Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that this temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of spectators and vessels during the Old Fashion 4th July Fireworks.
Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 14 of these statutes or executive orders.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced for a relatively short time. Also, the safety zone is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters. Furthermore, the safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to transit around it. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This temporary final rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of Presque Isle Bay, Erie, PA between 9:15 p.m. to 10:45 p.m. on July 4, 2012.
This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because of the minimal amount of time in which the safety zone will be enforced. This safety zone will only be enforced for 90 minutes in a low commercial vessel traffic area. Vessel traffic can pass safely around the zone. Before the effective period, maritime advisories will be issued, which include a Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness.
If the rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact LT Christopher Mercurio, Chief of Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo; telephone 716-843-9343, email
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and will not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34) (g), of the Instruction because it involves the establishment of a safety zone. A final environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are available in the docket where indicated under
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapters 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.
(2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.
(3) The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port Buffalo is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act on his behalf.
(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone shall contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene representative.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone encompassing a portion of the Keweenaw waterway on June 17, 2012. This safety zone is intended to help protect triathlon participants, as well as boaters and spectators of the event.
This rule will be effective from 10:00 a.m. to noon on June 17, 2012.
Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket [USCG-2012-0469]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Lieutenant Judson A. Coleman, Marine Safety Unit Duluth, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (218) 720-5286 ext 111, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable. The final details for this event were not known to the Coast Guard until there was insufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be both impracticable and contrary to the public interest because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect spectators, swimmers, and vessels from the hazards associated with open water swim races, which are discussed further below.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
On the morning of June 17, 2012, participants in the Yooper Sprint triathlon will swim across portions of the Keweenaw waterway, making them vulnerable to vessel traffic.
In recognition of the risk to swimmers identified above, the Captain of the Port Duluth has determined it necessary to create a temporary safety zone to prevent vessels from entering, transiting, or anchoring in the vicinity of the swimmers. The following area is a temporary safety zone: All waters of the Keweenaw Waterway encompassed by boundaries beginning at position 47′07′49.8 N 88′37′1.12 W, running west to 47′07′49.45 N 088′37′2.31 W, running northwest to 47′07′59.19 N 88′37′20.23 W, running northeast to 47′08′0.12 N 88′37′18.07 W and finally running southeast to the original position.
This safety zone is deemed necessary in order to ensure the protection of swimmers engaged in the Yooper Sprint Triathlon, vessel operators transiting the area, and spectators of the event. This safety zone will be in effect and enforced on June 17th, 2012 from 10:00 a.m. to noon.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 14 of these statutes or executive orders.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. This rule is believed to have minimal impact on any economic interests due to it being in effect for only two hours and taking place outside the navigable channel.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of the Keweenaw Waterway from 10:00 a.m. to noon on June 17, 2012.
This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This safety zone would be activated, and thus subject to enforcement, for only two hours early in the day. Traffic may be allowed to pass through the zone with the permission of the Captain of the Port. The Captain of the Port can be reached via VHF channel 16. Before the activation of the zone, we would issue local Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires
This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves the establishment of a safety zone and, therefore it is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6 and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23, entry into, transiting or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Marine Safety Unit Duluth, or his designated representative.
(2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port, Marine Safety Duluth or his designated representative.
(3) The on-scene representative of the Captain of the Port is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port to act on his behalf. The on-scene representative will be aboard either a Coast Guard or Coast Guard auxiliary vessel. The Captain of the Port representative may be contacted via VHF channel 16.
(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone shall contact the Captain of the Port, Duluth or his on-scene representative to request permission to do so. Vessel operators must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port, Duluth or his on-scene representative.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule; announcement of effective date.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) announces that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved, for a period of 3 years, revisions to an information collection associated with the Commission's
The rules amending 47 CFR 51.907(b)(1), (c)(1), and (d) through (h); 51.909(b)(1), and (c) through (k); 51.911(b) and (c); 51.915(e)(5) and (f)(7); 51.917(e)(6) and (f)(3); and 54.304 published November 29, 2011 (76 FR 73830) are effective June 14, 2012.
Belinda Nixon, Wireline Competition Bureau, (202) 418-1520 or TTY: (202) 418-0484.
This document announces that, on May 17, 2012, OMB approved, for a period of 3 years, information collection requirements contained in the Commission's
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received OMB approval on May 17, 2012, for the information collection requirements contained in the Commission's rules at §§ 51.907(b)(1), (c)(1), and (d) through (h); 51.909(b)(1), and (c) through (k); 51.911(b) and (c); 51.915(e)(5) and (f)(7); 51.917(e)(6) and (f)(3); and 54.304.
Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number.
No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number is 3060-0400.
The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.
The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:
Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Final rule; correction.
DoD, GSA, and NASA are issuing a correction to the summary statement of FAR Case 2009-038; Justification and Approval of Sole-Source 8(a) Contracts, which was published in the
Mr. Karlos Morgan, Procurement Analyst, at 202-501-2364, for clarification of content. For information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory Secretariat at 202-501-4755. Please cite FAC 2005-58; FAR Case 2009-038; Correction.
DoD, GSA, and NASA are issuing a correction to the summary statement of FAR Case 2009-038; Justification and Approval of Sole-Source 8(a) Contracts, which was published in the
In rule FR Doc. 2012-9204 published in the
On page 23369, in the first column, in the
40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 137; and 42 U.S.C. 2473(c).
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Notice of statement of general policy with request for public comment.
We are requesting public comment on a statement of general policy (“Statement”) on the anticipated sequencing of the compliance dates of final rules to be adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to certain provisions of Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended by those provisions (“Exchange Act”). These provisions establish a framework for the regulation of security-based swaps and security-based swap market participants under the Exchange Act. The Statement presents a sequencing of the compliance dates for these final rules by grouping the rules into five categories and describes the interconnectedness of the compliance dates for these rules, both within and among the five categories. The Statement also describes the timing of the expiration of the relief previously granted by the Commission that provided exemptions from certain provisions of the Exchange Act, the Securities Act of 1933, and the Trust Indenture Act of 1939.
Comments regarding the Statement should be received on or before August 13, 2012.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Use the Federal Rulemaking portal (
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Ann Parker McKeehan, Special Counsel, Office of Derivatives Policy, Division of Trading and Markets, at (202) 551-5797, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, or, with respect to the Securities Act of 1933, the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, and Exchange Act section 12, Andrew Schoeffler, Special Counsel, Office of Capital Markets Trends, Division of Corporation Finance, at (202) 551-3860, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549.
On July 21, 2010, President Barack Obama signed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank Act” or “Act”) into law.
Title VII amends the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”)
Since the Dodd-Frank Act was enacted, the Commission has adopted joint rules with the CFTC further defining the terms “swap dealer,” “security-based swap dealer,” “major swap participant,” “major security-based swap participant,” and “eligible contract participant”
1. Rules prohibiting fraud and manipulation in connection with SB swaps;
2. Rules regarding trade reporting and real-time public dissemination of trade information for SB swaps that would lay out who must report SB swaps, what information must be reported, and where and when such information must be reported;
3. Rules regarding the SDR registration process and the obligations of SDRs, including confidentiality and other requirements with which they must comply;
4. Rules relating to mandatory clearing of SB swaps that would specify the process for a registered clearing agency's submission for review of SB swaps that the clearing agency plans to accept for clearing and rules to establish a process for a registered clearing agency to file advance notices with the Commission pursuant to Title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Act;
5. Rules regarding the steps that a party electing to use the end-user exception to the mandatory clearing requirement must follow to notify the Commission of how it generally meets its financial obligations associated with non-cleared SB swap transactions when it is using SB swaps to hedge or mitigate commercial risk;
6. Rules regarding the confirmation of SB swap transactions that would govern the way in which certain of these transactions are acknowledged and verified by the parties who enter into them;
7. Rules defining and regulating SB SEFs, which would specify their registration requirements, establish the duties, and implement the core principles for SB SEFs specified in Title VII;
8. Rules regarding certain standards that clearing agencies would be required to maintain with respect to, among other things, their risk management and operations;
9. Joint rules with the CFTC further defining the terms “swap,” “security-based swap,” and “security-based swap agreement” and regarding the regulation of mixed swaps and SB swap agreement recordkeeping;
10. Rules regarding business conduct that would establish certain minimum standards of conduct for SBSDs and MSBSPs, including in connection with their dealings with “special entities,” which include municipalities, pension plans, endowments and similar entities;
11. Rules regarding the registration process for SBSDs and MSBSPs;
12. Rules intended to mitigate conflicts of interest at SB swap clearing agencies, SB SEFs, and exchanges that trade SB swaps.
In addition, the Commission intends to propose rules establishing capital, margin, and segregation requirements applicable to SBSDs and MSBSPs pursuant to Exchange Act sections 3E
Moreover, while not mandated by Title VII, the Commission has adopted exemptions under the Securities Act, the Exchange Act, and the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (“Trust Indenture Act”) for SB swaps issued by certain clearing agencies satisfying specified conditions to facilitate the intent of Title VII with respect to the clearing of SB swaps.
The provisions of Title VII were generally effective on July 16, 2011 (360 days after the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act, the “Effective Date”), unless a provision required a rulemaking, in which case such provision would go into effect “not less than” 60 days after publication of the related final rules in the
First, the Commission provided guidance as to which of the requirements of the Exchange Act, as amended by Title VII, would apply to SB swap transactions as of the Effective Date and granted temporary relief to market participants from compliance with certain of those requirements.
Second, the Commission approved an order granting temporary relief and providing interpretive guidance to make it clear that a substantial number of the requirements of the Exchange Act would not apply to SB swaps when the revised definition of “security” went into effect on July 16, 2011.
Third, the Commission provided, until the compliance date for the final rules to be adopted by the Commission further defining the terms “security-based swap” and “eligible contract participant,”
As previously announced, the Commission has been considering how to implement the new requirements that will be applicable to SB swaps pursuant to the rules described above in a practical and efficient manner that avoids unnecessary disruption to the SB
To engage the public on these issues, the staffs of the Commission and the CFTC held a two-day joint public roundtable on May 2-3, 2011, to discuss the sequencing of the implementation of the final rules to be adopted under Title VII.
Many commenters have noted that the Commission and the CFTC have the flexibility to phase in or sequence the issuance of final rules, as well as the compliance dates for those rules, in a manner that produces an orderly implementation plan,
In September 2011, the CFTC published two notices of proposed rulemakings
• Category 1 Entities, which would include swap dealers, SBSDs, major swap participants and MSBSPs that will be required to register with the CFTC or the Commission and “active funds” (defined as any private fund, as defined in section 202(a) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940,
• Category 2 Entities, which would include commodity pools, a private fund as defined in section 202(a) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940
• Category 3 Entities, which would include third party sub-accounts and “all other swap transactions not excepted from the mandatory clearing requirement,” would be required to comply with the clearing, trading, trade documentation and margining requirements for swaps entered into by Category 3 Entities within 270 days (1) after the CFTC issues any clearing determination or 30 days after a swap is made available to trade, whichever is later; and (2) after the adoption of the final trade documentation or margining rule, as relevant.
• With regard to the trade documentation and margining requirements, the CFTC Trading Documentation and Margining Implementation Proposal adds an additional fourth category of entities—Category 4 Entities—for any persons not included in Categories 1 through 3. Under this proposal, Category 4 Entities would be subject to the same compliance date scheduling as Category 3 Entities.
In its Clearing and Trade Execution Implementation Proposal and its Trading Documentation and Margining Implementation Proposal, the CFTC did not propose specific adoption or compliance dates for rules, but did note that certain final rules must be adopted before compliance with others would be required. For example, the CFTC noted in its Clearing and Trade Execution Implementation Proposal that before the mandatory clearing of swaps begins, the final rules establishing the product and entity definitions, the end-user exception from mandatory clearing, and pertaining to the segregation of customer collateral must be adopted and that before swap market participants could be required to comply with a trade execution requirement, the CFTC must adopt final rules related to swap execution facilities and designated contract markets.
In order to better effectuate the purposes of Title VII and to address the comments received from market participants, the Commission has developed, and is seeking public comment on, this Statement, which discusses issues pertaining to, and presents a general sequence for, the anticipated compliance dates of final rules to be adopted by the Commission under Subtitle B of Title VII. The issues discussed in this Statement are set out in relation to the following five categories of rules:
The first category of rules affects compliance with rules in the other four categories. As a result, the Commission believes the Definitional Rules would need to be adopted and effective prior to requiring compliance with any of the other rules to be adopted under Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act. The Definitional Rules would help inform market participants as to whether they will be subject to the requirements of Subtitle B of Title VII, section 12 of the Exchange Act, and the relevant provisions of the Securities Act and the Trust Indenture Act. Additionally, the Commission generally believes the Cross-Border Rules should be proposed before final rules with cross-border implications are adopted. We believe the Commission would benefit by being able to take into account comments on its proposed approach to cross-border issues before final rules with cross-border implications are adopted.
With regard to the rules in the remaining four categories, the Statement describes the interconnectedness of the compliance dates of the final rules within one category, and where applicable, the impact of compliance dates of final rules within one category upon those of another category. The Statement also discusses the dependencies that exist between the categories of rules. The Statement does not provide specific compliance dates for the final rules to be adopted under Subtitle B of Title VII, nor does it provide a conclusive sequencing of compliance dates. However, the Statement does explain how such dates could be sequenced in relative terms and, in this way, seeks to give SB swap market participants clarity into and an opportunity to comment upon the general order in which they might expect to consider and prepare for compliance with these final rules. The Statement also discusses the relief the Commission has previously granted by providing exemptions from certain provisions of the Securities Act, the Exchange Act, and the Trust Indenture Act for certain SB swaps and when these exemptions will expire.
In general, in formulating the sequencing of compliance dates described herein, the Commission has taken into consideration four principles in addition to the primacy of the Definitional Rules and Cross-Border Rules described above: (1) Compliance with the final rules establishing the registration process and duties of SDRs and the rules governing the reporting of SB swap transaction data should be the next step in the implementation process, following the adoption and effectiveness of the Definitional Rules and the proposal of the Cross-Border Rules, so that the Commission would be able to begin utilizing comprehensive SB swap transaction data reported to registered SDRs in making certain determinations required by Subtitle B of Title VII;
The Commission is seeking public comment on all aspects of this Statement. The Commission appreciates the importance of SB swap market participants having the opportunity to comment upon the sequencing discussed herein.
The Commission believes the Definitional Rules, the rules further defining the terms “security-based swap,” “security-based swap agreement,” and “mixed swap” and the rules further defining “security-based swap dealer,” and “major security-based swap participant,” should be the earliest of the final rules of Subtitle B of Title VII that are adopted and effective. As noted above, the Commission already has adopted joint rules with the CFTC further defining the terms “swap dealer,” “security-based swap dealer,” “major swap participant,” “major security-based swap participant,” and “eligible contract participant.”
Many commenters have noted the importance of the early finalization of the these definitional rules, as they provide the foundation for the remainder of Title VII's rules by providing further guidance as to what products constitute SB swaps and which participants constitute SBSDs and MSBSPs.
Upon the compliance date of the final rules further defining the term “security-based swap” and “eligible contract participant,” two of the temporary exemptions granted by the Commission pursuant to the Exchange Act Exemptive Order will expire:
• The exemption for any person meeting the definition of “eligible contract participant” that was in effect prior to the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act, other than a registered broker-dealer or a self-regulatory organization, from the provisions of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder (other than those provisions expressly excluded pursuant to the Exchange Act Exemptive Order), in connection with a person's activities involving SB swaps;
• The exemption for a broker or dealer registered under section 15(b) of the Exchange Act
At the same time, the following exemptions granted pursuant to the SB Swaps Interim Final Rule
• The exemption pursuant to Securities Act rule 240 (“Rule 240”) from all provisions of the Securities Act, except the anti-fraud provisions of section 17(a), subject to certain conditions, of the offer and sale of those SB swaps that under pre-Dodd-Frank Act law were “security-based swap agreements” (which, under that definition, must be entered into between eligible contract participants and subject to individual negotiation) and that were defined as “securities” under the Securities Act on the Effective Date solely due to the provisions of Title VII;
• The exemptions from the provisions of Exchange Act sections 12(a)
• The exemption from the provisions of the Trust Indenture Act for any SB swaps offered and sold in reliance on Rule 240.
In light of the fact that these exemptions expire upon the compliance date of the final rules further defining the term “security-based swap” and “eligible contract participant,” the Commission is considering what the appropriate compliance date for the rules further defining the term “security-based swap” should be.
Additionally, upon the effective date of the final rules further defining the term “eligible contract participant,” the limited exemption granted pursuant to the Effective Date Order permitting compliance with section 6(l) using the definition of “eligible contract participant” as set forth in section 1a(12) of the Commodity Exchange Act (as in effect on July 20, 2010),
The Commission expects to propose the Cross-Border Rules as a single release addressing the application of the requirements of Subtitle B of Title VII to cross-border SB swap transactions and non-U.S. persons acting in capacities regulated under Subtitle B of Title VII. The Cross-Border Rules, which the Commission expects to propose prior to adopting any rules other than the Definitional Rules (except as otherwise noted in sections II.C.(i) and (ii) below), generally would not propose to impose additional requirements or obligations upon SB swap market participants, but rather would propose to address the extent to which non-U.S. SB swap market participants would be subject to the requirements arising from Subtitle B of Title VII by defining the scope of Title VII as it applies to these market participants and their SB swap transactions involving the U.S. market. Because the Cross-Border Rules are expected to be directly related to, among other things, SB swap data reporting, clearing and trading, as well as various registration categories under Title VII, the Commission anticipates that certain rulemakings that are affected by the Cross-Border Rules would address comments received on the relevant proposals in the Cross-Border Rules. In other substantive areas, the Commission could address comments received by adopting final rules addressing cross-border issues in a complementary separate rulemaking. In either case, the Commission does not expect to require compliance by participants in the U.S. SB swap market with the final rules arising under the Exchange Act before addressing the cross-border aspects of such rules.
• In addition to the Definitional Rules and the Cross-Border Rules, are there any other rules arising under Title VII that should be proposed or adopted before all other Title VII rules? If so, which ones, and why?
• Are there any sets of rules included in this first category that should not be? If so, which ones, and why?
Following the adoption and effectiveness of the Definitional Rules and the proposal of the Cross-Border Rules, the Commission believes the next step in the implementation process should be requiring SDRs to register with the Commission and comply with applicable duties and core principles. Compliance earlier in the implementation process should facilitate the development and utilization of SDRs in a regulated manner and facilitate the reporting of SB swap transaction data by SB swap market participants to registered SDRs, as well as the public dissemination of SB swap data by registered SDRs. Because the Regulation SBSR Proposing Release links the timeframes for reporting and publicly disseminating SB swap transaction data to the registration of SDRs,
The Commission further believes compliance with final rules resulting from the SDR Proposing Release should be required as soon as practicable after the effectiveness of the Definitional Rules and proposal of the Cross-Border Rules, taking into account the necessity of SB swap market participants having an appropriate amount of time to analyze and understand the final rules and develop and test new policies and systems required as a result of them, to facilitate the establishment and utilization of registered SDRs. Furthermore, the Commission believes compliance with final rules resulting from the Regulation SBSR Proposing Release should be required at approximately the same time as compliance with final rules resulting from the SDR Proposing Release, also taking into account the necessity of SB swap market participants having an appropriate amount of time to analyze and understand the final rules and develop and test new policies and systems required as a result of them. As a result, the requirement to report SB swap transactions to registered SDRs would facilitate the comprehensiveness of SB swap data contained in SDRs. Accordingly, except as otherwise noted in sections II.C.(i) and (ii) below, the final rules resulting from the SDR Proposing Release and the Regulation SBSR Proposing Release would be the first sets of rules with which compliance would be required by the Commission, following the effectiveness of the Definitional Rules and the proposal of the Cross-Border Rules.
The following subsections discuss certain additional issues concerning the compliance dates for final rules resulting from (i) the SDR Proposing Release and (ii) the Regulation SBSR Proposing Release.
In accordance with section 763(i) of Title VII, the Commission issued the SDR Proposing Release, which proposed new rules under the Exchange Act governing the SDR registration process, duties, and core principles. This subsection discusses issues surrounding the timing of the SDR registration process and compliance with the duties, core principles, and other requirements resulting from these proposed rules, as well as the relationship of certain of the proposed rules in the Regulation SBSR Proposing Release to those in the SDR Proposing Release.
The Regulation SBSR Proposing Release would require that an entity registered with the Commission as an SDR also register with the Commission as a securities information processor (“SIP”) on existing Form SIP.
Proposed rules 13n-4 through 13n-11 are intended to implement the duties and core principles established by section 763(i) of the Dodd-Frank Act, which amended the Exchange Act to add Exchange Act section 13(n).
The Effective Date Order granted temporary exemptions from compliance with a number of provisions of section 13(n) of the Exchange Act that apply to SDRs generally, as they do not require a rulemaking or other Commission action or do not apply only to registered SDRs. Specifically, the Effective Date Order provided temporary exemptions from compliance with the following sections:
• Section 13(n)(5)(D)(i) of the Exchange Act,
• Section 13(n)(5)(F) of the Exchange Act,
• Section 13(n)(5)(G) of the Exchange Act,
• Section 13(n)(5)(H) of the Exchange Act,
• Section 13(n)(7)(A) of the Exchange Act,
• Section 13(n)(7)(B) of the Exchange Act,
• Section 13(n)(7)(C),
In accordance with sections 763 and 766 of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Commission issued the Regulation SBSR Proposing Release, which, among other things, proposed timeframes for the reporting of SB swap information to registered SDRs or to the Commission and for the public dissemination of SB swap transaction, volume, and pricing information.
Proposed rule 910(a) would have required reporting parties to report any pre-enactment SB swaps required to be reported pursuant to proposed rule 901(i) to a registered SDR no later than January 12, 2012 (180 days after the effective date of the Dodd-Frank Act), pursuant to the requirement of section 3C(e)(1) of the Exchange Act.
As discussed in section B.(i) above, the Commission believes SDRs should be required to register with the Commission and comply with the duties, core principles and other requirements applicable to SDRs, as soon as practicable after the effectiveness of the Definitional Rules and the proposal of the Cross-Border Rules, taking into account the necessity of SB swap market participants having an appropriate amount of time to analyze and understand the final rules and develop and test new policies and systems required as a result of them. The Commission also believes compliance with final rules resulting from the Regulation SBSR Proposing Release should be required as soon as practicable after the effectiveness of the Definitional Rules and the proposal of the Cross-Border Rules. Accordingly, the reporting of SB swap transaction information to registered SDRs and the dissemination of SB swap transaction information to the public pursuant to the implementation timeframes that would be set forth by the Commission final rules resulting from the Regulation SBSR Proposing Release would begin as soon as practicable after the registration of SDRs, also taking into account the necessity of SB swap market participants having an appropriate amount of time to analyze and understand the final rules and develop and test new policies and systems required as a result of them, which would be the triggering event for the reporting obligations contemplated by the Regulation SBSR Proposing Release.
With respect to defining block trade thresholds for SB swaps, the Commission stated in the Regulation SBSR Proposing Release that “it would be appropriate to seek additional comment from the public, as well as to collect and analyze additional data on the [SB swap] market, in the coming months” before proposing specific block trade thresholds.
The Commission recognizes that current data on the nature and size of SB swap transactions reflects a market that is not yet subject to any of the requirements to be adopted under Title VII, including the requirement that such SB swap transaction data be disseminated to the public. Data collected after these requirements are implemented may provide additional insight into the SB swap market, including whether these requirements are associated with a change in the nature and size of SB swap transactions. The Commission therefore is considering various means of how to approach establishing block trade thresholds, including, for example, establishing an initial period during which information regarding SB swaps would be reported (and subsequently disseminated publicly) on a delayed basis, while giving reporting parties the option of reporting their trades on a shorter timeframe.
The Commission continues to analyze the comments it received relating to block trade issues, and to consider how to implement the reporting and dissemination requirements of sections 763 and 766 of the Dodd-Frank Act in an appropriate manner. The Commission notes that it already has proposed a staged implementation schedule for the final rules resulting from the Regulation SBSR Proposing Release via proposed rule 910.
• Should the Commission adopt a phase-in of the SDR duties, core principles and other requirements resulting from the SDR Proposing Release that includes sequenced effective and compliance dates aimed at providing time for SDRs to complete their analysis of the final rules, develop and test systems, submit a completed Form SDR, and be in a position to demonstrate compliance with the federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder? How would such a phase-in period affect the goals of Title VII's reforms of the SB swap market? Would there be potential advantages or disadvantages of such a phase-in period? If so, what would they be? If there are potential disadvantages, what steps could be taken to mitigate them?
• Should the Commission offer SDRs an avenue to secure a grace period to defer compliance with some or all requirements of section 13(n) of the Exchange Act and the SDR duties, core principles and other requirements resulting from the SDR Proposing Release, in order for SDRs to obtain additional time to demonstrate compliance with the SDR duties, core principles and other requirements and to obtain registration with the Commission? If so, for which requirements should a grace period be made available and how long should such a grace period be? Should such a grace period be conditioned on any steps taken by the SDR, such as submission of a complete Form SDR within a certain time-frame? Would there be potential advantages or disadvantages of such a grace period? If so, what would they be? If there are potential disadvantages, what steps could be taken to mitigate them?
• Should SDRs be in compliance with all duties, core principles and other requirements resulting from the SDR Proposing Release at the time they seek to register with the Commission? Why or why not? Should compliance with some of these requirements be delayed until a later point in time? If so, for which requirements, until what point, and why should compliance be delayed? How would such delayed compliance affect the goals of Title VII's reforms of the SB swap market? Would there be potential advantages and disadvantages of such delayed compliance? If so, what would they be? If there are potential disadvantages, what steps could be taken to mitigate them?
• Is it appropriate for the final rules pertaining to the registration and regulation of SDRs resulting from the SDR Proposing Release and the final rules pertaining to the reporting and dissemination of SB swap transaction data resulting from the Regulation SBSR Proposing Release to be the first rules (except as otherwise noted in sections II.C.(i) and (ii) below) after the effectiveness of the Definitional Rules and the proposal of the Cross-Border Rules with which compliance is required? Why or why not?
• In determining when SDRs should be required to register with the Commission, should the Commission take into account other authorities', including the CFTC's, timing for a parallel or similar requirement? Why or why not? If so, what is the most appropriate manner of sequencing in relation to those potentially differing timelines? What would the potential advantages and disadvantages of doing so be? If there are potential disadvantages, what steps could be taken to mitigate them?
• In determining when SB swap transaction data should be reported to registered SDRs, should the Commission take into account other authorities', including the CFTC's, timing for a parallel or similar requirement? Why or why not? If so, what is the most appropriate manner of sequencing in relation to those potentially differing timelines? What would the potential advantages and disadvantages of doing so be? If there are potential disadvantages, what steps could be taken to mitigate them?
• Should the Commission defer its proposed rulemaking regarding block thresholds until after SDRs register with the Commission and the Commission begins to receive and analyze data required to be reported under final rules resulting from the Regulation SBSR Proposing Release? Why or why not? If yes, how many months of data would be sufficient? How would such a deferral affect the goals of Title VII's reforms of the SB swap market? Would there be potential advantages and disadvantages of such a deferral? If so, what would they be? If there are potential disadvantages, what steps could be taken to mitigate them?
• Should the Commission defer its proposed rulemaking regarding block thresholds until after SB swap transaction information begins to be publicly disseminated? Why or why not? If yes, how many months of public dissemination would be sufficient? How would such a deferral affect the goals of Title VII's reforms of the SB swap market? Would there be potential disadvantages of such a deferral? If so, what would they be and what steps could be taken to mitigate them?
• In the absence of the definition of any block trade thresholds by the Commission, what form could SB swap transaction data dissemination take? For example, should all trades be disseminated with a delay? If so, how long should that delay be? Furthermore, could the public dissemination of SB swap transaction data be phased such that initially, public dissemination is limited only to certain SB swap instruments? If so, which instruments? If not, why not? Alternatively, should the Commission set initial block thresholds based upon data currently available about the SB swap market and undertake a study to determine whether the thresholds should be modified as a result of how the market develops? How would each of these approaches affect the goals of Title VII's reforms of the SB swap market? What are the potential advantages and disadvantages of each of these approaches? If there are potential disadvantages, what steps could be taken to mitigate them?
• Can the impact of post-trade transparency on market behavior be inferred from data collected before post-trade transparency is required? Why or why not?
• In determining when SB swap transaction data should be disseminated to the public, should the Commission take into account other authorities', including the CFTC's, timing for a parallel or similar requirement? Why or why not? If so, what is the most appropriate manner of sequencing in relation to those potentially differing timelines? What would the potential advantages and disadvantages of doing so be? If there are potential disadvantages, what steps could be taken to mitigate them?
The following discussion explains the sequencing of compliance dates of the final rules regarding mandatory clearing of SB swaps pursuant to section 3C of the Exchange Act.
The Commission believes it may be appropriate for final rules resulting from the Clearing Procedures Proposing Release to be adopted before the rules further defining the terms “swap,” “security-based swap,” “security-based swap agreement,” and “mixed swap” are adopted and/or effective or before the Cross-Border Rules are proposed. The Commission, in the Clearing Procedures Proposing Release, also proposed rule and form amendments to implement the requirement that any financial market utility (“FMU”), which may include registered clearing agencies, that is designated as systemically important by the Financial Stability Oversight Council (“FSOC”) pursuant to Title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Act provide 60 days advance notice to the Commission of changes to its rules, procedures, or operations that could materially affect the nature or level of risks presented by the FMU.
However, given the number of final rules the Commission contemplates would need to be in place before the first SB swap mandatory clearing determination can be made, the Commission is considering bifurcating the effectiveness of final rules resulting from the Clearing Procedures Proposing Release for the purposes of Titles VII and VIII of the Dodd-Frank Act such that the mandatory clearing process for the purposes of Title VII would be effective upon a date later than the rules relating to advance notice under Title VIII. Under such an approach, the Commission would not begin reviewing SB swaps to determine whether such SB swaps are required to be cleared until such later date.
The Commission appreciates the views of commenters who have suggested that market participants that perform central clearing services, like clearing agencies, be required to be in compliance with the rules resulting from the Clearing Agency Standards Proposing Release pertaining to their governance and operation before compliance is required with mandatory clearing requirements.
To facilitate this ordering, the Commission believes the compliance dates of final rules resulting from the Clearing Agency Standards Proposing Release should be tranched and broadly sequenced by rule type. Taking into consideration comments received to date by the Commission, we believe the first subset of final rules with which compliance should be required are those resulting from proposed rule 17Ad-22 of the Clearing Agency Standards Proposing Release because this rule would address issues central to clearing agency governance, operation, participation standards, and risk management practices.
Additionally, the Commission understands that the final rules resulting from proposed rule 17Ad-22 should be effective at the time, or soon after, registered clearing agencies are designated by the FSOC as systemically important.
We believe compliance with a second subset of rules for clearing agencies—those focusing more specifically on matters of governance and mitigation of conflicts of interest—should be complied with subsequently, followed by compliance with a third subset composed of the requirements that address more specific components of a clearing agency's internal operations and administrative practices and other rules concerning clearance and settlement services. The Commission preliminarily believes the clearing of SB swaps could commence before compliance is required with these two subsets of rules.
The Commission understands the views of those commenters that indicate that clearing agencies will need sufficient time to adjust their current practices and establish new policies, procedures, and processes necessary to comply with final rules resulting from the Clearing Agency Standards Proposing Release.
Before SB swaps are required to be cleared, the Commission believes compliance with final rules resulting from the End-User Clearing Exception Proposing Release should be required.
As described in section B above, the Commission anticipates that final rules establishing the SDR registration and regulation regime resulting from the SDR Proposing Release and final rules resulting from the Regulation SBSR Proposing Release would be the first sets of final rules under Title VII with which compliance would be required, following the effectiveness of the Definitional Rules and the proposal of the Cross-Border Rules. Given this, compliance with final rules resulting from the Regulation SBSR Proposing Release likely would be required before SB swaps are required to be cleared and before the compliance date of final rules resulting from the End-User Clearing Exception Proposing Release. The Commission believes an appropriate amount of time should be provided between the compliance dates of final rules resulting from the Regulation SBSR Proposing Release and the compliance date of final rules resulting from the End-User Clearing Exception Proposing Release so that SB swap counterparties that seek to avail themselves of the end-user clearing exception would already be submitting SB swap transaction information to registered SDRs.
As described above, upon the compliance date of the mandatory clearing submission process rules for SB swap submissions under Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Commission would begin reviewing SB swaps submitted by clearing agencies to determine whether such SB swaps would be required to be cleared. Pursuant to section 3C(b)(3) of the Exchange Act,
Section 3C(b)(2) of the Exchange Act requires that a clearing agency submit to the Commission the SB swaps it plans to accept for clearing in order for the Commission to determine whether the SB swaps described in the submission are required to be cleared.
The Commission recognizes the importance of communicating clearly and in a timely fashion to SB swap market participants which SB swaps will be required to be cleared.
The Effective Date Order granted a temporary exemption from compliance with Exchange Act section 3C(g)(5)(B), which would permit a counterparty to an SB swap that is not subject to the mandatory clearing requirement to elect to require the clearing of such SB swap in certain circumstances.
The Effective Date Order also granted a temporary exemption from compliance by registered clearing agencies with Exchange Act section 3C(j) until the earliest compliance date set forth in any of the final rules regarding section 3C(j)(2) of the Exchange Act.
• Are there other final rules or sets of final rules beyond those resulting from the SDR Proposing Release and the Regulation SBSR Proposing Release with which compliance should be required before compliance is required with final rules resulting from the End-User Clearing Exception Proposing Release? If so, which ones, and why? Alternatively, should compliance with final rules resulting from the End-User Clearing Exception Proposing Release be accelerated to allow for the use of the exception to be established by those rules before compliance with final rules resulting from the SDR Proposing Release and the Regulation SBSR Proposing Release is required? For example, should the Commission consider temporarily de-linking the notice requirement of the end-user clearing exception from certain of the final rules resulting from the SDR Proposing Release and the Regulation SBSR Proposing Release, such that it could be utilized earlier in the implementation process? Why or why not? What would the potential advantages and disadvantages of doing so be? If there are potential disadvantages, what steps could be taken to mitigate them?
• Would there be positive or negative consequences of the Commission determining what SB swaps will be subject to mandatory clearing and allowing a period of time prior to requiring the clearing of such SB swaps? If so, what are the consequences, why would they occur, and if there are negative consequences, what steps could be taken to mitigate them? How would the allowance of such a period of time affect the goals of Title VII's reforms of the SB swap market?
• Has the Commission appropriately identified in the discussion above those rules with which compliance should be required before SB swaps are required to be cleared? Why or why not?
• Are there other rules or sets of rules with which compliance should be required before SB swaps are required to be cleared? If so, which ones, and why?
• Should the Commission require the mandatory clearing of SB swaps for a subset of SB swap market participants, such as SBSDs and their affiliates, before all of the final rules regarding the SBSD registration and regulation regime are in place? If so, which subset of SB swap market participants and why? Would doing so affect the goals of the Title VII reforms of the SB swap market?
• Should the Commission consider further phasing in such submissions and determinations by type of SB swap? If so, what further phasing in should occur? For example, should the Commission implement the mandatory clearing submission process for credit-related SB swaps, then for other SB swaps?
• Should the Commission phase in mandatory clearing by type of market participant? For example, should the Commission phase these requirements in the manner proposed by the CFTC in its Clearing and Trade Execution Implementation Proposal?
• In determining when SB swaps would be required to be cleared, should the Commission take into account the mandatory clearing timelines of other authorities? Why or why not? If so, what is the most appropriate manner of sequencing in relation to those potentially differing timelines? What would the potential advantages and disadvantages of doing so be? If there are potential disadvantages, what steps could be taken to mitigate them?
Pursuant to sections 3E
• Registration of SBSDs and MSBSPs;
• Business conduct standards for SBSDs and MSBSPs;
• Trade acknowledgment and verification of SB swap transactions by SBSDs and MSBSPs;
• Capital, margin and segregation requirements applicable to SBSDs and MSBSPs;
The Commission also recognizes the importance of determining whether margin for SB swaps that are required to be cleared can be calculated on a portfolio margining basis, as there might be customer capital-related efficiencies that result from holding SB swap and swap positions in a single account as opposed to multiple accounts.
• Reporting and recordkeeping requirements applicable to SBSDs and MSBSPs.
The Commission understands that SBSDs and MSBSPs would need an appropriate amount of time to determine whether they are required to register with the Commission and if so, to put into place the necessary infrastructure and documentation to comply with requirements ultimately applicable to such entities.
In the SB Swap Participant Registration Proposing Release, the Commission proposed that SBSDs and MSBSPs conditionally register with the Commission, and then convert such conditional registration to “ongoing registration” by filing a certification on or before the “last compliance date.”
A number of sequencing issues arise in relation to compliance with the requirements applicable to SBSDs and MSBSPs pursuant to sections 3E and 15F of the Exchange Act that are relevant to both conditional and non-conditional registration processes. Specifically, the Commission understands that some of the requirements that would be applicable to SBSDs and MSBSPs could be complied with by SBSDs and MSBSPs in a relatively shorter amount of time, while others would require more time. This, in turn, counsels against imposing all of the compliance dates for these requirements at once and instead suggests phasing in compliance by considering the amount of time estimated to be required for compliance with the relevant provisions. For example, the Commission understands from commenters that SBSDs and MSBSPs might need a shorter amount of time to come into compliance with certain recordkeeping rules applicable to such persons, as these rules likely may not necessitate extensive modifications to SBSDs' and MSBSPs' business practices.
Some commenters have indicated that SBSDs and MSBSPs might need more time to come into compliance with final rules resulting from the Business Conduct Standards Proposing Release, as adherence to these standards and duties could involve changes to the practices, policies, and procedures of SBSDs and MSBSPs.
In addition, the Commission understands from commenters that compliance with documentation standards resulting from the Trade Documentation Proposing Release, which include standards relating to confirmation, processing, netting, documentation, and valuation of all SB swap transactions,
The Commission also understands that capital, margin, and segregation requirements could have a significant impact upon the business structure of SBSDs and MSBSPs and this impact could influence the decision of whether a person registers with the Commission as such or whether it restructures its SB swap business such that registration is not required. Commenters have noted that the capital and margin requirements required to be adopted by Title VII may result in significant changes to the financial arrangements of the impacted persons and, as a result, should be sequenced in a manner that
Moreover, in the Cross-Border Rules, the Commission intends to address the extent to which non-U.S. SB swap market participants would be subject to the SBSD and MSBSP registration and regulatory requirements. Such market participants would need time to consider the extent to which these requirements apply to their SB swap business.
There are additional timing issues that are relevant regardless of whether a conditional registration process is employed. Upon registration, SBSDs and MSBSPs would be required to adhere to certain self-operating provisions of section 15F of the Exchange Act,
The Effective Date Order granted a temporary exemption from compliance with section 3E(f) of the Exchange Act, which requires SBSDs and MSBSPs to segregate initial margin amounts delivered by their counterparties in uncleared SB swaps if requested to do so by such counterparties.
If the Commission adopts a conditional SBSD and MSBSP registration process and this temporary exemption expires, SBSDs and MSBSPs would be required to segregate initial margin amounts delivered by their counterparties in uncleared SB swaps before the capital, margin, and segregation rules are adopted or before compliance with such rules is required. However, the Commission believes it would not be appropriate to require SBSDs and MSBSPs to comply with Exchange Act section 3E(f) before the Commission adopts and requires compliance with the rules pertaining to the segregation of margin pursuant to section 3E of the Exchange Act.
• Should the registration of SBSDs and MSBSPs be required before compliance with some, but not all, of the rules to be adopted under sections 3E and 15F of the Exchange Act is required? Why or why not? If yes, what would the impact of doing so be upon the goals of Title VII's reforms of the SB swap market?
• What would be the advantages and disadvantages of requiring SBSDs and MSBSPs to register with the Commission prior to the compliance date of the capital, margin, and segregation requirements? If there are potential disadvantages, what steps could be taken to mitigate them? Would SBSDs and MSBSPs be subject to additional costs or other burdens if the Commission were to require such persons to register with the Commission prior to the compliance date for the capital, margin, and segregation requirements? Why or why not? What would the impact of doing so be upon the goals of Title VII's reforms of the SB swap market?
• In determining when SBSDs and MSBPs should be required to register with the Commission, should the Commission take into account the CFTC's timing for its parallel requirement and/or the timing of other jurisdictions? Why or why not? If so, what is the most appropriate manner of sequencing in relation to those potentially differing timelines? What would the potential advantages and disadvantages of doing so be? If there are potential disadvantages, what steps could be taken to mitigate them?
• What would be the advantages and disadvantages of requiring SBSDs and MSBSPs to comply with final rules resulting from the Business Conduct Standards Proposing Release prior to the compliance date of the capital, margin, and segregation requirements and vice versa? If there are potential disadvantages, what steps could be taken to mitigate them? Would SBSDs and MSBSPs be subject to additional costs or other burdens if the Commission were to require compliance with final rules resulting from the Business Conduct Standards Proposing Release prior to the compliance date of the capital, margin, and segregation requirements? Why or why not? What would the impact of doing so be upon the goals of Title VII's reforms of the SB swap market?
• Would SBSDs and MSBSPs be subject to additional costs or other burdens if the Commission were to require compliance with the capital, margin, and segregation requirements prior to the compliance date of the business conduct standards? Why or why not? What would the impact of doing so be upon the goals of Title VII's reforms of the SB swap market?
• Should compliance with the final rules to be adopted under sections 3E and 15F of the Exchange Act be further sequenced in some manner beyond the
• In determining when SBSDs and MSBPs should be subject to the final rules to be adopted under sections 3E and 15F of the Exchange Act, should the Commission take into account the CFTC's timing for its parallel requirements and/or the timing of other jurisdictions? Why or why not? If so, what is the most appropriate manner of sequencing in relation to those potentially differing timelines? What would the potential advantages and disadvantages of doing so be? If there are potential disadvantages, what steps could be taken to mitigate them?
• Should the Commission phase the introduction of the SB swap trade documentation and margining requirements by type of SB swap market participant? For example, should the Commission phase these requirements in the manner proposed by the CFTC in its Trading Documentation and Margining Implementation Proposal?
The following section discusses timing issues pertaining to the implementation of the registration requirements and core principles applicable to SB SEFs as set forth in section 3D of the Exchange Act
The Dodd-Frank Act amended the Exchange Act to add new section 3D.
To facilitate the start of organized trading of SB swaps, the Commission proposed rule 801(c) of proposed Regulation SB SEF, which would provide a method for the Commission to grant temporary registration to an applicant to become a registered SB SEF.
In the SB SEF Proposing Release, the Commission stated that when considering whether to grant a request for temporary registration, the Commission would review the information provided by the applicant that the Commission believes to be relevant, including, but not limited to: whether the applicant's trading system satisfies the definition of a “security-based swap execution facility” in section 3(a)(77) of the Exchange Act and any Commission rules, interpretations or guidelines regarding such definition; any access requirements or limitations imposed by the SB SEF; the ownership and voting structure of the applicant; and any certifications made by the applicant, including with respect to its capacity to function as a SB SEF and its compliance with the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder.
As discussed further below, the Commission has exempted entities that meet the definition of “security-based swap execution facility” from having to comply with the registration requirements set forth in section 3D(a)(1) of the Exchange Act until the compliance date set forth in the final rules pertaining to the registration of SB SEFs. The Commission expects to set forth in any future release adopting final SB SEF rules the timing for compliance with the registration requirements (including any temporary registration requirements), the core principles and the rules thereunder.
Proposed Regulation MC would apply governance requirements and ownership and voting limitations to SB SEFs as a means to mitigate conflicts of interest for SB SEFs.
Section 3C(h) of the Exchange Act requires that transactions in SB swaps that are subject to the clearing requirement of section 3C(a)(1) of the Exchange Act must be executed on an exchange or on a SB SEF registered with the Commission (or a SB SEF exempt from registration), unless no exchange or SB SEF makes the SB swap available to trade (referred to as the “mandatory trade execution requirement”) or the SB swap transaction is subject to the clearing exception in section 3C(g) of the Exchange Act.
As discussed in section II.C above, the Commission anticipates that SB swap transactions that the Commission determines are subject to mandatory clearing would not be required to be cleared until the later of: (1) The compliance date of certain of the final rules to be adopted pursuant to the Clearing Agency Standards Proposing Release; (2) the compliance date of the final rules adopted pursuant to the End-User Exception Proposing Release; and (3) the Commission determining whether to propose amendments to the existing net capital and customer protection requirements applicable to broker-dealers with regard to SB swap clearing through such broker-dealers and whether to address portfolio margining with swaps. The Commission expects there would be no mandatory exchange or SB SEF trading of SB swap transactions (thus allowing such SB swap transactions to continue to trade OTC) before compliance is required with any final rules adopted pursuant to the Clearing Agency Standards Proposing Release and the End-User Exception Proposing Release and before the Commission considers appropriate steps to address potential issues relating to the existing broker-dealer net capital and customer protection requirements and portfolio margining with swaps, as SB swaps would not be required to be cleared until the Commission has determined that SB swaps are required to be cleared and the clearing requirement has become operative.
The Dodd-Frank Act additionally provides that SB swaps that are subject to mandatory clearing but that have not been made available to trade by an exchange or SB SEF would not be subject to the mandatory trade execution requirement.
As discussed above, the specific compliance dates for the core principles applicable to SB SEFs as set forth in the Exchange Act, and any final rules relating to SB SEFs that are adopted by the Commission, including registration rules, will be addressed in any release adopting such final rules. The Commission understands that some entities that intend to seek to register with the Commission as an SB SEF or to be exempt from such registration would do so as soon as possible, which likely would be, as discussed above, before the mandatory trade execution requirement becomes operational.
Based upon Commission staff conversations with industry participants, the Commission believes that some entities that meet the definition of an SB SEF may seek to register with the Commission (or be exempt from such registration) before the mandatory trade execution requirement becomes operational.
The compliance dates of certain of the rules pertaining to SB SEFs will result in the expiration of certain of the temporary exemptions and exceptions granted pursuant to the Effective Date Order and the Exchange Act Exemptive Order. Specifically, the following temporary exemptions granted pursuant to the Effective Date Order will expire upon the earliest compliance date set forth in any of the final rules pertaining to the registration of SB SEFs:
• The exemption from compliance with section 3D(a)(1) of the Exchange Act's prohibition against any person operating a facility for the trading or processing of SB swaps unless the facility is registered as a SB SEF or as a national securities exchange;
• The exemption from compliance with section 3D(c) of the Exchange Act's requirement that a national securities exchange (to the extent that it also operates a SB SEF and uses the same electronic trade execution system for listing and executing trades of SB swaps on or through the exchange and the facility) identify whether electronic trading of SB swaps is taking place on
Also upon the earliest compliance date set forth in the any of the final rules pertaining to the registration of SB SEFs, the temporary exceptions from the following Exchange Act requirements will expire:
• The temporary exemption from Exchange Act sections 5 and 6;
• The exemption applicable to any person other than a clearing agency acting as a central counterparty in SB swaps from the requirements to register as a national securities exchange under sections 5 and 6 of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder solely in connection with the person's activities involving SB swaps;
• The exemption applicable to broker-dealers from section 5 of the Exchange Act solely in connection with the broker's or dealer's activities involving SB swaps that it effects or reports on an exchange that is exempted from registration pursuant to the Exchange Act Exemptive Order's temporary exemption from Exchange Act sections 5 and 6;
• The exemption applicable to credit default swap central counterparties from the requirements of sections 5 and 6 of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder solely in connection with their calculation of mark-to-market prices for opened positions in cleared credit default swaps;
• The exemption applicable to any member of a credit default swap central counterparty from the requirements of section 5 of the Exchange Act solely to the extent such member uses any transactions in cleared credit default swaps to effect any transaction in cleared credit default swaps, or to report any such transaction, in connection with the credit default swap central counterparty's clearance and risk management process for cleared credit default swaps.
The Commission granted the foregoing exemptions in the Exchange Act Exemptive Order because certain persons, particularly those that would meet the statutory definition of “security-based swap execution facility,” may be engaging in activities that would subject them to the restrictions and requirements of Sections 5 and 6 of the Exchange Act as of the Effective Date. In setting the compliance dates for the final rules pertaining to the registration and regulation of SB SEFs, the Commission intends to consider whether it is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, and consistent with the protection of investors, to take further action with regard to any of the above-described temporary exemptions.
• Pursuant to the sequencing described herein, rules implementing the regulation and registration of SB SEFs would be sequenced later in the process than other rules implementing SB swap provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act. Do commenters believe this sequencing is appropriate or should any final rules governing SB SEFs be considered at an earlier point in time? Why or why not? How would this sequencing affect the goals of Title VII's reforms of the SB swap market?
• Should an SB SEF be required to comply with all duties, core principles and other requirements upon receiving approval of its registration with the Commission or should compliance with some of these requirements be delayed until a later point in time? Why or why not? If so, for which requirements and until what point in time should compliance be delayed? What factors, if any, should be considered in establishing the compliance dates for any SB SEF requirements that should be subject to delayed or phased-in compliance, and why should such factors be considered? How would such a delay or phasing in affect the goals of Title VII's reforms of the SB swap market? Would there be potential advantages and disadvantages of such a delay or phasing in? If so, what would they be? If there are potential disadvantages, what steps could be taken to mitigate them?
• In the SB SEF Proposing Release, the Commission proposed a rule that would permit applicants to apply for temporary registration as a SB SEF.
• If the Commission were to permit entities to submit applications for temporary SB SEF registration prior to their permanent SB SEF applications, how soon after an entity submitted its application for temporary SB SEF registration should it be required to submit its application for permanent SB SEF registration? For example, would 360 days be sufficient? Should a shorter or longer time period be applied? If so, what is an appropriate time period and why?
• In the SB SEF Proposing Release, the Commission proposed an initial implementation phase for the registration of SB SEFs, which phase would begin on the date of Regulation SB SEF's effectiveness and end on July 31, 2014.
• In determining when to require SB SEFs to register with the Commission, should the Commission take into account the CFTC's timing for its parallel requirement and/or the timing of other jurisdictions? Why or why not? If so, what is the most appropriate manner of sequencing in relation to those potentially differing timelines? What would the advantages and disadvantages of doing so be? If there are potential disadvantages, what steps could be taken to mitigate them?
• Should the Commission consider a delayed implementation schedule for any conflicts of interest rules that it may adopt for SB SEFs? Why or why not? How would such a delayed implementation schedule affect the goals of Title VII's reforms of the SB swap market? Would there be potential advantages and disadvantages of doing so? If so, what would they be? If there are potential disadvantages, what steps could be taken to mitigate them?
• Are there other rules or sets of rules with which compliance should be required, or which must be effective, before SB swaps subject to the mandatory trade execution requirement are required to be traded? If so, which ones, and why?
• Should the Commission phase in compliance with the mandatory trade execution requirement by type of market participant? For example, should the Commission phase in this requirement by market participant type in the manner proposed by the CFTC in its Clearing and Trade Execution Implementation Proposal?
• In determining when to require compliance with the mandatory trade execution requirement, should the Commission take into account the CFTC's timing for its parallel requirement and/or the timing of other jurisdictions? Why or why not? If so, what is the most appropriate manner of sequencing in relation to those potentially differing timelines? What would the advantages and disadvantages of doing so be? If there are potential disadvantages, what steps could be taken to mitigate them?
The Commission intends to monitor closely the imposition of the new regulatory regime upon SB swaps and SB swap market participants to determine to what extent, if any, additional regulatory action may be necessary. The Commission is soliciting comment on all aspects of this Statement and the guidance it provides regarding compliance dates for the rules to be adopted under Subtitle B of Title VII. Comments received will be addressed in the relevant final rulemakings to which they pertain.
By the Commission.
Copyright Office, Library of Congress.
Notice of proposed rulemaking and request for comments.
The Copyright Office is proposing a new regulation to implement provisions in the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010 (“STELA”) that will allow copyright owners to audit certain Statements of Account filed with the Copyright Office. Cable operators and satellite carriers pay royalties to and file Statements of Account with the Copyright Office every six months as required by law for the use of the statutory licenses that allow for the retransmission of programming carried on over-the-air broadcast signals. However, until the passage of STELA the licenses did not authorize the copyright owners, who are the beneficiaries of the royalties collected, to audit the information on Statements of Account and the amounts paid for use of the statutory licenses.
Comments on the proposed regulation must be received in the Office of the General Counsel of the Copyright Office no later than 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) on August 13, 2012. Reply comments must be received in the Office of the General Counsel no later than 5 p.m. EDT on September 12, 2012.
The Copyright Office strongly prefers that comments be submitted electronically. A comment submission page is posted on the Copyright Office Web site at
Tanya Sandros, Deputy General Counsel, or Erik Bertin, Attorney Advisor, Copyright GC/I&R, P.O. Box 70400, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 707-8380. Telefax: (202) 707-8366.
Every five years Congress considers legislation to reauthorize the statutory license that allows satellite carriers to retransmit television programs that are embodied in distant broadcast transmissions, provided that the satellite carrier files a Statement of Account and pays royalties to the Copyright Office. 17 U.S.C. 119. In May 2010, Congress passed the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010 (“STELA”), Public Law 111-175, 124 Stat. 1218, for this purpose. STELA reauthorized the Section 119 statutory license for satellite carriers and, in addition, it made certain amendments to the Section 119 license and a second statutory license, set forth in Section 111 of title 17 of the United States Code, that allows cable systems to retransmit television and radio programs that are embodied in local and distant broadcast transmissions.
A significant change to the law is the addition of new provisions directing the Register of Copyrights to develop procedures for the verification of the Statements of Account and royalty fees that cable operators and satellite carriers deposit with the Copyright Office under Sections 111 and 119. Specifically, Section 119(b)(2) directs the Register to
These provisions authorize the implementation of a process by which copyright owners, whose works are retransmitted under the statutory licenses, can for the first time verify the accuracy of the royalty payments made by cable operators and satellite carriers. They also make clear that the Register should consider the interests of the parties who will be subject to this verification procedure. For example, Section 111(d)(6) directs the Register to give cable operators an opportunity to review the auditor's conclusions, to remedy any errors identified in the auditor's report, and to correct any underpayments that the auditor may discover. Congress indicated that a single auditor should conduct the verification procedure on behalf of all copyright owners and that the Register should limit the number of times that a party may be subjected to an audit. Congress also directed the Register to establish procedures for protecting the confidentiality of non-public financial and business information that may be provided to the auditor during the course of his or her investigation.
Generally speaking, the proposed regulation is based on similar regulations that the Office has adopted for the verification of Statements of Account and royalty payments that are made under the statutory licenses for the use of ephemeral recordings and the digital performance of sound recordings under 17 U.S.C. sections 112(e) and 114(f), and for the importation and distribution of or the manufacture and distribution of digital audio recording devices under 17 U.S.C. chapter 10.
As discussed above, Section 119(b)(2) directs the Register to issue regulations to allow “interested parties” to verify the Statements of Account and royalty fees that are filed with the Copyright Office under Section 119. The term “interested parties” was not defined, and the statute does not provide any guidance on the nature and extent of this verification procedure. For example, Section 119(b)(2) does not indicate whether satellite carriers should be allowed to review the auditor's conclusions or to correct any underpayments that the auditor may discover. Nor does it provide for the confidential treatment of information that the satellite carrier may provide to the auditor. Section 111(d)(6), on the other hand, contains detailed instructions regarding the verification of Statements of Account and royalty payments filed by cable operators, including the number of times that a cable system may be audited, the qualifications of the auditor, and the deadline for initiating an audit, among other requirements.
However, the differences between the two provisions do not preclude the Register from adopting a single regulation for verification procedures conducted under Section 111(d)(6) and 119(b)(2). Nor is there anything in Section 111(d)(6) that directly contradicts the requirements of 119(b)(2) (or vice versa). Section 119(b)(2) allows “interested parties” to verify and audit Statements of Account and royalty payments filed by a satellite carrier. By contrast, Section 111(d)(6) only allows “copyright owners whose works were embodied in the secondary transmission of primary transmissions” to audit Statements of Account and royalty payments filed by a cable operator. While the statutory language in Section 111(d)(6) is more precise and identifies who may request an audit, it is nonetheless reasonable to assume that the only parties who would have an interest in verifying Statements of Account and royalty payments filed under Section 119 would be copyright owners whose works were embodied in a secondary transmission made by the party that filed that Statement. Moreover, virtually the same set of copyright owners participates in proceedings before the Copyright Royalty Board concerning the distribution of royalties under the cable and satellite licenses.
Consequently, because Congress provided a blueprint for the verification of Statements of Account in Section 111(d)(6) and because those requirements are similar to verification procedures that the Office has adopted in the past, the Office is inclined to use this provision as the framework for the regulations governing the verification of Statements of Account and royalty fees filed by both cable operators and satellite carriers.
The Office invites comments on whether Section 111(d)(6) should be used as the framework for the verification of Statements of Account filed under Sections 119(b)(2) or whether there are policy or administrative reasons for adopting a different approach for the verification of Statements and royalties filed by cable operators and satellite carriers.
As discussed above, the copyright owners have asked the Office to adopt separate regulations for cable operators and satellite carriers and they have provided the Office with a proposed draft for each regulation. The primary difference between the two suggested regulations is that the copyright owners' draft regulation for satellite carriers would apply retroactively, while their draft regulation for cable operators would apply on a prospective basis only. Specifically, the copyright owners' draft regulation for cable operators would apply to Statements of Account for accounting periods beginning on or after January 1, 2010 (
In support of this distinction, copyright owners argue that Section 119(b)(2) of “STELA permits verification of Statements of Account filed by satellite carriers prior to the 2010-1 accounting period.” Petition for Rulemaking at 4. However, Section 119(b)(2) does not contain any language that expressly permits copyright owners to audit a Statement of Account for an accounting period that predated the enactment of STELA. Nor does it contain any language that expressly permits the Office to adopt regulations providing for the verification of Statements of Account on a retroactive basis. On the contrary, when STELA does address this issue, it clearly states that copyright owners may audit a cable operator's Statements of Account, but only with respect to “accounting periods beginning on or after January 1, 2010 * * *.” Section 111(b)(6). The fact that the verification procedure for cable operators only applies to the accounting period that was in effect when STELA was enacted and any subsequent accounting period is clear evidence that Congress did not intend to impose a retroactive verification requirement on cable operators. On the other hand, the lack of similar language in Section 119 is not an indication that Congress intended to allow retroactive verification of Statements of Account filed by satellite carriers.
“Retroactivity is not favored in the law. Thus, congressional enactments and administrative rules will not be construed to have retroactive effect unless their language requires this result. By the same principle, a statutory grant of legislative rulemaking authority will not, as a general matter, be understood to encompass the power to promulgate retroactive rules unless that power is conveyed by Congress in express terms.”
Because the copyright owners are asking “for something the Office could not give as a matter of law,”
The proposed regulation follows the same approach that is used to initiate audit and verification procedures for examining Statements of Account filed under the Section 112 and 114 licenses and under Chapter 10. In keeping with this approach, a copyright owner would have to notify the Copyright Office in writing in order to initiate an audit procedure, and at the same time, it would have to serve a copy of that notice on the statutory licensee that would be subject to the audit. The Office does not intend to create a form for this notice, but at a minimum, the proposed regulation requires the copyright owner to identify the Statement(s) of Account and accounting period(s) that would be included in the audit and the statutory licensee that filed those Statement(s) with the Office. In addition, the notice of intent to audit would have to provide specific information about the copyright owner filing the notice, including its name, address, telephone number, facsimile number, and email address (if any), and the copyright owner would have to provide a brief statement establishing that it owns at least one work that was embodied in a secondary transmission made by that licensee.
Under the proposed regulation a notice of intent to audit filed by one copyright owner would preserve the right of all interested copyright owners to participate in the audit procedure. This would mean that once the Office has received a notice of intent to audit a particular semiannual Statement of Account, it would not accept another notice of intent to audit that same Statement. As discussed in Section G below, a satellite carrier or cable operator that owns one cable system would be subject to no more than one audit per year, while a cable operator that owns multiple cable systems would be subject to no more than three audits per year. This would mean that once the Office has received a notice of intent to audit a particular satellite carrier or a particular cable system that owns a single cable system, the Office would not accept another notice of intent to audit that licensee until January 1st of the following year. Likewise, once the Office has received three notices of intent to audit a particular multiple cable system operator within a specific calendar year, it would not accept another notice of intent to audit that same licensee until January 1st of the following year.
The filing of the notice would then require the Office to publish a notice in the
Conversely, a copyright owner that failed to join the audit within 30 days would not be permitted to participate in the selection of the auditor or the selection of cable systems that would be included in an audit of a multiple system operator. Nor would they be entitled to receive a copy of the auditor's report. Moreover, a copyright owner that failed to join the audit within the time allowed would not be permitted to conduct its own audit of the semiannual Statement(s) of Account identified in the
Under the copyright owners' proposal, the Office would be responsible for selecting a qualified and independent person to conduct the audit, and copyright owners and statutory licensees would be given an opportunity to comment on the proposed auditor before the final selection is made. Copyright owners who wished to participate in the audit and to receive a copy of the auditor's final report would have 15 days after the selection of the auditor to notify the Office of their intention to join the audit process, and the Office would be responsible for posting the names of these copyright owners on its Web site.
The Office has considered the copyright owners' approach but can see little justification for this degree of involvement by the Copyright Office. Section 111(d)(6)(A) directs the Office to “establish procedures for the designation of a qualified independent auditor,” but it does not require the Office to make this designation. The Office does not have the knowledge, experience, or resources needed to select an appropriate auditor or to manage the selection process beyond the initial notification step, and doing so would be a dramatic departure from the audit regulations that the Office has adopted in the past.
The Office believes that the copyright owners should be responsible for designating an auditor who will verify the Statement(s) of Account and royalty payments on their behalf and for resolving any disputes amongst themselves over the selection of the auditor. Likewise, the Office believes that the copyright owners who join in the audit should be responsible for paying the auditor for his or her work in connection with the audit, and for resolving any disputes amongst themselves concerning the allocation of those costs.
To this end, the proposed regulation would establish clear guidelines for the process, such as defining what constitutes a “qualified” and “independent” auditor. Specifically, an auditor would be considered “qualified” if he or she is a certified public accountant. Consistent with Section 111(d)(6)(A)(ii), an auditor would be considered “independent” if he or she is not an officer, employee, or agent of a copyright owner for any purpose other than the audit. In addition, an auditor would be considered “independent” for purposes of this procedure if that person is considered to be “independent” as that term is used in the Code of Professional Conduct of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (“AICPA”), in the Statements on Auditing Standards promulgated by the Auditing Standards Board of the AICPA, and in the Interpretations thereof issued by the Auditing Standards Division of the AICPA.
The standard for evaluating an auditor's independence is based on the Office's audit regulation for digital audio recording technology, which has been in effect since 1996.
If a statutory licensee has reason to believe that an auditor is not qualified or independent, it would have to raise those concerns with the copyright owner(s) who selected the auditor before the audit begins. If the parties are unable to resolve the matter, the cable operator or satellite carrier could raise its concerns with AICPA's Professional Ethics Division or with the State Board of Accountancy that licensed the auditor. Consistent with the verification procedures that the Office has adopted for other statutory licenses, the auditor would be allowed to proceed with the audit while his or her qualifications were under review.
Section 111(d)(6) allows copyright owners to audit Statements of Account and royalty payments filed with the Copyright Office for any accounting period beginning on or after January 1, 2010. In order to provide cable operators with a measure of certainty and to encourage copyright owners to exercise their audit rights in a prompt manner, Congress directed the Register to set a deadline for initiating an audit
Taking its cue from the statutory text, the proposed regulation would provide that the deadline for initiating a verification procedure would be calculated from the last day of the year in which the Statement of Account was filed. Thus, the final date for filing a notice of intent to audit a particular Statement would be December 31, regardless of whether the Statement was filed by a cable operator or a satellite carrier, whether the Statement covers the first or second half of the year, or whether the Statement was filed before or after the filing deadline. If the copyright owner intends to audit more than one Statement of Account, the notice of intent to audit would have to be filed within three years after the last day of the year that the earliest Statement was filed with the Office. For example, a notice of intent to audit three Statements of Account filed by a satellite carrier on July 30, 2010, January 30, 2011, and July 30, 2011 would have to be received in the Office on or before December 31, 2013.
The copyright owners' draft regulation would require the Office to designate an auditor within 60 days after the notice of intent to audit was published in the
The copyright owners' draft regulation would require statutory licensees to keep records that may be necessary to confirm the correctness of the calculations and royalty payments reported in a Statement of Account for at least five years after the Statement has been filed. While the Office agrees that statutory licensees should be required to retain their records until the deadline for auditing a Statement of Account has passed, it is not clear that such records need to be maintained for five years.
Under the proposed regulation, a statutory licensee would be required to retain such records for a minimum of three and a half years (
Section 111(d)(6)(A)(i) appears to provide copyright owners with a single opportunity to verify a particular Statement of Account. This provision directs the Register to “establish procedures for the designation of a qualified independent auditor with exclusive authority to request verification of such a statement of account on behalf of all copyright owners. * * *” Once an auditor has been selected, he or she would conduct that audit on behalf of “all” copyright owners, regardless of whether they decide to join the audit or not. Once the auditor has completed his or her review of that Statement, there is no apparent need for additional audits, because all copyright owners would have been given an opportunity to audit that Statement already. In light of this reading, the proposed regulation explains that a Statement of Account may be audited no more than once.
However, this basic limitation to a single audit for each Statement of Account does not address Congress's directive to “limit the frequency of requests for verification for a particular cable system and the number of audits that a multiple system operator can be required to undergo in a single year.” 17 U.S.C. 111(d)(6)(D). The statute does not indicate what those limits should be and there is no legislative history for STELA. It is clear that Congress did not intend to overburden cable operators that own and operate multiple systems, but striking an appropriate balance is not an easy question.
Under the copyright owners' proposal, it appears that a satellite carrier or a cable operator that owns one cable system would be subject to no more than one audit per year. However, a cable operator that owns more than one system would be subject to as many as three audits per year.
The Office included the copyright owners' proposal in the initial draft of the regulation, because the statute does not provide any meaningful guidance concerning the phrase “limit the frequency of requests for verification.” However, this is merely a starting point for further discussion on this issue. The Office welcomes comment from interested parties concerning the limit on the total number of audits that a satellite carrier, a cable system operator that owns a single cable system, or a multiple system operator can be required to undergo in a single year, and in particular, whether there is a legitimate reason for treating cable operators differently depending on whether they own one cable system or more than one system (
By contrast, the proposed regulation does not fully embrace the copyright owners' proposal concerning multiple system cable operators, because it does not appear to place any meaningful limit on the number of cable systems that can be included within each audit. Allowing the auditor to evaluate all of the cable systems owned by a multiple system operator may be unduly burdensome for the operator—depending on the number of systems within its portfolio. In order to protect the interests of a multiple system operator, the proposed regulation directs the auditor to study a sampling of the cable systems owned by that operator. At the same time, the regulation protects the interests of copyright owners by allowing them to
According to the AICPA, “the basic concept of sampling is well established in auditing practice.” American Institute of CPAs, Statement on Auditing Standards § 350.06 at 516, available at
The proposed regulation does not require the auditor to review a specific number of cable systems, because the number of systems owned by each multiple system operator will vary. On the one hand, an audit involving five or six cable systems may impose an undue burden on the operator if it owns only a half dozen systems. On the other hand, if a multiple system operator owns dozens of cable systems,
To address this conundrum, the Office believes that the interests of multiple system cable operators, copyright owners, and the auditor would be better served by allowing the auditor to study a percentage of the cable systems owned by a multiple system operator. The proposed regulation states that, in the case where there are two or more systems under common ownership, audits should involve no more than fifty percent of those systems. However, if the auditor discovers an underpayment of five percent or more in any Statement of Account filed by that operator, the size of the sample could be expanded to include any and all of the systems owned by that operator. The specific cable systems that would be included within the sample of the expanded audit would be selected by the copyright owner(s) who elected to participate in the audit. Setting the trigger at five percent would be generally consistent with the copyright owners' proposal for allocating the cost of the audit, which would require the auditor's fee to be paid by the statutory licensee if the auditor concludes that there was an underpayment of five percent or more reported in any Statement of Account that was included in the audit. However, this is merely a preliminary suggestion, and the Office solicits comments from all interested parties.
The Office invites comments on whether a sampling approach should be used for audits involving a multiple system operator, and if so, whether an audit involving up to fifty percent of the systems owned by a particular operator is likely to produce a statistically significant result or whether this threshold would be unduly burdensome for the operator and, if so, what percentage would be appropriate. The Office also invites comments on whether copyright owners should be allowed to increase the number of systems subject to audit if the auditor discovers an underpayment of royalties, and if so, whether the underpayment should be higher or lower than five percent in order to trigger this requirement.
STELA directed the Register to “require a consultation period for the independent auditor to review its conclusions with a designee of the cable system.” In addition, Congress directed the Register to “establish a mechanism for the cable system to remedy any errors identified in the auditor's report and to cure any underpayment identified,” and to “provide an opportunity to remedy any disputed facts or conclusions.”
Once the auditor has completed his or her review of the Statements of Account, the proposed regulation directs the auditor to prepare a written report setting forth his or her conclusions. The proposed regulation explains that the auditor should deliver a copy of that report to the statutory licensee before it is delivered to any of the copyright owner(s) that are participating in the audit. However, there is one exception to this rule. The auditor may deliver a copy of his or her report directly to the copyright owner(s) without sharing it with the statutory licensee if the auditor has reason to suspect that the statutory licensee has committed fraud and that disclosing his or her conclusions to the statutory licensee would prejudice further investigation of that fraud. The Office has taken a similar approach in other audit regulations.
Consistent with Section 111(d)(6)(C)(i), the auditor would be required to review his or her report with a designee of the statutory licensee before it is delivered to the copyright owner(s). Specifically, the auditor would be required to consult with a designee of the statutory licensee within 30 days after the auditor has delivered his or her report to the licensee. The Office assumes that the consultation would take place at a time and place that is mutually convenient for both parties, and that it would be conducted in person, by telephone, or video conference as the parties may agree. Because the issues presented in each audit will be unique, the regulation does not provide specific topics that the parties should review. But as discussed in Section H.3 below, if the statutory licensee discovers any factual errors or erroneous conclusions in the auditor's report, the designee must bring those issues to the auditor's attention during the consultation.
The Office invites comment on whether the regulation should provide a precise amount of time for the auditor to meet and confer with the statutory licensee's designee, and if so, whether 30 days would be a sufficient amount of time for the consultation period.
STELA directed the Register to “establish a mechanism for the cable system to remedy any errors identified in the auditor's report and to cure any underpayment identified.” The Office already has a process that allows cable operators and satellite carriers to amend their Statements of Account and to make additional royalty payments that may be due.
If the auditor concludes that any of the information in a Statement of
The copyright owners apparently agree with this approach. Their proposed regulation states that the statutory licensee “may * * * remedy any errors identified in the [auditor's] report * * * and cure any underpayment identified (subject to the filing fee and interest requirements generally applicable to late, corrected, or supplemental Statements of Account and royalty fees).” Petition for Rulemaking at 10. However, the copyright owners' proposal would give licensees only a brief opportunity to correct errors or underpayments identified in the auditor's report. Specifically, corrections and underpayments would have to be made during a 30-day consultation period when the auditor would be required to discuss his or her tentative findings with a representative of the licensee.
The statute directs the Office to establish a mechanism for correcting errors identified in the auditor's report and for curing underpayments, but it does not specify a deadline for making these adjustments. The proposed regulation would allow the Office to accept corrected Statements of Account and supplemental royalty payments before, during, or after a verification procedure. Certainly, it would be in the best interest of the licensee to file an amended Statement of Account and any royalties fees owed as soon as possible to avoid accruing additional interest payments and possible exposure to an infringement suit.
The Office welcomes comment on whether the proposed regulation provides statutory licensees with an adequate opportunity to “remedy any errors identified in the auditor's report and to cure any underpayments identified,” as required by Section 111(d)(6)(C)(ii). The Office also welcomes comment on whether it would be beneficial to give statutory licensees a specific deadline for correcting errors in their Statements of Account and for making supplemental royalty payments. If so, would 30 days be a sufficient amount of time, and should the deadline be based on the date that the auditor delivers his or her preliminary report to the statutory licensee or the date that the auditor delivers his or her final report to the copyright owner(s)?
If the statutory licensee disagrees with any of the facts or conclusions set forth in the auditor's report, the licensee's designee must raise those issues during the initial consultation with the auditor. If the auditor agrees that a mistake has been made, he or she should correct those errors before the report is delivered to the copyright owner(s). If facts or conclusions set forth in the report remain in dispute after the consultation, the licensee may provide the auditor with a written response setting forth its views. The licensee's deadline for providing this response would be two weeks (e.g., 14 calendar days) after the date of the initial consultation between the auditor and the licensee's representative.
Within 60 days after the auditor delivers his or her report to the statutory licensee, the auditor would be required to prepare a final report setting forth his or her conclusions and would be required to deliver that report to the copyright owner(s) that participated in the audit process. At the same time, the auditor would be required to provide the statutory licensee with a copy of the final report. (The copyright owners made a similar suggestion in their draft regulation, but they did not specify a deadline for the delivery of the final report nor did they offer to share the final report with the statutory licensee.) If the statutory licensee prepared a written response contesting the facts or conclusions set forth in the auditor's report, the auditor would be required to include that response as an attachment to his or her final report to the copyright owner(s).
The Office invites comment on whether the proposed regulation provides statutory licensees with an adequate “opportunity to remedy any disputed facts or conclusions” as required by Section 111(d)(6)(C)(iii). The Office also welcomes comment on whether two weeks would be a sufficient amount of time for the statutory licensee to prepare a written response to the auditor's report (if any), and whether 60 days would be a sufficient amount of time for the auditor to prepare his or her final report for the copyright owners.
The statute does not indicate whether the costs of the audit should be paid by the copyright owners or by the statutory licensee. The Office has, however, considered this same issue in its regulations concerning the audit of Statements of Account and royalty payments made under Section 112, Section 114, and Chapter 10, and it is inclined to use the same approach in this regulation.
As a general rule, the copyright owner(s) who selected the auditor would be expected to pay for the auditor's work in connection with the audit. Copyright owner(s) who do not participate in the verification procedure would not be required to pay for the auditor's services, and consequently they would not be entitled to receive a copy of the auditor's report, although they would benefit from the payment of any additional royalty fees made as a result of the audit. However, if the auditor concludes that there was an underpayment of five percent or more reported in any Statement of Account that was included in the audit, the proposed regulation would require the auditor's fee to be paid by the statutory licensee that filed that Statement with the Office with the proviso that if a court, in a final judgment (
The Office invites comment on whether the regulation should include a cost-shifting provision, and if so, whether the percentage of underpayment needed to trigger a cost shifting to the statutory licensee should be more or less than five percent.
STELA directed the Register to issue regulations “to provide for the confidential verification” of Statements of Account and royalty payments, and to “establish procedures for safeguarding all non-public financial
The Office also seeks comment on whether there are situations where copyright owner(s) would have a legitimate need to review the confidential information that may be provided by the licensee and, if so, whether the licensee's legitimate interest in safeguarding that information would be adequately protected by adopting a regulation requiring the copyright owner(s) to enter into an appropriate non-disclosure agreement with the statutory license. Under most of the audit regulations adopted by the Office, access to confidential information has been limited to the auditor and his or her employees and agents.
The Office seeks comment from the public on the subjects discussed above related to the implementation of the audit provisions adopted by Congress with the passage of the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010.
Copyright, General provisions.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Copyright Office proposes to amend part 201 of 37 CFR Chapter II, as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 201 reads as follows:
17 U.S.C. 702, 17 U.S.C. 111(d)(6), and 17 U.S.C. 119(b)(2).
2. Add new § 201.16 to read as follows:
(a)
(b)
(2) The term
(3)
(4)
(5) The term
(6) The term
(7)
(8)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(2) An auditor shall be considered qualified if:
(i) He or she is a certified public accountant,
(ii) He or she is not an officer, employee, or agent of a copyright owner for any purpose other than the audit;
(iii) He or she is independent as that term is used in the Code of Professional Conduct of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, including the Principles, Rules, and Interpretations of such Code applicable generally to attest engagements; and
(iv) He or she is independent as that term is used in the Statements on Auditing Standards promulgated by the Auditing Standards Board of the AICPA and Interpretations thereof issued by the Auditing Standards Division of the AICPA.
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
(k)
(2) A satellite carrier or a cable operator that owns a single cable system shall be subject to no more than one audit per calendar year.
(3) A cable operator that owns multiple cable systems shall be subject to no more than three audits per calendar year. Each audit shall be limited to a sampling of no more than fifty percent of the cable systems owned by that operator, unless the auditor concludes that there was an underpayment of five percent or more reported in any Statement of Account filed by that operator, in which case, the audit may be expanded to include any and all of the cable systems owned by that operator. The specific cable systems to be included within each sampling shall be selected by the copyright owner(s) who retained the auditor's services. The limitation on the number of systems under common ownership that can be audited in a calendar year does not limit in any way the number of Statements of Account submitted by the selected systems that may be audited in a calendar year.
(l)
(m)
(2) Access to confidential information under this section shall be limited to:
(i) The auditor; and
(ii) Subject to an appropriate confidentiality agreement, those employees, agents, consultants and independent contractors of the auditor who are not employees, officers, or agents of a copyright owner for any purpose other than the audit, who are engaged in the audit of a Statement of Account or activities directly related hereto, and who require access to the confidential information for the purpose of performing such duties during the ordinary course of their employment.
(3) The auditor and any person identified in paragraph (m)(2)(ii) of this section shall implement procedures to safeguard all confidential information received from any third party in connection with an audit, using a reasonable standard of care, but no less than the same degree of security used to protect confidential financial and business information or similarly sensitive information belonging to the auditor or such person.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
On April 4, 2012, the State of Tennessee, through the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), submitted a request to EPA to make a determination that the Bristol nonattainment area for the 2008 lead national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or standard) has attained the 2008 lead NAAQS. In this action, EPA is proposing to determine that the Bristol nonattainment area (hereafter also referred to as the “Bristol Area” or “Area”) has attained the 2008 lead NAAQS. This proposed determination of attainment is based upon complete, quality-assured and certified ambient air monitoring data for the 2009—2011 period showing that the Area has monitored attainment of the 2008 lead NAAQS. EPA is further proposing that, if EPA finalizes this proposed determination of attainment, the requirements for the Area to submit an attainment demonstration, together with reasonably available control measures (RACM), a reasonable further progress (RFP) plan, and contingency measures for failure to meet RFP and attainment deadlines shall be suspended for so long as the Area continues to attain the 2008 lead NAAQS.
Comments must be received on or before July 16, 2012.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0323, by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Steve Scofield or Richard Wong, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
EPA is proposing to determine that the Bristol Area (comprising the portion of Sullivan County bounded by a 1.25 kilometer radius surrounding the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates 4042923 meters E, 386267 meters N, Zone 17, which surrounds the Exide Technologies Facility) has attained the 2008 lead NAAQS. This proposal is based upon complete, quality-assured and certified ambient air monitoring data for the 2009-2011 monitoring period that show that the Area has monitored attainment of the 2008 lead NAAQS.
Further, EPA is proposing that, if this proposed determination of attainment is made final, the requirements for the Bristol Area to submit an attainment demonstration together with RACM, a RFP plan, and contingency measures for failure to meet RFP and attainment deadlines would be suspended for so long as the Area continues to attain the 2008 lead NAAQS. As discussed below, EPA's proposal is consistent with EPA's regulations and with its longstanding interpretation of subpart 1 of part D of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).
If this proposed rulemaking is finalized and EPA subsequently determines, after notice-and-comment rulemaking in the
On November 12, 2008 (73 FR 66964), EPA established a 2008 primary and secondary lead NAAQS at 0.15 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m
On April 4, 2012, the State of Tennessee, through TDEC, submitted a request to EPA to make a determination that the Bristol Area for the 2008 lead NAAQS has attained that standard based on complete, quality-assured, quality-controlled monitoring data from 2009 through 2011.
Following enactment of the CAA Amendments of 1990, EPA promulgated its interpretation of the requirements for implementing the NAAQS in the general preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990 (General Preamble) 57 FR 13498, 13564 (April 16, 1992). In 1995, based on the interpretation of CAA sections 171 and 172, and section 182 in the General Preamble, EPA set forth what has become known as its “Clean Data Policy” for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
Since 1995, EPA has applied its interpretation under the Clean Data Policy in many rulemakings, suspending certain attainment-related planning requirements for individual areas, based on a determination of attainment.
EPA also incorporated its interpretation under the Clean Data Policy in implementation rules.
The Clean Data Policy represents EPA's interpretation that certain requirements of subpart 1 of part D of the Act are by their terms not applicable to areas that are attaining the NAAQS.
CAA section 172(c)(1), the requirement for an attainment demonstration, provides in relevant part that SIPs “shall provide for attainment of the [NAAQS].” EPA has interpreted this requirement as not applying to areas that have attained the standard. If an area has attained the standard, there is no need to submit a plan demonstrating how the area will reach attainment. In the General Preamble (57 FR 13564), EPA stated that no other measures to provide for attainment would be needed by areas seeking redesignation to attainment since “attainment will have been reached.”
A component of the attainment plan specified under section 172(c)(1) is the requirement to provide for “the implementation of all reasonably available control measures as expeditiously as practicable” (RACM). Since RACM is an element of the attainment demonstration,
CAA section 172(c)(2) provides that state implementation plan (SIP) provisions in nonattainment areas must require “reasonable further progress.” The term “reasonable further progress” is defined in section 171(1) as “such annual incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are required by this part or may reasonably be required by the Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the applicable NAAQS by the applicable date.” Thus, by definition, the “reasonable further progress” provision requires only such reductions in emissions as are necessary to attain the NAAQS. If an area has attained the NAAQS, the purpose of the RFP requirement has been fulfilled, and since the area has already attained, showing that the State will make RFP towards attainment “[has] no meaning at that point.” General Preamble, 57 FR 13498, 13564 (April 16, 1992).
CAA section 172(c)(9) provides that SIPs in nonattainment areas “shall provide for the implementation of specific measures to be undertaken if the area fails to make reasonable further progress, or to attain the [NAAQS] by the attainment date applicable under this part. Such measures shall be included in the plan revision as contingency measures to take effect in any such case without further action by the State or [EPA].” This contingency measure requirement is inextricably tied to the reasonable further progress and attainment demonstration requirements. Contingency measures are implemented if reasonable further progress targets are not achieved, or if attainment is not realized by the attainment date. Where an area has already achieved attainment by the attainment date, it has no need to rely on contingency measures to come into attainment or to make further progress to attainment. As EPA stated in the General Preamble: “The section 172(c)(9) requirements for contingency measures are directed at ensuring RFP and attainment by the applicable date.”
It is important to note that should an area attain the lead standards based on 3 years of data, its obligation to submit an attainment demonstration and related planning submissions is suspended only for so long as the area continues to attain the standard. If EPA subsequently determines, after notice-and-comment rulemaking, that the Area has violated the 2008 lead NAAQS, the requirements for the State to submit a SIP to meet the previously suspended requirements would be reinstated. It is likewise important to note that the area remains designated nonattainment pending a further redesignation action.
Today's proposed rulemaking assesses whether Bristol Area has attained the 2008 Lead NAAQS, based on the most recent 3 years of quality-assured data. The Bristol Area comprises the portion of Sullivan County bounded by a 1.25 kilometer radius surrounding the UTM coordinates 4042923 meters E, 386267 meters N, Zone 17, which surrounds the Exide Technologies Facility.
Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR 50.16, the 2008 primary and secondary lead standards are met when the maximum arithmetic 3-month mean concentration for a 3-year period, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, Appendix R, is less than or equal to 0.15 µg/m
EPA has reviewed the ambient air monitoring data for the Bristol Area in
40 CFR part 58, Appendix D, Section 4.5, states that “At a minimum, there must be one source-oriented State and Local Air Monitoring Station site located to measure the maximum Pb [lead] concentration in ambient air resulting from each non-airport Pb source which emits 0.50 or more tons per year * * *.” The Exide Technologies facility in Bristol is responsible for operating the monitors that meet this requirement. EPA's review shows that Exide has been exceeding the minimum monitoring requirement of one monitor, and is currently operating three Federal reference method (FRM) source-oriented monitors at the facility, which meet the quality assurance requirements of 40 CFR part 58, Appendix A. In addition, the State of Tennessee is also operating one additional source-oriented FRM monitor (AQS ID 47-163-3004, identified in Table 1) at the Exide facility. The State's monitor originally operated from January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2009 (AQS ID 47-163-4002). Beginning January 1, 2010, Tennessee's monitor was relocated 0.3 miles to its current location, approximately 10 feet from Exide's design value monitor (47-163-3001), which is an area of expected maximum concentration at the site.
Table 1 shows the 2009-2011 design values at the Bristol Area monitors (the metrics calculated in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, Appendix R, for determining compliance with the NAAQS) for the 2008 lead NAAQS. It also shows the maximum 3-month rolling average for each individual year.
EPA's review of these data indicates that the Bristol Area has attained and continues to attain the 2008 Lead NAAQS, with a design value of 0.09 µg/m
EPA is proposing to determine that the Bristol Area has attained the 2008 lead NAAQS, based on complete, quality-assured and certified data for 2009-2011. Preliminary data available for 2012 indicates that the area continues to be in attainment. EPA further proposes that, if its proposed determination of attainment is made final, the requirements for the Bristol Area to submit an attainment demonstration and associated RACM, a RFP plan, contingency measures, and any other planning SIPs related to attainment of the 2008 lead NAAQS would be suspended for so long as the Area continues to attain the 2008 lead NAAQS. EPA's proposal is consistent and in keeping with its long-held interpretation of CAA requirements, as well as with EPA's regulations for similar determinations for ozone (
Finalizing this proposed action would not constitute a redesignation of the Area to attainment of the 2008 Lead NAAQS under section 107(d)(3) of the CAA. Further, finalizing this proposed action does not involve approving a maintenance plan for the Area as required under section 175A of the CAA, nor would it find that the Area has met all other requirements for redesignation. Even if EPA finalizes the proposed action, the Bristol Area would remain designated nonattainment for the 2008 Lead NAAQS until such time as EPA determines that the Area meets the CAA requirements for redesignation to attainment and takes action to redesignate the Area.
If the Bristol Area continues to monitor attainment of the 2008 lead NAAQS, EPA proposes that the requirements for the Bristol Area to submit an attainment demonstration and associated RACM, a RFP plan, contingency measures, and any other planning SIPs related to attainment of the annual PM
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action proposes to make a determination based on air quality data and to suspend certain Federal requirements. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Lead, Reporting and Recordkeeping requirements.
42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended), the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Development administers rural utilities programs through the Rural Utilities Service. The USDA Rural Development invites comments on the following information collections for which the Agency intends to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Comments on this notice must be received by August 13, 2012.
Michele Brooks, Director, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, USDA Rural Development, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., STOP 1522, Room 5162, South Building, Washington, DC 20250-1522. Telephone: (202) 690-1078. Fax: (202) 720-8435.
The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) regulation (5 CFR part 1320) implementing provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) requires that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities [see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)]. This notice identifies information collections that RUS is submitting to OMB for extension.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of permits.
Notice is hereby given that permits have been issued to the Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC, Dr. M. Bradley Hanson, Principal Investigator) [File No. 16163], 2725 Montlake Blvd. East, Seattle, WA 98112-2097; The Whale Museum (Jenny Atkinson, Responsible Party) [File No. 16160], P.O. Box 945, Friday Harbor, WA 98250; and The Center for Whale Research (CWR; Kenneth C. Balcomb III, Responsible Party) [File No. 15569], P.O. Box 1577, Friday Harbor, WA 98250 to conduct research on marine mammals.
The permit and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following offices: See
The following Analysts at (301) 427-8401: Joselyd Garcia-Reyes [for File No. 16160]; Laura Morse [for File No. 16163]; and Jennifer Skidmore [for File No. 15569].
On November 3, 2011, notice was published in the
An environmental assessment (EA) was prepared analyzing the effects of the permitted activities on the human environment in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
As required by the ESA, issuance of these permits was based on a finding that such permits: (1) Were applied for in good faith; (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of such endangered species; and (3) are consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA.
Documents may be reviewed in the following locations:
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Notice and request for public comment.
The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (the “CFPB” or the “Bureau”), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other federal agencies to comment on a proposed information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the Bureau is soliciting comments concerning the information collection requirements relating to gather information from various depository and non-depository providers of consumer financial products and services (“providers”) regarding the compliance costs and other effects of proposed and existing regulations, pursuant to the Bureau's authorities under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank Act”), Public Law 111-203.
Written comments are encouraged and must be received on or before August 13, 2012 to be assured of consideration.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
Requests for additional information or copies of the documents contained under this approval number should be directed to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, (Attention: PRA Office), 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20552, or through the Internet at
A number of Federal laws require agencies to consider the benefits, costs, and impacts of rulemaking actions, including the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the Paperwork Reduction Act. Furthermore, Section 1022(b)(2)(A) of the Dodd-Frank Act calls for the Bureau to consider the potential benefits and costs of certain rules to consumers and “covered persons,” including depository and non-depository providers of consumer financial
In order to fulfill the Bureau's rulemaking mandates, the Bureau seeks to collect qualitative information from industry participants regarding the compliance costs and other effects on providers and consumers, both as to existing regulations in force as well as to proposed new regulations. Through the collections under this generic clearance, the Bureau aims to understand the effects of potential regulations on providers and consumers, the ways in which providers may comply with potential regulations, and the costs associated with compliance.
The Bureau has already begun to review existing regulations through a request for public comment on streamlining inherited regulations. The information gathered on compliance costs and other effects through this generic information collection will further enhance the Bureau's understanding of how existing regulations are affecting providers.
In order to gather the information indicated above, the Bureau intends to use structured interviews, focus groups, conference calls, and written questionnaires—delivered via email or administered through an online survey. The Bureau will seek different providers' estimates of compliance burdens on their respective institutions. The Bureau recognizes that burdens vary depending on the size and type of the institution, as well as on the products and services offered. Therefore, the collections of information will seek to sample providers that are representative of markets affected by a proposed rule, or are already under the authority of existing regulations.
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Notice and request for information.
Section 1035 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank Act) established a Private Education Loan Ombudsman (Ombudsman) within the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Bureau) to provide timely assistance to borrowers of private education loans. Among other things, the Dodd-Frank Act directs the Ombudsman to “compile and analyze data on borrower complaints” regarding private education loans and make appropriate recommendations to the Director of the Bureau, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Education, and Congress. In March 2012, the Bureau launched the intake of borrower complaints on private education loans. In order to “compile and analyze data” on complaints processed through other mechanisms, with this Notice and Request for Information, the Ombudsman seeks information on borrower complaints about private education loans.
Comments must be received on or before August 13, 2012, to be considered and analyzed to develop recommendations as specified in Section 1035(c)(4).
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
For general inquiries and submission process questions, please call Monica Jackson at (202) 435-7275.
Section 1035 of the Dodd-Frank Act establishes a Private Education Loan Ombudsman (Ombudsman) within the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Bureau). Section 1035(c)(3) requires the Ombudsman to compile and analyze data on borrower complaints regarding private education loans. Sections 1035(d) and 1035(c)(4) further require the Ombudsman to prepare an annual report to Congress and make appropriate
In support of the duties of the Ombudsman under section 1035 of Dodd-Frank, the Bureau seeks information on borrower complaints about private education loans.
• Institutions of higher education's financial aid offices;
• State attorneys general;
• State and local banking and consumer protection agencies;
• Borrower advocates and legal aid entities; or
• Complaint resolution departments of lenders and servicers;
• Other interested parties.
To assist the Bureau in satisfying the requirement that the Ombudsman shall “compile and analyze data on borrower complaints” mandated by Section 1035, the Bureau is interested in receiving comments that could bear on its analysis of data regarding borrower complaints. The Bureau is therefore interested in responses to the questions outlined below, including, where known, information on the volume of complaints received and complaint outcomes. Please note that the Bureau is not soliciting individual borrower complaints in response to this notice and request for information. Nor is the Bureau seeking personally identifiable information (PII) regarding borrower complaints, from the parties to the complaint or any third party. Responses to this subsection should not contain account numbers, Social Security numbers or other personal information that could be used to identify the complainant or another party identified in a complaint, or in any way otherwise reveal personally identifiable information. Below are some general areas for which information is being sought. Please feel free to respond to any or all of the questions below:
1. What complaints are submitted by borrowers of private student loans? Among other things, responses can address topics that relate to some or all of following areas:
a. Whether the complainant is the primary borrower, co-signer, school, or other party;
b. The topic or topics featured in complaints (e.g., credit reporting, debt collection, billing disputes);
c. The types of institutions of higher education that complainants attended; or
d. Generalized descriptions or summaries of individual private education loan borrower complaints that do not include personally identifiable information.
2. What processes do institutions have in place to respond to complaints from private education loan borrowers? Among other things, the Bureau invites comments on topics such as:
a. How institutions receive complaints from private student loan borrowers; and
b. How institutions respond to complaints from private student loan borrowers.
Wednesday, June 20, 2012, 10 a.m.-12 Noon.
Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland.
Commission Meeting—Open to the Public.
A live webcast of the Meeting can be viewed at
For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, call (301) 504-7948.
Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.
Washington Headquarters Services, DoD.
Notice.
In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by August 13, 2012.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to Washington Headquarters Services, Human Resources Directorate, ATTN: Jo-Anna Griffith, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite 03D08, Alexandria, VA 22350-3200, or call (571) 372-4034.
The completed form will document requests for reasonable accommodation(s) (regardless of type of accommodation) and the outcome of such requests. Respondents are employees of WHS serviced components or applicants for employment of WHS serviced components.
Office of the Secretary of Defense, DoD.
Notice.
In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by August 13, 2012.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal, please write to the Director, Office of Economic Adjustment, 400 Army Navy Drive, Suite 200, Arlington, VA 22202-4704, or call the Director, Office of Economic Adjustment at (703) 604-6020.
Respondents are LRAs that have executed EDC agreements with a Military Department that transferred property from a closed military installation. As provided by Public Law 101-510 such agreements require that the LRA reinvest the proceeds from any sale or lease of EDC property (or any portion thereof) during at least the first seven years after the date of the initial transfer of the property to support the economic redevelopment of, or related to, the installation. The Secretary of Defense may recoup from the LRA such portion of these proceeds not used to support the economic redevelopment of, or related to, the installation. Military Departments monitor LRA compliance with this provision by requiring an annual financial statement certified by an independent Certified Public Accountant. No specific form is required.
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement concerning the provision at FAR 52.247-51, entitled “Evaluation of Export Offers.”
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary; whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Submit comments on or before August 13, 2012.
Submit comments identified by Information Collection 9000-0057, Evaluation of Export Offers
•
•
•
Mr. Curtis E. Glover, Sr., Procurement Analyst, Office of Governmentwide Acquisition Policy, GSA, (202) 501-4082 or via email at
Offers submitted in response to Government solicitations must be evaluated and awards made on the basis of the lowest laid down cost to the Government at the overseas port of discharge, via methods and ports compatible with required delivery dates and conditions affecting transportation known at the time of evaluation. FAR provision 52.247-51, “Evaluation of Export Offers,” is required for insertion in Government solicitations when supplies are to be exported through Contiguous United States (CONUS) ports and offers are solicited on a free onboard (f.o.b.) origin or f.o.b. destination basis. The provision has three alternates, to be used (1) when the CONUS ports of export are DoD water terminals, (2) when offers are solicited on an f.o.b. origin only basis, and (3) when offers are solicited on an f.o.b. destination only basis. The provision collects information regarding the vendor's preference for delivery ports. The information is used to evaluate offers [on the basis of shipment through the port resulting in the lowest cost to the Government].
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Notice of intent.
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Huntington District will prepare a General Reevaluation Report (GRR) and Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) to disclose potential impacts to the natural, physical, and human environment resulting from the implementation of alternatives to reduce foreseeable traffic delays and associated economic losses that occur during periodic maintenance at the Greenup Locks and Dam located on the Ohio River. A Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was previously completed for the project in April 2000. This study recommended a 600-foot (ft) extension of the existing auxiliary lock chamber to a length of 1200 ft. The project was authorized by Congress in 2000; however, no funds have been appropriated for project construction. Due to the amount of time that has elapsed since completion of the Feasibility Report, and the associated economic, environmental and reliability changes that may have occurred during this time, the Federal interest must be reevaluated. The project alternatives being considered include the plans considered in the previous study as well as variations to these plans which may include both structural and nonstructural operational measures, and the No Action alternative.
A public scoping meeting will be held on June 28, 2012 from 5:30-7:30 p.m.
The public scoping meeting will be held in the Kentucky room of the Ashland Plaza Hotel, located at 1441 Winchester Avenue, Ashland, KY 41101.
Rebecca Black, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Huntington District, 502 Eighth Street, Huntington, WV 25701-2070. Telephone: (304) 399-5172. Email:
1.
2.
b. In 2000, the Chief of Engineers recommended that the Greenup Locks and Dam be modified for the purposes of navigation efficiency and reliability. The Greenup plan of improvement included a 600 ft extension of the existing auxiliary lock chamber to a length of 1200 ft, extension of the downstream guidewall, filling and emptying system improvements, installation of a miter gate quick changeout system for faster repairs to the lock miter gates, an off-site dry dock to minimize transportation impacts during construction, and environmental mitigation measures.
c. The District is currently utilizing Operation and Maintenance funds to replace the miter gates in the main chamber. Replacement of the miter gates is expected to increase the reliability of main chamber operation, resulting in fewer traffic delays at the lock. In addition, barge traffic at the lock has decreased in recent years and future traffic forecasts are expected to reflect a continuation of that trend.
d. The without project conditions developed in the 2000 Feasibility Report and EIS have changed for the Greenup Locks due to the length of time since the report was completed, changes in the reliability of the main chamber, and a potential for decreased traffic at the project. Therefore, the Corps will complete a study to reevaluate the feasibility of project alternatives including their economic and environmental effects to identify federal interest.
3.
b. The Corps invites full public participation to promote open communication and better decision-making. All persons and organizations that have an interest in the Greenup Lock improvements and its potential effects on the environment are urged to participate in this NEPA evaluation process. Assistance will be provided upon request to anyone having difficulty with learning how to participate.
c. Public comments are welcomed anytime throughout the NEPA process. Formal opportunities for public participation include: (1) Public meeting to be held in the community of Ashland; (2) Anytime during the NEPA process via mail, telephone or email; (3) During Review and Comment on the Draft SEIS; and (4) Review of the Final SEIS. Schedules and locations will be announced in local news media. Interested parties should submit contact information to be included on the mailing list for public distribution of meeting announcements and documents. Please address all written comments and suggestions concerning this proposed project to Natalie McKinley, CELRH-PM-PD-F, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Huntington District, 502 Eighth Street, Huntington, WV 25701-2070. Telephone: 304-399-5842. Email:
4.
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Notice.
The Commander of the Northwestern Division of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is soliciting applications to fill vacant stakeholder representative member positions on the Missouri River Recovery Implementation Committee (MRRIC). Members are sought to fill vacancies on a committee to represent various categories of interests within the Missouri River basin. The MRRIC was formed to advise the Corps on a study of the Missouri River and its tributaries and to provide guidance to the Corps with respect to the Missouri River recovery and mitigation activities currently underway. The Corps established the MRRIC as required by the U.S. Congress through the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (WRDA), Section 5018.
The agency must receive completed applications and endorsement letters no later than July 16, 2012.
Mail completed applications and endorsement letters to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District (Attn: MRRIC), 1616 Capitol Avenue, Omaha, NE 68102-4901 or email completed applications to
Mary S. Roth, 402-995-2919.
The operation of the MRRIC is in the public interest and provides support to the Corps in performing its duties and responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531
A Charter for the MRRIC has been developed and should be reviewed prior to applying for a stakeholder representative membership position on the Committee. The Charter, operating procedures, and stakeholder application forms are available electronically at
1. The Committee provides guidance to the Corps, and affected Federal agencies, State agencies, or Native American Indian Tribes on a study of the Missouri River and its tributaries to determine the actions required to mitigate losses of aquatic and terrestrial habitat, to recover federally listed species protected under the Endangered Species Act, and to restore the river's ecosystem to prevent further declines among other native species. This study is identified in Section 5018 (a) of the WRDA. It will result in a single, comprehensive plan to guide the implementation of mitigation, recovery, and restoration activities in the Missouri River Basin. This plan is referred to as the Missouri River Ecosystem Restoration Plan (MRERP). For more information about the MRERP go to
2. The MRRIC also provides guidance to the Corps with respect to the Missouri River recovery and mitigation plan currently in existence, including recommendations relating to changes to the implementation strategy from the use of adaptive management; coordination of the development of consistent policies, strategies, plans, programs, projects, activities, and priorities for the Missouri River recovery and mitigation plan. Information about the Missouri River Recovery Program is available at
3. Other duties of MRRIC include exchange of information regarding programs, projects, and activities of the agencies and entities represented on the Committee to promote the goals of the Missouri River recovery and mitigation plan; establishment of such working groups as the Committee determines to be necessary to assist in carrying out the duties of the Committee, including duties relating to public policy and scientific issues; facilitating the resolution of interagency and intergovernmental conflicts between entities represented on the Committee associated with the Missouri River recovery and mitigation plan; coordination of scientific and other research associated with the Missouri River recovery and mitigation plan; and annual preparation of a work plan and associated budget requests.
This Notice is for individuals interested in serving as a stakeholder member on the Committee. In accordance with the Charter for the MRRIC, stakeholder membership is limited to 28 people, with each member having an alternate. Members and alternates must be able to demonstrate that they meet the definition of “stakeholder” found in the Charter of the MRRIC. Applications are currently being accepted for representation in the stakeholder interest categories listed below:
a. Environmental/Conservation Organizations;
b. Hydropower;
c. Irrigation;
d. Local Government;
e. Navigation;
f. Thermal Power;
g. Water Quality;
h. Water Supply;
i. Waterway Industries; and
j. At Large.
Terms of stakeholder representative members of the MRRIC are three years. There is no limit to the number of terms a member may serve. Incumbent Committee members seeking reappointment do not need to re-submit an application. However, they must submit a renewal letter and related materials as outlined in the “Streamlined Process for Existing Members” portion of the document
Members and alternates of the Committee will not receive any compensation from the federal government for carrying out the duties of the MRRIC. Travel expenses incurred by members of the Committee will not be reimbursed by the federal government.
1. The name of the applicant and the primary stakeholder interest category that person is qualified to represent;
2. A written statement describing the applicant's area of expertise and why the applicant believes he or she should be appointed to represent that area of expertise on the MRRIC;
3. A written statement describing how the applicant's participation as a Stakeholder Representative will fulfill the roles and responsibilities of MRRIC;
4. A written description of the applicant's past experience(s) working collaboratively with a group of individuals representing varied interests towards achieving a mutual goal, and the outcome of the effort(s);
5. A written description of the communication network that the applicant plans to use to inform his or her constituents and to gather their feedback, and
6. A written endorsement letter from an organization, local government body, or formal constituency, which demonstrates that the applicant represents an interest group(s) in the Missouri River basin.
To be considered, the application must be complete and received by the close of business on July 16, 2012, at the location indicated (see
• Ability to commit the time required.
• Commitment to make a good faith (as defined in the Charter) effort to seek balanced solutions that address multiple interests and concerns.
• Agreement to support and adhere to the approved MRRIC Charter and Operating Procedures.
• Demonstration of a formal designation or endorsement by an organization, local government, or constituency as its preferred representative.
• Demonstrations of an established communication network to keep constituents informed and efficiently seek their input when needed.
• Agreement to participate in collaboration training as a condition of membership.
All applicants will be notified in writing as to the final decision about their application.
This study is intended to inform the Department's decisions about how to structure future grant competitions; how to support evaluation and performance reporting activities among funded grantees, including technical assistance to improve the quality of evaluations and performance reporting; and how to make the best possible use of grantee evaluation findings.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before August 13, 2012.
Written comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to
Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that Federal agencies provide interested parties an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. The Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Privacy, Information and Records Management Services, Office of Management, publishes this notice containing proposed information collection requests at the beginning of the Departmental review of the information collection. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
To date, the Department lacks comprehensive information about the quality or rigor of the performance reporting and evaluation activities its grantees are undertaking and whether the technical assistance provided has been useful in improving the quality of the performance reporting or evaluations. Accordingly, the focus of this study is to examine the influence of Department-funded technical assistance practices on the quality and rigor of grantee evaluations and performance reporting in two Department programs (described below). It will describe the technical assistance provided by the Department to support grantee performance reporting and evaluation; explore how grantees perceive the technical assistance has influenced their activities; assess the quality of performance reporting and evaluations undertaken; and determine how the findings from performance reporting and evaluations were used both by grantees and by the Department.
This study will be based upon a systematic review of existing documentation as well as interviews with selected grantees and with federal staff and federal contractors involved in grant monitoring and in the provision of technical assistance to grantees. The interviews with selected grantees are the subject of this OMB clearance request.
This study will focus on two grant programs within the Department's Office of Innovation and Improvement: the Charter Schools Program: State Educational Agencies (CSP SEA) program and the Voluntary Public School Choice (VPSC) program. A brief description of each program is provided below.
1.
2.
This study will review all technical assistance provided to CSP SEA and VPSC grantees on performance reporting and evaluations and how grantees conduct these activities. All CSP SEA and VPSC grantees are required by the Department to conduct performance reporting. Although grantees are not required to conduct any particular type of evaluation, the study will review both impact evaluations and non-impact evaluations conducted by grantees. The study approach, with respect to the review of performance reporting, impact evaluations, and non-impact evaluations, is described below.
The goal of performance reporting is to measure performance and track outcomes of the project's stated goals and objectives. The collection of accurate data on program performance is necessary for the reporting required by the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), which was passed by Congress in 1993 and updated through the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010. The latter will require even more frequent reporting—quarterly instead of annually.
In addition to requiring grantees to collect annual data in support of GPRA reporting, the CSP SEA and VPSC programs encourage grantees to develop implementation and outcome measures in support of other program goals. Throughout this document, when we refer to grantee performance measures, we are referring to the measures grantees use not only for GPRA reporting, but also for reporting on other activities and outcomes.
The CSP and VPSC programs provide technical assistance to grantees on developing appropriate objectives and performance measures and on obtaining quality data in support of those measures. Because all grantees conduct some kind of performance reporting, this study's examination of performance reporting encompasses all grantees. It will describe the type of technical assistance provided, categorize the types of performance measures that grantees address, determine whether the measures are responsive to the GPRA indicators defined for each program, review whether the initial set of performance measures changed as a result of the technical assistance received, and examine the quality and appropriateness of data collection for those measures.
While documenting implementation activities and outcomes can be useful to school and district administrators, it does not provide information on the effectiveness of funded interventions. The only evaluation designs that provide credible evidence about the impacts of interventions are rigorous experimental and quasi-experimental designs. Impact evaluations can provide guidance about what interventions should be considered for future funding and replication.
This study will review the quality and rigor of all impact evaluations being conducted of higher-order outcomes, particularly student achievement, using criteria that were adapted from the What Works Clearinghouse review standards for grantees as part of the Department's Data Quality Initiative. These criteria were revised by Abt Associates as part of its annual review of Mathematics and Science Partnership final-year evaluations. The criteria are listed in Appendix A. The study will also examine the completeness and clarity of evaluation reports submitted as part of an impact evaluation.
Grantees may choose to conduct non-impact evaluations to examine program outcomes and implementation processes. Non-impact evaluations may include both formative implementation and process evaluations that evaluate a program as it is unfolding, and summative descriptive evaluations that examine changes in final outcomes in a non-causal manner. A full framework of formative and summative evaluations is included in Appendix B.
The main focus of the review of non-impact evaluations will be on those that focus on a change in higher-order outcomes using a one-group pre-post design. For these evaluations, the study will examine the appropriateness of data collection strategies for the design chosen and whether the findings of the study are described appropriately based on the design. The study will also describe other non-impact evaluations that grantees have undertaken, without commenting on their quality.
Data collection, including conducting interviews and reviewing extant documents, is required to complete this study. Part A of this request discusses the justification for these data collection activities, while Part B describes the data collection and analysis procedures.
The Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) National Board, U.S. Department of Education.
Notice of an open teleconference meeting.
This notice sets forth the schedule and agenda of an upcoming open teleconference meeting of the National Board (Board) of the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education. The notice also describes the functions of the Board. Notice of this meeting is required by Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and is intended to notify the public of their opportunity to attend.
Thursday, June 28, 2012.
1990 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20006, Telephone: (202) 502-7500.
Sarah T. Beaton, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20006-8544; telephone: (202) 502-7621; email:
The National Board of the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education is established in Title VII, Part B, Section 742 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (20 U.S.C. 1138a). The Board is authorized to advise the Director of the Fund and the Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education on (1) priorities for the improvement of postsecondary education, including recommendations for the improvement of postsecondary education and for the evaluation, dissemination, and adaptation of demonstrated improvements in postsecondary educational practice; and (2) the operation of the Fund, including advice on planning documents, guidelines, and procedures for grant competitions prepared by the Fund.
On Thursday, June 28, 2012, from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, the Board will conduct business in an open teleconference. The agenda for the meeting will include discussion of the Fund's programs and special initiatives.
Teleconference calling instructions are as follows: Please call 1-877-952-3216 and use participant code 1826857. The maximum number of members of the public that can access the teleconference meeting (listen only) is 50. Callers will be accepted on a first come, first served basis. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FRS), toll-free, at 1-800-877-8339, Monday through Friday, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time.
Individuals who will need accommodations for a disability in order to participate in the teleconference (e.g., interpreting services, assistance listening devices, or materials in alternative format) should notify Sarah T. Beaton at (202)502-7621, no later than June 18, 2012. We will attempt to meet requests for accommodations after this date but cannot guarantee their availability.
Members of the public are encouraged to submit written comments related to the FIPSE Program or the Board to the attention of Sarah T. Beaton, 1990 K Street NW., Room 6154, Washington, DC 20006-8544, or by email at
Records are kept of all Board proceedings and are available for public inspection at the office of the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education, Sixth Floor, 1990 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20006-8544, from the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Energy.
Comment request.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 United States Code (U.S.C.) 3507(a)(1)(D), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is submitting the information collection FERC-567, Gas Pipeline Certificates: Annual Reports of System Flow Diagrams and System Capacity to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review of the information collection requirements. Any interested person may file comments directly with OMB and should address a copy of those comments to the Commission as explained below. The Commission issued a Notice in the
Comments on the collection of information are due by July 16, 2012.
Comments filed with OMB, identified by the OMB Control No. 1902-0005, should be sent via email to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs:
A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, identified by the Docket No. IC12-8-000, by either of the following methods:
•
•
Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
18 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 260.8(a) requires each major natural gas pipeline with a system delivery capacity
The Commission revised the erroneous figures (presented within the 60-day notice for this information collection
The total estimated annual cost burden to respondents is $ [5,665 hours ÷ 2,080
The estimated annual cost of filing the FERC-567 per response is $3,795.52 [$390,938.37 ÷ 103 responses = $3,795.52/response].
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of RE McKenzie 3 LLC application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is June 21, 2012.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of RE McKenzie 4 LLC application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is June 21, 2012.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of RE McKenzie 6 LLC application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is June 21, 2012.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of AltaGas Renewable Energy Colorado LLC application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is June 21, 2012.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of RE McKenzie 1 LLC application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is June 21, 2012.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of RE McKenzie 2 LLC application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is June 21, 2012.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Minco
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is June 21, 2012.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of RE McKenzie 5 LLC application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is June 21, 2012.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
Western Area Power Administration, DOE.
Conformance of power marketing criteria in accordance with the Hoover Power Allocation Act of 2011.
The Western Area Power Administration (Western), a Federal power marketing agency of the Department of Energy (DOE), is modifying Part C of its Conformed General Consolidated Power Marketing Criteria or Regulations for Boulder City Area Projects (1984 Conformed Criteria) published in the
The 2012 Conformed Criteria will become effective July 16, 2012.
Information regarding the 2012 Conformed Criteria is available for public inspection at the Desert Southwest Customer Service Regional Office, Western Area Power Administration, 615 South 43rd Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85005 or at its Web site:
Mr. Mike Simonton, Public Utilities Specialist, Desert Southwest Region, Western Area Power Administration, P.O. Box 6457, Phoenix, AZ 85005, telephone (602) 605-2675, email
The BCP was authorized by the Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1928 (Act) (43 U.S.C. 617). Under Section 5 of the Act, the Secretary of the Interior marketed the capacity and energy from the BCP under electric service contracts effective through May 31, 1987. On December 28, 1984, Western published the 1984 Conformed Criteria (49 FR 50582) to implement applicable provisions of the Hoover Power Plant Act of 1984 (43 U.S.C. 619) for the marketing of BCP power through September 30, 2017. On December 20, 2011, Congress enacted the Hoover Power Allocation Act of 2011 (Pub. L. 112-72), which provides direction and guidance in several key aspects of marketing BCP power after the existing contracts expire in 2017.
Section 2(f) of the HPAA provides that Subdivision C of the 1984 Conformed Criteria shall be deemed to have been modified to conform to the HPAA, and the Secretary of Energy shall cause to be included in the
A reference to HPAA has been integrated into the purpose and scope section.
The HPAA has been added to the listed authorities.
The section has been updated to incorporate the following provisions of HPAA:
(1) Section 2(d)(2)(E) that requires each contract offered pursuant to Schedule D shall include a provision requiring the new allottee to pay a proportionate share of its State's respective contribution (determined in accordance with each State's applicable funding agreement) to the cost of the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program (MSCP) (as defined in Section 9401 of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111-11; 123 Stat.1327)), and to execute the Boulder Canyon Project Implementation Agreement Contract No. 95-PAO-10616 (Implementation Agreement).
(2) Section 2(g)(1)(A) that requires each contract offered shall expire on September 30, 2067.
(3) Section 2(g)(2)(A) that prescribes the contract offered to the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) will not restrict use of capacity and energy, provided that to the extent practicable and consistent with sound water management and conservation practice, MWD shall allocate such capacity and energy to pump available Colorado River water prior to using such capacity and energy to pump California State project water.
(4) Section 2(g)(4) that requires each contract offered shall (i) authorize and require Western to collect from new allottees a pro rata share of Hoover Dam repayable advances paid for by contractors prior to October 1, 2017, and remit such amounts to the contractors that paid such advances in proportion to the amounts paid by such contractors as specified in Section 6.4 of the Implementation Agreement; (ii) permit transactions with an independent system operator; and (iii) contain the same material terms included in Section 5.6 of the current BCP firm electric service power sales contracts in existence on December 20, 2011, the date of enactment of the HPAA.
Part VI of the 1984 Conformed Criteria is replaced in its entirety in order to conform to and facilitate the following provisions of Section 2 of the HPAA:
(1) Section 2(a) that provides for contract offers to existing Schedule A contractors in predefined contract quantities for delivery commencing October 1, 2017.
(2) Section 2(b) that provides for contract offers to existing Schedule B contractors in predefined contract quantities for delivery commencing October 1, 2017.
(3) Section 2(c) that provides for excess energy provisions for deliveries commencing October 1, 2017.
(4) Section 2(d)(2) that provides for the following:
(i) The creation of a resource pool equal to 5 percent of BCP's full rated capacity of 2,074,000 kilowatts, and associated firm energy, as depicted in Schedule D. Western shall offer prescribed portions of Schedule D contingent capacity and firm energy to entities not receiving contingent capacity and firm energy under Schedule A and/or Schedule B for deliveries commencing October 1, 2017.
(ii) Additional guidance related to the disposition of contingent capacity and firm energy to existing contractors and potential new allottees as described in the 2012 Conformed Criteria.
(iii) Guidance related to the disposition Schedule D contingent capacity and firm energy that is not allocated and contracted for prior to October 1, 2017, as described in the 2012 Conformed Criteria.
(5) Section 2(i) that provides guidance in the event any existing contractor fails to accept an offered contract as described in the 2012 Conformed Criteria.
(6) Section 2(j) that provides guidance regarding Western's obligations in the event water is not available to produce the contingent capacity and firm energy set forth in Schedule A, Schedule B, and Schedule D, as described in the 2012 Conformed Criteria.
Western has an exemption from centralized regulatory review under Executive Order 12866; accordingly, no clearance of this notice by the Office of Management and Budget is required.
In accordance with the DOE National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures (10 CFR 1021), Western has determined that these actions fit within a class of action B4.1 Contracts, policies, and marketing and allocation plans for electric power, in Appendix B to Subpart D to Part 1021—Categorical Exclusions Applicable to Specific Agency Actions.
Part I and Part VI of Section C of the 1984 Conformed Criteria are amended to read as follows:
Section A. Purpose and Scope. In accordance with Federal power marketing authorities in Reclamation Law and the Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977, Western has developed and, pursuant to the Hoover Power Allocation Act of 2011 (Pub. L. 112-72) (HPAA), has modified the Conformed General Consolidated Power Marketing Criteria or Regulations for Boulder City Area Projects (1984 Conformed Criteria) published in the
Section B. Authorities. Federal power in the Desert Southwest Region is marketed in accordance with the power marketing authorities in Federal Reclamation Law (Act of June 17, 1902, (32 Stat. 388), and all acts amendatory thereof or supplementary thereto); the Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977 (91 Stat. 565); and in particular, those acts and amendments enabling the Boulder Canyon Project (45 Stat. 1057); Hoover Power Plant Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-381); Hoover Power Allocation Act of 2011 (Pub. L. 112-72); Parker-Davis Project (49 Stat. 1028, 1039; 68 Stat. 143); and the Colorado River Basin Project (82 Stat. 885).
Section C. Contractual Information. Power contracts will be implemented as existing contracts terminate. The existing BCP contracts terminate on September 30, 2017.
Western will offer power contracts to each contractor containing the terms and conditions and any special provisions that may be applicable to the power marketed under the 2012 Conformed Criteria. The contracts will identify the amounts of capacity and energy to be delivered, the point(s) of delivery, and the maximum rate of delivery at each point of delivery. The contracts will be prepared and modified as necessary. Western shall endeavor to maintain similar, if not identical, contractual terms and conditions and any special provisions amongst all BCP contractors.
Each long-term power service contract entered into or amended shall contain provisions requiring the contractor to develop and implement energy conservation measures as demonstrated in integrated resource planning documents.
The PDP, CAP, and BCP projects shall be operationally integrated to improve the efficiency of the Federal system in accordance with: the operational constraints of the Colorado River, hydro-project power plants, as may be imposed by the Secretary of the Interior or authorized representatives; applicable laws; the general terms, conditions, and principles contained in these 2012 Conformed Criteria; and the General Power Contract Provisions in effect.
Long-term contracts for BCP power will commence on October 1, 2017, and terminate on September 30, 2067.
Contingent capacity is capacity that is normally available, except during either forced or planned outages, or unit de-ratings that affect power plant capability. All BCP capacity shall be marketed by Western as contingent capacity to the contractors.
Western's obligations to deliver BCP power to the contractors will be subject to availability of the water needed to produce such contingent capacity and firm energy. In the event that water is not available to produce the contingent capacity and firm energy set forth in Schedule A, Schedule B, and Schedule D, Western shall adjust the contingent capacity and firm energy offered under those schedules in the same proportion as those contractors' allocations of Schedule A, Schedule B, and Schedule D contingent capacity and firm energy bears to the full rated contingent capacity and firm energy obligations.
Contracts for BCP power will allow for reductions in capacity due to generating unit outages or available capacity reductions caused by forced outages, planned or unplanned maintenance activities, or reservoir drawdown. These reductions will also be applied on a proportionate basis as previously described.
Each BCP contractor will be required to contractually agree to supply its own reserves for power that meet or exceed the Western Electricity Coordinating Council's minimum reserve requirements.
Each contract for BCP power will contain a provision by which any dispute or disagreement as to interpretation or performance of the provisions of the Hoover Power Allocation Act of 2011, or of applicable regulations or of the contract may be determined by arbitration or court proceedings.
The contract offer to the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California for BCP capacity and energy will not restrict the use to which capacity and energy contracted for by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California may be placed within the State of California; provided, that to the extent practicable and consistent with sound water management and conservation practice, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California shall allocate such capacity and energy to pump available Colorado River water prior to using such capacity and energy to pump California State water project water.
Contracts offered shall contain the same material terms included in Section 5.6 of those long-term contracts for purchases from the Hoover Power Plant that were made in accordance with the Hoover Power Plant Act of 1984 and are in existence as of December 20, 2011, the enactment date of the Hoover Power Allocation Act of 2011. These provisions outline the use of generation by the contractor. Within the constraints of river operation, each BCP power contractor is permitted to schedule loaded and unloaded synchronized generation, the sum of which cannot exceed the amount of contingent capacity reserved for the individual contractor. To the extent that energy entitlements are not exceeded, such previously scheduled unloaded synchronized generation may be used for regulation, ramping, and spinning reserves through the use of a dynamic signal. These functions will be deployed by Western and the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), in cooperation with the BCP power contractors, and implemented by contract through written operating or scheduling instructions. Energy used for the purpose of supplying unloaded synchronized generation to BCP power contractors will be accounted for on a monthly basis, and will be supplied by the individual contractors through reductions in energy deliveries, in subsequent months, or as otherwise mutually agreed by Western and the contractor, as specified in the power contracts.
Whenever actual generation in any year is less than the firm commitments (4,527.001 million kilowatt-hours (kWh)), such deficiency shall be borne by the holders of contracts in the ratio that the sum of the quantities of firm energy to which each contractor is entitled, to the total firm commitments. Upon an individual contractor's request, Western will purchase energy, if necessary, specifically for the purpose of fulfilling the energy obligations resulting from Schedule A, Schedule B, and Schedule D allocations. Any costs incurred as a result of the contractor's request for firming energy shall be borne solely by the requesting contractor and will be reimbursed in the year in which the costs were incurred.
The individual projects will remain financially segregated for the purposes of accounting and project repayment. The Desert Southwest Region rate schedules for each individual project will be developed to satisfy cost recovery criteria for each project. In general, the cost recovery criteria will include components such as operation and maintenance, replacements, betterments, amortization of long-term debt with interest, and other financial obligations of the project. Until the end of the repayment period for the CAP, BCP and PDP will provide for surplus revenues by including the equivalent of 4
In order to allow Reclamation to comply with required minimum water releases and to allow Western to receive purchased energy during offpeak load hours, all power contractors may be required to schedule a minimum rate of delivery during such offpeak load hours. The percentage of energy to be taken by the contractors at the minimum scheduled rate of delivery shall be established on a seasonal basis, and may be increased or decreased as conditions dictate. The monthly minimum rate of delivery for each power contractor will be computed by dividing the number of kilowatt-hours to be taken during the month by a contractor at the minimum rate of delivery, by the number of offpeak load hours in the month. The number of kilowatt-hours to be taken during offpeak load hours at the minimum rate of delivery will not exceed 25 percent of the contractor's monthly energy entitlement. Offpeak load hours will be defined in the contracts based on individual system characteristics.
No contractor shall sell for profit any of its allocated capacity and energy to any customer of the contractor for resale by that customer.
Contracts for BCP power shall permit transactions with an independent system operator.
Contract offers shall contain a provision requiring the new allottee to execute the Boulder Canyon Project Implementation Agreement Contract No. 95-PAO-10616 (Implementation Agreement).
Any new allottees or existing contractors with an increased allocation shall be required to pay a pro rata share of Hoover Dam repayable advances paid for by contractors prior to October 1, 2017. Western shall collect such payments from new allottees or existing contractors with an increased allocation and remit such amounts to the contractors that paid such advances in proportion to the amounts paid by such contractors as specified in Section 6.4 of the Implementation Agreement.
Contract offers shall contain a provision requiring the new allottee to pay a proportionate share of its State's respective contribution (determined in accordance with each State's applicable funding agreement) to the cost of the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program (as defined in Section 9401 of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111-11; 123 Stat. 1327)).
Parts II through V remain unchanged.
Section A. Schedule A Long-Term Contingent Power. Electric service contracts for long-term contingent capacity and firm energy under new terms and conditions will be offered to existing Boulder Canyon Project contractors in the following amounts:
Section B. Schedule B Long-Term Contingent Power. Electric service contracts for long-term contingent capacity and firm energy under new terms and conditions will be offered to existing Boulder Canyon Project contractors in the following amounts:
Contracts for the amounts of capacity and associated energy for the States of Arizona and Nevada resulting from Schedule B shall be offered to the Arizona Power Authority and the Colorado River Commission of Nevada respectively, as the agency specified by State law as the agent of such State for purchasing power from the Boulder Canyon Project.
Section C. Energy in Excess of Firm Commitments. Energy generated in any year of operation in excess of 4,501.001 million kilowatt-hours shall be delivered in the following order:
Section D. Schedule D Long-term Contingent Power. A resource pool of contingent capacity and associated firm energy is created for allocation by Western to eligible entities. Western shall offer Schedule D contingent capacity and firm energy to entities not receiving contingent capacity and firm energy under Section A (Schedule A) or Section B (Schedule B) (referred to herein as “New Allottees”) for delivery commencing October 1, 2017.
Electric service contracts for long-term contingent capacity and firm energy under new terms and conditions will be offered to eligible entities in the following amounts:
In the case of resources committed to New Entities Allocated by State referred to in Schedule D, the following is prescribed:
A. Western is allocating 11.1 percent of the total Schedule D contingent capacity and firm energy to the Arizona Power Authority for allocation to New Allottees in the State of Arizona, for delivery commencing October 1, 2017, for use in the Boulder City Area marketing area.
B. Western is allocating 11.1 percent of the total Schedule D contingent capacity and firm energy to the Colorado River Commission of Nevada for allocation to New Allottees in the State of Nevada, for delivery commencing October 1, 2017, for use in the Boulder City Area marketing area.
C. Western shall allocate 11.1 percent of the total Schedule D contingent capacity and firm energy to New Allottees within the State of California, for delivery commencing October 1, 2017, for use in the Boulder City Area marketing area.
Section E. General Marketing Criteria. Western is establishing the following general marketing criteria to be used in the allocation of Schedule D contingent capacity and firm energy:
Western will apply the following general eligibility criteria to applicants seeking a power allocation:
(1) All qualified applicants must be eligible to enter into contracts under Section 5 of the Boulder Canyon Project Act (43 U.S.C. 617d) or be Federally recognized Indian tribes.
(2) All qualified applicants must be located within the established Boulder City Area marketing area.
Western will apply the following general allocation criteria to applicants seeking an allocation of the 11.1 percent of Schedule D contingent capacity and firm energy to New Entities Allocated by State and the remaining 66.7 percent of Schedule D contingent capacity and firm energy:
(1) In the case of Arizona and Nevada, Schedule D contingent capacity and firm energy for New Allottees other than federally recognized Indian tribes shall be offered through the Arizona Power Authority and the Colorado River Commission of Nevada, respectively. Schedule D contingent capacity and firm energy allocated to federally recognized Indian tribes shall be contracted for directly with Western.
(2) Western shall prescribe additional marketing criteria developed pursuant to a public process.
Section F. Contract Offer Schedule. In the event that contract offers for Schedule A, Schedule B, or Schedule D are not accepted by existing contractors or new allottees, the following shall determine the distribution of the associated contingent capacity and firm energy:
If any existing contractor fails to accept an offered contract, Western shall offer the contingent capacity and firm energy thus available first to other entities in the same State listed in Schedule A and Schedule B, second to other entities listed in Schedule A and Schedule B, third to other entities in the same State that receive contingent capacity and firm energy under Schedule D, and last to other entities that receive contingent capacity and firm energy under Schedule D.
Any of the 66.7 percent of Schedule D contingent capacity and firm energy that is to be allocated by Western that is not allocated and placed under contract by October 1, 2017, shall be returned to those contractors shown in Schedule A and Schedule B in the same proportion as those contracts' allocations of Schedule A and Schedule B contingent capacity and firm energy.
Any of the 33.3 percent of Schedule D contingent capacity and firm energy that is to be distributed within the States of Arizona, Nevada, and California that is not allocated and placed under contract by October 1, 2017, shall be returned to the Schedule A and Schedule B contractors within the State in which the Schedule D contingent capacity and firm energy were to be distributed, in the same proportion as those contractors' allocations of Schedule A and Schedule B contingent capacity and firm energy.
Parts VII through VIII remain unchanged.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of tentative approval.
Notice is hereby given that the State of Texas is revising its approved Public Water System Supervision Program. Texas has adopted the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) Short-Term Revisions. EPA has determined that the proposed LCR
All interested parties may request a public hearing. A request for a public hearing must be submitted by July 16, 2012 to the Regional Administrator at the EPA Region 6 address shown below. Frivolous or insubstantial requests for a hearing may be denied by the Regional Administrator. However, if a substantial request for a public hearing is made by July 16, 2012, a public hearing will be held. If no timely and appropriate request for a hearing is received and the Regional Administrator does not elect to hold a hearing on his own motion, this determination shall become final and effective on July 16, 2012. Any request for a public hearing shall include the following information: The name, address, and telephone number of the individual, organization, or other entity requesting a hearing; a brief statement of the requesting person's interest in the Regional Administrator's determination and a brief statement of the information that the requesting person intends to submit at such hearing; and the signature of the individual making the request, or, if the request is made on behalf of an organization or other entity, the signature of a responsible official of the organization or other entity.
All documents relating to this determination are available for inspection between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, at the following offices: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Water Supply Division, Public Drinking Water Section (MC-155), Building F, 12100 Park 35 Circle, Austin, TX 78753; and United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Drinking Water Section (6WQ-SD), 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202.
Damon McElroy, EPA Region 6, Drinking Water Section at the Dallas address given above or at telephone (214) 665-7159, or by email at
Section 1413 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended (1996), and 40 CFR part 142 of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency has reconsidered a portion of a fuel waiver granted to the Texas Methanol Corporation (Texas Methanol) under the Clean Air Act on February 8, 1988. This waiver was previously reconsidered and modified on October 28, 1988 in a
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0894. All documents and public comments in the docket are listed on the
For information regarding this notice contact, Joseph R. Sopata, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, (202) 343-9034, fax number, (202) 343-2800, email address:
Section 211(f)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) makes it unlawful for any manufacturer of any fuel or fuel additive to first introduce into commerce, or to increase the concentration in use of, any fuel or fuel additive for use by any person in motor vehicles manufactured after model year 1974, which is not substantially similar to any fuel or fuel additive utilized in the certification of any model year 1975, or subsequent model year, vehicle or engine under section 206 of the Act. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) last issued an interpretive rule on the phrase “substantially similar” at 73 FR 22281 (April 25, 2008). Generally speaking, this interpretive rule describes the types of unleaded gasoline that are likely to be considered “substantially similar” to the unleaded gasoline utilized in EPA's certification program by placing limits on a gasoline's chemical composition as well as its physical properties, including the amount of alcohols and ethers (oxygenates) that may be added to gasoline. Fuels that are found to be “substantially similar” to EPA's certification fuels may be registered and introduced into commerce. The current “substantially similar” interpretive rule for unleaded gasoline allows no more than 2.7 percent oxygen by weight for certain ethers and alcohols.
Section 211(f)(4) of the Act provides that upon application of any fuel or fuel additive manufacturer, the Administrator may waive the prohibitions of section 211(f)(1) if the Administrator determines that the applicant has established that the fuel or fuel additive, or a specified concentration thereof, will not cause or contribute to a failure of any emission control device or system (over the useful life of the motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, nonroad engine or nonroad vehicle in which such device or system is used) to achieve compliance by the vehicle or engine with the emission standards to which it has been certified pursuant to sections 206 and 213(a) of the Act. The statute requires that the Administrator shall take final action to grant or deny an application after public notice and comment, within 270 days of receipt of the application.
The Texas Methanol Corporation received a waiver under CAA section 211(f)(4) for a gasoline-alcohol fuel blend, known as OCTAMIX,
On October 14, 2011, Baker Hughes requested EPA allow the use of its alternative corrosion inhibitor, TOLAD
On January 20, 2012, EPA published a notice in the
One of the major areas of concern to EPA in reviewing any waiver request is the problem of materials compatibility. Materials compatibility data could show a potential failure of fuel systems, emissions related parts and emission control parts from use of the fuel or fuel additive. Any failure could result in greater emissions that would cause or contribute to the engines or vehicles exceeding their emissions standards. Initially, Texas Methanol requested the use of TOLAD MFA-10 or an appropriate concentration of any other corrosion inhibitor such that the fuel will pass the National Association of Corrosion Engineer's TM-01-72 (NACE RUST TEST). However, EPA concluded that compliance with the NACE Rust Test alone was not adequate in determining suitability of a corrosion inhibitor for use under the OCTAMIX waiver.
In order to determine whether the OCTAMIX waiver would meet the criteria of section 211(f) if TOLAD MFA-10A were to be used an alternative corrosion inhibitor, EPA reviewed all data submitted with or referenced by the Baker Hughes application. Baker Hughes provided data showing their corrosion inhibitor, TOLAD MFA-10A, met the NACE corrosion test.
TOLAD MFA-10A is a fuel additive containing the same active ingredients for corrosion inhibitor efficacy with OCTAMIX gasoline-alcohol fuels as the original corrosion inhibitor approved in the OCTAMIX waiver, TOLAD MFA-10. The only difference between TOLAD MFA-10 and TOLAD MFA-10A is a solvent formulation change to improve additive handling in commerce. Both TOLAD MFA-10 and TOLAD MFA-10A were evaluated under the most aggressive fuel formulation of alcohols allowed under the OCTAMIX waiver that included only methanol at 5 volume percent and ethanol at 2.5 volume percent. The use of higher molecular weight cosolvent alcohols, such as propanols or butanols, would tend to be less corrosive. Both TOLAD MFA-10 and TOLAD MFA-10A passed the NACE corrosion test with the most aggressive fuel allowed under the OCTAMIX waiver. Since TOLAD MFA-10A passed the NACE corrosion test using the most aggressive fuel formulation allowed under the OCTAMIX waiver, the Agency believes that Baker Hughes has demonstrated that TOLAD MFA-10A is an effective corrosion inhibitor for use under the OCTAMIX waiver.
With regard to the question of the emissions impacts of TOLAD MFA-10A, its minimum treat rate of 25 mg/l is about 40 percent less than TOLAD MFA-10. The chemical composition and treat rate of TOLAD MFA-10A, which is less than 0.01 mass percent by weight, is such that it is a fuel additive falling under the baseline gasoline fuel grouping category
Based on the information submitted by Baker Hughes in its application, and the additional information received during the public comment period, I conclude that the performance of TOLAD MFA-10A in OCTAMIX would be comparable to TOLAD MFA-10, the original corrosion inhibitor approved under the OCTAMIX waiver. Therefore, I am modifying condition (3) of the OCTAMIX waiver to read as follows:
(3) Any one of the following four corrosion inhibitors must be included:
(a) Petrolite's corrosion inhibitor formulation, TOLAD MFA-10, blended in the final fuel at 42.7 mg/l;
OR
(b) DuPont's corrosion inhibitor formulation, DMA-67, blended in the final fuel at 31.4 mg/l;
OR
(c) Spirit of 21st Century LLC's corrosion inhibitor formulation, TXCeed, blended in the final fuel at 3.9 ml/gal (987.6 mg/l);
OR
(d) Baker Hughes's corrosion inhibitor formulation, TOLAD MFA-10A, blended in the final fuel at 25 mg/l.
This action should provide additional flexibility to any manufacturer wishing to produce the OCTAMIX blend. At the same time, any manufacturer wishing to use a corrosion inhibitor other than the four permitted by the OCTAMIX waiver must apply for a further modification of the waiver. Since EPA is still unaware of any basis for extrapolating findings in the emissions impact of one corrosion inhibitor to other corrosion inhibitors, the Agency will continue to examine the emissions impact of specific corrosion inhibitor formulations on a case-by-case basis.
This waiver modification decision is final agency action of national applicability for purposes of section 307(b)(1) of the Act. Pursuant to CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final agency action may be sought only in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Petitions for review must be filed by August 13, 2012. Judicial review of this final agency action may not be obtained in subsequent proceedings, pursuant to CAA section 307(b)(2). This action is not a rulemaking and is not subject to the various statutory and other provisions applicable to a rulemaking.
Export-Import Bank of the U.S.
Submission for OMB review and comments request.
The Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank), as a part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to comment on the proposed information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
This collection allows insured/guaranteed parties and insurance brokers to report overdue payments from the borrower and/or guarantor. Ex-Im Bank customers will submit this form electronically through Ex-Im Online, replacing paper reporting. Ex-Im Bank has simplified reporting of payment defaults in this form by including checkboxes and providing for many fields to be self-populated. Ex-Im Bank provides insurance, loads, and guarantees for the financing of exports of goods and services.
Comments should be received on or before August 13, 2012 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all comments to Mauricio Paredes, Export-Import Bank of the United States, 811 Vermont Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20571.
Export-Import Bank of the U.S.
Submission for OMB Review and Comments Request.
The Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank), as a part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to comment on the proposed information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Ex-Im Bank is requesting an emergency approval of Ex-Im Bank form EIB 94-08, Notification and Assignment by Insured to Financial Institution of Medium Term Export Credit Insurance Policy. Ex-Im Bank's exporter policy holders, along with the financial institution providing it with financing, provide this form to Ex-Im Bank. The form transfers the duties and obligations of the insured exporter to the financial institution. It also provides certifications to the financial institution and Ex-Im Bank that the financed export transaction results in a valid, enforceable, and performing debt obligation. Exporter policy holders need this form to obtain financing for their medium term export sales. Ex-Im Bank believes that EIB 94-08 requires emergency approval in order to continue operation of its medium term program for U.S. exporters.
Lack of an emergency approval of this form would greatly restrict our ability to support many of the export sales made by U.S. businesses. Without this form, it would not be possible for financial institutions to obtain sufficient comfort to provide funding to our exporter policy holders. This would adversely impact Ex-Im Bank's ability to finance small business exporters and its overall mission to support U.S. exports and maintain U.S. jobs. Accordingly, Ex-Im Bank requests emergency approval of
The form can be viewed at
Comments should be received on or before July 16, 2012 to be assured of consideration.
Comments may be submitted electronically on
Federal Election Commission.
Tuesday, June 19, 2012 at 10:00 a.m.
999 E Street NW., Washington, DC.
This meeting will be closed to the public.
Compliance matters pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g.
Audits conducted pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g, 438(b), and Title 26, U.S.C.
Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or arbitration.
Internal personnel rules and procedures or matters affecting a particular employee.
Investigatory records compiled for law enforcement purposes, or information which if written would be contained in such records.
Information the premature disclosure of which would be likely to have a considerable adverse effect on the implementation of a proposed Commission action.
Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreement under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreement to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within ten days of the date this notice appears in the
By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than June 29, 2012.
1.
1.
1.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than July 9, 2012.
1.
In connection with this application, Applicants also have applied to acquire PrimeLending, a PlainsCapital Company, and indirectly acquire PrimeLending Ventures Management, LLC, and PrimeLending Ventures, LLC, all in Dallas, Texas; and thereby engage in mortgage lending activities pursuant to section 225.28(b)(1) and (2).
In addition,
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Home Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 1461
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1467a(e)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 10(c)(4)(B) of the HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1467a(c)(4)(B)). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than July 9, 2012.
1.
Section 30.18 of the Department of Health and Human Services' claims collection regulations (45 CFR part 30) provides that the Secretary shall charge an annual rate of interest, which is determined and fixed by the Secretary of the Treasury after considering private consumer rates of interest on the date that the Department of Health and Human Services becomes entitled to recovery. The rate cannot be lower than the Department of Treasury's current value of funds rate or the applicable rate determined from the “Schedule of Certified Interest Rates with Range of Maturities” unless the Secretary waives interest in whole or part, or a different rate is prescribed by statute, contract, or repayment agreement. The Secretary of the Treasury may revise this rate
The current rate of 10
Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 84,205.96
Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. Email address:
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the
Administration for Community Living, HHS.
Notice.
The Administration for Community Living (formerly the Administration on Aging (AoA)) is announcing that the proposed collection of information listed below has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Submit written comments on the collection of information by July 16, 2012.
Submit written comments on the collection of information by fax 202.395.6974 to the OMB Desk Officer for ACL, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB.
Susan Jenkins, 202.357.3591.
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, the Administration for Community Living (Formerly the Administration for Aging) has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance. The data collection associated with the Evaluation for the Aging and Disability Resource Center (ADRC) Program is necessary to determine the overall effect of ADRCs on both long term support and service systems and individuals. ACL will gather information about how ADRCs provide services and whether consumers, who access ADRCs, as compared to consumers who access other systems, report that the experience is more personalized, consumer-friendly, streamlined, and efficient. Staff of the Administration for Community Living's Administration on Aging's Office of Nutrition and Health Promotion Programs will use the information and recommendations resulting from the evaluation of the Aging and Disability Resource Centers to both determine the value of the ADRC model and to improve program operations. In response to the 60-day
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by
Submit electronic comments on the collection of information to
Ila S. Mizrachi, Office of Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., Rockville, MD 20850,301-796-7726,
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
The statutory authority to collect this information is provided under sections 351 and 361 of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 262 and 264) and the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act that apply to drugs (21 U.S.C. 301
The PHS guideline also recommends that certain specimens and records be maintained for 50 years beyond the date of the xenotransplantation. These include: (1) Records linking each xenotransplantation product recipient with relevant health records of the source animal, herd or colony, and the specific organ, tissue, or cell type included in or used in the manufacture of the product (3.2.7.1); (2) aliquots of serum samples from randomly selected animal and specific disease investigations (3.4.3.1); (3) source animal biological specimens designated for PHS use (3.7.1), animal health records (3.7.2), including necropsy results (3.6.4); and (4) recipients' biological specimens (4.1.2). The retention period is intended to assist health care practitioners and officials in surveillance and in tracking the source of an infection, disease, or illness that might emerge in the recipient, the source animal, or the animal herd or colony after a xenotransplantation.
The recommendation for maintaining records for 50 years is based on clinical experience with several human viruses that have presented problems in human to human transplantation and are therefore thought to share certain characteristics with viruses that may pose potential risks in xenotransplantation. These
In addition, the PHS guideline recommends that a record system be developed that allows easy, accurate, and rapid linkage of information among the specimen archive, the recipient's medical records, and the records of the source animal for 50 years. The development of such a record system is a one-time burden. Such a system is intended to cross-reference and locate relevant records of recipients, products, source animals, animal procurement centers, and nosocomial exposures.
Respondents to this collection of information are the sponsors of clinical studies of investigational xenotransplantation products under investigational new drug applications (INDs) and xenotransplantation product procurement centers, referred to as source animal facilities. There are an estimated 2 respondents who are sponsors of INDs that include protocols for xenotransplantation in humans. Other respondents for this collection of information are an estimated four source animal facilities, which provide source xenotransplantation product material to sponsors for use in human xenotransplantation procedures. These four source animal facilities keep medical records of the herds/colonies as well as the medical records of the individual source animal(s). The total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden is estimated to be approximately 45 hours. The burden estimates are based on FDA's records of xenotransplantation-related INDs and estimates of time required to complete the various reporting, recordkeeping, and third-party disclosure tasks described in the PHS guideline.
FDA is requesting an extension of OMB approval for the following reporting, recordkeeping, and third-party disclosure recommendations in the PHS guideline:
FDA estimates the burden for this collection of information as follows:
Because of the potential risk for cross-species transmission of pathogenic persistent virus, the guideline recommends that health records be retained for 50 years. Since these records are medical records, the retention of such records for up to 50 years is not information subject to the PRA (5 CFR 1320.3(h)(5)). Also, because of the limited number of clinical studies with small patient populations, the number of records is expected to be insignificant at this time.
Information collections in this guideline not included in tables 1 through 6 can be found under existing regulations and approved under the OMB control numbers as follows: (1) “Current Good Manufacturing Practice for Finished Pharmaceuticals,” 21 CFR 211.1 through 211.208, approved under OMB control number 0910-0139; (2) “Investigational New Drug Application,” 21 CFR 312.1 through
In table 7 of this document, FDA identifies those collection of information activities that are already encompassed by existing regulations or are consistent with voluntary standards which reflect industry's usual and customary business practice.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by August 13, 2012.
Submit electronic comments on the collection of information to
Domini Bean,Office of Information Management,Food and Drug Administration,1350 Piccard Dr.,PI50-400T,Rockville, MD 20850,
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
In 2006, the DSNDCPA (Pub. L. 109-462, 120 Stat. 3469) amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) with respect to serious adverse event reporting for dietary supplements and nonprescription drugs marketed without an approved application. The DSNDCPA also amended the FD&C Act to add section 403(y) (21 U.S.C. 343(y)), which requires the label of a dietary supplement marketed in the United States to include a domestic address or domestic telephone number through which the product's manufacturer, packer, or distributor may receive a report of a serious adverse event associated with the dietary supplement.
In the
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
The labeling requirements of section 403(y) of the FD&C Act became effective on December 22, 2007, although FDA exercised enforcement discretion until September 30, 2010, to enable all firms to meet the labeling requirements for dietary supplements. FDA estimates that all labels required to include the domestic address or telephone number pursuant to section 403(y) of the FD&C Act have been revised by the effective date. Thus, in succeeding years, the Agency estimates that the burden hours associated with the labeling requirements of section 403(y) of the FD&C Act and the Agency's recommendations on the use of an explanatory statement will apply only to new product labels. Based on the A.C. Nielsen Sales Scanner Data, FDA estimated that the number of dietary supplement SKUs for which sales of the products are greater than zero is 55,600. Assuming that the flow of new products is 10 percent per year, then approximately 5,560 new dietary supplement products will come on the market each year. FDA also estimates that there are about 1,460 dietary supplement manufacturers, re-packagers, re-labelers, and holders of dietary supplements. Assuming the approximately 5,560 new products are split equally among the firms, then each firm would prepare labels for close to four new products per year (5,560 new products/1,460 firms is approximately 3.8 labels per firm). Thus, the estimated total annual disclosures are 5,560 (1,460 firms × 3.8 labels per year = 5,560).
The Agency expects that firms prepare the required labeling for their products in a manner that takes into account at one time all information required to be disclosed on their product labels. Based upon its knowledge of food and dietary supplement labeling, FDA estimates that firms would require less than 0.5 hour per product to comply with the requirement to include the domestic address or telephone number pursuant to section 403(y) of the FD&C Act. The total hour burden of this task is shown in row 1 of table 1.
FDA estimates that all firms will include an explanatory statement on the label, which lets consumers know the purpose of the domestic address or telephone number on the label of the dietary supplement product. Based upon its knowledge of food and dietary supplement labeling, FDA estimates that firms would require less than 0.5 hour per product to comply with the Agency's recommendations on the use of an explanatory statement. The total hour burden of this task is shown in row 2 of table 1.
The total reporting hour burden is 5,560 hours, which equals the burden for the required domestic address or telephone (2,780) plus the burden for the explanatory statement before the domestic address or telephone number (2,780).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of additional draft and revised draft product-specific bioequivalence (BE) recommendations. The recommendations provide product-specific guidance on the design of BE studies to support abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs). In the
Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comments on these draft and revised draft guidances before it begins work on the final versions of the guidances, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft and revised draft product-specific BE recommendations listed in this notice by August 13, 2012.
Submit written requests for single copies of the individual BE guidances to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, rm. 2201, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Submit electronic comments on the draft product-specific BE recommendations to
K. Geoffrey Wu, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (HFD-600), Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-276-9326.
In the
FDA is announcing new draft product-specific BE recommendations for drug products containing the following active ingredients:
FDA is announcing revised draft product-specific BE recommendations for drug products containing the following active ingredients:
For a complete history of previously published
These draft and revised draft guidances are being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). These guidances represent the Agency's current thinking on product-specific design of BE studies to support ANDAs. They do not create or confer any rights for or on any person and do not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; correction.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a notice that appeared in the
Joyce Strong, Office of Policy and Planning, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 3208, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-9148.
In FR Doc. 2012-13143, appearing on page 32124 in the
1. On page 32124, in the first column, in the headings section of the document, “[Docket No. FDA-2012-D-0146]” is corrected to read “[Docket No. FDA-2010-D-0146]”.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is publishing a list of premarket approval applications (PMAs) that have been approved. This list is intended to inform the public of the availability of safety and effectiveness summaries of approved PMAs through the Internet and the Agency's Division of Dockets Management.
Submit written requests for copies of summaries of safety and effectiveness data to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Please cite the appropriate docket number as listed in table 1 of this document when submitting a written request. See the
Nicole Wolanski, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, rm. 1650, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-6570.
In accordance with section 515(d)(4) and (e)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360e(d)(4) and (e)(2)), notification of an order approving, denying, or withdrawing approval of a PMA will continue to include a notice of opportunity to request review of the order under section 515(g) of the FD&C Act. The 30-day period for requesting reconsideration of an FDA action under § 10.33(b) (21 CFR 10.33(b)) for notices announcing approval of a PMA begins on the day the notice is placed on the Internet. Section 10.33(b) provides that FDA may, for good cause, extend this 30-day period. Reconsideration of a denial or withdrawal of approval of a PMA may be sought only by the applicant; in these cases, the 30-day period will begin when the applicant is notified by FDA in writing of its decision.
The regulations provide that FDA publish a quarterly list of available safety and effectiveness summaries of PMA approvals and denials that were announced during that quarter. The following is a list of approved PMAs for which summaries of safety and effectiveness were placed on the Internet from January 1, 2012, through March 31, 2012. There were no denial actions during this period. The list provides the manufacturer's name, the product's generic name or the trade name, and the approval date.
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the documents at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of meeting.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the following meeting: Update to Electronic Common Technical Document Module 1. The topic to be discussed is final documentation of the Electronic Common Technical Document (eCTD) Module 1, which is used for electronic submission of administrative and prescribing information by industry. The purpose of the meeting is to provide clarification and answer questions from industry and software vendors regarding the changes being made to this module. Registration is required in advance and participation will be limited.
The meeting will be held at the FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31 Conference Center, Great Room 1503, Silver Spring, MD 20993. The following link contains public meeting attendee information as well as frequently asked questions and answers regarding public meetings at White Oak:
Julie Quinonez, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 1135, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-0282, FAX: 301-796-9876, email:
The eCTD is an International Conference on Harmonization (ICH) standard based on specifications developed by ICH and its member parties. The Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) and the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) have been receiving submissions in the eCTD format since 2003, and the eCTD has been the standard for electronic submissions to CDER and CBER since January 1, 2008. In fact, the majority of new electronic submissions are now received in eCTD format. Since adoption of the eCTD standard, it has become necessary to update the administrative portion of the eCTD Module 1 to reflect regulatory changes; to provide clarification of business rules for submission, processing, and review; to refine the characterization of promotional labeling and advertising material; and to facilitate automated processing of submissions. In the process of considering these changes, FDA has previously made available for comment versions of documents that support making regulatory submissions in electronic format using the (eCTD) specifications. These draft documents represented FDA's major updates to Module 1 of the eCTD based on previous comments. FDA will make available revised versions of these documents in preparation for this meeting. These documents will be posted at:
If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Julie Quinonez (see
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is announcing its intention to deem to be withdrawn any abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) that have been determined to be incomplete and as to which the ANDA applicant has not communicated with FDA since July 8, 1991. Each of these applications will be
The applicant of an ANDA covered by this notice that intends to actively pursue approval of its application must submit a written notification to FDA by August 13, 2012.
Applicants should submit written notifications to the ANDA archival file to the Office of Generic Drugs, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, Document Control Room, MPN7, 7620 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855. A copy of written notifications should also be submitted to Thomas Hinchliffe, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (HFD-617), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., rm. N-142, MPN2, Rockville, MD 20855, FAX: 240-276-8440, email:
Thomas Hinchliffe, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (HFD-617), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., rm. N-142, MPN2, Rockville, MD 20855, 240-276-8433, FAX: 240-276-9310,
FDA has identified 364 ANDAs for which FDA has not received any communication from the ANDA applicant since July 8, 1991, or earlier (Inactive ANDAs). (See section IV of this document for the list of Inactive ANDAs). For purposes of this document, the term “applicant” includes any successor in interest. FDA's regulations provide that the Agency will consider withdrawn any application for which the applicant has not contacted the Agency about its intention regarding such application within 1 year after issuance of a complete response letter to the applicant (see 21 CFR 314.110(c)). The Inactive ANDAs, however, predate, and consequently are not subject to this regulation. Therefore, the Inactive ANDAs have not been deemed withdrawn although there has been no communication from the applicants since July 8, 1991, or earlier.
At this time, the Agency is announcing its intention to deem all Inactive ANDAs to have been voluntarily withdrawn by the respective applicants as of August 13, 2012, unless the applicant informs the Agency in writing by the date set forth under
If the applicant wishes to actively pursue approval of an Inactive ANDA and does not wish the application to be deemed by FDA to have been voluntarily withdrawn, the applicant must inform the Agency in writing within the time specified in this document. Written notice should be provided to Thomas Hinchliffe and the Office of Generic Drugs (see
FDA also asks any applicant that agrees to consider its application to be voluntarily withdrawn to send a written notice to Thomas Hinchliffe and the Office of Generic Drugs (see
Information about the Inactive ANDAs is listed in this section of the document. To protect applicant confidentiality, this notice lists the application number and drug name for each Inactive ANDA and separately lists the name of the applicant as shown in the information on file with FDA, without linking identified applicants with specific applications or drug names. In some cases, the identified applicants may no longer exist as ongoing business entities. If an identified applicant is unsure which application(s) belong to it (if any), it may contact Thomas Hinchliffe (see
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of Request for Nominations of Non-Voting Secretary's Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders in Newborns and Children (SACHDNC) members to serve as representatives of organizations or interest groups.
HRSA is requesting applications to fill three (3) vacancies for non-voting organizational representatives on the SACHDNC.
Section 1111 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, 42 U.S.C. 300b-10, as amended. The SACHDNC also is governed by the provisions of Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. 2), and 41 CFR part 102-3, which sets forth standards for the formation and use of advisory committees.
The agency must receive written applications from nominees (including a letter of support from an appropriate official of the organization with which affiliated) or the nominee's organization, on or before August 1, 2012.
Submit written applications to Sara Copeland, M.D., Designated Federal Official (DFO), SACHDNC; and, Chief, Genetic Services Branch, Maternal and Child Health Bureau, Health Resources and Services Administration, Room 18A-19, Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857. Applications may also be sent to
Debi Sarkar, M.P.H., Genetic Services Branch, Maternal and Child Health Bureau, HRSA, at
The SACHDNC is directed to review and report regularly on newborn and childhood screening practices for heritable disorders and recommend improvements in the national newborn and childhood heritable screening programs.
The SACHDNC provides the Secretary with recommendations, advice, and technical information regarding the application of technologies, policies, guidelines, and standards for: (a) Effectively reducing morbidity and mortality in newborns and children having, or at risk for, heritable disorders; and (b) enhancing the ability of the State and local health agencies to provide for newborn and child screening, counseling, and health care services for newborns and children having, or at risk for, heritable disorders.
Specifically, HRSA is requesting applications for three (3) non-voting organizational representatives to serve on the SACHDNC: Two (2) at large representatives of a public health constituency, medical professional
Applicants eligible for consideration include representatives of the following organizations: (a) Medical, technical, public health, or scientific organizations with special expertise in the field of heritable disorders or (b) organizations that provide screening, counseling, testing, or specialty services for newborns and children at risk for heritable disorders. Organizations will also be chosen based on perspectives and expertise not currently represented, or with expiring terms, that serve to increase the knowledge base of the SACHDNC.
Applicants are requested to submit a written application to the DFO. Applications must contain the following:
• Letter of nomination stating the organization's:
○ Name and mission statement;
○ Outline of the perspective and expertise provided by the nominated organization and why this perspective and expertise would benefit the SACHDNC; and
○ Description of how the SACHDNC's work affects and/or impacts the nominated organization and its constituency.
• Contact information: Point of contact name, address, telephone number, and Web site of the organization;
• Portfolio of organizational projects, programs and products that are of importance to the SACHDNC's work;
• Organization's commitment to provide expert input into the decision-making process of the SACHDNC;
• Organization's detailed information concerning any possible conflicts of interest relative to both the organization and the proposed organizational representative (e.g., current or anticipated employment, consultancies, research grants, or contracts);
• Organization's commitment to support a representative to attend all SACHDNC meetings;
• Organization's commitment to ensure active contribution to and dissemination of SACHDNC activities and recommendations to its representative constituencies;
• Statement affirming that the organization: (a) Wishes to serve as a representative to the SACHDNC, and (b) has no conflict of interest that would preclude informing the SACHDNC in a fair and balanced manner;
• Organization's description clearly identifying how the organizational perspective and expertise would serve to increase the knowledge base of the SACHDNC; and
• SACHDNC's professional impact on the organization and its stakeholders.
Whenever possible, organizational representatives to the SACHDNC shall have expertise in dealing with heritable disorders and genetic diseases affecting racially, ethnically, and geographically diverse populations of newborns served by State newborn screening programs. HHS will ensure that SACHDNC members equitably reflect geographical location and gender distribution, provided that Committee effectiveness would not be impaired. Appointments shall be made without regard to age, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation, and cultural, religious, or socioeconomic status.
Indian Health Service, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, which requires 60 days for public comment on proposed information collection projects, the Indian Health Service (IHS) is publishing for comment a summary of a proposed information collection to be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
The table below provides: Types of data collection instruments, Estimated number of respondents, Number of responses per respondent, Average burden hour per response, and Total annual burden hour(s).
There are no Capital Costs, Operating Costs, and/or Maintenance Costs to report.
National Protection and Programs Directorate, DHS.
60-day notice and request for comments;Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection: 1670-0012.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD), Office of Infrastructure Protection (IP), Infrastructure Information Collection Division (IICD), will submit the following Information Collection Request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until August 13, 2012. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.1.
Written comments and questions about this Information Collection Request should be forwarded to DHS/NPPD/IP/IICD, 245 Murray Lane, SW., Mailstop 0602, Arlington, VA 20598-0602. Email requests should go to Vickie Bovell,
•
•
The Protected Critical Infrastructure Information (PCII) Program was created according to the Critical Infrastructure Information (CII) Act of 2002 for DHS to encourage voluntary information sharing by owners and operators of critical infrastructure and protected systems. The PCII Program provides standardized training for stakeholders to become PCII Authorized Users and PCII Officer/PCII Program Manager Designees. To further its mission, the PCII Program requires supporting
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Thirty-day notice requesting comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding Information Collection Requests (ICRs), abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval of a revision to the following collections of information: 1625-0012, Certificate of Discharge to Merchant Mariner and 1625-0040, Application for Merchant Mariner Credential (MMC), Merchant Mariner Medical Certificate Evaluation Report, Small Vessel Sea Service Form, DOT/USCG Periodic Drug Testing Form, and Merchant Mariner Evaluation of Fitness for Entry Level Ratings, Merchant Mariner Credential, Merchant Mariner Medical Certificate, Recognition of Foreign Certificate.
Our ICRs describe the information we seek to collect from the public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.
Comments must reach the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before July 16, 2012.
You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG-2012-0082] to the Docket Management Facility (DMF) at the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and/or to OIRA. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the following means:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
The DMF maintains the public docket for this Notice. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in this Notice as being available in the docket, will become part of the docket and will be available for inspection or copying at room W12-140 on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find the docket on the Internet at
Copies of the ICRs are available through the docket on the Internet at
Contact Ms. Kenlinishia Tyler, Office of Information Management, telephone 202-475-3652 or fax 202-475-3929, for questions on these documents. Contact Ms. Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, 202-366-9826, for questions on the docket.
This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and other important information describing the Collections. There is one ICR for each Collection.
The Coast Guard invites comments on whether these ICRs should be granted based on the Collections being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collections; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collections; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collections; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collections on respondents,
We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number of this request, [USCG 2012-0082], and must be received by July 16, 2012. We will post all comments received, without change, to
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number [USCG-2012-0082], indicate the specific section of the document to which each comment applies, providing a reason for each comment. You may submit your comments and material online (via
You may submit comments and material by electronic means, mail, fax, or delivery to the DMF at the address under
To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this Notice as being available in the docket, go to
OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at
Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received in dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act statement regarding Coast Guard public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (77 FR 17081, March 23, 2012) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited no comments.
1.
2.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Thirty-day notice requesting comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR), abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension of its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0048, Vessel Reporting Requirements. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.
Comments must reach the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before July 16, 2012.
You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG-2012-0173] to the Docket Management Facility (DMF) at the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and/or to OIRA. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the following means:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
The DMF maintains the public docket for this Notice. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in this Notice as being available in the docket, will become part of the docket and will be available for inspection or copying at Room W12-140 on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find the docket on the Internet at
A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the Internet at
Ms. Kenlinishia Tyler, Office of Information Management, telephone 202-475-3652 or fax 202-475-3929, for questions on these documents. Contact Ms. Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, 202-366-9826, for questions on the docket.
This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and other important information describing the Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection.
The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. These comments will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICR referred to in this Notice.
We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number of this request, [USCG 2012-0173], and must be received by July 16, 2012. We will post all comments received, without change, to
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number [USCG-2012-0173], indicate the specific section of the document to which each comment applies, providing a reason for each comment. You may submit your comments and material online (via
You may submit comments and material by electronic means, mail, fax, or delivery to the DMF at the address under
To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this Notice as being available in the docket, go to
OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at
Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received in dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act statement regarding Coast Guard public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (77 FR 18253, March 27, 2012) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited no comments.
60-Day Notice of Information Collection; Form I-312, Designation of Attorney In Fact; OMB Control No. 1653-0041.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), will submit the following information collection request for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for sixty days until August 13, 2012.
Written comments and suggestions regarding items contained in this notice, and especially with regard to the estimated public burden and associated response time should be directed to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), John Ramsay, Program (Forms) Manager, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 500 12th Street SW., Stop 5705, Washington, DC 20536; (202) 732-4367.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for sixty days until August 13, 2012. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(5)
(6)
Comments and/or questions; requests for a copy of the proposed information collection instrument, with instructions; or inquiries for additional information should be directed to: Rich Mattison, Chief, Records Branch, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 500 12th Street SW., Stop 5705, Washington, DC 20536; (202) 732-4356.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
The proposed information collection requirement described below has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
The information collection is used to notify HUD that the mortgagor and mortgagee mutually agree to terminate the HUD multifamily mortgage insurance.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB approval Number (2502-0416) and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806. Email:
Colette Pollard., Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at
This notice informs the public that the Department of Housing and Urban Development has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the Information collection described below. This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affecting agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
This notice also lists the following information:
The information collection is used to notify HUD that the mortgagor and mortgagee mutually agree to terminate the HUD multifamily mortgage insurance.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 35, as amended.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
The proposed information collection requirement described below has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
Section 644 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13604) imposed on HUD the obligation to require housing providers participating in HUD's assisted housing programs to provide any individual or family applying for occupancy in HUD assisted housing with the option to include in the application for occupancy the name, address, telephone number, and other relevant information of a family member, friend, or person associated with a social, health, advocacy, or similar organization. The objective of providing such information, if this information is provided, and if the applicant becomes a tenant, is to facilitate contact by the housing provider with the person or organization identified by the tenant, to assist in providing any delivery of services or special care to the tenant and assist with resolving any tenancy issues arising during the tenancy of such tenant. This supplemental application information is to be maintained by the housing provider and maintained as confidential information.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB approval Number (2502-0581) and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806. Email:
Colette Pollard., Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at
This notice informs the public that the
This notice also lists the following information:
Section 644 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C.13604)imposed on HUD the obligation to require housing providers participating in HUD's assisted housing programs to provide any individual or family applying for occupancy in HUD assisted housing with the option to include in the application for occupancy the name, address, telephone number, and other relevant information of a family member, friend, or person associated with a social, health, advocacy, or similar organization. The objective of providing such information, if this information is provided, and if the applicant becomes a tenant, is to facilitate contact by the housing provider with the person or organization identified by the tenant, to assist in providing any delivery of services or special care to the tenant and assist with resolving any tenancy issues arising during the tenancy of such tenant. This supplemental application information is to be maintained by the housing provider and maintained as confidential information.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 35, as amended.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
The proposed information collection requirement described below has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
Provides proof of tenant endorsement of entity proposing to purchase restructured property and obtain modification, assignment, or forgiveness of second mortgage debt.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB approval Number (2502-0563) and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806. Email:
Colette Pollard., Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at
This notice informs the public that the Department of Housing and Urban Development has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the Information collection described below. This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affecting agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
This notice also lists the following information:
Provides proof of tenant endorsement of entity proposing to purchase restructured property and obtain modification, assignment, or forgiveness of second mortgage debt.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 35, as amended
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
The proposed information collection requirement described below has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
FHA insurance is an important source of mortgage credit for low and moderate income borrowers and neighborhoods.Providing assistance, as needed, to enable families to cure their delinquencies and retain their homes stabilizes neighborhoods that might otherwise suffer from deterioration and problems associated with vacant and abandoned properties. Avoidance of foreclosure and the resultant costs also serve to further stabilize the mortgage insurance premiums charged by FHA and the Federal budget receipts generated from those premiums. This information collection request for OMB review is an extension of a currently approved collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB approval Number (2502-0583) and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806. Email:
Colette Pollard., Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at
This notice informs the public that the Department of Housing and Urban Development has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the Information collection described below. This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affecting agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
This notice also lists the following information:
FHA insurance is an important source of mortgage credit for low and moderate income borrowers and neighborhoods.
Providing assistance, as needed, to enable families to cure their delinquencies and retain their homes stabilizes neighborhoods that might otherwise suffer from deterioration and problems associated with vacant and abandoned properties. Avoidance of foreclosure and the resultant costs also serve to further stabilize the mortgage insurance premiums charged by FHA and the Federal budget receipts generated from those premiums. This information co
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 35, as amended.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
The proposed information collection requirement described below has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
This PRA package provides reporting burden for individuals to apply to be placed on the HECM counselor roster and to maintain their name on the HECM counseling roster. For initial application, individuals are required to successfully pass a standardized HECM exam, have received HECM-related education within the past two years and provide information collected on form HUD 92904. HUD uses the information provided to determine the applicants' eligibility to be placed on the HECM counselor roster. To remain on the HECM counselor roster, a counselor must complete continuing education on a HECM related topic every two years and pass the HECM exam every three years.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB approval Number (2502-0586) and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806. Email:
Colette Pollard., Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at
This notice informs the public that the Department of Housing and Urban Development has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the Information collection described below. This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affecting agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
This notice also lists the following information:
This PRA package provides reporting burden for individuals to apply to be placed on the HECM counselor roster and to maintain their name on the HECM counseling roster. For initial application, individuals are required to successfully pass a standardized HECM exam, have received HECM-related education within the past two years and provide information collected on form HUD 92904. HUD uses the information provided to determine the applicants' eligibility to be placed on the HECM counselor roster. To remain on the HECM counselor roster, a counselor must complete continuing education on a HECM related topic every two years and pass the HECM exam every three years.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 35, as amended.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
The proposed information collection requirement described below has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
This is a revision of a current collection and reflects recent statutory and policy changes but does not increase the paperwork burden previously approved. HUD requires the builder to complete the certification (form HUD-92541) noting adverse site/location factor(s) of the property, including Floodplains. This certification is necessary so that HUD does not
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB approval Number (2502-0496) and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806. Email:
Colette Pollard., Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at
This notice informs the public that the Department of Housing and Urban Development has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the Information collection described below. This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affecting agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
This notice also lists the following information:
This is a revision of a current collection and reflects recent statutory and policy changes but does not increase the paperwork burden previously approved. HUD requires the builder to complete the certification (form HUD-92541) noting adverse site/location factor(s) of the property, including Floodplains. This certification is necessary so that HUD does not insure a mortgage on property that poses a risk to health or safety of the occupant.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 35, as amended
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
The proposed information collection requirement described below has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
The information collection is legally required to collect information to evaluate the character, ability, and capital or the sponsor, mortgagor, and general contractor for mortgage insurance.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB approval Number (2502-0001) and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806. Email:
Colette Pollard., Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at
This notice informs the public that the Department of Housing and Urban Development has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the Information collection described below. This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affecting agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
This notice also lists the following information:
The information collection is legally required to collect information to evaluate the character, ability, and capital or the sponsor, mortgagor, and
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 35, as amended
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
The proposed information collection requirement described below has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
FHA insurance is an important source of mortgage credit for low and moderate-income borrowers and their neighborhoods. It is essential that FHA maintain a healthy mortgage insurance fund through premiums charged the borrower by FHA along with Federal budget receipts generated from those premiums to support HUD's goals. Providing policy and guidance to the single family housing mortgage industry regarding changes in FHA's program is essential to protect the fund. This information collection request for OMB review seeks to combine the requirements of another existing OMB collection under one collection; it is OMB collection 2502-0349.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB approval Number (2502-0429) and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806. Email:
Colette Pollard., Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at
This notice informs the public that the Department of Housing and Urban Development has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the Information collection described below. This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affecting agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
This notice also lists the following information:
FHA insurance is an important source of mortgage credit for low and moderate-income borrowers and their neighborhoods. It is essential that FHA maintain a healthy mortgage insurance fund through premiums charged the borrower by FHA along with Federal budget receipts generated from those premiums to support HUD's goals. Providing policy and guidance to the single family housing mortgage industry regarding changes in FHA's program is essential to protect the fund. This information collection request for OMB review seeks to combine the requirements of another existing OMB collection under one collection; it is OMB collection 2502-0349.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 35, as amended.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
The proposed information collection requirement described below has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
The purpose of this information collection is to ensure that owners follow HUD procedures, as laid out in HUD Housing Handbook 4350.1, chapter 38, regarding recovery efforts after a Presidentially declared disaster.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB approval Number (2502-0582) and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806. Email:
Colette Pollard., Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at
This notice informs the public that the Department of Housing and Urban Development has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the Information collection described below. This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affecting agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
This notice also lists the following information:
The purpose of this information collection is to ensure that owners follow HUD
procedures, as laid out in HUD Housing Handbook 4350.1, chapter 38, regardingrecovery efforts after a Presidentially declared disaster.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 35, as amended
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research, HUD.
Notice.
This notice announces HUD's intention to launch the Strong Cities, Strong Communities National Resource Network pilot program with its 19 federal agency and subagency partners of the White House Council on Strong Cities, Strong Communities (SC2). Through the SC2 National Resource Network, HUD and its partners will offer a central portal to connect America's most economically distressed local communities to national and local experts with wide-ranging experience and skills. The focus of the SC2 Network will be to strengthen the foundation for economic growth and resiliency in these communities—namely, local capacity, comprehensive planning, and regional collaboration. HUD will offer funding competitively through a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for an intermediary to assist HUD with establishing and administering the program. As part of the Administration's efforts to increase transparency in government operations and to expand opportunities for stakeholders to engage in decision-making, HUD solicits comment through this notice on the proposed structure of the SC2 National Resource Network pilot program, and the criteria by which HUD and its interagency partners will select an intermediary for the pilot program. Feedback received in response to this notice will aid HUD and its partners in better understanding how this pilot program may help local communities respond to the strains of the current economic crisis. HUD is seeking input from local governments, philanthropic organizations, private companies, community development entities, and a broad range of other stakeholders on how the program should be structured in order to have the most meaningful impact in rebuilding and growing local government capacity for good governance and economic growth.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this notice to the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department
1.
2.
To receive consideration as public comments, comments must be submitted through one of the two methods specified above. Again, all submissions must refer to the docket number and title of the notice.
Brittany Gibbs, Office of Policy Development and Research, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; telephone number 202-402-2826 (this is not a toll-free number); email address:
In July of 2011, the Obama Administration launched Strong Cities, Strong Communities (SC2), a new and customized pilot initiative to strengthen local capacity and spark economic growth in distressed local communities while ensuring taxpayer dollars are used wisely and efficiently. SC2 evolved from ongoing conversations with mayors, foundations, nonprofits, and Members of Congress working in economically distressed communities,who consistently highlight strains on local governments, the way disjointed programs do not work well for them, and a strong and clear desire for a coordinated, ongoing relationship with the federal government. SC2 focuses on five goals to change this:
•
•
•
•
•
• Coordinate agency efforts to ensure communities have access to comprehensive, localized technical assistance and planning resources to develop and execute their economic vision and strategies (including, where appropriate, efforts of existing committees or task forces related to providing technical assistance to local governments and improving their capacity to address economic issues);
• Provide recommendations to the President, through the Co Chairs on:
(i) Policies for building local expertise in strengthening local economies;
(ii) Changes to Federal policies and programs to address issues of special importance to cities and local governments that pertain to local capacity and economic growth;
(iii) Implementing best practices from the SC2 initiative Government-wide to better support cities and local governments; and
(iv) Opportunities to increase the flexible utilization of existing Federal program resources across agencies to enable more performance and outcome-based funding;
• Encourage the development of technical assistance, planning, and financing tools and implementation strategies that can be coordinated or aligned across agencies to assist communities in building local capacity to address economic issues, engaging in comprehensive planning, and advancing regional collaboration; and
• Facilitate the exchange of ideas and strategies to help communities address economic challenges and create sustained economic opportunity.
1.
2.
Community Solutions teams and the Fellowship program are operating in the same six SC2 pilot cities/regions, which were selected on the basis of economic need, strong local leadership and collaboration, potential for economic growth, geographic diversity, and the ability to test the SC2 model across a range of environments. Federal assessment teams spent time on the ground working directly with mayors and other local officials to determine needs, opportunities and gather input for the pilot initiative.
3.
4.
To maximize the resources flowing to local governments, an intermediary will be competitively selected to run the SC2 Network's daily operations. Using an outside platform can leverage the federal government's investment with considerable private and philanthropic resources and pro bono services—similar efforts have annually leveraged more than six times their base investment. It also taps existing philanthropic and non-profit expertise to engage with and help improve federal programs. HUD will retain oversight through a cooperative agreement.
The SC2 model reflects the idea that local issues do not stop at federal agency boundaries, and that effective technical assistance must also target issues that cross federal funding sources. HUD was chosen to host the SC2 Network, but the Network can help cities find expertise across the range of SC2 agencies and outside partners, and efforts will be coordinated with the three other components of SC2 and numerous other federal programs as appropriate. As an example, HUD, the Department of Justice (DOJ), the city government, and local philanthropy are working jointly in Youngstown, OH. Coordination and technical assistance through SC2/HUD helped the city partner with philanthropy to assess opportunities for effiency in the city's operations. SC2 then linked Youngstown to the DOJ's Diagnostic Center, which helps mayors, policymakers, and other local leaders identify their public safety needs and implement evidence-based strategies. Similarly, HUD and the EDA are leveraging mutual investments in SC2. EDA plans to offer $6 million to fund creation of economic blueprints for cities through the
SC2 Network assistance is not intended to replace any technical assistance already provided by the federal government or another party, but aims to build general local capacity to effectively access these programs. Through a comprehensive lens that crosses city departments and topics, the Network can help cities identify and coordinate simulataneous help from more specific programs such as DOJ's Diagnostic Center for public safety issuese or HUD's OneCPD program to deal with Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME, Investment Partnerships (HOME), and homelessness programs, and address the city's underlying fiscal or operational capacity needs to make the best use of both. An SC2 Network engagement might also help a city government solve and move beyond internal fiscal problems so it can begin engaging with its neighbors in regional growth and planning efforts to eventually join the Sustainable Communities Initiative of HUD, Department of Transportation (DOT), and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Rising costs and declining revenues bring local governments closer to bankruptcy and further from solutions to the ever more complex challenges their communities face. Almost all state and local governments are required to balance their budgets, leaving no buffer during these very tough economic times.
Local governments have many partners to help, but a major impediment to supporting and developing the capacity of places with chronic challenges is the limited number of organizations with expertise in turning whole regions and cities around. The field is rich with organizations and intermediaries with experience in neighborhood development and revitalization, but very thin in organizations that take a holistic approach to urban and regional economic development. Much of this expertise is spread across a variety of organizations that play niche roles—public management, fiscal reform, land use development, business attraction and retention, workforce development, etc.
There are a number of federal programs dedicated to improving urban economic conditions, in some cases through a capacity-building strategy. Most of these efforts are not responsive to local needs and conditions. They require an extended time frame, and it
To achieve the goals of the program, HUD intends to select an intermediary through a competitive process. This intermediary must:
• Build and manage a team of expert technical service providers, potentially including consulting firms, practitioners, academics, intermediaries, and peer localities that represent the breadth of relevant expertise. Capacities should include, but are not limited to: Public budgeting, governance reform, system and process management, grants management, human capital policies and procedures, finance, economic development and redevelopment, staff capacity assessment, relationship assessment, and federal funding regulations;
• Effectively leverage philanthropic resources, both through building upon existing connections between foundations, issue area experts, and local governments and through forging new linkages and partnerships;
• Enlist the support of both paid and pro bono technical service providers, maximizing the program's reach;
• Carefully document and evaluate interventions to build a series of best practice strategies that can benefit places with similar challenges, and develop forums for sharing this knowledge;
• Create and support a peer-to-peer network to share lessons learned;
• Increase the capacity of participating governments in the area of intervention, not just provide a one-time service that they cannot replicate, including investing in an initial alignment effort for communities with potential private and philanthropic resources to sustain local capacity building over a longer term;
• Align with other federal, state, and, local programs to enhance coordination and avoid duplicating efforts—for example, regional planning through DOT/EPA/HUD Sustainable Communities Initiative, the Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative of HUD, Department of Education (ED), DOJ, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), EDA's Regional Innovation Clusters, DOJ's Diagnostic Center, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) preparedness technical assistance, or HUD's OneCPD technical assistance;
• Identify for the SC2 Council how federal policy changes could help local governments better achieve their economic development visions, and other policies, systems, and practices that support holistic and sustainable economic development; and
• Generate a sustainable model that could, under appropriate conditions, be spun off into an independent entity.
Final funding levels are not yet established, but HUD currently plans to launch the National Resource Network (SC2 Network) using approximately $5,000,000 from its fiscal year 2012 appropriation for the Transformation Initiative and will publish a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) later this year to select an intermediary who will administer the program. HUD's fiscal year 2013 budget also requests additional funds to serve more communities, subject to appropriations.
HUD intends to select a single grantee to administer the SC2 Network (“SC2 Network Administrator”) and will fund the successful SC2 Network grantee under a cooperative agreement. The comments received from this notice will inform the NOFA HUD publishes later this year, which will detail the program and application requirements for potential intermediary organizations. HUD anticipates having substantial involvement in the work being conducted under this forthcoming award to ensure that the purposes of the SC2 Network are being carried out and that technical service providers and units of local government are following through on their commitments to local and regional development. HUD's involvement includes monitoring that progress is being made in meeting established performance metrics and ensuring consistency in projects across participating jurisdictions.
To be able to respond to the varying needs of different localities, the SC2 Network will leverage the expertise of multiple federal agencies, the philanthropic community, the business community, anchor institutions, and lessons learned by other local governments. A primary focus of the Network's direct assistance will be basic operational issues such revenue/service analysis and performance management. Building capacity in these areas without necessarily focusing on a specific federal program is not targeted by any other federal technical assistance (TA) program, and since SC2 specifically targets low-capacity governments, HUD expects budget shortfalls and operational/program efficiency issues to be common across most, if not all, cities assisted. This also provides a solid base from which the Network can clearly identify other TA needs. It will also assist across a wide range of basic capacity issues as local needs dictate, connecting to existing programs whenever possible, such as: Economic Development (economic visioning, job market analysis, cluster analysis and engagement); Workforce Development (job training strategies, industry needs analysis, cradle-to-career education reform); Public Safety (juvenile justice, corrections restructuring, policing strategies); and Sustainable Land Use (brownfield redevelopment, corridor planning, consolidated transportation & housing plans).
As an example, a city might come to the SC2 Network for help with a structural budget deficit. The Network would tap its contracted or private partner experts in public management who would work with city leadership to develop sustainable revenue and spending plans. These plans might suggest a redevelopment of vacant industrial areas into technology parks, open space, or housing, requiring revisions to land use and zoning. The SC2 Network would identify whether HUD, EPA, or Commerce, for example, might be available to advise the city. If not and this was a crucial step for the city to reach its goals, the SC2 Network could directly engage a land use expert to assist with the physical layout, while ensuring coordination with its public management experts.
HUD plans that eligible applicants for the SC2 Network Administrator will include: Nonprofit organizations, foundations, educational institutions, for-profit companies, or consortia of
In addition, under the NOFA process, applicants to become the Administrator will be required to meet all threshold requirements contained in HUD's Fiscal Year 2012 NOFA General Section, including requirements addressing civil rights and other cross-cutting requirements applicable to federal funding.
The SC2 Network will carry out three categories of activities. The first involves establishing the organization, its procedures, and operationalizing further activities. The second involves limited-length engagements with individual local communities—the core of the SC2 Network's work. The third category targets a limited number of cities or counties where an alignment of organizations can sustain local capacity building over a longer term through Local Resource Networks. Applicants to be the SC2 Network Administrator will not be limited to the activities described below and may suggest additions within these categories.
As a pilot, SC2 Network must establish its operating procedures to truly be a place-based single portal for technical assistance. HUD expects this category will form no more than 30 percent of the SC2 Network's activities in this first pilot phase, but would drop to no more than 15 percent after the first year of funding.
(1) Identify technical experts that can fulfill anticipated needs of applicants for SC2 Network services. Determine structures necessary to obtain, support and nurture a roster of both paid and pro-bono experts.
(2) Advertise the SC2 Network's availability to eligible local communities;
(3) Manage requests for assistance based on the priorities outlined in the applicant's proposal and agreed upon with HUD, working with the applicant to fully understand and document the scope of their proposed challenges, determining whether SC2 Network assistance is appropriate, and documenting recommendations;
(4) Identify and maintain a catalog of other technical assistance programs eligible to local governments, regularly communicate with staff of major programs on potentially alignment with the SC2 Network, and refer applying governments to them as applicable;
(5) Document and evaluate the effectiveness of the individual interventions and the SC2 Network as a whole;
(6) Maintain an easily accessible online resource bank of all materials generated that could have utility for other governments and practitioners and create a strong peer-to-peer network so information and experiences can be routinely transmitted and shared; and
(7) Regularly report to HUD and its interagency partners on potential regulatory barriers to be addressed and other potential improvements to federal programs identified through SC2 Network projects.
Individual engagements with local communities are the core of the SC2 Network's work. While Category 1 will be emphasized in the first pilot phase starting in 2012, the SC2 Network must also use a minimum of 50 percent of its funds to perform the following Category 2 activities in local communities during the pilot. Category 2 is envisioned to become the bulk of the SC2 Network's activities after the first pilot year.
(8) Work with the technical assistance providers to help an applicant government articulate what it is trying to achieve from its request;
(9) Build a reasonable technical assistance plan to achieve those results;
(10) Provide funds to the appropriate technical assistance providers sufficient to administer the services set out in the technical assistance plan;
(11) Facilitate the deployment of permanent or part-time staff temporarily to the locality (fellows, volunteers, etc.), if available;
(12) Document the request, proposed scope of work, and expected result via a technical assistance plan; and
(13) Assist the local government in identifying other federal, state, local, and privately-funded programs and services that could be appropriate to support follow-on work.
In a limited number of cities or regions, the SC2 Network may also create and support Local Resource Networks. HUD recognizes that some places have community or local foundations and engaged private industries able to provide resources that, if properly aligned, might replicate the objectives of the SC2 National Resource Network on a local level. These scaled versions of the SC2 Network would sustainably support local government capacity, and might free the SC2 Network and other federal resources to serve other economically-distressed communities. As described in Soundness of Approach section below, the SC2 Network must insure these places meet certain requirements. The SC2 Network may elect to use a small portion of its resources in this category, with no more than $500,000 provided to an individual city or region for the following activities.
(14) Identify cities or regions where LRNs may be viable and recruit potential local lead organizations;
(15) Provide funds to a local lead organization to create a business plan for the Local Resource Network, support assembling a leadership team from the public, private, and non-profit sectors, and recruit private or non-profit partners to dedicate pro bono teams;
HUD is not proposing a fixed model for the SC2 Network, but will seek proposals for its structure from applicants. The SC2 Network Administrator will be selected through a competition that prioritizes prior experience in assisting economically-distressed cities across a wide range of places and issues, and delivering results to these communities on a specific timetable. The successful Administrator should be:
1. Place-based. The selected organization, buoyed by support of agencies and the philanthropic community, will already have experience working in many distressed cities, and will be able to match these cities to relevant technical experts quickly and efficiently.
2. Resource-maximizing. The selected organization will have a national scope and will be well-accustomed to the challenge of distributing scarce resources across cities with distinct needs. The ability to effectively evaluate requests for service will be paramount to using the SC2 Network's resources to their greatest potential. Maximizing resources means successfully obtaining philanthropic resources and pro bono services, balanced with paid consultants as needed.
3. Nimble, responsive, and service-oriented for cities. The SC2 Network will be designed to provide very timely assistance that can thoroughly understand and adapt to needs on the ground. Its deep team of technical experts will allow for subject area experts to be assigned quickly and, when necessary, for partnerships between experts on issues that require multiple skill sets and excellent customer service skills.
4. Objective. In some cases, procedures or regulations may be a barrier to local capacity-building action. The SC2 Network's external operation will grant a layer of objectivity to facilitate local partnering and honest feedback to HUD and the other SC2 agencies for relieving burdens on local governments, while retaining accountability for results.
5. Sustainable. The intermediary selected will have the nonprofit management expertise required to make the SC2 Network financially sustainable, and as an outside entity, this organization can attract philanthropic funding and potentially multiply HUD's investment several times over. This structure intentionally allows the SC2 Network to continue supporting local governments on as minimal an investment as possible.
HUD will carefully evaluate descriptions of the organizational structure of Administrator applicants for a demonstration that it can successfully implement the proposed activities in a timely manner. Applicants will need to describe their capacity to perform the activities of the SC2 Network and relevant experience within the last 3 years.
HUD is particularly interested in the Administrator's experience in leveraging philanthropic support, contracting with technical service providers, understanding available federal government resources, and working with local governments. The SC2 Network should create a balance of engaging paid experts when necessary while maximizing contributions of pro bono services to maximize the services the SC2 Network can provide.
The Administrator will need to demonstrate they either have sufficient personnel or the ability to procure qualified experts or professionals with the requisite knowledge, skills, and abilities in preparing and coordinating the development of the SC2 Network. The Administrator should be prepared to initiate eligible activities according to a specific timetable they propose and negotiate with HUD.
The SC2 Network Administrator must have an understanding of the problems necessitating assistance from the SC2 Network based on thorough, credible, and appropriate data and information. HUD will evaluate applicants on their documented description of significant obstacles to capacity building at the local government level. Applicants will be evaluated on their understanding of existing models of technical assistance provision and capacity building for local governments that might inform the SC2 Network, along with the limitations of these models.
The structure for the SC2 Network proposed by Administrator applicants will be a major factor in HUD's selection. Applicants must propose how they will structure the SC2 Network and how the activities they will pursue address the problems identified in local government capacity. The Administrator will be required to develop a work plan that includes specific, measurable, and time-phased objectives for each activity.
The SC2 Network Administrator will require in-house expertise and a process for obtaining the services of other qualified experts with the requisite knowledge, skills, and abilities as needed. The ability to work on a wide range of issues will be important, as well as the ability to work in a wide range of locations. In particular, the applicant should demonstrate an ability to collaborate and coordinate with other organizations, experts, and sectors in delivering assistance to local communities through the SC2 Network. Also important is the leverage of pro bono services from the private or non-profit sectors to serve these functions, but the plan must balance these with paid consultants from the non-profit and private sectors when local needs require them. The Administrator must develop plans for evaluating their team of experts, including measures that will be taken if an individual's work proves unsatisfactory.
HUD expects that more local governments will request the services of the SC2 Network than the SC2 Network is able to engage, particularly in the first year. SC2 Network Administrator applicants must propose a prioritization system in their applications that could include:
• The community's ranking on a relative distress scale (using data provided by HUD and other SC2 agencies and from other sources as appropriate);
• Scope/cost of request;
• Letters of commitment for support/staff time from directors of offices;
• Willingness of the government to commit to attaining certain performance standards;
• Demonstration of partnerships/collaboration between local government offices;
• Referral from another SC2 agency technical assistance program that is assisting the local government but recommends broader assistance beyond its allowed scope;
• Evidence that the government has made/is making efforts to address the issue; and
• Other criteria the applicant deems important to creating the greatest impact in improved local capacity and use of funds, with a justification of its importance.
The criteria proposed should allow the SC2 Network to provide assistance to as many governments as possible while providing a meaningful intervention according to the program's objectives. Administrator applicants' descriptions of criteria should relate to the existing models of technical assistance provision and capacity building they describe under Need/Extent of the Problem. Applicants should describe why each criterion will succeed in targeting and overcoming the capacity problems they have documented.
Administrator applicants also must propose criteria for engaging in Category 3 activities to establish Local Resource Networks. At a minimum, these must include:
• Demonstration of sufficient private sector or non-profit partners with appropriate
• Demonstration of matching funds from a local non-profit or private source; and
• Demonstration of support from the local government.
HUD has reoriented a part of its technical assistance funds to create the single comprehensive clearinghouse, and other agencies on the White House SC2 Council have identified linked technical assistance support. HUD and the SC2 Council cannot, and are not intending to, provide the full technical assistance resources necessary given the scope of local needs. This is intentional to make the investment go further through private leverage and make the SC2 Network less dependent on a single stream of funds. Moreover, leveraging outside investments builds in engagement of the expertise that already exists in the philanthropic, non-profit, and private sectors for this work, and creates a relationship between these efforts and government programs to encourage mutual improvement rather than working around each other and duplicating efforts. Applicants will be scored on firm commitments from other community, private sector, and federal resources that can be combined with HUD's program resources to achieve program objectives, and that are contingent only on the applicant's selection as the SC2 Network Administrator. Greater collaboration between government and other sectors is an SC2 Network goal, so resources must include in-kind
Because the SC2 Network seeks support to develop and implement long-range capacity improvements for local governments, not all outcomes will be realized during the duration of the grant period. Rather, Administrator applicants will be evaluated on their ability to identify the outcomes they seek to achieve and the specificity of the benchmarks that they establish to measure progress toward a completed product that guides all of the necessary work.
The White House SC2 Council is working to track the outcomes of its work on all components of SC2, and the SC2 Network Administrator will be required to coordinate with these efforts and track comparable outputs and outcomes in its work. These might include the number of Network recommendations implemented and how quickly, the pace of expenditure of federal funds, the number of successful applications for federal funds, and the extent of collaborative stakeholder network supporting implementation of the city's comprehensive economic strategy. The Network Administrator will be expected to develop and track specific measures for its works, including progress on budget deficits and municipal bond ratings. For every engagement, the Network Administrator must create a clear logic model describing issues targeted, what it seeks to achieve, the benchmarks that show success, and the steps the Network will take to reach success.
As noted above, HUD and its SC2 agency partners are soliciting comments through this Advance Notice on how the SC2 Network pilot program should be structured, what funding categories and activities are most appropriate to support, which entities should be eligible for SC2 Network Administrator, and how best to evaluate proposed SC2 Network structures in order to have the most meaningful impact in rebuilding and growing local government capacity for good governance and economic growth. The discussion below outlines in general terms the key questions HUD is considering in preparing the final NOFA for the program and identifies some specific issues for comment.
a. Given the limited resources available and potentially large demand for services from cities, are there certain activities the SC2 Network should focus on or prioritize, either by topic or by the four types of activities described: (1) Operational/program/fiscal assessments, (2) connection/clearinghouse for federal TA, (3) direct TA provision when necessary, and (4) Local Resource Networks?
b. Are there specific activities or criteria for funding Local Resource Networks that would increase the success of these efforts, and why?
c. Given limited funding for an initial pilot, what is a minimum funding amount necessary to make the Local Resource Network activities described viable for this stage of the program?
d. Are there currently efforts underway or proposed in individual cities or regions that would meet the criteria for Local Resource Networks, and if so, in which places?
a. What are the top capacity challenges governments in distressed communities face, and on what issues do they most require technical assistance?
b. What is an appropriate minimum level of assistance to make a meaningful impact for a given local government? Given the proposed funding levels, what is an appropriate maximum level of assistance, or how many governments might be assisted given the $5,000,000 total funding HUD has proposed?
c. What are current successful organizational models similar to the SC2 Network that might serve as guides for its structure? Which aspects of these models contribute most to their success (e.g., leveraging philanthropic support, engaging
d. What are current successful technical assistance and/or capacity building models for local government and specific city case studies that the SC2 Network might use as best practices?
e. What are feasible 6-month, 1-year, 2-year, 5-year, and 10-year outcomes for local communities assisted by the SC2 Network? Are any of these outcomes universal for all sizes and places, or will they vary by the individual circumstances of each government?
f. Which of the criteria listed for prioritizing requests from local governments are most important, and what are additional criteria that should be included?
g. What type of information will the Network need from cities to understand need and readiness, and to determine the proper extent of engagement with the Network?
While these are issues of particular interest, HUD encourages meaningful input on the proposed SC2 Network program more generally as well. If providing comments and addressing the comments for which HUD specificially solicits feedback, HUD requests that commenters please respond to the specified questions first in addition to other comments you would like to provide. HUD has provided the avenues for input in the
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review two initial determinations (“IDs”) (Order Nos. 21 and 22) of the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) terminating the investigation as to all remaining respondents.
Michael Liberman, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3106. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at
The Commission instituted this investigation under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337, on July 19, 2011, based on a complaint filed on behalf of Trek 2000 International Ltd. of Loyang Industrial Estate, Singapore; Trek Technology (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. of Genting Centre, Singapore; and S-Corn System (S) Pte. Ltd. of Genting Centre, Singapore (collectively, “Trek”), alleging a violation of section 337 in the importation, sale for importation, and sale within the United States after importation of certain universal serial bus (“USB”) portable storage devices, including USB flash drives and components thereof that infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,880,054; 7,039,759; D463,426; and 7,549,161. 76 FR 42730 (July 19, 2011). The notice of investigation named as respondents Imation Corporation of Oakdale, Minnesota; IronKey, Inc. of Sunnyvale, California; Kingston Technology Company, Inc. of Fountain Valley, California; Patriot Memory, LLC of Fremont, California (“Patriot”); RITEK Corporation of Hsinchu, Taiwan and Advanced Media, Inc./RITEK USA of Diamond Bar, California (collectively, “RITEK”); and Verbatim Corporation, Inc. of Charlotte, North Carolina and Verbatim Americas, LLC of Charlotte, North Carolina (collectively, “Verbatim”). Subsequently, respondents RITEK, Verbatim, and Patriot were terminated from the investigation.
On May 4, 2012, complainants Trek moved to terminate the investigation in part and withdraw the allegations in the complaint of infringement of the '054, the '759, and the '426 patents by accused products of respondent IronKey, namely the S200 and D200 products and Trusted Access. Respondents Imation, IronKey, and Kingston did not oppose the motion. The Commission investigative staff (“Staff”) filed a response in support of the motion. On May 8, 2012, the presiding ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 21) granting the motion.
On May 8, 2012, complainants Trek filed an uncontested motion to withdraw the complaint and terminate the investigation as to the remaining respondents Kingston and Imation. Respondents Kingston and Imation did not oppose the motion. The Staff filed a response in support of the motion. On May 10, 2012, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 22) granting the motion. No party petitioned for review of either Order No. 21 or Order No. 22. The Commission has determined not to review the IDs. The investigation is hereby terminated.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337, and in section 210.42(h) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.42(h).
By Order of the Commission.
In notice document 2012-14161, appearing on pages 35020-35021 in the issue of Tuesday, June 12, 2012, make the following correction:
On page 35020, in the third column, in the fourth full paragraph, in the eighth and ninth lines, “[insert date 30 days from date of publication]” should read “July 12, 2012”.
Legal Services Corporation.
Request for comments.
The Legal Services Corporation (“LSC” or “Corporation”) Board of Directors (“Board”) is soliciting public comment on the LSC Board's draft strategic plan for 2012-2016.
Written comments must be received by close of business July 11, 2012.
Written comments may be submitted by mail, fax, or email to Richard L. Sloane, Chief of Staff and Special Assistant to the President, Legal Services Corporation, 3333 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20007; (202) 295-7264 (fax), or
Richard L. Sloane, Chief of Staff and Special Assistant to the President, Legal Services Corporation, 3333 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20007, (202) 295-1616 (phone), (202) 337-7264 (fax), or
The Board is developing a strategic plan for LSC for the years 2012-2016. The public is hereby formally invited to comment on the draft strategic plan, which is available at
National Endowment for the Arts, National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities.
Notice of meeting.
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), as amended, notice is hereby given that a meeting of the National Council on the Arts will be held at the Nancy Hanks Center, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20506.
June 28, 2012 from 1:00 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. in Room 527. This portion of the meeting will be closed for National Medal of Arts review and recommendations. June 29, 2012 from 9:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. (ending times are approximate). This portion of the meeting will be open.
Office of Communications, National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC 20506, at 202/682-5570.
The meeting on Friday, June 29th will be open to the public on a space available basis. The meeting will begin with opening remarks, swearing in of new Council members, and voting on recommendations for funding and rejection and guidelines, followed by updates by the Chairman. There will also be the following presentations: From 9:45 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.—Citizens' Institute on Rural Design; from 10:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.—Association of Children's Museum; from 11:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.—NEA National Heritage Fellowships. The meeting will adjourn at 11:30 a.m.
For information about possible webcasting of the open session of this meeting, go to the Podcasts, Webcasts, & Webinars tab at
If, in the course of the open session discussion, it becomes necessary for the Council to discuss non-public commercial or financial information of intrinsic value, the Council will go into closed session pursuant to subsection (c)(4) of the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b, and in accordance with the February 15, 2012 determination of the Chairman. Additionally, discussion concerning purely personal information about individuals, such as personal biographical and salary data or medical information, may be conducted by the Council in closed session in accordance with subsection (c)(6) of 5 U.S.C. 552b.
Any interested persons may attend, as observers, Council discussions and reviews that are open to the public. If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact the Office of AccessAbility, National Endowment for the Arts, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20506, 202/682-5532, TTY-TDD 202/682-5429, at least seven (7) days prior to the meeting.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to adopt Rule 21.16, entitled “Risk Monitor Mechanism”, to codify the risk monitoring functionality offered to all Users
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to reflect in the Exchange's rules that Users are able to establish certain risk control parameters. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to adopt new Rule 21.16, Risk Monitor Mechanism, which is similar to NASDAQ Options Market (“NOM”) Chapter VI, Section 19 and the rules of other options exchanges (as explained in detail below). The Risk Monitor Mechanism provides protection from the risk of multiple executions across multiple series of an option or across multiple options. The risk to Users is not limited to a single series in an option or even to all series of an option; Users that quote in multiple series of multiple options have significant exposure, requiring them to offset or hedge their overall positions.
In particular, the Risk Monitor Mechanism will be useful for market makers on BATS Options (“Market Makers”), who are required to continuously quote in assigned options. Quoting across many series in an option creates the possibility of “rapid fire” executions that can create large, unintended principal positions that expose the Market Maker to unnecessary market risk. The Risk Monitor Mechanism is intended to assist such Users in managing their market risk.
Though the Risk Monitor Mechanism will be most useful to Market Makers, the Exchange proposes to offer the functionality to all participant types. There are other firms that trade on a proprietary basis and provide liquidity to the Exchange; these firms could potentially benefit, similarly to Market Makers, from the Risk Monitor Mechanism. The Exchange believes that the Risk Monitor Mechanism should help liquidity providers generally, market makers and other participants alike, in managing risk and providing deep and liquid markets to investors.
Pursuant to new Rule 21.16, the Risk Monitor Mechanism operates by the System maintaining a counting program for each User. As proposed, a single User may configure a single counting program or multiple counting programs to govern its trading activity (i.e., on a per port basis). The counting program will count executions of contracts traded by each User and in specific Option Categories (as defined below) by each User. The counting program counts executions, contract volume and notional value, within a specified time period established by each User (the “specified time period”) and on an absolute basis for the trading day (“absolute limits”). The specified time period will commence for an option when a transaction occurs in any series in such option. The counting program will count executions in the following “Options Categories”: front-month puts, front-month calls, back-month puts, and back-month calls (each an “Option Category”). The counting program will also count a User's executions, contract volume and notional value across all options which a User trades (“Firm Category”). For the purposes of new Rule 21.16, a front-month put or call is an option that expires within the next two calendar months, including weeklies and other non-standard expirations, and a back-month put or call is an option that expires in any month more than two calendar months away from the current month.
The System will engage the Risk Monitor Mechanism in a particular option when the counting program has determined that a User's trading has reached a Specified Engagement Trigger (as defined below) established by such User during the specified time period or on an absolute basis. When a Specified Engagement Trigger is reached in an Options Category, the Risk Monitor Mechanism will automatically remove such User's orders in all series of the particular option and reject any additional orders from a User in such option until the counting program has been reset in accordance with paragraph (d) of new Rule 21.16. Similarly, when a Specified Engagement Trigger is reached in the Firm Category, the Risk Monitor Mechanism will automatically remove such User's orders in all series of all options and reject any additional orders from a User until the counting program has been reset in accordance with paragraph (d) of new Rule 21.16. The Risk Monitor Mechanism will also attempt to cancel any orders that have been routed away to other options exchanges on behalf of the User.
As provided in proposed subparagraph (b)(ii), each User can, optionally, establish Specified Engagement Triggers in each Options Category, per option, or in the Firm Category. Specified Engagement Triggers can be set as follows: (A) A contract volume trigger, measured against the number of contracts executed (the “volume trigger”); (B) A notional value trigger, measured against the notional value of executions
For example, assume a User is quoting orders in several series of a particular option issue, and sets Specified Engagement Triggers in an Options Category as follows: (i) A volume trigger at 500 contracts per second, (ii) a count trigger at 100 executions per minute, and (iii) an absolute notional value trigger of $30,000. In this example, there are three Specified Engagement Triggers for the option issue, any one of which, if reached, would result in cancellations of any additional orders of the User in the specified option issue, rejection of additional orders by the User in that issue and attempted cancellation of any orders in the option issue already routed to an away options exchange on behalf of the User. The following examples illustrate the operation of each of the User's Specified Engagement Triggers:
If within one second, executions against the User's quotations in any series of front-month calls of the option issue equaled or exceeded 500 contracts, the Risk Monitor Mechanism would be engaged. To illustrate this example, assume the following quotations and executions within the current second in front-month calls of the specified option issue:
At this moment in time, the User has executed 450 contracts within the applicable second (350 contracts of Series 1 and 100 contracts of Series 2), which is less than the User's limit of 500 contracts per second. As such, the User's established volume trigger in an Options Category has not yet been reached. If, however, prior to the completion of the applicable second, an order executed against the User's Level 3 quotation in Series 2, the number of contracts executed in front-month calls of the option issue would be 500. The Risk Monitor would be engaged, and the User's remaining orders in all series of the option issue would be cancelled, additional orders by the User in that issue would be rejected, and the Exchange would attempt to cancel any orders in the option issue that had already been routed to an away options exchange on behalf of the User.
If within one minute, executions against the User's quotations in any series of front-month puts of the option issue equaled or exceeded 100 executions per minute, the Risk Monitor Mechanism would be engaged. To illustrate this example, assume the following quotations and executions within the current minute in front-month puts of the specified option issue:
At this moment in time, the User has received 95 total executions within the applicable minute (60 executions in Series 1 options and 35 executions in Series 2 options), which is less than the User's limit of 100 executions per minute. As such, the User's established count trigger in an Options Category has not yet been reached. If, however, prior to the completion of the applicable minute, the User executed 5 more orders in either series, the number of executions in front-month puts of the option issue would be 100. The Risk Monitor would be engaged, and the User's remaining orders in all series of the option issue would be cancelled, additional orders by the User in that issue would be rejected, and the Exchange would attempt to cancel any orders in the option issue that had already been routed to an away options exchange on behalf of the User.
If, as of any time during the trading day, executions against the User's quotations in any series of front-month calls of the option issue equaled or exceeded a notional value of $30,000, the Risk Monitor Mechanism would be engaged. To illustrate this example, assume the current notional value of all front-month calls in the option issue was $29,900 as of 1:30 p.m. Eastern Time and the following executions occurred:
At this moment in time, execution number 3 has raised the total notional value of all front-month calls to $30,000 for the trading day. The Risk Monitor would be engaged, and the User's remaining orders in all series of the option issue would be cancelled, additional orders by the User in that issue would be rejected, and the Exchange would attempt to cancel any orders in the option issue that had already been routed to an away options exchange on behalf of the User.
As noted above, in addition to counting programs established across Options Categories, any of the available Specified Engagement Triggers are
While the Risk Monitor Mechanism is a useful feature that serves an important risk management purpose, it operates consistent with the firm quote obligations of a broker-dealer pursuant to Rule 602 of Regulation NMS. Specifically, proposed paragraph (c) provides that any marketable orders or quotes that are executable against a User's quotation that are received prior to the time the Risk Monitor Mechanism is engaged will be automatically executed at the price up to the User's size, regardless of whether such an execution results in executions in excess of the User's Specified Engagement Trigger. Accordingly, the Risk Monitor Mechanism cannot be used to circumvent a User's firm quote obligation.
If a User is quoting in two series of a particular option, at several price levels in each, and sets an Options Category volume trigger at 400 contracts, one contra side order can result in executions in excess of the Specified Engagement Trigger. Specifically, if a market order to sell 500 contracts is received in Series 1, the order will execute against the first four levels that the User is quoting, as follows:
Although the User set a volume trigger at 400 contracts, the contra side order executes in its entirety and the Risk Protection Mechanism is engaged after the resulting executions have surpassed the Specified Engagement Trigger. The remaining quoted contracts in Series 1 and all quoted contracts in Series 2 would then be cancelled.
Proposed Rule 21.16(d) further provides that the system will reset the counting period for absolute limits when a User refreshes its risk limit thresholds. In addition, proposed Rule 21.16(d) provides that the System will reset the counting program and commence a new specified time period when: (i) A previous counting period has expired and a transaction occurs in any series in such option; or (ii) A User refreshes its risk limit thresholds prior to the expiration of the specified time period. For example, assume that a User has set Options Category limits for a particular option as follows: Volume triggers at 500 contracts per second and 20,000 contracts per minute, a count trigger at 20 executions per second, and an absolute notional value trigger of $30,000. Assume that at a particular point in time, 400 front-month calls have executed in the current second, 19,000 front-month calls have executed in the current minute, 10 executions of front-month calls have occurred in the current second and a total of $25,000 notional has been executed in front-month calls over the course of the trading day. Next, an incoming order from another User of BATS Options is received that results in another 1,000 front-month call contracts executing within the current minute, thus triggering the volume trigger of 20,000 contracts per minute. If the User reset the risk limit threshold, all values, including the absolute notional calculation for the trading day, would be reset to zero.
The rule change proposed in this submission is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change imposes any burden on competition.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposal is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”),
The ISE proposes to eliminate three fees from its Schedule of Fees. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of this proposed rule change is to eliminate three fees from the Exchange's Schedule of Fees. First, the Exchange currently has a fee of $0.25 per contract applicable to customers that transact in complex orders,
In 2010, the Exchange began assessing per contract transaction fees and rebates to market participants that add or remove liquidity from the Exchange (“maker/taker fees and rebates”)
Second, the Exchange currently has a fee pursuant to which Exchange Primary Market Makers (PMMs) are subject to a minimum fee of $50,000 per options group (“Minimum PMM Fee”). To the extent that aggregate execution fees in a group or bin of options do not total at least $50,000 per month, the PMM for that bin must pay a fee representing the difference between $50,000 and the aggregate actual execution fees. The Exchange adopted this fee during its early years in order to encourage PMMs to ramp up their operations as quickly as possible and to avoid a potential revenue shortfall. ISE's PMMs have been fully operating all of their PMM trading rights for a number of years and generate revenue greater than the Minimum PMM Fee. The Exchange does not believe there is a need for this fee any more. Therefore, the Exchange proposes to eliminate this fee and remove it from its Schedule of Fees.
Finally, when the Exchange adopted its maker/taker fees and rebates, it also adopted a distinction between small size Priority Customer orders,
The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Schedule of Fees is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”)
The Exchange believes that this proposed rule change which seeks to amend the text of the Schedule of Fees to clarify the applicability of certain fees is also both reasonable and equitable because Members would benefit from clear guidance in the rule text describing the manner in which the Exchange would assess fees. The Exchange further believes the proposed rule change is reasonable because removing these fees from the Schedule of Fees will provide clarity and greater transparency regarding the Exchange's fees. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change is also equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory in that it treats similarly situated market participants in the same manner,
The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested parties.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Exchange Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form
• Send an Email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On March 26, 2012, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposed to amend the trading requirements imposed on certain Exchange market makers
First, the Exchange proposed to amend Exchange Rule 1014, Commentary .13, which provides that within each quarter an ROT must execute in person, and not through the use of orders, a specified number of contracts, with such number to be determined from time to time by the Exchange. Pursuant to Commentary .13, Options Floor Procedure Advice B-3 requires that an ROT (other than an RSQT or a Remote Specialist) trade in person, and not through the use of orders, the greater of 1000 contracts or 50% of its contract volume on the Exchange each quarter. The Exchange proposed to amend both Commentary .13 and Options Floor Procedure Advice B-3 to permit non-SQT ROTs to meet the in-person trading requirements set forth in those sections using orders entered in person, for the same reasons that the Exchange recently modified the 80% in-person test set forth in Commentary .01 to Rule 1014.
The Exchange also proposed to amend Exchange Rule 1014(b)(ii)(E) to eliminate the requirement that non-SQT ROTs who transact more than 20% of their contract volume in an option electronically during any calendar quarter submit two-sided electronic quotations (also known as “streaming quotes”) in a designated percentage of series within options in which such non-SQT ROT is assigned (the “20% test”). The Exchange stated that streaming quotes is burdensome to non-SQT ROTs, who are generally not equipped to undertake this form of trading, and could result in a significant
The Exchange also proposed conforming changes to Exchange Rule 1014(b)(ii)(E)(1) to conform that provision to the recent amendment by the Exchange of Rule 1014, Commentary .01. Specifically, the Exchange proposed to delete Exchange Rule 1014(b)(ii)(E)(1)(c), which provides that any volume transacted electronically will not count towards a non-SQT ROT's 80% in-person test contained in Commentary .01 to Rule 1014. As described above, recently amended Commentary .01 eliminated this restriction and the Exchange stated that Exchange Rule 1014(b)(ii)(E)(1)(c) was no longer necessary.
Finally, the Exchange proposed to eliminate a reference from Rule 1093(a), the Phlx XL Risk Monitor Mechanism, which refers to non-SQT ROTs that are required to stream two-sided quotes electronically pursuant to Rule 1014(b)(ii)(E). As described above, the Exchange proposes to remove the requirement from Rule 1014(b)(ii)(E) that non-SQT ROTs stream quotes electronically, and is making this conforming change to Rule 1093(a).
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange
The proposal eliminates the potentially burdensome requirements that are triggered when a non-SQT ROT executes more than 20% of its volume electronically, eliminates restrictions on non-SQT ROTs' use of orders to meet various in-person trading requirements, and makes clarifying and conforming changes to previously amended rule text.
With respect to the elimination of the requirement that non-SQT ROTs stream quotes electronically if they transact more than 20% of their contract volume electronically, the Commission notes that the Exchange recently amended its rules to require ROTs (other than RSQTs and Remote Specialists) to execute a minimum of 1,000 contracts and 300 transactions on the Exchange each quarter.
Given that the Exchange is eliminating the continuous electronic quoting obligations for non-SQT ROTs, the Commission finds that it is consistent with the Act for the Exchange to eliminate a corresponding reference to this requirement in Rule 1093(a).
The Commission finds that the changes to Rule 1014, Commentary .13, and to the Options Floor Procedure Advice B-3 to permit non-SQT ROTs to use orders to meet in-person trading requirements are also consistent with the Act. Those changes are consistent with the recent changes to Commentary .01 to Rule 1014, which were approved by the Commission, to permit the use of orders entered in person to count towards the 80% in-person requirement of that Commentary.
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”)
The ISE is proposing to make a change to its schedule of fees. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange currently assesses per contract transaction fees and provides rebates to market participants that add or remove liquidity from the Exchange (“maker/taker fees and rebates”) in a number of options classes (the “Select Symbols”).
Specifically, the Exchange now proposes to increase certain rebates associated with complex order volume tiers. In the Select Symbols, the Exchange currently provides a base rebate of $0.32 per contract, per leg, for Priority Customer complex orders when these orders trade with non-Priority Customer complex orders in the complex order book. Additionally, Members can earn a higher rebate amount by achieving certain average daily volume (ADV) thresholds on a month-to-month basis, as follows: If a Member achieves an ADV of 75,000 Priority Customer complex order contracts, the rebate amount for such option contracts is $0.33 per contract per leg; if a Member achieves an ADV of 125,000 Priority Customer complex order contracts, the rebate amount for such option contracts is $0.34 per contract per leg. The Exchange now proposes to adopt a new tier for Priority Customer complex order contracts in the Select Symbols of 250,000 contracts such that if a Member achieves an ADV of 250,000 Priority Customer complex order contracts, the rebate amount for such option contracts shall be $0.345 per contract per leg. The highest rebate amount achieved by a Member for the current calendar month shall apply retroactively to all Priority Customer complex order contracts that trade with non-Priority Customer complex orders in the complex order book executed by a Member during such calendar month.
In the Non-Select Penny Pilot Symbols, the Exchange currently provides a base rebate of $0.28 per contract, per leg, for Priority Customer complex orders when these orders trade with non-Priority Customer complex orders in the complex order book.
In the Non-Penny Pilot Symbols, the Exchange currently provides a base rebate of $0.57 per contract, per leg, for Priority Customer complex orders when these orders trade with non-Priority Customer complex orders in the complex order book. Additionally, Members can earn a higher rebate amount on a month-to-month basis, as follows: If a Member achieves an ADV of 75,000 Priority Customer complex order contracts, the rebate amount for such option contracts is $0.59 per contract per leg; if the Member achieves an ADV of 125,000 Priority Customer complex order contracts, the rebate amount for such option contracts is $0.61 per contract per leg. The Exchange now proposes to adopt a new tier for Priority Customer complex order contracts in the Non-Penny Pilot Symbols of 250,000 contracts such that if a Member achieves an ADV of 250,000 Priority Customer complex order contracts, the rebate amount for such option contracts shall be $0.615 per contract per leg. The highest rebate amount achieved by a Member for the current calendar month shall apply retroactively to all Priority Customer complex order contracts that trade with non-Priority Customer complex orders in the complex order book executed by a Member during such calendar month.
Finally, for SPY, the Exchange currently provides a base rebate of $0.33 per contract, per leg, for Priority Customer complex orders when these orders trade with non-Priority Customer complex orders in the complex order book. Additionally, Members can earn a higher rebate amount on a month-to-month basis, as follows: If a Member achieves an ADV of 75,000 Priority Customer complex order contracts, the rebate amount for such option contracts is $0.34 per contract per leg; if the Member achieves an ADV of 125,000 Priority Customer complex order contracts, the rebate amount for such option contracts is $0.35 per contract per leg. The Exchange now proposes to adopt a new tier for Priority Customer complex order contracts in SPY of 250,000 contracts such that if a Member achieves an ADV of 250,000 Priority Customer complex order contracts, the rebate amount for such option contracts shall be $0.355 per contract per leg. The highest rebate amount achieved by a Member for the current calendar month shall apply retroactively to all Priority Customer complex order contracts that trade with non-Priority Customer complex orders in the complex order book executed by a Member during such calendar month.
The Exchange is not proposing any other changes in this filing.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Schedule of Fees is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Exchange Act
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable and equitable to provide rebates for Priority Customer complex orders when these orders trade with Non-Priority Customer complex orders in the complex order book because paying a rebate would continue to attract additional order flow to the Exchange and create liquidity in the symbols that are subject to the rebate, which the Exchange believes ultimately will benefit all market participants who trade on ISE. The Exchange has already established a volume-based incentive program, and is now merely proposing to adopt an additional tier to that program. The Exchange believes that the proposed rebates are competitive with rebates provided by other exchanges and are therefore reasonable and equitably allocated to those members that direct orders to the Exchange rather than to a competing exchange.
The complex order pricing employed by the Exchange has proven to be an effective pricing mechanism and attractive to Exchange participants and their customers. The Exchange believes that increasing its complex order rebates will attract additional complex order business.
The Exchange further believes that the Exchange's maker/taker fees and rebates are not unfairly discriminatory because those structures are consistent with fee structures that exist today at other options exchanges. Additionally, the Exchange believes that the proposed rebates are fair, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the proposed rebates are consistent with price differentiation that exists today at other option exchanges. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to another exchange if they deem rebate levels at a particular exchange to be low. With this proposed rebate change, the Exchange believes it remains an attractive venue for market participants to trade complex orders.
The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested parties.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Exchange Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Exchange Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”)
The ISE is proposing to change the treatment of certain orders executed in the Exchange's Facilitation and Solicited Order Mechanisms. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
In 2010, the Exchange began assessing per contract transaction fees and rebates to market participants that add or remove liquidity from the Exchange (“maker/taker fees and rebates”)
Pursuant to Commission approval, the Exchange will soon introduce a new order type called “Add Liquidity Order” or “ALO.”
Further, the “break-up” rebate noted in footnote 2 on page 19 of the Exchange's Schedule of Fees relates to orders executed on the Exchange's Facilitation Mechanism, Solicited Order Mechanism and Price Improvement Mechanism and does not apply to complex orders executed on the Exchange. Therefore, the Exchange proposes to remove the reference to footnote 2 from all the complex order fee columns on page 19 of the Exchange's Schedule of Fees.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Schedule of Fees is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”)
The Exchange believes that treating a Facilitation or Solicitation order that interacts with pre-existing orders and quotes as takers of liquidity (as opposed to makers of liquidity which is how these orders are currently treated), thus charging these orders a taker fee furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act, in that it is designed to make the Exchange's fee structure for ALO orders consistent with its overall maker/taker fee structure, thereby removing impediments to and perfecting the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system.
The Exchange believes it is reasonable and equitable to remove footnote 2 from the complex order fee columns on the Exchange's Schedule of Fees because doing so will clarify that footnote 2 is not applicable to complex orders executed on the Exchange and therefore, Members would benefit from clear guidance in the rule text describing the manner in which Exchange fees and rebates are assessed. The Exchange further believes the proposed rule change is reasonable because removing footnote 2 from the complex order fee columns on the Schedule of Fees will provide clarity and greater transparency regarding the Exchange's fees and rebates. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change is also equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory in that it treats similarly situated market participants in the same manner, i.e., the removal of footnote 2 from the complex order fee column will impact all market participants equally on the Exchange.
The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested parties.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Exchange Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Exchange Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2012-47. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the Fees Schedule. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange recently amended the Customer Large Trade Discount in its Fees Schedule to state that for any Trading Permit Holder that executes 750,000 or more customer VIX options contracts in a month, regular customer transaction fees will only be charged up to the first 7,500 VIX options contracts per order in that month (the “Amendment”).
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC proposes to modify pricing for NASDAQ members using the NASDAQ Options Market (“NOM”), NASDAQ's facility for executing and routing standardized equity and index options. Specifically, NASDAQ proposes to amend Chapter XV, Section 2 entitled “NASDAQ Options Market—Fees and Rebates” to adopt rebates and fees relating to options on the Nasdaq 100 Index traded under the symbol NDX (“NDX”).
While the changes proposed herein are effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated these changes to be operative on June 1, 2012.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
NASDAQ proposes to amend Chapter XV, Section 2 to adopt rebates and fees relating to NDX options. NASDAQ currently assesses the same rebates and fees for NDX and options on the one-tenth value of the Nasdaq 100 Index traded under the symbol MNX (“MNX”) as follows:
The Exchange proposes to assess the following Rebate to Remove Liquidity, Rebates to Add Liquidity,
A Customer or a NOM Market Maker
NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule changes are consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
The Exchange believes that its proposal to adopt separate fees and rebates for transactions in NDX is reasonable because the Exchange has previously distinguished other index products.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to adopt separate fees and rebates for transactions in NDX is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because Customers will receive a $0.40 per contract Rebate to Remove Liquidity, which in turn will attract Customer order flow to the Exchange to the benefit of all market participants through increased liquidity. Further, the Exchange also believes it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to only offer rebates for removing liquidity to Customers and not other market participants as an incentive to attract Customer order flow in NDX to the Exchange. It is an important Exchange function to provide an opportunity to all market participants to trade against Customer orders.
The Exchange's proposal to pay a $0.20 per contract Rebate to Add Liquidity to Customers and NOM Market Makers when trading against a Professional, Firm, NOM Market Maker or Non-NOM Market Maker,
The Exchange's proposal to pay a $0.20 per contract Rebate to Add Liquidity to Customers and NOM Market Makers when trading against a Professional, Firm, NOM Market Maker or Non-NOM Market Maker, and assess a Fee to Add Liquidity of $0.65 per contract when trading against a Customer is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because Customers and NOM Market Makers differ from other market participants. Customer order flow benefits all market participants by improving liquidity, the quality of order interaction and executions at the Exchange. NOM Market Makers have obligations to the market and regulatory requirements,
The Exchange's proposal to assess Professionals, Firms, and Non-NOM Market Makers a $0.70 per contract Fee to Add Liquidity is reasonable because the higher fees would enable the Exchange to reward Customers that remove liquidity with rebates. The advantage of increased Customer order flow benefits all market participants. The Exchange's proposal to assess Professionals, Firms, and Non-NOM Market Makers a $0.70 per contract Fee to Add Liquidity is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all other market participants (Professionals, Firms, and Non-NOM Market Makers), other than Customers and NOM Market Makers which are distinguished above, would be assessed the same Fee to Add Liquidity. Also, the Exchange believes it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to not offer a Rebate to Add Liquidity to Professionals, Firms and Non-NOM Market Makers because these participants do not bring the unique benefits that Customer order flow provides the market nor do these participants have the obligations that were described herein for NOM Market Makers.
The Exchange's proposal to assess all market participants except Customers a $0.70 per contract Fee for Removing Liquidity is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because Professionals, Firms, NOM Market Makers and Non-NOM Market Makers would be assessed the same Fee for Removing Liquidity. Also, the Exchange believes the $0.70 per contract Fees for Removing Liquidity are reasonable because the Exchange currently pays a license fee
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market comprised of nine U.S. options exchanges in which sophisticated and knowledgeable market participants can and do send order flow to competing exchanges if they deem fee levels at a particular exchange to be excessive. The Exchange believes that the proposed fee and rebate scheme is competitive and similar to other fees and rebates in place on other exchanges. The Exchange believes that this competitive marketplace materially impacts the fees and rebates present on the Exchange today and substantially influences the proposal set forth above.
NASDAQ does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. To the contrary, NASDAQ has designed its fees and rebates to compete effectively for the execution and routing of options contracts and to reduce the overall cost to investors of options trading. The Exchange believes that the proposed fee/rebate pricing structure would attract liquidity to and benefit order interaction at the Exchange to the benefit of all market participants.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the fee schedule applicable to Members
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to modify the “Options Pricing” section of its fee schedule to: (i) modify the rebates provided by the Exchange for Customer
The Exchange currently provides rebates for Customer orders that add liquidity to the BATS Options order book in Penny Pilot Securities pursuant to a tiered pricing structure, as described below. The Exchange proposes to modify this tiered pricing structure, which will result in the potential for Customer orders to receive larger rebates per contract.
The Exchange currently provides a rebate of $0.30 per contract for Customer orders that add liquidity to the BATS Options order book to the extent a Member of BATS Options does not qualify for a higher rebate based on
The Exchange proposes to increase the current Grow with Us rebates and to adopt a new Grow with Us rebate for Customer orders that add liquidity to the BATS Options order book in Penny Pilot Securities, as described below.
The Exchange proposes to increase its rebate for a Member that does not qualify for the lower tier applicable to Members with an ADV equal to or greater than 0.30% of average TCV but achieves at least a 5 basis point increase over its previous High Water Mark from a rebate of $0.36 per contract to a rebate of $0.38 per contract for Customer orders that add liquidity to BATS Options in Penny Pilot Securities. Similarly, the Exchange proposes to increase its rebate for a Member that qualifies for the lower tier applicable to Members with an ADV equal to or greater than 0.30% of average TCV but not the 1% of average TCV tier that achieves at least a 5 basis point increase over its previous High Water Mark from a rebate of $0.43 per contract to a rebate of $0.45 per contract for Customer orders that add liquidity to BATS Options in Penny Pilot Securities. Finally, the Exchange proposes to adopt a new Grow with Us rebate for Members that have an ADV greater than 1% of average TCV by providing a rebate to those Members that meet this tier but are also increasing their participation on BATS Options as demonstrated by achievement of at least a 5 basis point increase over its previous High Water Mark. The Exchange proposes to provide such Members with a rebate of $0.46 per contract for Customer orders that add liquidity to BATS Options in Penny Pilot Securities.
The Exchange is not proposing any changes to the tiered rebate structure for Customer orders entered by Members that do not qualify for Grow with Us pricing nor is the Exchange proposing to modify the rebates provided for Professional,
The Exchange's NBBO Setter Program is a program intended to incentivize aggressive quoting on BATS Options by providing an additional rebate upon execution for all orders that add liquidity that set either the NBB or NBO (the “NBBO Setter Rebate”),
In order to further incentivize aggressive liquidity by incenting displayed size of contracts, the Exchange proposes to provide twice the rebate for executions that qualify for an NBBO Setter Rebate and result from an order with a displayed size that equals or exceeds 25 contracts. Accordingly, rather than NBBO Setter Rebates of $0.03, $0.06, $0.08 and $0.10 per contract, as described above, the Exchange proposes to provide enhanced NBBO Setter Rebates of $0.06, $0.12, $0.16 and $0.20, respectively, for executions that meet the size threshold. The Exchange proposes to limit the enhanced rebate to executions up to 200 contracts. For any executions above 200 contracts, the Exchange will provide the enhanced rebate based on order size for the first 200 contracts executed, and the standard NBBO Setter Rebate for all remaining contracts executed on that order.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Volume-based rebates such as the ones maintained by the Exchange have been widely adopted in the cash equities markets and are increasingly in use by the options exchanges, and are equitable because they are open to all Members on an equal basis and provide discounts that are reasonably related to the value to an exchange's market quality associated with higher levels of market activity, such as higher levels of liquidity provision and/or growth patterns, and introduction of higher volumes of orders into the price and volume discovery processes. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the continued offering of volume-based rebates for Customer orders in Penny Pilot Securities is not unfairly discriminatory because it is consistent with the overall goals of enhancing market quality. Similarly, the Exchange believes that continuing to base its tiered fee structure based on overall TCV, rather than a static number of contracts irrespective of overall volume in the options industry, is a fair and equitable approach to pricing.
The Exchange believes that continuing to provide additional financial incentives to Members that demonstrate a 5 basis point increase over their previous High Water Mark offers an additional, flexible way to achieve financial incentives from the Exchange and encourages Members to add increasing amounts of liquidity to BATS Options each month. The Grow with Us pricing program, therefore, is reasonable in that it rewards a Member's growth patterns. Such increased volume increases potential revenue to the Exchange, and will allow the Exchange to continue to provide and potentially expand the incentive programs operated by the Exchange. The increased liquidity also benefits all investors by deepening the BATS Options liquidity pool, offering additional flexibility for all investors to enjoy cost savings, supporting the quality of price discovery, promoting market transparency and improving investor protection. The Grow with Us program is also fair and equitable and not unreasonably discriminatory in that it is available to all Members, even for Members that do not meet the Exchange's volume based tiers.
More specifically, the increase to Grow with Us rebates for Customer orders in Penny Pilot Securities is reasonable as it is a small increase that encourages growth by Members, which will, in turn, benefit all participants on BATS Options. The proposed rebates are fair and equitable and not unreasonably discriminatory due to the fact that Grow with Us pricing is available to all Members, even those that do not qualify for the Exchange's lowest volume tier. The Exchange notes that, as proposed, BATS Options will be providing a rebate to Members that qualify for the lower tier and Grow with Us pricing (such Members will receive a $0.45 per contract rebate for Customer orders) that is higher than the rebate provided to Members that qualify for the higher tier (1% or more) but do not qualify for Grow with Us pricing (such Members will receive a $0.44 per contract rebate for Customer orders). The Exchange believes that this pricing structure is reasonable and not unreasonably discriminatory because the Exchange is incentivizing Members to increase their activity on BATS Options, to the benefit of other BATS Options participants. Also, consistent with this objective, the Exchange has adopted a new Grow with Us category for Members that qualify for the higher tier and also qualify for Grow with Us pricing (such Members will receive a $0.46 per contract rebate for Customer orders).
The enhanced NBBO Setter program that focuses on the size of contracts has the potential of increasing the available liquidity at the Exchange. Accordingly, the proposed adoption of a program to provide enhanced NBBO Setter Rebates for executions from orders that qualify based on their size is fair and equitable and not unreasonably discriminatory because such a program is consistent with the overall goals of enhancing market quality and will benefit all investors by deepening the BATS Options liquidity pool, offering additional flexibility for all investors to enjoy cost savings, supporting the quality of price discovery, promoting market transparency and improving investor protection. The Exchange notes that it does not currently operate any auctions through which orders are held and broadcast to its membership, nor does the Exchange engage in any payment for order flow practices. Rather, the Exchange is proposing to enhance its transparent market structure with an easy to understand and transparent pricing structure by adding incentives for aggressive quoting with size. The Exchange also believes that the rebates as proposed are reasonable in that they significantly incentivize aggressive quoting with respect to both price and size.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change imposes any burden on competition.
No written comments were solicited or received.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
CME is proposing to make certain changes to an existing fee waiver program that currently applies to its cleared-only OTC foreign exchange (“FX”) swap clearing offering.
The purpose of this Program is to incentivize market participants to submit transaction in the OTC FX products listed below to the Clearing House for clearing. The resulting increase in volume benefits all participant segments in the market.
The following cleared only OTC FX products (“Products”):
1. CME Cleared OTC FX—Emerging Markets
a. USDBRL, USDCLP, USDCNY, USDCOP, USDIDR, USDINR, USDKRW, USDMYR, USDPEN, USDPHP, USDRUB, USDTWD Non-Deliverable Forwards
b. USDCZK, USDHUF, USDHKD, USDILS, USDMXN, USDPLN, USDSGD, USDTHB, USDTRY, USDZAR Cash-Settled Forwards
2. CME Cleared OTC FX—Majors
a. AUDJPY, AUDUSD, CADJPY, EURAUD, EURCHF, EURGBP, EURJPY, EURUSD, GBPUSD, NZDUSD, USDCAD, USDCHF, USDDKK, USDJPY, USDNOK, USDSEK Cash-Settled Forwards.
The temporary reduction in fees will be open to all market participants and will automatically be applied to any transaction in the Products submitted to the Clearing House for clearing.
Start date is February 1, 2012. End date is [June 30]
The Program will be applicable regardless of the transaction time.
Fee Waivers. All market participants that clear the Products will have their clearing fees waived.
In its filing with the Commission, CME included statements concerning the purpose and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. CME has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
CME currently offers clearing for certain cleared-only OTC FX swap products. The filing proposes to extend a current fee waiver program that will apply to the following cleared-only OTC FX products (“Products”):
1. CME Cleared OTC FX—Emerging Markets
a. USDBRL, USDCLP, USDCNY, USDCOP, USDIDR, USDINR, USDKRW, USDMYR, USDPEN, USDPHP,
b. USDCZK, USDHUF, USDHKD, USDILS, USDMXN, USDPLN, USDSGD, USDTHB, USDTRY, USDZAR Cash-Settled Forwards
2. CME Cleared OTC FX—Majors
a. AUDJPY, AUDUSD, CADJPY, EURAUD, EURCHF, EURGBP, EURJPY, EURUSD, GBPUSD, NZDUSD, USDCAD, USDCHF, USDDKK, USDJPY, USDNOK, USDSEK Cash-Settled Forwards.
The fee waiver is open to all market participants and will continue to be so during the extension period. The fee waiver will automatically be applied to any transaction in the products submitted to CME's clearinghouse for clearing.
Pursuant to Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) regulations, the rule changes are subject to CFTC Regulation 40.6(d), requiring a self-certification filing to the CFTC, although no change to text of the CME rulebook is required. CME notes that it has already certified the proposed changes that are the subject of this filing to the CFTC.
The proposed changes establish or change a member due, fee or other charge imposed by CME under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder. CME believes that the proposed changes are consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder and, in particular, to Section 17A(b)(3)(D)
CME does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition.
CME has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments regarding this proposed rule change. CME has not received any unsolicited written comments from interested parties.
The foregoing rule change was filed pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Electronic comments may be submitted by using the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Paper comments should be sent in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC, 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CME-2012-20. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CME-2012-20 and should be submitted on or before July 5, 2012.
For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
The Social Security Administration (SSA) publishes a list of information collection packages requiring clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with Public Law 104-13, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, effective October 1, 1995. This notice includes revisions and extensions of OMB-approved information collections.
SSA is soliciting comments on the accuracy of the agency's burden estimate; the need for the information; its practical utility; ways to enhance its quality, utility, and clarity; and ways to minimize burden on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Mail, email, or fax your comments and recommendations on the information collection(s) to the OMB Desk Officer and SSA Reports Clearance Officer at the following addresses or fax numbers.
SSA submitted the information collections below to OMB for clearance. Your comments regarding the information collections would be most useful if OMB and SSA receive them 30
1.
Type of Request: Revision of an OMB-approved information collection.
2.
The purpose of the Youth Transition Demonstration (YTD) project is to help young people with disabilities make the transition from school to work. While participating in the project, youth can continue to work or continue their education because SSA waives certain disability program rules and offers services to youth who are receiving disability benefits or have a high probability of receiving them. We are currently implementing YTD projects in three sites across the country. Three other sites completed service delivery and closed. The evaluation will produce empirical evidence on the effects of the waivers and project services including (1) educational attainment, (2) employment, (3) earnings, (4) receipt of benefits by youth with disabilities, and (5) Social Security Trust Fund and Federal income tax revenues. Sections 1110 and 234 of the Act authorize this project.
Given the importance of estimating YTD effects as accurately as possible, we are evaluating the project using rigorous analytic methods based on randomly assigning youth to a treatment or control group. We conducted several data collections. These included: (1) Baseline interviews with youth and their parents or guardians prior to random assignment; (2) follow-up interviews at 12 months after random assignment; (3) interviews and roundtable discussions with local program administrators, program supervisors, and service delivery staff; and (4) focus groups of youths, their parents, and service providers. We are currently collecting follow-up interviews at 36 months after random assignment. We began collecting information for YTD in 2007, and we will conclude data collection for the project in 2013. The respondents are youths with disabilities enrolled in the project; their parents or guardians; program staff; and service providers.
Type of Request: Extension of an OMB-approved information collection.
3.
Type of Request: Revision of an OMB approved information collection.
4.
Type of Request: Extension of an OMB-approved information collection.
5.
In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that by a document dated May 11, 2012, the Sacramento Regional Transit District (SRTD) has petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR part 222, Use Of Locomotive Horns at Public Highway-Rail Grade Crossings; Part 229, Locomotive Safety Standards; and Part 234, Grade Crossing Signal System Safety and State Action Plans. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2006-24216.
In a letter dated September 3, 2003, FRA granted SRTD conditional relief from 49 CFR Sections 229.125 and 234.105(c)(3) on SRTD's Blue and Gold Lines. In a letter dated July 28, 2006, FRA granted SRTD conditional relief from 49 CFR Part 222 at 17 shared highway-rail grade crossings. In a letter dated June 22, 2011, FRA extended the existing terms and conditions of SRTD's waivers for an 18-month period. FRA could not conclude that granting relief for a 5-year period was justified because FRA's field investigation revealed SRTD failed to comply with other applicable rail safety regulations.
In a petition dated May 11, 2012, SRTD stated they are not proposing any change of scope in their request for an extension. SRTD affirmed that 49 CFR 229.125 and 234.105(c)(3) would still apply to all shared highway-rail grade crossings on SRTD's Blue and Gold Lines. SRTD confirmed that 49 CFR part 222 would still apply to the 17 shared highway-rail grade crossings. SRTD explained that their request is consistent with the waiver process for shared use. (See Statement of Agency Policy Concerning Jurisdiction Over the Safety of Railroad Passenger Operations and Waivers Related to Shared Use of the Tracks of the General Railroad System by Light Rail and Conventional Equipment, 65 FR 42529 (July 10, 2000); see also Joint Statement of Agency Policy Concerning Shared Use of the Tracks of the General Railroad System by Conventional Railroads and Light Rail Transit Systems, 65 FR 42626 (July 10, 2000)).
In the petition, SRTD acknowledged noncompliance with 49 CFR part 225, Railroad Accidents/Incidents: Reports Classification, and Investigations; and 49 CFR part 228, Hours of Service of Railroad Employees; Recordkeeping and Reporting; Sleeping Quarters. SRTD
SRTD operates 37.5 miles of light rail (including 48 light rail stops or stations) 365 days a year using 76 light rail vehicles. Light rail trains begin operation at 4 a.m. with 14 trains running every 15 minutes during the day and 7 trains running every 30 minutes in the evening and on weekends. Blue Line and Gold Line trains operate until 10:30 p.m., and the Gold Line to Folsom, CA, operates until 7 p.m. SRTD operates three- and four-car trains during the peak periods and t