Forest Service
Procurement and Property Management Office, Agriculture Department
Antitrust Division
Census Bureau
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Patent and Trademark Office
Defense Acquisition Regulations System
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Trade Representative, Office of United States
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Coast Guard
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Antitrust Division
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Employment and Training Administration
National Endowment for the Arts
Trade Representative, Office of United States
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Comptroller of the Currency
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this page for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Office of Procurement and Property Management, USDA.
Final rule.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is amending the Guidelines for Designating Biobased Products for Federal Procurement, to add eight sections to designate product categories within which biobased products will be afforded Federal procurement preference, as provided for under section 9002 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, as amended by the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (referred to in this document as “section 9002”). USDA is also adding a new subcategory to one previously designated product category. USDA is also establishing minimum biobased contents for each of these product categories and subcategories. In addition, USDA is officially changing the term “item” to product category.
This rule is effective May 1, 2013.
Ron Buckhalt, USDA, Office of Procurement and Property Management, Room 361, Reporters Building, 300 7th St. SW., Washington, DC 20024; email:
The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:
These product categories are designated under the authority of section 9002 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (FSRIA), as amended by the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (FCEA), 7 U.S.C. 8102 (referred to in this document as “section 9002”).
As part of the BioPreferred Program, USDA published, on December 5, 2012, a proposed rule in the
In the proposed rule, USDA proposed designating the following eight product categories for the preferred procurement program: Aircraft and boat cleaners; automotive care products; engine crankcase oil; gasoline fuel additives; metal cleaners and corrosion removers; microbial cleaning products; paint removers; and water turbine bearing oils. USDA also proposed to add the following subcategories to previously designated product categories: countertops to the composite panels category; and wheel bearing and chassis grease to the greases category.
Today's final rule designates the proposed product categories within which biobased products will be afforded Federal procurement preference and adds the proposed countertops subcategory to the existing composite panels product category. USDA has determined that each of the product categories being designated under today's rulemaking meets the necessary statutory requirements; that they are being produced with biobased products; and that their procurement will carry out the following objectives of section 9002: to improve demand for biobased products; to spur development of the industrial base through value-added agricultural processing and manufacturing in rural communities; and to enhance the Nation's energy security by substituting biobased products for products derived from imported oil and natural gas.
When USDA designates by rulemaking a product category (a generic grouping of products) for preferred procurement under the BioPreferred Program, manufacturers of all products under the umbrella of that product category, that meet the requirements to qualify for preferred procurement, can claim that status for their products. To qualify for preferred procurement, a product must be within a designated product category and must contain at least the minimum biobased content established for the designated product category. With the designation of these specific product categories, USDA invites the manufacturers and vendors of qualifying products to provide information on the product, contacts, and performance testing for posting on its BioPreferred Web site,
The BioPreferred program started using the term product category in the fall of 2011 while drafting a proposed rule to amend the BioPreferred Program Guidelines (FR DOC # 2012–10420, published May 1, 2012). The preamble to that proposed rule explains the change from “items” to “product categories.” Below is the text that appears in the proposed rule:
“3. Replacement of “Designated Item” with “Designated Category”
The current guidelines use the term “designated item” to refer to a generic grouping of biobased products identified in subpart B as eligible for the procurement preference. The use of this term has created some confusion, however, because the word “item” is also used in the guidelines to refer to individual products rather than a generic grouping of products. USDA is proposing to replace the term “designated item” with the term “designated product category.” In addition, USDA is proposing to add a definition for the term “qualifying biobased product” to refer to an individual product that meets the definition and minimum biobased content criteria for a designated product category and is, therefore, eligible for the procurement preference. Although these changes are not required by section 9001 of FCEA, USDA believes the proposed terms and definitions will add clarity to the rule.”
Because USDA did not receive any comments opposing this change during the 60-day comment period on the proposed rule and because it will be some time until the rule is promulgated, USDA is incorporating the new product category language in this designation regulation.
USDA will continue to gather additional data related to the categories designated today and additional subcategories may be created in a future rulemaking.
In today's final rule, the minimum biobased content for the water turbine bearing oils category is based on a single tested product. USDA will continue to gather information on the lubricant product categories designated today and if additional data on the biobased content for products within these designated categories are obtained, USDA will evaluate whether the minimum biobased content should be revised in a future rule. We are also clarifying definitions of water turbine bearing oils versus turbine drip oils.
USDA has developed a preliminary list of product categories for future designation and has posted this preliminary list on the BioPreferred Web site. While this list presents an initial prioritization of product categories for designation, USDA cannot identify with certainty which product categories will be presented in each of the future rulemakings. In response to comments from other Federal agencies, USDA intends to give increased priority to those product categories that contain the highest biobased content. In addition, as the program matures, manufacturers of biobased products within some industry segments have become more responsive to USDA's requests for technical information than those in other segments. Thus, product categories with high biobased content and for which sufficient technical information can be obtained quickly may be added or moved up on the prioritization list.
USDA received comments on wheel bearing and chassis greases, crankcase oils, gasoline fuel additives, and microbial cleaning products.
USDA solicited comments on the proposed rule for 60 days ending on February 4, 2013. USDA received four comments by that date. Two of the comments were from manufacturers of biobased products, one was from another Federal agency, and the fourth was from a trade association. The comments are presented below, along with USDA's responses, and are shown under the product categories to which they apply.
After consideration of the comments, USDA has decided to: (1) Delay the designation of the wheel bearing and chassis greases subcategory; (2) revise the minimum biobased content of the engine crankcase oil product category upward to 27 percent from the proposed level of 18 percent; and (3) add clarification to the definition of the water turbine bearing oils product category. Additional information on these changes is presented below in the discussion of public comments.
A trade association had a number of comments on how USDA administers the BioPreferred program. This same trade association had also made earlier similar comments July 2, 2012 in response to the proposed amendments to the revised Program Guidelines. The final guidelines have not yet been published. Although we will discuss these process comments herein, USDA will address the comments at a later date in revisions to the Program Guidelines, to which they are directly applicable.
Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, requires agencies to determine whether a regulatory action is “significant.” The Order defines a “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: “(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect, in a material way, the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.”
Today's final rule has been determined by the Office of Management and Budget to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. We are not able to quantify the annual economic effect associated with today's final rule. As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rulemaking, USDA made extensive efforts to obtain information on the Federal agencies' usage within the eight designated product categories, including their subcategories. These efforts were largely unsuccessful. Therefore, attempts to determine the economic impacts of today's final rule would require estimation of the anticipated market penetration of biobased products based upon many assumptions. In addition, because agencies have the option of not purchasing biobased products within designated product categories if price is “unreasonable,” the product is not readily available, or the product does not demonstrate necessary performance characteristics, certain assumptions may not be valid. While facing these quantitative challenges, USDA relied upon a qualitative assessment to determine the impacts of today's final rule. Consideration was also given to the fact that agencies may choose not to procure designated items due to unreasonable price.
Today's final rule is expected to have both positive and negative impacts to individual businesses, including small businesses. USDA anticipates that the biobased preferred procurement program will provide additional opportunities for businesses and manufacturers to begin supplying products under the designated biobased product categories to Federal agencies and their contractors. However, other businesses and manufacturers that supply only non-qualifying products and do not offer biobased alternatives may experience a decrease in demand from Federal agencies and their contractors. USDA is unable to determine the number of businesses, including small businesses, that may be adversely affected by today's final rule. The final rule, however, will not affect existing purchase orders, nor will it preclude businesses from modifying their product lines to meet new requirements for designated biobased products. Because the extent to which procuring agencies will find the performance, availability and/or price of biobased products acceptable is unknown, it is impossible to quantify the actual economic effect of the rule.
The designation of these eight product categories provides the benefits outlined in the objectives of section 9002; to increase domestic demand for many agricultural commodities that can serve as feedstocks for production of biobased products, and to spur development of the industrial base through value-added agricultural processing and manufacturing in rural communities. On a national and regional level, today's final rule can result in expanding and strengthening markets for biobased materials used in these product categories.
Like the benefits, the costs of today's final rule have not been quantified. Two types of costs are involved: Costs to producers of products that will compete with the preferred products and costs to Federal agencies to provide procurement preference for the preferred products. Producers of competing products may face a decrease in demand for their products to the extent Federal agencies refrain from purchasing their products. However, it is not known to what extent this may occur. Pre-award procurement costs for Federal agencies may rise minimally as the contracting officials conduct market research to evaluate the performance, availability and price reasonableness of preferred products before making a purchase.
The RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601–602, generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
USDA evaluated the potential impacts of its designation of these product categories to determine whether its actions would have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Because the preferred procurement program established under section 9002 applies only to Federal
USDA anticipates that this program will affect entities, both large and small, that manufacture or sell biobased products. For example, the designation of product categories for preferred procurement will provide additional opportunities for businesses to manufacture and sell biobased products to Federal agencies and their contractors. Similar opportunities will be provided for entities that supply biobased materials to manufacturers.
The intent of section 9002 is largely to stimulate the production of new biobased products and to energize emerging markets for those products. Because the program is still in its infancy, however, it is unknown how many businesses will ultimately be affected. While USDA has no data on the number of small businesses that may choose to develop and market biobased products within the product categories designated by this rulemaking, the number is expected to be small. Because biobased products represent a small emerging market, only a small percentage of all manufacturers, large or small, are expected to develop and market biobased products. Thus, the number of small businesses manufacturing biobased products affected by this rulemaking is not expected to be substantial.
The Federal preferred procurement program may decrease opportunities for businesses that manufacture or sell non-biobased products or provide components for the manufacturing of such products. Most manufacturers of non-biobased products within the product categories being proposed for designation for Federal preferred procurement in this rule are expected to be included under the following NAICS codes: 321999 (all other wood product manufacturing), 324191 (petroleum lubricating oil and grease manufacturing), 325510 (paint and coating manufacturing), and 325612 (polish and other sanitation goods manufacturing). USDA obtained information on these four NAICS categories from the U.S. Census Bureau's Economic Census database. USDA found that the Economic Census reports about 4,270 companies within these 4 NAICS categories and that these companies own a total of about 4,860 establishments. Thus, the average number of establishments per company is about 1.14. The Census data also reported that of the 4,860 individual establishments, about 4,850 (99 percent) have fewer than 500 employees. USDA also found that the overall average number of employees per company among these industries is about 30 and that the petroleum lubricating oil and grease industry has the highest average number of employees per company with an average of almost 50. Thus, nearly all of the businesses fall within the Small Business Administration's definition of a small business (less than 500 employees, in most NAICS categories).
USDA does not have data on the potential adverse impacts on manufacturers of non-biobased products within the product categories being designated, but believes that the impact will not be significant. Most of the product categories being designated in this rulemaking are typical consumer products widely used by the general public and by industrial/commercial establishments that are not subject to this rulemaking. Thus, USDA believes that the number of small businesses manufacturing non-biobased products within the product categories being designated and selling significant quantities of those products to government agencies affected by this rulemaking will be relatively low. Also, this final rule will not affect existing purchase orders and it will not preclude procuring agencies from continuing to purchase non-biobased products when biobased products do not meet the availability, performance, or reasonable price criteria. This final rule will also not preclude businesses from modifying their product lines to meet new specifications or solicitation requirements for these products containing biobased materials.
After considering the economic impacts of this final rule on small entities, USDA certifies that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While not a factor relevant to determining whether the final rule will have a significant impact for RFA purposes, USDA has concluded that the effect of the rule will be to provide positive opportunities to businesses engaged in the manufacture of these biobased products. Purchase and use of these biobased products by procuring agencies increase demand for these products and result in private sector development of new technologies, creating business and employment opportunities that enhance local, regional, and national economies.
This final rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights, and does not contain policies that would have implications for these rights.
This final rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule does not preempt State or local laws, is not intended to have retroactive effect, and does not involve administrative appeals.
This final rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. Provisions of this final rule will not have a substantial direct effect on States or their political subdivisions or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various government levels.
This final rule contains no Federal mandates under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, for State, local, and tribal governments, or the private sector. Therefore, a statement under section 202 of UMRA is not required.
For the reasons set forth in the Final Rule Related Notice for 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V (48 FR 29115, June 24, 1983), this program is excluded from the scope of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. This program does not directly affect State and local governments.
Today's final rule does not significantly or uniquely affect “one or more Indian tribes, * * * the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or * * * the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.” Thus, no further action is required under Executive Order 13175.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 through 3520), the information collection under this final rule is currently approved under OMB control number 0503–0011.
USDA is committed to compliance with the E-Government Act, which requires Government agencies, in general, to provide the public the option of submitting information or transacting business electronically to the maximum extent possible. USDA is implementing an electronic information system for posting information voluntarily submitted by manufacturers or vendors on the products they intend to offer for preferred procurement under each designated product category. For information pertinent to E-Government Act compliance related to this rule, please contact Ron Buckhalt at (202) 205–4008.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Biobased products, Procurement.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Agriculture is amending 7 CFR chapter XXXII as follows:
7 U.S.C. 8102.
(a) * * *
(6)
(b) * * *
(6) Countertops—89 percent.
(c)
(2) No later than April 1, 2014, procuring agencies, in accordance with this part, will give a procurement preference for those qualifying biobased composite panels specified in paragraph (a)(6) of this section. By that date, Federal agencies that have the responsibility for drafting or reviewing specifications for items to be procured shall ensure that the relevant specifications require the use of biobased composite panels.
(a)
(2) Aircraft and boat cleaners for which Federal preferred procurement applies are:
(i)
(ii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Engine crankcase oils within this designated product category can compete with similar re-refined lubricating oil products with recycled content. Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, section 6002, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency designated re-refined lubricating oil products containing recovered materials as products for which Federal agencies must give preference in their purchasing programs. The designation can be found in the Comprehensive Procurement Guideline, 40 CFR 247.17.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(2) Metal cleaners and corrosion removers for which Federal preferred procurement applies are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(c)
(a)
(2) Microbial cleaning products for which Federal preferred procurement applies are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(c)
Executive Office for Immigration Review, Department of Justice.
Final rule; request for comments.
This final rule adopts, as amended, the proposed rule to authorize the Director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), or his designee, to register attorneys and accredited representatives as a condition of practicing before immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board or BIA). The final rule provides that the Director may establish registration procedures, including a requirement for electronic registration, and may administratively suspend from practice before EOIR any attorney or accredited representative who fails to provide certain registration information. This rule is part of an initiative to create an electronic case access and filing system within EOIR. The Department of Justice (Department) will publish a notice in the
You may submit comments, identified by EOIR Docket No. 138F, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Jeff Rosenblum, General Counsel, Executive Office for Immigration Review, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2600, Falls Church, VA 22041, telephone (703) 305–0470 (not a toll-free call).
On December 30, 2003, the Department published in the
As described further below, EOIR regards this rule as an initial step in a multi-year, multi-phased initiative to make the transition to an electronic case access and filing system. Therefore, EOIR will accept post-promulgation comments regarding this rule and will consider them as it moves forward with its initiative.
This rule amends 8 CFR part 1292 by revising § 1292.1(a)(1) and (a)(4), and by establishing a new paragraph at § 1292.1(f).
EOIR is permitted to authorize individuals to practice in proceedings before immigration judges and the Board.
The requirement that attorneys and accredited representatives register with EOIR is part of an initiative to create an electronic case access and filing system within EOIR. The Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA), Public Law 105–277, tit. XVII, section 1704, 112 Stat. 2681, 2681–750 (Oct. 21, 1998), 44 U.S.C. 3504 note, provides that, when practicable, Federal agencies will provide for the electronic submission of information. As an initial step in the process of creating an electronic filing system, EOIR must register attorneys and accredited representatives.
When an attorney or accredited representative registers, he or she will create a unique UserID and password for online access to the registry, and EOIR will assign a unique EOIR identification number (EOIR ID number) to each registrant.
Through the registration process, EOIR will ensure that each attorney or accredited representative will be individually identified and associated with the registration information that the attorney or accredited representative will provide during registration. This will reduce errors concerning an attorney's or accredited representative's correct mailing address and avoid confusion as to who is representing a particular alien.
Following the promulgation of this final rule, EOIR intends to require all attorneys and accredited representatives who practice before immigration judges or the Board to register online. EOIR will require that attorneys and accredited representatives provide the following information when registering: full name; date of birth; business address(es); business telephone number(s); email address; bar admission information (for attorneys);
As noted above, EOIR will require an attorney or accredited representative to create a unique UserID and password for online access to the registry. Prior to approving a registry account and issuing an EOIR ID, EOIR will also require a registry applicant to present photo identification in person, so that the applicant's identity can be validated. EOIR does not anticipate that the in-person presentation requirement will be unduly burdensome. Applicants for registration will be able to present their identification at any immigration court or at the Board's Office of the Clerk. In addition, EOIR anticipates that applicants may be able to present their identification at other locations where EOIR hearings are conducted, including those where hearings are conducted by video conference. Before the registration requirement takes effect, EOIR will issue additional information on its Web site regarding the locations at which registry applicants will be able to present their identification.
EOIR will include this online registration requirement consistent with mandatory guidance published by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which “requires agencies to review new and existing electronic transactions to ensure that authentication processes provide the appropriate level of assurance.”
Applying the standards set forth in the OMB guidelines, EOIR has determined that the potential impact of the unauthorized release of the sensitive information described above is moderate, as the unauthorized release of information such as an individual's address, asylum application, records of criminal convictions, financial records, or medical records “could be expected to have a serious adverse effect” on the person involved.
This validation requirement replaces the requirement in the proposed rule that each registry applicant enter the last four digits of his or her Social Security number.
EOIR is implementing this requirement that a registry applicant validate his or her identity by presenting photo identification as a final rule, because this validation method is a logical outgrowth of the requirement in the proposed rule that an applicant submit the last four digits of his or her social security number.
The notice of proposed rulemaking also indicated that EOIR would request, but not require, an email address during the registration process. However, in the years since the proposed rule was published, Internet connectivity has become extremely common and, for the legal profession, a necessity. In recognition of the widespread use of Internet connected computers and other devices, this final rule requires that attorneys and accredited representatives who register provide an email address. Further, EOIR must obtain an email address for each attorney and accredited representative in order to send case-related notices to them electronically. The ability to do this is essential to implement the electronic filing system that EOIR intends to establish in the future. Given the wide availability and use of the Internet in the legal profession, the provision in the final rule requiring an email address during the registration process does not impose a significant burden on applicants and does not constitute a significant change to the proposed rule.
Prior to implementing the registration process, the Department will publish a notice in the
Registration will primarily consist of providing, through an EOIR Web page, the information described in the regulation and presenting photo identification in person, so that the registry applicant's identity can be validated. This process is free and relatively simple. The information collected will be different, in part, from that requested in Form EOIR–27 and Form EOIR–28 and will consist of the applicant's name, business address(es), business telephone number(s), date of birth, email address, bar admission information (if applicable), and recognized organization (if applicable). As discussed below, the collected information will be used to approve a unique UserID and password created by each registrant that will permit access to the registry and, in the future, access to EOIR's electronic filing system. Also, EOIR will assign each registrant a unique EOIR ID number and require that the registrant include this EOIR ID number on any Form EOIR–27 or Form EOIR–28 he or she files with EOIR. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Department is republishing in this rule the new information collection, previously published in the 2003 proposed rule, in order to obtain additional comments from the public and affected agencies.
The Department notes that the registration of attorneys and accredited representatives will benefit both EOIR and the registrants. The registry will ensure that each attorney or accredited representative is individually and uniquely identified and associated with the registration information that the attorney or accredited representative will provide during registration. This will increase efficiency by reducing system errors in scheduling matters and providing improved notice to attorneys and accredited representatives. Further, registration will ultimately enable an electronic filing system that will reduce
Such an electronic filing system will also lead to automation of EOIR's case management system and bring greater efficiency to EOIR's handling of cases. In order to yield significant benefit from electronic filing, EOIR must include all attorneys and accredited representatives who appear before it. Therefore, attorneys and accredited representatives will be required to participate.
The Department believes that this provision is appropriate. It not only provides an opportunity for an unregistered attorney or accredited representative to appear when extraordinary and rare circumstances are present, but also ensures that the attorney or accredited representative will be properly registered in case he or she needs to appear before EOIR in the future. Such an approach maintains the integrity of the registry while providing flexibility when necessary. Registration is not burdensome because it is free and relatively simple.
If EOIR requires mandatory electronic filing in the future, it will issue a notice of proposed rulemaking on that subject, providing an opportunity to consider issues that may arise in individual cases due to such a system. The Department will consider such comments when determining how to establish an electronic filing system.
The Department does not adopt the commenters' suggestion that EOIR register law school clinic programs. EOIR's long-standing policy has been to only recognize individuals, and not entities, as representatives.
In light of its decision not to register law students, the Department has reconsidered whether it should register all of the “representatives” outlined in 8 CFR 1292.1. Because attorneys and accredited representatives account for the majority of individuals who practice before EOIR and may represent
Because the Department has decided to require registration of only attorneys and accredited representatives, it is no longer appropriate, as originally proposed, to amend the definition of “representative” at 8 CFR 1001.1(j) to state that all representatives must be registered. Instead, it is necessary to amend 8 CFR 1292.1(a)(4) so that the regulations will specifically require registration of only accredited representatives, and not other types of representatives.
The Department may amend the system of records notice related to the information collected for the registry and may publish additional routine uses. One such routine use, as described further below, may involve the disclosure on EOIR's Web site of the name and business address of each registrant so that the public will have notice of all attorneys and accredited representatives who are registered to practice before EOIR. The Department will publish any changes to the system of records notice in the
The final rule requires that individuals provide some personal information to EOIR. Attorneys and accredited representatives who register must provide an address; however, this address should be the address at which the registering individual normally receives business correspondence. If the registering individual's home address also serves as his or her business address, then the individual must provide that address to EOIR. Likewise, attorneys and accredited representatives who register must provide a business telephone number.
EOIR will also collect from attorneys and accredited representatives their dates of birth. This information will not be published, but is necessary for validation purposes and to differentiate and identify individuals in the registry. There may be numerous attorneys and accredited representatives with the same name. This additional unique identifying information will assist EOIR in properly authorizing individuals for inclusion in the registry and communicating with the appropriate individual on a case. However, as noted above, the Department has decided not to collect the last four digits of registrants' Social Security numbers.
A registry will provide EOIR adjudicators with a database of individuals who are authorized to practice before them. EOIR will require each registrant to provide his or her unique EOIR ID number on any Form EOIR–27 or Form EOIR–28 that he or she files, to assist adjudicators in more readily identifying the registrant's status. Further, when EOIR eventually creates an electronic filing system, only registered attorneys and accredited representatives will be able to file documents electronically in cases. Finally, EOIR may provide a list of names and business addresses of registered attorneys and accredited representatives on its Internet Web site so that the public can determine if the individual from whom they are seeking representational services is in fact registered to practice before EOIR. The Department invites public comment on whether it should publish such a list on the Internet.
The Department does not believe that pro bono representation will be significantly affected by requiring registration. Attorneys are familiar with the concept of having to be admitted to practice prior to appearing before a tribunal. Therefore, attorneys who have never practiced immigration law should expect that they may need to register in order to practice before EOIR.
Further, attorneys wishing to appear on EOIR's list of free legal services must apply to be placed on the list,
EOIR is committed to providing fair and unbiased adjudications and in issuing this rule has no intent to inhibit the representation of aliens. The registration process would have no impact on “the practitioner's duty to represent zealously his or her client within the bounds of the law.”
The Attorney General, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, has reviewed this regulation and, by approving it, certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Department estimates that no more than 54,000 private attorneys and accredited representatives will register electronically the first year in order to practice before EOIR. Given that registration only needs to be done once, EOIR anticipates that in each subsequent year, the number of new initial registrants will be significantly lower than the number of such registrants for the first year. While EOIR does not keep statistics on the size of the firms and organizations of attorneys and accredited representatives practicing before EOIR, many of these attorneys and accredited representatives may be classified as or employed by “small entities” as defined under section 601 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. In particular, the Department recognizes that there are attorneys whose firms may be classified as “small businesses” and, thus, as “small entities” under section 601. For example, there may be attorneys practicing before EOIR who are solo practitioners or employed by firms with 2 to 30 people. There are also non-profit religious, charitable, social service, or similar organizations recognized to practice before EOIR under 8 CFR 1292 who employ accredited representatives. Some of these recognized organizations may also be classified as “small organizations” and, thus, as “small entities” under section 601.
Although the exact number of law firms and recognized organizations that may be classified as “small entities” is not known, the Department certifies that this rule will not have a significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number of these entities. Registering electronically with EOIR will be a simple, routine process similar to registering online for a library card or other similar services. In order to register, attorneys and accredited representatives will need to access the Internet and complete an electronic registration providing the following information: name, business address(es), business telephone number(s), date of birth, email address, bar admission information (if applicable), and recognized organization (if applicable). Prior to approving a registry account and issuing an EOIR ID, EOIR will also require registrants to validate their identities by presenting photo identification in person. Completion of the registration process, including registering online and presenting photo identification for identity validation, will take approximately 10 minutes for each registrant and only needs to be completed once.
There will be no financial costs to attorneys or accredited representatives to register. EOIR will not assess a fee to register. Most attorneys and accredited representatives practicing before EOIR currently have Internet access in order to conduct legal research, communicate with clients, access government resources, and submit filings to Federal courts of appeal and DHS; therefore, they will not need to incur any new costs in order to obtain access. Consequently, the Department believes that there will not be a significant adverse economic impact on the great majority of registrants.
As described below in the certification under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, the Department believes that such registration will economically benefit registrants. By creating a registry in which each attorney or accredited representative is individually and uniquely identified, EOIR will be able to improve its correspondence with registrants regarding immigration matters,
Therefore, the Department certifies that this rule will not have a significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule will not result in the expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
This rule is not a major rule as defined in section 251 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.
The final rule is considered by the Department of Justice to be a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f)(4), Regulatory Planning and Review. Accordingly, the regulation has been submitted to OMB for review. The Department certifies that this regulation has been drafted in accordance with the principles of Executive Order 12866, section 1(b), and Executive Order 13563. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health, and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility.
This rule establishes procedures for private attorneys and accredited representatives to register electronically with EOIR as a condition of representing aliens before immigration judges and the Board. Requiring attorneys and accredited representatives to register electronically with EOIR is a necessary precursor to implementing an electronic case access and filing system.
The registration of attorneys and accredited representatives will greatly benefit EOIR. Through the registration process, EOIR will ensure that each attorney or accredited representative will be individually identified and associated with the registration information that the attorney or accredited representative will provide during registration. This will reduce errors concerning an attorney's or accredited representative's correct mailing address and avoid confusion as to who is representing a particular alien. EOIR will collect from each authorized registrant a unique UserID and password that will permit registrants to access the registry in order to update their registration information online and, in the future, to access EOIR's electronic filing system. Further, EOIR will use the collected information to assign a unique EOIR ID number to each registrant. EOIR will require each registrant to provide his or her unique EOIR ID number on any Form EOIR–27 or Form EOIR–28 that he or she files to assist adjudicators in more readily identifying the registrant's status.
An online registration process will be required for registration. For the initial registration, attorneys and accredited representatives will be required to complete an electronic registration in which they must provide the following information: name, business address(es), business telephone number(s), date of birth, email address, bar admission information (if applicable), and recognized organization (if applicable).
The Department estimates that no more than 54,000 attorneys and accredited representatives will register electronically the first year. Given that registration only needs to be done once, EOIR anticipates that in each subsequent year, the number of initial registrants will be significantly lower than the number of such registrants for the first year. For each registrant, completion of the registration process, including registering online and presenting photo identification in person for identity validation, will take approximately 10 minutes. There is no fee to register. Consequently, the Department believes that the costs to attorneys and accredited representatives to complete the registration process with EOIR will be nominal.
The registration of attorneys and accredited representatives will greatly benefit registrants. The registry will ensure that each attorney or accredited representative is individually and uniquely identified and associated with the registration information that the attorney or accredited representative will provide during registration. This will increase efficiency by reducing system errors in scheduling matters and providing improved notice to attorneys and accredited representatives. In addition, registration ultimately will enable an electronic filing system that will reduce the time and expense presently incurred with paper filings.
This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.
This rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
The Department of Justice has submitted a request for approval of a new information collection instrument to OMB for review in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995. The proposed new information collection was published and comments regarding the collection were requested in the notice of proposed rulemaking in 2003 in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.11.
If you have any suggestions or comments, especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, or need a copy of the proposed new information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact the Department as noted above. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed new information collection instrument are encouraged.
Comments on this issue should address one or more of the following four points: (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) how the Department could enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected and (4) how the Department could 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 (
The new information collection instrument sponsored by the Department will apply to practitioners and has been designated as “
The collected information will be used to approve a unique UserID and password permitting registrants to access the registry in order to update their registration information online and, in the future, to access EOIR's electronic filing system. Further, EOIR will use the collected information to assign a unique EOIR ID number to each registrant. EOIR will require each registrant to provide his or her unique EOIR ID number on any Form EOIR–27 or Form EOIR–28 that he or she files to assist adjudicators in more readily identifying the registrant's status.
The Department estimates an average response time for the new information collection instrument at 10 minutes per response (including registering online and presenting photo identification to EOIR for identity validation), with a total number of respondents of no more than 54,000 individuals for the first year. This figure includes those currently practicing before EOIR. Given that registration only needs to be done once, EOIR anticipates that in each subsequent year, the number of initial registrants (i.e., new attorneys who seek to appear before EOIR) will be significantly lower than the number of such registrants for the first year. The total public burden associated with the new collection is no more than 9,000 burden hours for the first year. EOIR anticipates burden hours in future years to be significantly lower than in the first year.
Administrative practice and procedures, Immigration, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 1292 of title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
8 U.S.C. 1103, 1252b, 1362; 6 U.S.C. 521, 522.
(a) * * *
(1)
(4)
(f)
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Energy.
Final rule.
In this Final Rule, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is amending its regulations to revise the filing requirements for natural gas pipelines that choose to recover Commission-assessed annual charges through an annual charge adjustment (ACA) clause. Currently, natural gas pipelines utilizing an ACA clause must make an annual tariff filing to reflect a revised ACA unit charge authorized by the Commission for that fiscal year. To reduce the regulatory burden on these pipelines, the Commission will eliminate this annual filing requirement. In its place, the Commission will require natural gas pipelines utilizing an ACA clause to incorporate the Commission-authorized annual charge unit rate by reference to that rate, as published on the Commission's Web site located at
This rule will become effective May 31, 2013.
Adam Bednarczyk (Technical Issues), 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502–6444,
Before Commissioners: Jon Wellinghoff, Chairman; Philip D. Moeller, John R. Norris, Cheryl A. LaFleur, and Tony Clark.
Issued March 21, 2013.
1. In this Final Rule, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is amending its regulations at 18 CFR 154.402 to revise the filing requirements for natural gas pipelines that choose to recover Commission-assessed annual charges through an annual charge adjustment (ACA) clause. Currently, natural gas pipelines utilizing an ACA clause must make an annual tariff filing to reflect a revised ACA unit charge authorized by the Commission for that fiscal year. To reduce the regulatory burden on these pipelines, the Commission will eliminate this annual filing requirement. In its place, the Commission will require natural gas pipelines utilizing an ACA clause to incorporate the Commission-authorized annual charge unit rate by reference to that rate, as published on the Commission's Web site located at
2. The Commission is required to “assess and collect fees and annual charges in any fiscal year in amounts equal to all of the costs incurred by the Commission in that fiscal year.”
3. The provisions governing the assessment of annual charges are codified in Part 382 of the Commission's regulations.
4. Pipelines are entitled to recover these annual charges from their customers, and they have two options for doing so. First, upon Commission approval, a Pipeline may adjust its rates annually to recover the annual charges through an ACA clause.
5. Order No. 472 recognized that although the Commission generally disfavors the use of tracking mechanisms, it is appropriate that Pipelines be permitted to pass through these annual charges directly to customers.
6. Pipelines that seek to recover annual charges through an ACA clause must file a tariff record containing a statement that the company is collecting an ACA per unit charge, as approved by the Commission, applicable to all the pipeline's sales and transportation rate schedules, the per unit charge of the ACA, the proposed effective date of the tariff change (30 days after the filing of the tariff sheet or section, unless a shorter period is specifically requested in a waiver petition and approved), and a statement that the pipeline will not recover any annual charges recorded in FERC Account 928 in a proceeding under subpart D of [part 154 of the Commission's regulations].
Additionally, the Commission requires these Pipelines to file revised tariff records to reflect changes to the ACA unit charge authorized by the Commission each fiscal year.
7. Each year the Commission sets the ACA unit charge for the natural gas program in July.
8. In 2011, the Commission received 145 filings to reflect the annual change in the ACA unit charge. In years in which the ACA unit charge does not change, there are fewer filings. However, some Pipelines, such as those that have recently gone into service and have been billed an annual charge, are still permitted to submit a filing to the Commission in order to pass along the annual charge to their customers.
9. On October 18, 2012, the Commission issued a NOPR proposing to eliminate the ACA unit charge filing requirement set forth in Part 154 of the Commission's regulations. The Commission received comments in support of the NOPR from the American Gas Association, Spectra Entities, Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) and KO Transmission Company. In addition to INGAA's comments in support of the NOPR, INGAA proposes a minor modification to the NOPR to eliminate unnecessary confusion and to reduce the filing burden on pipelines. Specifically, INGAA proposes requiring pipelines to submit compliance filings 30 or 60 days prior to the proposed October 1, 2013, effective date of this Final Rule.
10. In an effort to reduce the regulatory burden associated with annual tariff filings to reflect the current year's ACA unit charge, the Commission will eliminate the annual filing requirement for Pipelines utilizing an ACA clause. In its place, the Commission will require Pipelines utilizing an ACA clause to incorporate the Commission-authorized ACA unit rate by reference to that rate, as published on the Commission's Web site. Accordingly, Pipelines that wish to continue utilizing an ACA clause will be required to make a one-time tariff revision that incorporates the ACA unit charge published on the Commission's Web site into the Pipeline's tariff as the ACA unit charge for the relevant fiscal year.
11. The Commission is aware that in addition to the basic statutory requirement that all rates and charges be on file with the Commission,
12. Because the annual filing requirement will be eliminated under the reforms set forth in this Final Rule, the Commission will require Pipelines utilizing an ACA clause to incorporate by reference into their tariffs the ACA unit charge specified in the annual notice issued by the Commission entitled “FY [Year] Gas Annual Charges Correction for Annual Charges Unit Charge.” This ACA unit charge shall be effective on the first day of October following issuance of this notice and shall extend to the last day of September the following year (i.e., the duration of the fiscal year). However, the ACA unit charge shall only be incorporated by reference into the Pipeline's tariff, and thereby assessed to shippers, if the Pipeline has paid its annual assessment, as reflected on a new notice, entitled “Payment Status of Pipeline Billings—FY [Year],” that the Commission will issue each year. This notice will identify the Pipelines that have been assessed annual charges for a fiscal year and indicate whether they have paid their charges and are, therefore, authorized to recover the ACA unit charge from shippers. The Commission will issue the “Payment Status of Pipeline Billings—FY [Year]” notice on the last business day of the fiscal year, and provide updates as necessary. All of the documents can be found on the Annual Charges page of the Natural Gas section of the Commission's Web site, located at
13. We emphasize that the only thing changed by this Final Rule is the filing requirement for those Pipelines that utilize an ACA clause. This Final Rule does not prevent Pipelines from continuing to recover annual charges assessed by the Commission through their transportation rates, as established in a general rate case. Nor does this Final Rule modify how the Commission calculates the costs of the natural gas
14. We are taking this action as part of our commitment to continually review our regulations and eliminate those requirements that impose an unnecessary burden on regulated entities. We find that requiring Pipelines to incorporate the ACA unit charge by reference to the notices published on the Commission's Web site will retain all of the transparency and consumer safeguards embodied in the Commission's existing regulations. However, it will eliminate approximately 145 filings each year, thereby reducing the regulatory burden on the Pipelines and the Commission.
15. This Final Rule requires Pipelines to implement the changes set forth herein in time for the 2014 fiscal year. Accordingly, the Commission will require each Pipeline utilizing an ACA clause to make a one-time compliance filing revising its tariff to incorporate by reference the ACA unit charge published on the Commission's Web site, as discussed above. In order to give Pipelines subject to these modifications adequate time to implement these changes, this compliance filing will be due 60 days before the required effective date of October 1, 2013.
16. The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) regulations require approval of certain information collection requirements imposed by agency rules.
17. The Commission sought comments on its burden estimates associated with adoption of the NOPR proposals. In response to the NOPR, no comments were filed addressing the reporting burden estimates imposed by these requirements. Therefore the Commission will use the same estimates in this Final Rule.
18. The following FERC–542 reporting requirements contained in this Final Rule are being submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under section 507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507(d). The burden estimates reflect the time necessary for respondents to update their tariffs according to this Final Rule. Additionally, these estimates highlight reductions to the burden since respondents will no longer have to file ACA charge tariff adjustments. More specifically, the Commission estimates it will require eight hours per response to make the “one-time” (during the first year only) compliance tariff changes set forth in this Final Rule to place the new tariff language into effect. However, in each year (including the 1st year), the Commission also estimates that filers will see a two-hour reduction in burden per response from no longer filing ACA charge tariff adjustments. The following table displays the estimated annual burden hour impact of the Final Rule.
The net total additional annual burden associated with this Final Rule over Years 1–3 period is 290 hours. Thus, the average additional annual burden for Years 1–3 is 97 hours (290 hours ÷ 3 years = 97 hours per year). Further, the Commission estimates that each respondent (on average) should experience a decrease to the annual burden (of 2 hours per year) due to the avoidance of the ACA filing.
• One-time total cost in Year 1 of $51,330 (870 hours * $59/hour)
• Avoided cost per year (starting in Year 1) of $17,110 (290 hours * $59/hour)
19. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting requirements by contacting the following: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Ellen Brown, Office of the Executive Director, email:
20. Comments concerning the collection of information and the associated burden estimate, should be sent to the Commission in this docket and to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503 [Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, telephone: (202) 395–4638, fax: (202) 395–4718]. For security reasons, comments to OMB should be submitted by email to:
21. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.
22. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA)
23. The regulations set forth here impose requirements only on interstate pipelines, the majority of which are not small businesses. Most companies regulated by the Commission do not fall within the RFA's definition of a small entity. Approximately 145 entities would be potential respondents subject to data collection FERC–545 reporting requirements. Nearly all of these entities are large entities. For the year 2011 (the most recent year for which information is available), only 15 companies not affiliated with larger companies had annual revenues of less than $25.5 million. Moreover, these requirements are designed to benefit all customers, including small businesses. The Commission estimates that the one-time cost per small entity is $354.
24. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
25. From FERC's Home Page on the Internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket number field.
26. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC's Web site during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at 202–502–6652 (toll free at 1–866–208–3676) or email at
27. These regulations are effective May 31, 2013. The Commission has determined, with the concurrence of the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, that this rule is not a “major rule” as defined in section 351 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.
Natural gas, Pipelines, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
By the Commission.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends Part 154, Chapter I, Title 18,
15 U.S.C. 717–717w; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 7102–7352.
(a)
(b)
(1) A statement that the company is collecting an ACA unit charge, as calculated by the Commission, applicable to all the pipeline's sales and transportation rate schedules,
(2) A statement that the ACA unit charge, as revised annually and posted on the Commission's Web site, is incorporated by reference into the company's tariff,
(3) For companies with existing ACA clauses, a proposed effective date of the tariff change of October 1 of the fiscal year; for companies seeking to utilize an ACA clause after October 1 of the fiscal year, a proposed effective date 30 days after the filing of the tariff record, unless a shorter period is specifically requested in a waiver petition and approved), and
(4) A statement that the pipeline will not recover any annual charges recorded in FERC Account 928 in a proceeding under subpart D of this part.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final rule.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is amending the color additive regulations to provide for the safe use of additional copolymers of 1,4-bis[4-(2-methacryloxyethyl)phenylamino]anthraquinone (C.I. Reactive Blue 246) and copolymers of 1,4-bis[(2-hydroxyethyl)amino]-9,10-anthracenedione bis(2-methyl-2-propenoic)ester (C.I. Reactive Blue 247) as color additives in contact lenses. This action is in response to two color additive petitions (CAPs) filed by CooperVision, Inc.
This rule is effective May 2, 2013. See section VII for related information on the filing of objections. Submit either electronic or written objections and requests for a hearing by May 1, 2013.
You may submit either electronic or written objections and requests for a hearing, identified by Docket No. FDA–2011–C–0344 (C.I. Reactive Blue 246) or FDA–2011–C–0463 (C.I. Reactive Blue 247), by any of the following methods:
Submit electronic objections in the following ways:
•
Submit written objections in the following ways:
•
In a notice published in the
Current regulations for C.I. Reactive Blue 246 and C.I. Reactive Blue 247 copolymers (21 CFR 73.3106 and 73.3100, respectively) list the reaction products of these reactive dyes with specific vinyl and/or acrylic monomers for use in coloring contact lenses.
21 CFR 73.3100 allows for the safe use of 1,4-bis[ (2-hydroxyethyl)amino]-9,10-anthracenedione bis(2-propenoic)ester (C.I. Reactive Blue 247) copolymerized either with glyceryl methacrylate, methyl methacrylate, and ethylene glycol dimethacrylate monomers, or with
Under section 721(b)(4) of the FD&C Act, a color additive may not be listed for a particular use unless the data available to FDA establishes that the color additive is safe for that use. Our color additive regulations at 21 CFR 70.3(i) define safe to mean that there is “convincing evidence that establishes with reasonable certainty that no harm will result from the intended use of the color additive.”
As part of our safety evaluation of the color additives, we considered exposure to unreacted C.I. Reactive Blue 246 and 247 and any impurities (e.g., reaction byproducts) from the petitioned use of the color additives. We also considered results from skin sensitization, ocular irritation, and cytotoxicity studies with either representative lens materials or extracts from the lens materials (i.e., the color additives that are the subjects of the petitions).
We calculated an exposure estimate for C.I. Reactive Blue 246 from its proposed use in three representative contact lens formulations using vinyl and/or acrylic monomers based on results from a leachability study that was conducted by the petitioner. This study demonstrated that there was no detectable migration of C.I. Reactive Blue 246 at the limit of detection (LOD) of an appropriate analytical method for any of the lens formulations evaluated. We estimated the potential exposure to any one impurity using the maximum amount of total impurities determined in C.I. Reactive Blue 246.
The average daily exposure to C.I. Reactive Blue 246 from its proposed use would be no greater than 13 nanograms (ng)/person/day (p/d) and the maximum exposure to any one impurity will not exceed 0.6 ng/p/d. These estimates represent worst-case exposure, and the actual exposure to C.I. Reactive Blue 246 and its impurities from the use of the color additive in contact lenses is expected to be significantly lower. Based on data submitted in the petitions, as well as other relevant information, we note that it is highly unlikely that either C.I. Reactive Blue 246 or its components would migrate from the contact lens into the aqueous environment of the eye because the reactive dye is covalently bound and cross-linked during polymerization such that any migration from the resulting copolymer matrix as a result of the proposed uses will be negligible. Therefore, we conclude that the exposure to the color additive, including any impurities that may be present in it, from the petitioned use would be negligible (Ref. 2).
The petitioner submitted data from 24 toxicology studies on either representative lens materials or extracts from representative lens materials with and without C.I. Reactive Blue 246 to establish the safety of the copolymerized color additives of C.I. Reactive Blue 246. Studies included guinea pig maximization studies,
We calculated an exposure estimate for C.I. Reactive Blue 247 from its proposed use in three representative contact lens formulations using vinyl and/or acrylic monomers based on results from a leachability study that was conducted by the petitioner. This study demonstrated that there was no detectable migration of C.I. Reactive Blue 247 at the LOD of an appropriate analytical method for any of the lens formulations evaluated. We estimated the potential exposure to any one impurity using the maximum amount of total impurities determined in C.I. Reactive Blue 247.
The average daily exposure to C.I. Reactive Blue 247 from its proposed use would be no greater than 10 ng/p/d and the maximum exposure to any one impurity will not exceed 0.5 ng/p/d. These estimates represent worst-case exposure, and the actual exposure to C.I. Reactive Blue 247 and its impurities from the use of the color additive in contact lenses is expected to be significantly lower. Based on data submitted in the petitions, as well as other relevant information, we note that it is highly unlikely that either C.I. Reactive Blue 247 or its components would migrate from the contact lens into the aqueous environment of the eye because the reactive dye is covalently bound and cross-linked during polymerization such that any migration from the resulting copolymer matrix as a result of the proposed uses will be negligible. Therefore, we conclude that the exposure to the color additive, including any impurities that may be present in it, from the petitioned use would be negligible (Ref. 4).
The petitioner submitted data from 24 toxicology studies on either representative lens materials or extracts from representative lens materials with and without C.I. Reactive Blue 247 to establish the safety of the copolymerized color additives of C. I. Reactive Blue 247. Studies included guinea pig maximization studies,
Based on the data contained in the two petitions and other available relevant material, we conclude that the petitioned use of the reaction products formed by copolymerizing either C.I. Reactive Blue 246 or C.I. Reactive Blue 247 with vinyl and/or acrylic-monomers to form colored contact lenses is safe and that the color additives will achieve their intended technical effect. We further conclude that there is no need for imposing a limitation on the amount of color additive to be used, beyond the limitation that reactants may be used in amounts not to exceed the minimum reasonably required to accomplish the intended technical effect. Therefore, we
In accordance with § 71.15 (21 CFR 71.15), the petition and the documents that we considered and relied upon in reaching our decision to approve the petition will be made available for public disclosure (see
We previously considered the environmental effect of this rule, as stated in the June 28, 2011,
This final rule contains no collection of information. Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is not required.
This rule is effective as shown in the
The following references have been placed on display in the Division of Dockets Management (see
1. Barón, M., K.-H. Hellwich, M. Hess, K. Horie, et al, “Glossary of Class Names of Polymers Based on Chemical Structure and Molecular Architecture (IUPAC Recommendations 2009)”,
2. Memorandum from H. Lee, Division of Petition Review, Chemistry Review Team, to J. Kidwell, Division of Petition Review, Regulatory Group I, FDA, July 26, 2011.
3. Memorandum from S. Park, Division of Petition Review, Toxicology Review Team, to M.Harry, Division of Petition Review, Regulatory Group I, FDA, November 30, 2011.
4. Memorandum from H. Lee, Division of Petition Review, Chemistry Review Team, to T.Croce, Division of Petition Review, Regulatory Group II, FDA, August 16, 2011.
5. Memorandum from T.Walker, Division of Petition Review, Toxicology Review Team, to T.Croce, Division of Petition Review, FDA, January 13, 2012.
Color additives, Cosmetics, Drugs, Medical devices.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, and redelegated to the Director, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, 21 CFR part 73 is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321, 341, 342, 343, 348, 351, 352, 355, 361, 362, 371, 379e.
(a)
(a)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating regulation that governs the Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) Drawbridge across Old River, mile 10.4, at Orwood, CA. The deviation is to allow the bridge owner to perform essential mechanical repairs on the bridge. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position during the event.
This deviation is effective from 8 a.m. April 15, 2013, until 4 p.m. on April 19, 2013.
The docket for this deviation, [USCG–2013–0056], is available at
If you have questions on this deviation, call or email David H. Sulouff, Chief, Bridge Section, Eleventh Coast Guard District; telephone 510–437–3516, email
BNSF has requested a temporary change to the operation of the BNSF Railroad Drawbridge, mile 10.4, over Old River, at Orwood, CA. The drawbridge navigation span provides a vertical clearance of 11.2 feet above Mean High Water in the closed-to-navigation position. The draw opens promptly and fully when a request to open is given. Navigation on the waterway is commercial and recreational.
This temporary deviation has been coordinated with commercial operators and various marinas. No objections to the proposed temporary deviation were raised. Vessels that can transit the bridge, while in the closed-to-navigation position, may continue to do so at any time.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.
Interim final rule.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office) is revising the rules of practice to implement the changes to the patent term adjustment provisions in section 1(h) of the Act to correct and improve certain provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act and title 35, United States Code (AIA Technical Corrections Act). Section 1(h) of the AIA Technical Corrections Act revises the date from which the fourteen-month patent term adjustment period is measured, and clarifies the date from which the three-year patent term adjustment period is measured, with respect to international applications filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty. Under section 1(h) of the AIA Technical Corrections Act, the fourteen-month patent term adjustment period and the three-year patent term adjustment period will be measured from the same date: the date on which an application was filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) in an application under 35 U.S.C. 111; or the date of commencement of the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371 in an international application. Section 1(h) of the AIA Technical Corrections Act also revises the provisions for notifying applicants of patent term adjustment determinations and for requesting reconsideration and judicial review of the Office's patent term adjustment determinations and decisions.
Comments should be sent by electronic mail message over the Internet addressed to:
Comments may also be sent by electronic mail message over the Internet via the Federal eRulemaking Portal. See the Federal eRulemaking Portal Web site (
Although comments may be submitted by postal mail, the Office prefers to receive comments by electronic mail message over the Internet because sharing comments with the public is more easily accomplished. Electronic comments are preferred to be submitted in plain text, but also may be submitted in ADOBE® portable document format or MICROSOFT WORD® format. Comments not submitted electronically should be submitted on paper in a format that facilitates convenient digital scanning into ADOBE® portable document format.
The comments will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Commissioner for Patents, currently located in Madison East, Tenth Floor, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia. Comments also will be available for viewing via the Office's Internet Web site (
Kery A. Fries, Senior Legal Advisor ((571) 272–7757), Office of Patent Legal Administration, Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy.
The Office is also revising the provisions pertaining to seeking reconsideration of a patent term adjustment determination, in light of the changes to 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(3) and (b)(4). The Office is continuing to provide that any request for reconsideration of the patent term adjustment indicated on the patent must be filed within two months from the date the patent was granted. The Office is revising this provision to indicate that this two-month time period may be extended by an additional five months, permitting an applicant to request reconsideration of the patent term adjustment indicated on the patent as late as seven months after the date the patent was granted.
Section 1(h)(1)(A) of the AIA Technical Corrections Act amends 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(A)(i)(II) to change “the date on which an international application fulfilled the requirements of section 371” to “the date of commencement of the national stage under section 371 in an international application.”
Section 1(h)(1)(B) of the AIA Technical Corrections Act amends 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(B) to change “the actual filing date of the application in the United States” to “the actual filing date of the application under section 111(a) in the United States or, in the case of an international application, the date of commencement of the national stage under section 371 in the international application.”
The change to 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(A)(i)(II) requires a change in Office practice, as the date of commencement of the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371 is not always the date on which an international application fulfilled the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 371. However, the change to 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(B) does not require a change in Office practice, because, since the patent term adjustment provisions of 35 U.S.C. 154(b) were implemented in September of 2000, the Office has interpreted the phrase “actual filing date of the application in the United States” in former 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(B) as the date of commencement of the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371 in an international application.
Section 1(h)(2) of the AIA Technical Corrections Act amends 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(3)(B)(i) to change “shall transmit a notice of that [patent term adjustment] determination with the written notice of allowance of the application under section 151” to “shall transmit a notice of that [patent term adjustment] determination no later than the date of issuance of the patent.”
Section 1(h)(3) of the AIA Technical Corrections Act amends 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(4) to change “[a]n applicant dissatisfied with a determination made by the Director under paragraph (3) shall have remedy by a civil action against the Director filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia within 180 days after the grant of the patent” to “[a]n applicant dissatisfied with the Director's decision on the applicant's request for reconsideration under paragraph (3)(B)(ii) shall have exclusive remedy by a civil action against the Director filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia within 180 days after the date of the Director's decision on the applicant's request for reconsideration.”
Section 1(n) of the AIA Technical Corrections Act provides that amendments made by the AIA Technical Corrections Act shall take effect on January 14, 2013 (the date of enactment of the AIA Technical Corrections Act), and shall apply to proceedings commenced on or after January 14, 2013.
The following is a discussion of the amendments to Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1.
Section 1.702(b) is amended to change the paragraph heading to “
No change to § 1.703(b) is necessary, as the Office has interpreted the phrase “actual filing date of the application in the United States” in former 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(B) as the date of commencement of the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371 in an international application since the patent term adjustment provisions of 35 U.S.C. 154(b) were implemented in September of 2000 (as discussed previously).
35 U.S.C. 154(b)(3)(C) (implemented in § 1.705(c)) provides for reinstatement of all or part of the period of adjustment reduced pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(2)(C) if the applicant makes a showing that, in spite of all due care, the applicant was unable to respond within the three-month period, but requires that such a showing be made “prior to the issuance of the patent.” Thus, § 1.704(e) continues to provide that the submission of a request under § 1.705(c) for reinstatement of reduced patent term adjustment will not be considered a failure to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude prosecution (processing or examination) of the application under § 1.704(c)(10).
Section 1.705(b) provides that any request for reconsideration of the patent term adjustment indicated on the patent must be by way of an application for patent term adjustment filed no later than two months from the date the patent was granted, and that this two-month time period may be extended under the provisions of § 1.136(a) by five months. This provision permits an applicant to request reconsideration of the patent term adjustment indicated on the patent as late as seven months after the date the patent was granted. Section 1.705(b) no longer provides for a request for reconsideration of the Office's patent term adjustment determination prior to the grant of a patent.
The Office has adopted
Section 1.705(c) is amended to provide that any request for reinstatement of all or part of the period of adjustment reduced pursuant to § 1.704(b) for failing to reply to a rejection, objection, argument, or other
The former provisions of §§ 1.705(d) and (e) have been removed in view of the changes to 1.705(b).
A.
Accordingly, prior notice and opportunity for public comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b) or (c) (or any other law) and thirty-day advance publication is not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d) (or any other law).
B.
The changes in this rulemaking: (1) Revise the date from which the fourteen-month period in 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(A)(i) is measured in an international application for consistency with the change to 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(A)(i)(II); and (2) revise (extend) the time period for seeking reconsideration of the Office's patent term adjustment in view of the changes in 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(3) and (b)(4). These changes mirror the provisions in the AIA Technical Corrections Act and do not add any additional requirements (including information collection requirements) or fees for patent applicants or patentees. For these reasons, the changes in this rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
M.
N.
O.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Administrative practice and procedure, Courts, Freedom of Information, Inventions and patents, Reporting and record keeping requirements, Small Businesses.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 37 CFR part 1 is amended as follows:
35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2).
(a) * * *
(1) Mail at least one of a notification under 35 U.S.C. 132 or a notice of allowance under 35 U.S.C. 151 not later than fourteen months after the date on which the application was filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) or the date the national stage commenced under 35 U.S.C. 371(b) or (f) in an international application;
(b)
(a) * * *
(1) The number of days, if any, in the period beginning on the day after the date that is fourteen months after the date on which the application was filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) or the date the national stage commenced under 35 U.S.C. 371(b) or (f) in an international application and ending on the date of mailing of either an action under 35 U.S.C. 132, or a notice of allowance under 35 U.S.C. 151, whichever occurs first;
(e) The submission of a request under § 1.705(c) for reinstatement of reduced patent term adjustment will not be considered a failure to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude prosecution (processing or examination) of the application under paragraph (c)(10) of this section.
(a) The patent will include notification of any patent term adjustment under 35 U.S.C. 154(b).
(b) Any request for reconsideration of the patent term adjustment indicated on the patent must be by way of an application for patent term adjustment filed no later than two months from the date the patent was granted. This two-month time period may be extended under the provisions of § 1.136(a). An application for patent term adjustment under this section must be accompanied by:
(c) Any request for reinstatement of all or part of the period of adjustment
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia. This revision amends Virginia's transportation conformity requirements in order to be consistent with EPA's revised transportation conformity requirements. EPA is approving these revisions in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
This rule is effective on May 31, 2013 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by May 1, 2013. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0082, by one of the following methods:
A.
B.
C.
D.
Gregory Becoat, (215) 814–2036, or by email at
Transportation conformity is required under section 176(c) of the CAA to ensure that Federally supported highway, transit projects, and other activities are consistent with (conform to) the purpose of the SIP. Conformity currently applies to areas that are designated nonattainment and those redesignated to attainment after 1990 (maintenance areas), with plans developed under section 175A of the CAA for the following transportation related criteria pollutants: ozone, fine particulate matter (PM
On March 14, 2012 (77 FR 14979), EPA promulgated various administrative amendments to the Federal transportation regulation. As a result of this rulemaking, under 40 CFR 51.390, Virginia is required to submit a SIP revision that establishes conformity criteria and procedures consistent with the transportation conformity regulation promulgated in 40 CFR part 93.
In order to implement the Federal transportation conformity requirements, the Commonwealth of Virginia's regulation must reflect the recent revisions made to the Federal regulations. On October 1, 2012, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) submitted a revision to its SIP for Transportation Conformity purposes. The SIP revision consists of amendments to the Commonwealth Regulation for Transportation Conformity (9VAC5 Chapter 151). This SIP revision addresses provisions of the EPA Conformity Rule required under 40 CFR part 93. The revision amends 9VAC5–151–40, entitled “General,” in order to change the date of the specific version of the provisions incorporated by reference from 40 CFR part 93 (2010) in effect July 1, 2010 to 40 CFR part 93 (2012) in effect July 1, 2012. The SIP
EPA's review of Virginia's SIP revisions indicates that it is consistent with EPA's Conformity Rule. Virginia met the requirements under 40 CFR 51.390 to establish conformity criteria and procedures consistent with the transportation conformity regulation promulgated by EPA under 40 CFR part 93. In order to implement the Federal transportation conformity requirements, Virginia's regulation must reflect the most recent rulemaking promulgated by EPA on March 14, 2012 (77 FR 14979).
In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit) “privilege” for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and information about the content of those documents that are the product of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not extend to documents or information (1) That: are generated or developed before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2) are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) demonstrate a clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public health or environment; or (4) are required by law.
On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, precludes granting a privilege to documents and information “required by law,” including documents and information “required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval,” since Virginia must “enforce Federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less stringent than their Federal counterparts * * *.” The opinion concludes that “[r]egarding § 10.1–1198, therefore, documents or other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of these programs could not be privileged because such documents and information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval.”
Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1199, provides that “[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal law,” any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute, regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12, 1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute inapplicable to enforcement of any Federally authorized programs, since “no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with Federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.”
Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its program consistent with the Federal requirements. In any event, because EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on Federal enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under the CAA, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the State plan, independently of any State enforcement effort. In addition, citizen enforcement under section 304 of the CAA is likewise unaffected by this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.
EPA is approving the Virginia SIP revision for transportation conformity, which was submitted on October 1, 2012. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because EPA views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comment. However, in the Proposed Rules section of today's
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 31, 2013. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's
This action to approve the Virginia Transportation Conformity Regulation may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
42 U.S.C. 7401
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule; petition for reconsideration.
The Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration (MO&O) denies or dismisses petitions seeking reconsideration of certain decisions made by the Commission in the
Effective May 1, 2013.
Peter Trachtenberg at (202) 418–7369 or
This is a summary of the Commission's Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, WT Docket Nos. 06–150, 01–309, 03–264, 06–169, 96–86, 07–166, CC Docket No. 94,102, PS Docket No. 06–229; FCC 13–29, adopted February 28, 2013 and released March 1, 2013. The full text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY–A257), 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this document also may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street SW., Room, CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554. The full text may also be downloaded at:
1. In this MO&O, the Commission addresses petitions that were filed seeking reconsideration of certain decisions made by the Commission in the
2. Below the Commission discusses the issues raised by petitioners with respect to the performance requirements that the Commission established in the
3. Blooston Rural Carriers (Blooston), MetroPCS Communications, Inc. (MetroPCS), and Rural Telecommunications Group, Inc. (RTG) filed petitions for reconsideration challenging various aspects of the geographic-based performance requirements.
4. The Commission denies the petitioners' requests to alter the geographic-based coverage requirements. First, the Commission is unpersuaded by Blooston's arguments that a geographic-based performance requirement on CMA licensees (
5. Indeed, the results of the auction of Lower 700 MHz B Block licenses provide further support for the reasonableness of the Commission's geographic-based performance requirements. In the
6. The Commission also rejects arguments that the Commission should broaden the exclusions from the
7. Further, the Commission already specifically considered and rejected exclusions for Tribal lands, finding that it did not want to discourage deployment to these areas. While Blooston would limit exclusion of Tribal lands to cases where a licensee had made a good faith but unsuccessful attempt to obtain Tribal government consent, the Commission see no evidence that such consent will often be unreasonably withheld, and the Commission is concerned that an exclusion for Tribal lands may result in reduced efforts to obtain such consent and deploy in these areas.
8. In sum, the Commission concludes that the requested categorical exclusions are not appropriate, but, as mentioned in the
9. In the
10. The Commission concludes that it will retain the requirement that REAG licensees must meet the population-based benchmarks. RTG argues that the REAG approach is inconsistent with the approach the Commission took with regard to EA and CMA licenses, but there is no requirement that the performance requirements be the same for all commercial wireless services, nor even for those of a certain type. The Commission explained its determination that population-based benchmarks were better suited for the much larger REAG licenses in some detail, and there is nothing new in the record to persuade the Commission to change this decision. This decision involved tradeoffs particular to the expectation that these licenses would lead to regional or even nationwide network deployment. Contrary to RTG's assertion, the Commission was mindful not only of the need to develop regional and nationwide networks, but also of the need to promote wireless services in less populated portions of the nation, including rural areas. To address this concern, it provided that REAG licensees must meet the population-based build-out requirements on an EA basis. RTG questions the Commission's expectation that the REAG licenses were more likely to be used to provide regional or nationwide service than the much smaller EA and CMA licenses but offers nothing to undermine the Commission's well-supported predictive judgment. Therefore, the Commission denies RTG's request that REAG licensees be required to meet a geographic-based coverage requirement.
11. In the
12. The Commission further established a process governing the reassignment of licenses made available pursuant to the keep-what-you-use rules. As part of this process, the Commission provided that the licenses will be subject to an initial 30-day application period during which the original licensee may not file an application. Following this period, the original licensee is permitted to file an application for any remaining unserved area where licenses have not been issued and there are no pending applications.
13. Several petitioners seek reconsideration of the keep-what-you-use rules. Blooston requests that the Commission provide a
14. The Commission denies the requests to alter the keep-what-you-use rules that the Commission adopted in the
15. The Commission also denies proposals that the Commission revise the keep-what-you-use rules to provide for a triggered approach, under which a licensee would not lose unused spectrum until a party seeking the spectrum first files an application for the area meeting certain requirements for sufficiency. The Commission notes that the Commission sought comment on a triggered keep-what-you-use approach similar to MetroPCS's proposal prior to adopting the existing rule. The Commission already has application procedures to ensure that license approvals are in the public interest. Under the Commission's existing rules, before any application will be granted, the applicant must already demonstrate,
Requiring applicants seeking authorization over unused spectrum to demonstrate their
16. The Commission also rejects MetroPCS's arguments that in the event the original licensee loses its license or parts thereof through application of the keep-what-you-use rules, it should be allowed to participate in any reauction of the recaptured license areas. Under the Commission's build-out rules, the original licensee has ample opportunity to meet its build-out requirements. Further, barring the original licensee from participating during the initial reauction of its unserved license areas is a reasonable penalty for the licensee's failure to meet its build-out requirements. This measure helps ensure that the original licensee will make all reasonable efforts to meet its performance benchmarks and that the Commission licenses spectrum to those parties that are most likely to use it. MetroPCS argues that the Commission's rule enhances the risk that the original licensee will be subject to green mail from speculators. The Commission thinks the risk of speculators acquiring unused spectrum for green mail purposes is small, however, given that the Commission also required new licensees of spectrum made available under the keep-what-you-use rule to offer service to the entire license area within one year, and provided that if they fail to meet this requirement, they lose the license automatically and are ineligible to file an application to provide service in the same area over the same frequencies at any future date.
17. Finally, the Commission is not persuaded that licensees that fail to meet the end-of-term benchmark should nevertheless retain a portion of the unserved area of their licenses as an expansion area. Parties argue that an expansion area is justified for a number of reasons including the potential need to address changes in customer demand, subsequent development of areas, population growth, and replacement of base stations, or as a buffer to avoid interference. The Commission finds, however, that permitting licensees to keep a part of their unused license areas as petitioners propose would undermine the Commission's keep-what-you-use policy goals of motivating licensees to meet their benchmarks and promoting access to spectrum that is not adequately built out and deployment of service to communities that might otherwise not receive it. Further, the rules adopted in the
18. Blooston, MetroPCS, and RTG seek reconsideration of the potential mid-term and end-of-term construction benchmarks enforcement provisions. MetroPCS and RTG contend that the Commission did not provide guidance regarding under what circumstances these potential enforcement actions might be taken and they propose various standards. Blooston argues that the Commission should repeal these enforcement provisions altogether, and that the Commission did not provide the notice required by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) before adopting forfeitures as a potential enforcement measure.
19. The Commission is not persuaded that the Commission should adopt the modifications to the potential enforcement provisions proposed by petitioners. Although petitioners argue that their proposals would resolve ambiguity in the Commission's rules, the Commission finds that their proposals would substantially limit the Commission's enforcement options. For example, MetroPCS argues that that the option of license termination at end-of-term should apply only in cases of failure to provide substantial service. It is already the case under the license renewal requirement, however, that a licensee's failure to demonstrate that it is providing substantial service results, by operation of the rules, in loss of the license. Thus, MetroPCS's interpretation would effectively eliminate license termination as a separate mechanism for enforcing the performance requirements prior to the end of a license term. In rejecting this proposal to partially conflate the substantial service and performance requirements, the Commission also notes that it has
20. RTG's proposal—that a licensee should be subject to additional enforcement only if it utterly fails to construct a system—goes even further; it not only eliminates license termination as an enforcement mechanism prior to the end of a license term, but it also reduces this mechanism to a mere subset of its existing form as a license renewal requirement. Therefore, the Commission is not persuaded that any of the petitioners' proposed clarifications are consistent with the Commission's adoption of these enforcement measures.
21. The Commission also disagrees with arguments that the Commission provided no justification in support of the additional enforcement mechanisms and should eliminate them entirely. In adopting its requirements, the Commission underscored that it
22. The Commission rejects Blooston's argument that forfeitures are inappropriate because, in failing to meet performance benchmarks, a licensee does not actually violate a rule but merely exercises an option under the rules to lose a given area. The
23. Finally, the Commission notes that the Wireless Bureau has already clarified the conditions under which licensees may be subject to reduction in license area at the interim stage. The Commission does not rule out the Wireless Bureau providing further clarification, if necessary, regarding how the potential end-of-term enforcement measures will be applied after assessing progress toward and compliance with the interim benchmarks and any necessary enforcement in connection with those benchmarks.
24. In its petition for reconsideration, Blooston requests that the Commission eliminate the interim construction reports for all small and rural licensees. The Commission is not persuaded that this modification is warranted. First, the Commission does not agree that these reports impose unnecessary burdens on small licensees. The interim construction reporting requirements strengthen the Commission's ability to monitor build-out progress during the license term. Under the circumstances, where the Commission has stressed the importance of a timely build-out of the 700 MHz spectrum and has adopted performance requirements to meet this end, the Commission considers the information that is to be supplied in these reports to be reasonable and in the public interest. Further, the required information is readily available to licensees and can easily be reported to the Commission. The Commission merely requires licensees to provide the Commission with a description of the steps they have taken toward meeting their construction obligations in a timely manner, including the technology or technologies and service(s) they are providing and the areas in which those services are available. Accordingly, the Commission denies Blooston's request.
25. In its petition for reconsideration, Frontline argues that application of the impermissible material relationship rule to the C and D Blocks would be prejudicial to small businesses, especially those adopting a wholesale business model. Frontline asks the Commission to reinterpret the designated entity rules to allow small businesses with a wholesale model to maintain their eligibility for a bidding credit in the C and D Blocks. United States Cellular Corp. (U.S. Cellular) argues that the Commission properly applied the impermissible material relationship rule in the
26. On November 15, 2007, on its own motion, the Commission waived application of the impermissible material relationship rule for purposes of determining designated entity eligibility solely with respect to arrangements for lease or resale (including wholesale) of the spectrum capacity of the D Block license. The Commission found that the unique regulations governing the D Block license, which required the establishment of the 700 MHz Band Public/Private Partnership subject to a Commission-approved Network Sharing Agreement—together with the application of the Commission's other designated entity eligibility requirements—eliminated for the D Block license the risks that led the Commission to adopt the impermissible material relationship rule. This waiver applied to the D Block in Auction 73, which began on January 24 and closed on March 18, 2008.
27. Frontline did not qualify to participate in Auction 73. Frontline selected only the D Block license on its short-form application, but was unable to raise the $128.21 million necessary to make the required upfront payment for the D Block. The Wireless Bureau denied Frontline's request for a waiver to allow it to add the A and B Blocks, which included licenses that required lower upfront payments, to its short-form application after the deadline.
28. In
29. The Commission's November 15, 2007 waiver of the impermissible material relationship rule rendered moot Frontline's petition for reconsideration with respect to the D Block license, and the Commission therefore dismisses that portion of the petition as moot. Frontline's arguments with respect to the D Block are also moot because the D Block will not be re-auctioned since Congress recently directed the Commission to reallocate the D Block spectrum for use by public safety entities. 47 U.S.C. 1411(a); Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Public Law 112–96, 126 Stat. 156 6101 (2012) (Spectrum Act). The Commission also dismisses as moot Frontline's petition to the extent it addresses designated entity status for wholesale services in the C Block, because the Third Circuit vacated the impermissible material relationship rule that is the subject of Frontline's petition. In accordance with the court's mandate the Commission has deleted the relevant provision from the Commission's Part 1 competitive bidding rules.
30. In order to promote the statutory objectives in 47 U.S.C. 309(j)(3), including the efficient and intensive use of the electromagnetic spectrum as well as the recovery for the public of a portion of the value of the public spectrum resource, in the
31. In its petition for reconsideration, Frontline argues that the reserve prices for the C and D Block licenses proposed, and ultimately adopted, by the Wireless Bureau based on the Commission's guidance in the
32. Subsequent to the Commission's order waiving the impermissible material relationship rule with respect to leasing or resale of the spectrum capacity of the D Block license, Frontline filed an amendment to its petition for reconsideration withdrawing its argument that the reserve prices were set arbitrarily high and stating that it no longer advocates altering the reserve prices for the 700 MHz auction.
33. In light of Frontline's withdrawal of its arguments with respect to the Auction 73 reserve prices, the Commission dismisses this portion of Frontline's petition for reconsideration.
34. MetroPCS asks the Commission to reconsider two issues related to the re-auction of 700 MHz licenses contemplated by the
35. The winning bids in Auction 73 for the Lower 700 MHz A, B, and E Block licenses and the Upper 700 MHz C Block licenses exceeded the aggregate reserve prices for those blocks; however, the provisionally winning bid for the Upper 700 MHz D Block did not meet the applicable reserve price. On March 20, 2008, two days after the close of Auction 73, the Commission issued an order electing not to re-offer the D Block license immediately in Auction 76 in order to allow additional time to consider options for this spectrum. More recently, Congress directed the Commission to reallocate the D Block spectrum for use by public safety entities. As a result, the D Block spectrum will not be assigned by auction for commercial use.
36. Because the Commission decided not to re-auction the D Block license immediately, and Congress has since directed the Commission to reallocate the D Block for public safety use, the re-auction of the D Block has not occurred and will not occur. As a result, the reserve price for any re-auction of the D Block is now irrelevant. In addition, the issue is also moot as to the other blocks because the bids in those blocks exceeded the applicable reserve prices,
37. In its petition for reconsideration, PISC requests that the Commission declare that two or more bidders working together to block another bidder from winning any licenses would violate § 1.2105(c) of the Commission's rules, which prohibits certain communications. PISC argues that in the
38. The Commission denies PISC's request for a declaratory ruling on the application of § 1.2105(c) to certain types of activity by bidders who work together. The Commission has discretion whether to issue a declaratory ruling, and rather than address PISC's request in this proceeding, the Commission thinks it's best to address such issues as they arise. The declaratory ruling PISC seeks would likely be of very limited benefit given the hypothetical general circumstances it describes. The Commission also notes that regardless of compliance with § 1.2105(c), auction applicants remain subject to the antitrust laws, which are designed to prevent anticompetitive behavior in the marketplace, and conduct that is permissible under the Commission's rules may be prohibited by the antitrust laws.
39. In the
40. PISC does not challenge the Commission's decision to employ anonymous bidding in Auction 73, but argues that the Commission's conclusions regarding the merits of the Rose studies were inaccurate and arbitrary, and that footnotes 644, 645, and 655 (which relies upon footnotes 644 and 645) should be vacated. PISC adds that given the Commission's decision to adopt anonymous bidding, it was unnecessary and unusual for it to address the merits of the Rose studies in footnotes.
41. The Commission denies PISC's request to vacate the footnotes describing potential flaws in the Rose studies. PISC's petition for reconsideration presents additional information regarding the Rose studies that provides useful context but does not change the validity of the footnotes with respect to the studies as filed. Footnotes 644, 645, and 655 in the
42. Frontline, PISC, and RTG filed petitions requesting that the Commission reconsider its decision not to impose spectrum aggregation limits. Frontline requests that the Commission implement a spectrum screen that would trigger increased review of certain long-form auction applications for anticompetitive effects, similar to the screen applied to merger and acquisition transactions. PISC proposes that the Commission adopt a rule prohibiting the winner of the Upper 700 MHz D Block license from holding Upper 700 MHz C Block licenses and vice versa. RTG proposes an interim, geographically based spectrum cap applicable specifically to the 700 MHz auction.
43. In the
44. In its petition for reconsideration, NTCH, Inc. (NTCH) argues that the Commission should reform the current Universal Service Funding (USF) system by requiring Lower 700 MHz A Block licensees to provide service on a discounted wholesale basis to designated Eligible Telecommunications Companies. CTIA and U.S. Cellular oppose NTCH's proposal arguing, among other assertions, that the proposal is outside the scope of what can be granted on reconsideration of the
45. NTCH presents a new proposal to impose a discounted wholesale obligation on Lower 700 MHz A Block licensees and argues that the Commission should adopt it as a means of reforming the current USF system, but does not challenge the Commission's refusal, in the
46. In the
47. In late 2007, Verizon Wireless and CTIA each filed and then withdrew lawsuits in the DC Circuit Court challenging the open platform requirements on the grounds that they violated the First Amendment. Prior to Verizon Wireless's withdrawal of its petition for review from the DC Circuit Court, PISC filed its petition for reconsideration with the Commission requesting, in pertinent part, that the Commission clarify that
48. In light of the withdrawal of the Verizon Wireless and CTIA First Amendment challenges to the open platform rule, PISC's request for clarification of the proper legal framework for addressing Verizon Wireless's withdrawn challenge is moot, and the Commission accordingly dismisses PISC's petition for reconsideration as such, to the extent the petition requested such clarification.
49. In its petition for reconsideration, Frontline argues that stripping the C Block of the open platform conditions in the event of a re-auction would be contrary to the public interest and would create perverse incentives for bidders. The C Block auction was successful and has been completed, rendering any discussion of an unsuccessful auction and the terms of a re-auction of the C Block moot. Therefore, the Commission dismisses Frontline's petition for reconsideration to the extent that it seeks the Commission to reconsider the conditions of a re-auction of the C Block.
50. Several of the pending petitions in this proceeding seek reconsideration or clarification of various aspects of the regulatory requirements adopted by the Commission to effectuate and govern the Public/Private Partnership between the Upper 700 MHz D Block licensee and the future licensee of the 700 MHz public safety broadband spectrum (the Public Safety Broadband Licensee or PSBL). The Commission finds that the directives in the Spectrum Act regarding the D Block render moot the requests for reconsideration or clarification of the Commission D Block commercial service rules, and the Commission therefore dismisses these requests.
51. Commonwealth of Virginia (Virginia) and Pierce County Public Transportation Benefit Area Corporation (Pierce Transit) filed petitions seeking reconsideration of certain aspects of the decisions on public safety narrowband relocation.
52. The
53. Accordingly,
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish the following three permanent safety zones on the navigable waters of (1) Taiya Inlet in the vicinity of on the White Pass and Yukon Railway Dock, Skagway; (2) Portage Cove, Haines and; (3) Wrangell Harbor, Wrangell, Alaska. These proposed safety zones are necessary to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with the annual Independence Day Fireworks Displays held in each location. This rule is intended to restrict all vessels from a portion of the navigable waters in the immediate vicinity of the fireworks launch platforms, before, during and immediately after the fireworks event.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before May 31, 2013.
Requests for public meetings must be received by the Coast Guard on or May 1, 2013.
You may submit comments identified by docket number using any one of the following methods:
(1)
(2)
(3)
See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Lieutenant Patrick Drayer, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Juneau, telephone 907–463–2465, email
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted without change to
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online at
To submit your comment online, go to
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8
To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one, using one of the methods specified under
The Coast Guard has previously issued temporary final rules establishing safety zones for fireworks displays occurring on the waters in the vicinity of Haines, Skagway and Wrangell, AK (77 FR 39172). This rule proposes to establish three permanent safety zones for the annually recurring Independence Day fireworks displays in Haines, Skagway and Wrangell and is expected to reduce the administrative burden associated with the creation of temporary safety zones each year.
The legal basis for the proposed rule is 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, 160.5; Public Law 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
The cities of Skagway, Haines, and Wrangell, Alaska hold fireworks displays on or about the July 4th of each year to celebrate Independence Day. The fireworks will be launched from a barge or waterfront facility. This proposed rule is necessary to ensure the safety of spectators and vessels from hazards associated with fireworks. Fireworks launched in close proximity to watercraft pose a significant risk to public safety and property. Such displays draw large numbers of spectators on vessels. The combination of a large number of spectators, congested waterways, darkness punctuated by bright flashes of light, and burning debris has the potential to result in serious injuries or fatalities. The proposed safety zones will restrict vessels from operating within a portion of the navigable waters around the fireworks launch platforms during the enforcement period which will be immediately before, during, and immediately after the fireworks displays.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish three permanent safety zones on the navigable waters of Taiya Inlet, Skagway; Portage Cove, Haines; and Wrangell Harbor, Wrangell, AK. The proposed safety zones are necessary to ensure the safety of spectators and vessels from hazards associated with fireworks displays. Each safety zone will include the navigable waters within a 300-yard radius around the fireworks launch platform. The fireworks displays are expected to occur between 11:00 p.m. and 11:45 p.m. In order to coordinate the safe movement of vessels within the area and to ensure that the area is clear of unauthorized persons and vessels before, during, and immediately after the fireworks launch, these zones will be enforced from 10 p.m. until 2:30 a.m. This effective period of the safety zones is to account for the possibility that if the fireworks displays are postponed because of inclement weather, we would be able to adjust the enforcement period of the safety zones. The specific date and duration of the enforcement period will be announced in the Local Notices to Mariners and maritime advisories widely available to mariners.
Vessels will be able to transit the surrounding area and may be authorized to transit through the proposed safety zone with the permission of the COTP or the designated representative. Before activating the zones we will notify mariners by appropriate means including but not limited to Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
This rule is being proposed to provide for the safety of life on the navigable waters during the events, and to give the public the opportunity to comment on the proposed safety zone locations, size, and length of time the zone will be activated.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes or executive orders.
This proposed 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. The Coast Guard's enforcement of these proposed safety zones will be of short duration, approximately three hours. Furthermore, vessels may be authorized to transit through the proposed safety zones with the permission of the COTP.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: the owners and operators of vessels intending to transit, anchor, or fish in a portion of the navigable waters of Taiya Inlet, Skagway; Portage Cove, Haines; and Wrangell Harbor, Wrangell, AK; during the periods of enforcement of these proposed safety zones.
These proposed safety zones would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. These proposed safety zones would be subject to enforcement only immediately before, during, and immediately after the firework displays that may occur from July 3 at 10 p.m. ADT until 2:30 a.m. ADT on July 5 each year. Vessel traffic could pass safely around the proposed safety zones. Before the enforcement of any of the safety zones, we would issue maritime advisories widely available to users of the waterway.
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 want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed 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
This proposed 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 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 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 proposed rule would not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This proposed rule would 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 proposed 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 proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would 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 proposed rule is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.
This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this proposed 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 made a preliminary determination 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 proposed rule involves the establishment of three permanent safety zones on the navigable waters of Taiya Inlet, Skagway; Portage Cove, Haines; and Wrangell Harbor, Wrangell, AK, respectively. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2–1 of the Commandant Instruction. A preliminary 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 proposes to amend 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, 160.5; Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia for the purpose of amending existing regulation 9VAC5 Chapter 151 in order to incorporate Federal revisions to transportation conformity requirements. In the Final Rules section of this
Comments must be received in writing by May 1, 2013.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0082, by one of the following methods:
A.
B.
C.
D.
Gregory Becoat, (215) 814–2036, or by email at
For further information, please see the information provided in the direct final action, with the same title, “Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Transportation Conformity Regulations,” that is located in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing changes to the effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the Construction and Development point source category. EPA is proposing these changes pursuant to a settlement agreement to resolve litigation. This proposed rule would withdraw the numeric discharge standards, which are currently stayed, and change several of the non-numeric provisions of the existing rule.
Comments must be received on or before May 31, 2013.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2010–0884, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Mr. Jesse W. Pritts at Engineering and Analysis Division, Office of Water (4303T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202–566–1038; fax number: 202–566–1053; email address:
Entities potentially regulated by this action include:
EPA does not intend the preceding table to be exhaustive, but provides it as a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria at 40 CFR 450.10 and the definition of “storm water discharges associated with industrial activity” and “storm water discharges associated with small construction activity” in existing EPA regulations at 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)(x) and 122.26(b)(15), respectively. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular site, consult one of the persons listed for technical information in the preceding
This preamble describes the terms, acronyms, and abbreviations used in this document; the legal authority of this proposed rule; background information; and a summary of the proposed changes.
EPA is proposing these regulations under the authorities of sections 101, 301, 304, 306, 308, 401, 402, 501 and 510 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1251, 1311, 1314, 1316, 1318, 1341, 1342, 1361 and 1370 and pursuant to the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. 13101 et seq.
EPA promulgated Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Point Source Category (hereafter referred to as the “C&D rule”) (74 FR 62995, Dec. 1, 2009). The final rule established requirements based on Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available, Best Available Technology Economically Achievable, Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology, and New Source Performance Standards based on Best Available Demonstrated Control Technology.
The rule included non-numeric requirements to:
• Implement erosion and sediment controls;
• Stabilize soils;
• Manage dewatering activities;
• Implement pollution prevention measures;
• Prohibit certain discharges; and
• Utilize surface outlets for discharges from basins and impoundments.
The December 2009 final rule also established a numeric limitation on the allowable level of turbidity in discharges from certain construction sites. The technology basis for the final numeric limitation was passive treatment controls including polymer-aided settling to reduce the turbidity in discharges.
Following promulgation of the December 2009 final C&D rule, the Wisconsin Home Builders Association, the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) and the Utility Water Act Group (UWAG) filed petitions for review in the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals for the Fifth, Seventh, and D.C. Circuits. The petitions were consolidated in the Seventh Circuit.
In April 2010, the Small Business Administration (SBA) filed with EPA a petition for administrative reconsideration of several technical aspects of the C&D Rule. SBA identified potential deficiencies with the dataset that EPA used to support its decision to adopt the numeric turbidity limitation. In June 2010, NAHB also filed a petition for administrative reconsideration with EPA incorporating by reference SBA's argument regarding the deficiencies in the data.
On August 12, 2010, EPA filed an unopposed motion with the Court seeking to hold the litigation in abeyance until February 15, 2012 (see EPA–HQ–OW–2010–0884–0085) and asking the Court to remand the record to EPA and vacate the numeric limitation portion of the rule. In addition, EPA agreed to reconsider the numeric limitation and to solicit site-specific information regarding the applicability of the numeric effluent limitation to cold weather sites and to small sites that are part of a larger project.
On August 24, 2010, the Court issued an order remanding the matter to the Agency but without vacating the numeric limitation. Subsequently on September 9, 2010, the petitioners filed an unopposed motion for clarification or reconsideration of the Court's August 24, 2010 order, asking the Court again to vacate the numeric limitation. On September 20, 2010, the Court remanded the administrative record to EPA, and ordered the case held in abeyance until February 15, 2012, but did not vacate the numeric limitation. EPA added additional information to the docket to supplement the administrative record for the C&D rule (see EPA–HQ–OW–2008–0465–2124 through EPA–HQ–OW–2008–0465–2134) and an updated response to comment document (see EPA–HQ–OW–2008–0465–2135) during this period.
In November 2010, EPA issued a direct final regulation and a companion proposed regulation to stay the numeric limitation at 40 CFR 450.22 indefinitely (75 FR 68215, November 5, 2010 and 75 FR 68305, November 5, 2010). The proposed rule solicited comment due no later than December 6, 2010. Since no adverse comments were received, the direct final rule took effect on January 4, 2011.
States are no longer required to incorporate the numeric turbidity limitation and monitoring requirements found at § 450.22(a) and § 450.22(b) into NPDES permits because the numeric limitation was stayed. However, the remainder of the regulation is still in effect and must be incorporated into newly issued NPDES permits.
After issuing the stay of the numeric turbidity limitation, EPA continued to consult with stakeholders regarding next steps with respect to numeric discharge standards. EPA published a
EPA also continued to meet with the petitioners in an effort to settle the litigation over the C&D rule. On December 10, 2012, EPA entered into a settlement agreement with petitioners to resolve the litigation (see
The proposed revisions to 40 CFR part 450 consist of the following three elements:
• Addition of a definition of “infeasible” consistent with the preamble to the 2009 final rule and 2012 CGP;
• Revisions to the effluent limitations reflecting the best practicable control technology currently available (BPT), effluent limitations reflecting the best available technology economically achievable (BAT), effluent limitations reflecting the best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT), and the new source performance standards reflecting the best available demonstrated control technology (NSPS) found at 40 CFR 450.21, 450,22, 450.23 and 450.24, respectively; and
• Withdrawing the numeric turbidity effluent limitation and monitoring requirements found at 40 CFR 450.22(a) and 450.22(b) and reserving these subparts.
EPA is proposing these revisions in order to meet the terms of the settlement agreement and to make the rules clearer and more transparent to the public. As written, stakeholders believe, and EPA agrees, that there is some ambiguity surrounding when and where these provisions should apply and what exceptions apply. EPA believes that these proposed changes will provide clarity to permitting authorities on how to implement or incorporate these provisions into permits. EPA solicits comments on the following specific changes.
EPA proposes to add a definition of infeasible at 40 CFR 450.11(b). Several of the provisions of the C&D rule require permittees to implement controls, unless infeasible. EPA did not provide a definition of infeasible in the C&D
Although this discussion described EPA's intention regarding relief from specific requirements in the C&D rule in cases where a requirement is infeasible, there is concern that since this description is contained in the preamble instead of the rule that there may be inconsistent interpretation by permitting authorities of what constitutes infeasibility. Including a definition of what EPA means by infeasible in the rule would provide clarity and consistency for permittees.
EPA proposes to add the following definition of infeasible, which was derived from EPA's preamble language from the 2009 final rule cited above and the 2012 CGP:
EPA solicits comment on the inclusion of this proposed definition.
This requirement, as currently written, requires permittees to “Control stormwater volume and velocity within the site to minimize soil erosion.” EPA proposes to amend this requirement as follows:
EPA is proposing this change in order to link the requirement to control soil erosion to the discharge of pollutants. EPA is proposing to eliminate the “within the site” clause because it is unnecessary as the regulation applies by definition to all discharges from the entire construction site. The proposed change would continue to allow permitting authorities the ability to develop permit language to control stormwater volume and velocity to minimize soil erosion at any location, such as on slopes as well as within channels and conveyances, that may contribute pollutants to discharges from the construction site. EPA solicits comment on this proposed change.
(a) Examples of appropriate controls for this provision.
Control of volume and velocity of stormwater in conveyances where concentrated flow occurs, as well as control of volume and velocity of overland flow, are necessary to reduce mobilization, transport and discharge of sediment and other pollutants. EPA notes that this requirement reflects common practice for water handling on construction sites. The need for effective erosion control practices is an important component of stormwater management on construction sites and is well-known and described in available references. See, for example, the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, Third Edition, which states at page II–14:
“
Practices described in this handbook, also at page II–14, that are appropriate for managing the volume and velocity of stormwater are described as follows:
“
Additional examples of appropriate controls to address this provision include management of concentrated flows through the use of channel liners or other stabilization measures to minimize erosion caused by flowing water in channels, use of pipe slope drains to move water down slopes to minimize erosion, use of check dams in channels to reduce flow velocities and minimize erosion, and use of sediment basins and traps to provide detention and reduction in peak flowrates, which minimizes downslope erosion. Examples of practices to reduce volume and velocity of stormwater with respect to overland or other non-concentrated flow on site include the use of slope breaks such as berms to slow water as it flows down slopes and the use of cover materials such as mulches and vegetative stabilization on slopes to reduce the velocity of stormwater flowing down the slopes.
During construction, the volume and rate of runoff increases, which relates to a corresponding increase in the discharge of pollutants to receiving waters. Erosion of soil particles is caused by both rainfall impact energy as well as the energy of flowing water. Water flowing over soil as overland flow, as well as concentrated flow overland and in conveyances (such as channels), causes detachment of soil particles and transport of these particles downslope. These particles can be discharged from the construction site along with the stormwater. While removal of some particles in downslope sediment controls (e.g., sediment basins) can be accomplished, these sediment controls are generally not 100% effective in removing entrained soil particles. Therefore, some portion of soil that is mobilized (and the pollutants associated with those soil particles) can be discharged from the construction site even after passing through sediment controls.
Controlling stormwater volume and velocity reduces the amount of erosion caused by flowing water, and therefore can reduce the amount of sediment, turbidity and other pollutants discharged from the site. For example, a particular sediment basin may be capable or removing all particles above 40 microns in diameter through settling. If the stormwater flowing to the sediment basin during a particular storm event contains 1,000 pounds of soil, 80% of which is above 40 microns, then the basin would remove 80% (or 800 pounds) of the sediment while 20% (or 200 pounds) would not be removed and would be discharged. However, if during this same storm event upslope volume and velocity controls were not implemented, then one would expect a larger quantity of sediment to be eroded and transported to the sediment basin. In this scenario, if the total quantity of sediment transported to the basin for this event is twice as much because upslope volume and velocity controls were not implemented, then the amount of sediment not removed by the basin is 20% of 2,000 pounds, or 400 pounds. This is twice as much as discharged from the example where upslope controls to reduce erosion were implemented. Therefore, reducing the volume and velocity of stormwater, which reduces the amount of erosion, can directly reduce the quantity of sediment and associated pollutants that are discharged.
(b) What does EPA not mean by this requirement?
EPA does not intend for this requirement to apply once construction has ceased and sites have been stabilized. This requirement only applies during the construction phase, and does not apply to post-construction conditions.
(c) What is the appropriate time for implementation of this requirement in the construction process?
The proper time for implementation of controls to manage both the total volume and velocity of stormwater to minimize erosion depends on the nature of the control. Some practices (such as sediment basins) should be installed very early in the construction process so that they are functioning and able to accept runoff from up-slope disturbed areas. Other practices may be installed later in the construction process as they are needed. For example, a sediment basin may be designed to accept water from several catchments in a project, all of which may not be disturbed at the same time. Prior to disturbance of an area, it may be appropriate to install a channel to divert runoff from the disturbed area to the basin. When this channel is installed, the need for velocity control measures such as a channel lining or check dams would necessitate that they be installed when the channel is constructed. The need for specific controls is site-specific, and will vary based on the nature of the construction activity.
This requirement, as currently written, requires permittees to “Control stormwater discharges, including both peak flowrates and total stormwater volume, to minimize erosion at outlets and to minimize downstream channel and streambank erosion.” EPA proposes to amend this requirement as follows:
EPA is proposing this change because the current requirement does not differentiate between any contribution to increased erosion caused by the construction site discharges and those caused by other sources. For example, a construction site may discharge to a stream that is being eroded due to changes in flow duration from an up-slope development. As currently written, this provision could be interpreted to require the permittee to minimize downstream erosion caused by the upslope discharges. It is not EPA's intention for this provision to require permittees to address streambank and channel erosion that is caused by other sources. This revision would require permittees to only address erosion that occurs in the immediate vicinity of permitted outfalls. Examples may include scouring of the stream bed and erosion of the near and far banks at and in the area immediately downstream of where an outfall from a sediment basin discharges to a stream. Permitting authorities can develop specific permit language to address this erosion, and appropriate controls may include the use of stabilized outlets and use of detention practices, such as sediment basins, to limit peak flowrates and flow duration of discharges. EPA solicits comment on this proposed revision.
This provision, as currently written, requires permittees to “Provide and maintain natural buffers around surface waters, direct stormwater to vegetated areas to increase sediment removal and maximize stormwater infiltration, unless infeasible.” EPA proposes to amend this requirement as follows:
EPA is proposing two changes to this provision. The first change would replace “surface waters” with “waters of the United States.” EPA is proposing this change because “surface waters” is not defined in the context of the Clean Water Act and EPA always intended this to simply mean waters of the United States. The second proposed change to this provision would replace “increase sediment removal” with “to reduce pollutant discharges” and would move the location of this phrase within the requirement. This proposed change would provide clarity that the goal of the requirement to direct stormwater to vegetated areas and to maximize stormwater infiltration is to reduce pollutant discharges. EPA solicits comment on these proposed changes.
This provision, as currently written, would require permittees to “Minimize soil compaction and, unless infeasible, preserve topsoil.” EPA proposes to amend this requirement, as well as separate the two provisions (minimizing soil compaction and preserving topsoil) into two separate requirements as follows:
EPA is proposing to revise this provision because, as currently written, this requirement does not acknowledge that certain areas of the site may require compaction. Examples would be foundation pads for buildings or road subgrade material. Similarly, the requirement to preserve topsoil is being clarified. Although this requirement includes an “unless infeasible” clause, EPA believes that it is worth clarifying that preservation of topsoil is not required (although it may be feasible) where the intended function of a specific area of the site dictates that the topsoil be disturbed or removed.
EPA solicits comment on these proposed changes.
(a) Discussion of minimizing soil compaction and preserving topsoil requirements.
These requirements are designed to reduce the amount of soil eroded and discharged from the site by reducing the amount of runoff generated and by providing conditions conducive to establishing vegetative stabilization. Compacting soil increases the amount of runoff produced. This is because compacted soil does not allow water to infiltrate as rapidly as loose soil. Minimizing soil compaction allows for infiltration and retention of stormwater within the soil, which reduces the amount of runoff. Reducing the amount of runoff will reduce erosion, and therefore reduce the amount of sediment and other pollutants that can be transported to sediment controls and through perimeter controls. Sediment controls and perimeter controls are not 100% effective in removing sediment and other pollutants, therefore reducing the amount of sediment and runoff directed to these controls will reduce the amount of pollutants discharged.
Topsoil improves soil structure and provides a favorable growing medium for temporary and permanent vegetative stabilization measures. Preserving topsoil allows for better vegetative stabilization when disturbance has ceased. Better vegetative stabilization reduces erosion rates of the underlying soil and also increases the infiltrative capacity of the soil. As stated above, reducing erosion rates and reducing the runoff volume will reduce the amount of sediment transported to downslope sediment and perimeter controls. Sediment controls and perimeter controls are not 100% effective in removing sediment and other pollutants, therefore reducing the amount of sediment and runoff directed to these controls will reduce the amount of pollutants discharged.
Preservation of topsoil also means limiting disturbance and removal of the topsoil and associated vegetation. Limiting clearing and grading to only
Topsoil stockpile areas, if used, should be prevented from eroding, which can be accomplished by using various cover materials. Use of temporary vegetative stabilization measures for topsoil areas may also be considered if the stockpiles are to remain on-site for an extended period of time before being used.
(2) What EPA does not mean by this requirement.
EPA notes that the “minimize soil compaction” language is meant to apply to those areas of the site where soil compaction is not necessary for structural or stability concerns. For example, EPA would not expect permittees to minimize compaction in areas where soil compaction is necessary by design, such as where roads, foundations, footings or other similar structures are to be built. Rather, this requirement is intended to apply to other areas of the site, such as those where vegetation is to be preserved or restored once disturbance has ceased. Although not a requirement of this rule, minimizing soil compaction may be necessary in areas of the site where post-construction controls are to be designed to infiltrate stormwater. Examples of these areas would be areas underneath porous pavement systems or areas where infiltration basins are to be installed. Consideration of soil compaction during the construction phase would be critical to ensuring proper operation of these types of practices.
EPA notes that some projects may be designed to be highly impervious after construction, and therefore little or no vegetation is intended to remain. In these cases (and perhaps others), preserving topsoil at the site would not be feasible since the topsoil would not be necessary for establishing vegetation. Another case where it may not be feasible to preserve topsoil would be if the topsoil is of poor quality or contaminated such that it would not be beneficial for establishing vegetation. Although poor topsoil may be improved through addition of soil amendments, there may be cases where this is not feasible. There may also be cases where keeping the topsoil on-site would conflict with other regulations or programs with respect to contaminated soils. For some projects where the construction envelope may encompass the entire land area, there may not be space available on-site to stockpile topsoil that is removed. In these cases, the use of off-site borrow or storage areas may be appropriate. In addition, topsoil may be sold for use on other projects where more topsoil is available than needed on-site. An example of an instance where it is not feasible to preserve all topsoil would be a situation where the topsoil is diverted to other uses because it is not needed on-site.
This provision, as currently written, would require permittees to stabilize disturbed areas. The requirement reads: “Stabilization of disturbed areas must, at a minimum, be initiated immediately whenever any clearing, grading, excavating or other earth disturbing activities have permanently ceased on any portion of the site, or temporarily ceased on any portion of the site and will not resume for a period exceeding 14 calendar days. Stabilization must be completed within a period of time determined by the permitting authority. In arid, semiarid, and drought-stricken areas where initiating vegetative stabilization measures immediately is infeasible, alternative stabilization measures must be employed as specified by the permitting authority.”
EPA proposes to amend this requirement as follows:
The changes to this provision include re-arranging the requirements for clarity as well as providing a potential exemption from stabilization for certain areas of a site that the permitting authority has determined must remain disturbed. EPA can envision only limited cases where a disturbed area would not require stabilization because it should remain disturbed. An example would be a motocross track where unstabilized soil areas are present and are intended to remain present. EPA believes that permitting authorities should have the flexibility to evaluate the circumstances surrounding individual sites and have some flexibility related to this provision for these very limited cases. In the vast majority of situations, however, vegetative or non-vegetative stabilization measures would be required. EPA solicits comment on these proposed changes.
This provision, as currently written would require permittees to “Minimize the exposure of building materials, building products, construction wastes, trash, landscape materials, fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, detergents, sanitary waste and other materials present on the site to precipitation and to stormwater;”
EPA proposes to amend this requirement as follows:
EPA is proposing to amend this requirement in order to acknowledge that there are certain circumstances where it may not be necessary or environmentally beneficial to minimize exposure of materials to precipitation and to stormwater. The first case would be those instances where a material is not a source of pollutant discharges. An example would be an inert material that does not leach, erode or otherwise add pollutants to precipitation or to stormwater. The second case would be where the material may contribute negligible quantities of pollutants. An example would be steel members that are part of an electric transmission tower. During construction of the tower, the material may be stored on the site in a staging area or adjacent to the tower pad. Although it may be feasible to provide cover for the material or otherwise minimize exposure of the material to precipitation and to stormwater, doing so may not be cost-effective or beneficial if the material would be expected to contribute little or no pollutants to stormwater. EPA believes that permitting authorities should have discretion and permittees
The final proposed change would be to remove the numeric discharge standard and monitoring requirements found at 40 CFR 450.22(a) and 450.22(b). EPA would effectuate this change by deleting the current language at paragraphs (a) and (b), which are currently stayed, and reserving these paragraphs for potential revisions should EPA decide to propose additional effluent limitations guidelines and monitoring requirements in a future rulemaking. The stay has been in place since January 2011. In order to remove the stay or to implement a different numeric standard, EPA would need to undertake rulemaking. EPA is proposing to withdraw the numeric limitation but reserve the paragraphs in the regulation in the event that a numeric limitation is proposed and finalized in the future. EPA believes that removing the current standard that is stayed, but still appears in the Code of Federal Regulations, would provide clarity to permitting authorities that this standard is not required to be incorporated into permits. EPA continues to be interested in data and information regarding numeric discharge standards for construction sites.
This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). The action does not impose an information collection burden because the proposed rule changes would affect the effluent limitations and standards applicable to regulated entities, but would not impose any data collection requirements.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify and address regulatory alternatives “which minimize any significant economic impact of the rule on small entities.” 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on all of the small entities subject to the rule.
The proposed rule would clarify applicability of the existing non-numeric effluent limitations at 40 CFR part 450 and provide exemptions to some requirements in limited cases. We have therefore concluded that today's proposed rule will either not change or relieve regulatory burden for all affected small entities. We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.
This proposed rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. This proposed rule would clarify applicability of the existing non-numeric effluent limitations at 40 CFR part 450 and provide exemptions to some requirements in limited cases. The proposed rule would not impose new or more stringent requirements, and therefore this action would not subject regulated entities to any costs incremental to the existing rule. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA.
This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This proposed rule would clarify applicability of the existing non-numeric effluent limitations at 40 CFR part 450 and provide exemptions to some requirements in limited cases. These requirements apply to all governmental entities that undertake construction activities regulated at 40 CFR 122.26, and therefore do not significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. This proposed rule would clarify applicability of the existing non-numeric effluent limitations at 40 CFR part 450 and provide exemptions to some requirements in limited cases. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed action from State and local officials.
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This proposed rule would clarify applicability of the existing non-
EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5–501 of the Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to EO 13045 because it is based solely on technology performance.
This action is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. We have concluded that this rule is not likely to have any adverse energy effects because this action would clarify applicability of the existing non-numeric effluent limitations at 40 CFR part 450 and provide exemptions to some requirements in limited cases. These clarifications or exemptions are not expected to require additional energy usage by permittees.
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law 104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.
Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.
EPA has concluded that it is not practicable to determine whether there would be disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and/or low income populations from this proposed rule. This proposed rule would clarify applicability of the existing non-numeric effluent limitations at 40 CFR part 450 and provide exemptions to some requirements in limited cases. While EPA considers it unlikely, it is possible that the changes to some of these requirements could result in greater pollution discharge to waters of the United States. However, EPA does not expect the quantity of pollution discharges to significantly increase as a result of this proposed rule at the national level. Furthermore, the primary pollutants discharged by this industry, which are sediment and turbidity, are present in background levels to varying quantities in waters of the United States. Therefore, the extent, if any, of changes in human health or environmental effects as a result of this action would depend upon waterbody-specific conditions and the locations and interaction of populations with those waterbodies. Due to the varying nature and location of construction site discharges, and due to the fact that there are often other sources of sediment and turbidity pollution in waterbodies, it is not practicable to quantify the extent to which this action would alter levels of pollution discharges or whether any change in pollution discharges as a result of this action would contribute disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and/or low income populations.
Environmental protection, Construction industry, Land development, Water pollution control.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1311, 1312, 1314, 1316, 1341, 1342, 1361 and 1370.
(b)
(a) * * *
(1) Control stormwater volume and velocity to minimize soil erosion in order to minimize pollutant discharges;
(2) Control stormwater discharges, including both peak flowrates and total stormwater volume, to minimize channel and streambank erosion in the immediate vicinity of discharge points;
(6) Provide and maintain natural buffers around waters of the United States, direct stormwater to vegetated areas and maximize stormwater infiltration to reduce pollutant discharges, unless infeasible;
(7) Minimize soil compaction. Minimizing soil compaction is not required where the intended function of a specific area of the site dictates that it be compacted; and
(8) Unless infeasible, preserve topsoil. Preserving topsoil is not required where
(b)
(d) * * *
(2) Minimize the exposure of building materials, building products, construction wastes, trash, landscape materials, fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, detergents, sanitary waste and other materials present on the site to precipitation and to stormwater. Minimization of exposure is not required in cases where the exposure to precipitation and to stormwater will not result in a discharge of pollutants, or where exposure of a specific material or product poses little risk of stormwater contamination (such as final products and materials intended for outdoor use); and
Federal Communications Commission.
Request for Comments.
In this document, the Federal Communication Commission's (Commission) Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB) seeks to refresh the record regarding the nature and extent of fraudulent 911 calls made from Non-Service Initialized (NSI) devices; concerns with blocking NSI devices used to make fraudulent 911 calls, and suggestions for making this a more viable option for carriers; and other possible solutions to the problem of fraudulent 911 calls from NSI devices.
Comments are due on or before May 16, 2013 and reply comments are due on or before May 31, 2013.
You may submit comments, identified by PS Docket No. 08–51 by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554.
To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to
Eric Ehrenreich, Policy and Licensing Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, at (202) 418–1726 or
This is a summary of the Federal Communication Commission's Public Notice in PS Docket No. 08–51, DA 13–430, released on March 14, 2013. This document is available to the public at
1. The Commission's rules require commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) providers subject to the Commission's 911 rules to forward all wireless 911 calls, including those originated from “non-service-initialized” (NSI) handsets, to Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs). In 2008, nine public safety organizations and a software development firm (Petitioners) filed a petition for notice of inquiry to address the problem of fraudulent non-emergency 911 calls placed to PSAPs from NSI handsets. The Commission granted this petition and issued a
2. In light of the concerns raised by Petitioners regarding fraudulent non-emergency 911 calls, one of the options on which the
3. In a recently filed
4. In light of NENA's revised view on the 911 call-forwarding requirement, as well as the passage of time since the filing of comments in response to the
5. This proceeding has been designated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's
6. Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Parties may file comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Please place the docket number PS DOCKET NO. 08–51 on all filings. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).
7.
8.
9. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
10. All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW., Room TW–A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of
11. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
12. U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
13. People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to
14. Copies of the Petition and any subsequently filed documents in this matter are also available for inspection in the Commission's Reference Information Center: 445 12th Street SW., CY-Level, Washington, DC 20554, (202) 418–0270.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
In November of 1997, the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forest and Pawnee National Grassland Record of Decision (ROD) for the Revision of the Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP), which included the Oil and Gas Leasing Analysis on the Pawnee National Grassland (PNG), was signed. That decision determined which Lands are administratively available for leasing [36 CFR 228.102(d)], including conditions (lease stipulations) under which lands will be available. The oil and gas decisions contained in the 1997 ROD were based on an April 1995 projection of the reasonably foreseeable oil and gas development for the Pawnee National Grassland. Much of the PNG's federal mineral estate made available per the 1997 ROD has already been leased.
Since the analysis was completed 16 years ago, there has been a change in the manner in which oil and gas development has occurred on the Pawnee National Grassland. Multiple wells can be drilled from a single well pad rather than just one, as was most common in the past. The improvements in horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing technologies to improve the ability to access and recover oil and gas located deep underground from horizons previously thought uneconomic are the primary reasons for these changes in development.
The remaining available lands that are not presently leased have been nominated for leasing by industry. Before the Forest Service provides the Bureau of Land Management with consent to offer these lands for lease, it must verify that the requested lands have been adequately addressed in a NEPA document and is consistent with the Forest Land and Resource Management Plan [36 CFR 228.102(e)]. Accordingly, the PNG finds it is necessary to disclose the potential effects of the changed pattern and level of oil and gas development from those effects considered in the 1997 FEIS, and determine whether or not there is a need to change LRMP standards and guidelines (and possibly leasing stipulations) to minimize the potential impact of oil and gas development on the Pawnee National Grassland, which may require a plan amendment.
Scoping is an early and open process for identifying the issues and determining the scope of issues to be addressed in the analysis. The Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests and Pawnee National Grassland are soliciting comments on the proposed action. Comments should be written to help identify the issues that need to be addressed in the analysis. The public is welcome to comment at any time throughout the process; however, comments received prior to 05/14/2013 would be more useful and help keep the time line. The draft environmental impact statement is expected to be available to the public for comment in August, 2013 and the final environmental impact statement is expected in August 2014.
USDA Forest Service, Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests and Pawnee National Grassland, 2150 Centre Avenue, Building E, Fort Collins, CO 80526.
Tom Ford, Interdisciplinary Team Leader, at 2150 Centre Avenue, Building E, Fort Collins, CO 80526, by email at
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.
In light of a changed pattern and level of oil and gas activity from what was anticipated in the 1997 ROD, there is a need to reevaluate our 1997 Oil and Gas Leasing Analysis that identified NFS lands available for federal oil and gas leasing on the PNG. The purpose of the analysis is to consider and disclose any new circumstances or information relevant to environmental effects that may not have been anticipated in the 1997 FEIS to determine if additional management direction and/or leasing stipulations are necessary to protect National Forest System lands. The need for this action is to allow the PNG to verify that specific lands nominated by industry for leasing are adequately addressed in a NEPA document before providing consent to the BLM to offer such lands at a lease sale.
The PNG proposes to validate what lands are available for federal oil and gas leasing; what constraints are needed (lease stipulations) to minimize impacts to surface resources; and make any needed changes to management direction in the LRMP.
Glenn Casamassa, Forest Supervisor of the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests and Pawnee National Grassland.
Based on the analysis and information contained in the EIS, the Forest Supervisor will validate which lands will be available for lease, which lands will be adminstratively unavailable for lease, whether or not additional management direction would be incorporated into the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests and Pawnee National Grassland LRMP, and if that would require a plan amendment.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Land Between The Lakes Advisory Board will hold a meeting on April 23, 2013. Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App 2. The meeting agenda will focus on existing Environmental Education programs and improving engagement with regional school groups. The meeting is open to the public. Written commens are invited and should be sent to Bill Lorenz, Acting Area Supervisor, Land Between The Lakes, 100 Van Morgan Drive, Golden Pond, KY 42211 and must be received by April 16, 2013 in order for copies to be provided to the members for this meeting. Board members will review written comments received, and at their request, oral clarification may be requested for a future meeting.
The meeting will be held Tuesday, April 23, 2013 from 9:00 a.m. to approximately 4:00 p.m. CST. Comments must be received, in writing, on or before May 31, 2013.
The meeting will be held at Paris Landing State Park, 16055 U.S. 79 Buchanan, TN 38222.
Linda L. Taylor, Advisory Board Liaison, Land Between The Lakes, 100 Van Morgan Drive, Golden Pond, KY 42211, 270–924–2002. Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
The meeting is open to the public. Board discussion is limited to Forest Service staff and Board members.
Manti-La Sal National Forest, USDA Forest Service.
Notice of Proposed New Fee Sites.
The Manti-La Sal National Forest is proposing to charge fees at four campsites. All sites will have been constructed and amenities added to improve the services and experience at the campgrounds. Fees are assessed based on the level of amenities and services provided, cost of operation and maintenance, market assessment, and public comment. Funds from fees would be used for the continued operation and maintenance of these recreation sites.
Lake Canyon Recreation Area is a fee campground with 54 campsites. Depending on the terrain and location within the Lake Canyon Recreation Area, a number of campsites are clustered together in a loop and identified by a name. Three single campsites and one group site are being developed as part of a major restoration effort and proposed fee sites in the Miller Flat loop of Lake Canyon along with 44 less developed free sites. Fire rings, picnic tables, a cooking station, a kiosk, toilet, and roaded access and will be installed. A host is on site in the area. Lake Canyon Recreation Area is popular for ATV use. Major loops of campsites are connected by trails that connect with the Arapeen Trail system and nearby fisheries. Also located within this area are three learners' loops where children and adults can learn to ride their vehicle close to their campsite. The wide open area at Miller Flat has been an encouraging factor in the development of numerous unauthorized roads and camping. The restoration project has closed unauthorized trails and defined camping to an acceptable area. A financial analysis is being completed to assist in determining the fees, but the proposal is to keep the site fees consistent with other campsites in the Lake Canyon Recreation Area. The fee currently charged in Lake Canyon Recreation Area is being proposed at Miller Flat; $5 per vehicle per night for a single family campsite and $50 per night for a group site. All sites are proposed to be on the reservation system. If the group site is not reserved, first-come-first served campers may use the group site for $5 per vehicle per night. The additional campsites will greatly improve the resources, sanitation and recreation conditions. Fees would be used to continue to help protect and maintain the resources and campsites.
Allen Rowley, Acting Forest Supervisor, Manti-La Sal National Forest, 599 West Price River Drive, Price, Utah 84501.
Ann King, Public Service Group Leader, 435–636–3535. Information about the proposed fees can also be found on the Manti-La Sal National Web site:
The Federal Recreation Lands Enhancement Act (Title VII, Pub. L. 108–447) directed the Secretary of Agriculture to publish a six month advance notice in the
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) proposes to collect socio-economic data about small scale fishermen and seafood dealers operating in the U.S. Caribbean. The survey intends to collect information on demographics, fishing practices, costs and earnings (revenues, variable and fixed costs), market and distribution channels, capital investment, attitudes and perceptions about the performance management actions and the health of local fisheries, including the impact of invasive species. The data gathered will be used to describe U.S. Caribbean
Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, (202) 482–0336, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce.
Notice of a Virtual Public Meeting.
The Bureau of the Census (U.S. Census Bureau) is giving notice of a virtual meeting of the Census Scientific Advisory Committee (CSAC). The CSAC will provide scientific and technical expertise from the following disciplines: Statistical sciences, demography, economics, geography, psychology, survey methodology, social and behavioral sciences, information technology, and other fields of expertise, as appropriate. Last minute changes to the agenda are possible, which could prevent giving advance public notice of schedule adjustments.
On Thursday, April 18, the virtual meeting will begin at approximately 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time and adjourn at approximately 5:30 p.m.
For members of the public wishing to attend the virtual meeting in person, a listening room will be available at the following location: U.S. Census Bureau, Conference Rooms 1–3, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Suitland, MD 20746.
Jeri Green,
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (Title 5, United States Code, Appendix 2, Section 10), notice is hereby given to announce an open virtual meeting of the CSAC. The CSAC will meet in a virtual session on April 18, 2013. A virtual meeting of the CSAC provides a cost savings to the government while still offering a venue that allows for public participation and transparency, as required by the FACA.
This virtual meeting will take place by webinar and audio-video conferencing technology. All meeting participants, whether attending virtually or in person, should please register by April 10, 2013. The webinar will be limited to 200 participants. You may access the online registration form with the following link:
Members of the public are encouraged to attend the meeting virtually. For members of the public wishing to attend in person, a listening room will be made available. Please see the
The agenda may be updated should priority items come before the Committee between the time of this publication and the scheduled date of the CSAC meeting.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Committee Liaison Officer as soon as possible, preferably two weeks prior to the meeting. If attending in person, due to increased security and for access to the meeting, please call 301–763–9906 upon arrival at the Census Bureau on the day of the meeting. A photo ID must be presented in order to receive your visitor's badge. Visitors are not allowed beyond the first floor.
Any member of the public who wishes to file written data or comments pertaining to the agenda may do so by sending the data or comments via email to:
The primary purpose of the meeting is to provide the CSAC with an opportunity to discuss the following items:
• Executive Remarks.
• ACS Group Quarters Working Group.
• Optimizing Self-Response in the 2020 Census.
• Adaptive Design Case Study.
All meetings are open to the public. A brief period will be set aside at the meeting for public comment on April 18. However, individuals with extensive questions or statements (exceeding two minutes) must submit them in writing to Ms. Jeri Green by April 10, 2013.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of availability; response to comments.
As required by the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS has incorporated public comments into revisions of marine mammal stock assessment reports (SARs). All but ten of the 2012 reports are final and available to the public.
Electronic copies of SARs are available on the Internet as regional compilations and individual reports at the following address:
Copies of the Alaska Regional SARs may be requested from Robyn Angliss, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, 7600 Sand Point Way, BIN 15700, Seattle, WA 98115.
Copies of the Atlantic Regional SARs may be requested from Gordon Waring, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 166 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543.
Copies of the Pacific Regional SARs may be requested from Jim Carretta, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, NMFS, 8604 La Jolla Shores Drive, La Jolla, CA 92037–1508.
Shannon Bettridge, Office of Protected Resources, 301–427–8402,
Section 117 of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
The MMPA requires NMFS and FWS to review the SARs at least annually for strategic stocks and stocks for which significant new information is available, and at least once every 3 years for non-strategic stocks. NMFS and FWS are required to revise a SAR if the status of the stock has changed or can be more accurately determined. NMFS, in conjunction with the Alaska, Atlantic, and Pacific Scientific Review Groups (SRGs), reviewed the status of marine mammal stocks as required and revised reports in each of the three regions.
As required by the MMPA, NMFS updated SARs for 2012, and the revised reports were made available for public review and comment for 90 days (77 FR 47043, August 7, 2012). NMFS received comments on the draft SARs and has revised the reports as necessary. Subsequent to soliciting public comment on the draft 2012 SARs, NMFS revised the 2011 abundance estimates for ten Atlantic marine mammal stocks and the 2010 northeast sink gillnet serious injury and mortality estimates for several others. This new information prompted the agency to revise the SARs for the following marine mammal stocks: fin whale, western North Atlantic stock; sei whale, Nova Scotia stock; minke whale Canadian east coast stock; sperm whale, North Atlantic stock; Cuvier's beaked whale, western North Atlantic stock; Gervais' beaked whale, western North Atlantic stock; Sowerby's beaked whale, western North Atlantic stock; Risso's dolphin, western North Atlantic stock; Atlantic white-sided dolphin, western North Atlantic stock; and harbor porpoise, Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy stock. NMFS solicited public comment on the revised draft 2012 SARs for these ten stocks (78 FR 3399, January 16, 2013). The public comment period on the revised reports closes on April 16, 2013 and the reports will subsequently be finalized. This notice announces the availability of the final 2012 reports for the 114 stocks that are currently finalized. These reports are available on NMFS' Web site (see
NMFS received letters containing comments on the draft 2012 SARs from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission), the U.S. Navy (Pacific Fleet), nine non-governmental organizations (The Humane Society of the United States, Center for Biological Diversity, Garden State Seafood Association, Maine Lobstermen's Association, Inc., Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen's Association, Hawaii Longline Association, Alaska Seafood Cooperative, Pacific Seafood Processors Association, and Groundfish Forum), the Western Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Council, and one individual.
Many comments recommended initiation or repetition of large data collection efforts, such as abundance surveys, observer programs, or other efforts to estimate mortality. Many comments, including those from the Commission, recommending additional data collection (e.g., additional abundance surveys or observer programs) have been addressed in previous years. Although NMFS agrees that additional information would improve the SARs and inform conservation decisions, resources for surveys and observer programs are fully utilized, and no new large surveys or other programs may be initiated until additional resources are available. Such comments on the 2012 SARs, and responses to them, may not be included in the summary below because the responses have not changed. Comments on actions not related to the SARs (e.g., listing a marine mammal species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)) are not included below. Comments suggesting editorial or minor clarifying changes were incorporated in the reports but are not included in the summary of comments and responses below.
In some cases, NMFS' responses state that comments would be considered or incorporated in future revisions of the SARs rather than being incorporated into the final 2012 SARs. These delays are due to the schedule of the review of the reports by the regional SRGs. NMFS provides preliminary copies of updated SARs to SRGs prior to release for public review and comment. If a comment on the draft SAR suggests a substantive change to the SAR, NMFS may discuss the comment and prospective change with the SRG at its next meeting.
In 2012, NMFS finalized its procedure for determining serious injury for marine mammals, which includes quantitative methods for accounting for injury cases where the outcome cannot be determined, methods for accounting for successful post-interaction mitigation efforts, and injury determination processes specific to large cetaceans, small cetaceans and pinnipeds. This is expected to provide a more accurate estimate of total human-caused serious injury and mortality to marine mammals.
The new verbiage added dividing the entanglement and ship strike cases into pre- and post-reduction plan/ship strike rule periods was suggested by the SRG at the February 2012 review meeting. NMFS has revised the sentence to read: “Of the 8 reported fisheries entanglements from United States waters during this 5-year time period that were classified as serious injury or mortality, 5 were reported before the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan's sinking-groundline rule went into effect in April 2009, and 3 were reported after enactment of the rule.” The 8 from United States waters is correct. However, we did find an erroneous 8, which we have corrected to 9, in the fishery-related serious injury and mortality section, as that number refers to both United States and Canadian records.
NMFS would like to retain the information for all the bottlenose dolphins in the multiple bay, sound and estuary stocks SAR but will note in Table 1 those stocks that have an individual SAR (e.g., Barataria Bay).
The process by which injuries are determined to be serious or not serious has been developed and peer-reviewed over many years by experts in marine mammal biology and health, and is based on the best available science (see Andersen
The partial allocation of a single 2006 take within the Main Hawaiian Islands insular-pelagic overlap zone is supported by the best available data on the range of the insular and pelagic stocks. The reference to the NMFS statement that there are “no documented serious injuries or mortalities of [Insular Stock] animals incidental to Hawaii's longline fisheries” (75 FR 2853, 19 January, 2010) does not include the entire sentence from the
Calculation of an average annual mortality based on various human-caused sources is required under Section 117 of the MMPA, which states that NMFS must “estimate the annual human-caused mortality and serious injury of the stock by source and, for a strategic stock, other factors that may be causing a decline or impeding recovery of the stock, including effects on marine mammal habitat and prey.” The use of a 5-year average annual mortality for past human-caused mortality and serious injury is standard in stock assessment reports and is used for all sources of human-caused mortality. The language in the SAR is not intended to imply that future blast trauma events will occur every year at a level of 0.8 animals per year but rather is an annual average of the most recent past 5-year period over which human-caused mortality is evaluated from each source. Conversely, an absence of detected blast trauma events in a given year does not constitute “evidence of absence” of these events.
While the western Steller sea lion SAR provides information about abundance in Russia, only information about the portion of the stock residing in United States waters is used to estimate Nmin and to calculate PBR. The GAMMS instructs that for stocks that span international boundaries, the PBR for United States fisheries is calculated based on the abundance estimate of the stock residing in United States waters.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meetings.
The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold meetings of the King & Spanish Mackerel Advisory Panel (AP) and Snapper Grouper AP in North Charleston, SC.
The meetings will be held from 9 a.m. on Monday, April 22, 2013 until 12 p.m. on Thursday, April 25, 2013.
The meetings will be held at the Hilton Garden Inn, 5265 International Boulevard, North Charleston, SC 29418; telephone: (800) 445–8667 or (843) 308–9330; fax: (843) 308–9331.
Kim Iverson, Public Information Officer, SAFMC; telephone: (843) 571–4366 or toll free (866) SAFMC–10; fax: (843) 769–4520; email:
The items of discussion in the individual meeting agendas are as follows:
1. Discuss and provide recommendations for Mackerel Amendment 19, which addresses bag limit sales of king and Spanish mackerel, reduces inactive king mackerel permits, and addresses income requirements for commercial king and Spanish mackerel permits.
2. Discuss and provide recommendations for Mackerel Amendment 20, which pertains to: changes in Gulf group zones; transit provisions in Florida waters; and allocations for king and Spanish mackerel in North Carolina. The amendment also addresses framework procedure modifications as well as updated Annual Catch Limits (ACLs) for cobia.
3. Discuss and provide recommendations for South Atlantic Framework Actions, which considers: a change in the king mackerel minimum size limit; modifications to transfer-at-sea provisions for the Spanish mackerel gillnet fishery; changes in the king mackerel commercial trip limits; and modifications to the Spanish mackerel quota and trip limit system.
1. Receive an update on the April, 2013 Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) Meeting, including: the application of the Only Reliable Catch Stocks (ORCS) methodology to specify Acceptable Biological Catches (ABCs) for unassessed snapper grouper species included in the Comprehensive ACL Amendment; and the black sea bass stock assessment.
2. Receive an update on both future and completed snapper grouper amendments.
3. Receive presentations on: Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS); an electronic monitoring (EM) pilot study on snapper grouper bandit vessels; and the Fishery Independent Reef Fish Survey.
4. Receive an overview of Snapper Grouper Amendment 30, pertaining to the consideration of VMS for the commercial snapper grouper fishery. Discuss the amendment and provide recommendations.
5. Receive an overview on Regulatory Amendment 14, which addresses management measures for the following snapper grouper species: greater amberjack; mutton snapper; gray triggerfish; hogfish; black sea bass; vermilion snapper; and gag grouper. Discuss the amendment and provide recommendations.
6. Receive overviews on: regional allocations for black sea bass; and Visioning and Strategic Planning for the snapper grouper complex. Discuss the overviews and provide recommendations.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the council office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS), National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (Commerce).
Notice of open meeting.
Notice is hereby given of a meeting via web conference call of the Marine Protected Areas Federal Advisory Committee (Committee). The web conference calls are open to the public, and participants can dial in to the calls. Participants who choose to use the web conferencing feature in addition to the audio will be able to view the presentations as they are being given. Members of the public wishing to listen in should contact Lauren Wenzel at the email or telephone number below for the call-in number and passcode.
The meeting will be held Wednesday, May 1, from 1:00 to 3:30 p.m. EDT. These times and the agenda topics described below are subject to change. Refer to the Web page listed below for the most up-to-date meeting agenda.
The meeting will be held via web conference call.
Lauren Wenzel, Acting Designated Federal Officer, MPA FAC, National Marine Protected Areas Center, 1305 East West Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910. (Phone: 301–713–7265, Fax: 301–713–3110); email:
The Committee, composed of external, knowledgeable representatives of stakeholder groups, was established by the Department of Commerce (DOC) to provide advice to the Secretaries of Commerce and the Interior on implementation of Section 4 of Executive Order 13158, on marine protected areas.
National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of Open Meetings.
The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) will convene meetings of a privacy multistakeholder process concerning mobile application transparency. This Notice announces the meetings to be held in April, May, and June 2013.
The meetings will be held on April 30, 2013; May 23, 2013; and June 11, 2013 from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time. See
The meetings will be held in the Boardroom at the American Institute of Architects, 1735 New York Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20006.
John Verdi, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 4725, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–8238; email
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.
Notice of amendment of Privacy Act system of records.
In accordance with the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is amending the system of records currently listed under “COMMERCE/PAT–TM–11 Patent Examiner Testimony Files.” This action is being taken to update the Privacy Act notice. We invite the public to comment on the amendments noted in this publication.
Written comments must be received no later than May 1, 2013. The amendments will become effective as proposed on May 1, 2013, unless the USPTO receives comments that would result in a contrary determination.
You may submit written comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
All comments received will be available for public inspection at the Federal rulemaking portal located at
Monica Lateef, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313–1450, (571) 272–3000.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is giving notice of an amendment to a system of records that is subject to the Privacy Act of 1974. This system of records maintains information related to testimony that may be given by current and former USPTO employees in accordance with 37 CFR part 104, 15 CFR part 15, and the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) Chapter 1700. The Privacy Act notice is being updated with the current address information for the system location and system manager. The description of the routine uses of records maintained in the system has been updated to include use in law enforcement, audits and oversight activities, and distribution to contractors, all uses commonly published in other agency system of records notices. The rule references for the notification procedure and contesting record procedures have been updated to correspond to the current statutes and rules for those items as related to the USPTO.
The amended Privacy Act system of records notice, “COMMERCE/PAT–TM–11 Patent Examiner Testimony Files,” is published in its entirety below.
Patent Examiner Testimony Files.
Unclassified.
Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA 22314.
Employees and former employees who have testified in person or through deposition in court actions, in accordance with 37 CFR part 104, 15 CFR part 15, and the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) Chapter 1700, while employed by the USPTO, or who have been interviewed to determine whether such testimony will be taken.
Name, address, employment status, education, work experience, and other matters which might be raised in the course of a deposition or other testimony.
35 U.S.C. 1 and 6; 5 U.S.C. 301.
To maintain records related to current and former USPTO employees who may provide testimony, in accordance with 37 CFR part 104, 15 CFR part 15, and the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) Chapter 1700, while employed by the agency.
(1) Routine uses will include disclosure for law enforcement purposes to the appropriate agency or other authority, whether federal, state, local, foreign, international or tribal, charged with the responsibility of enforcing, investigating, or prosecuting a violation of any law, rule, regulation, or order in any case in which there is an indication of a violation or potential violation of law (civil, criminal, or regulatory in nature).
(2) Routine uses will include disclosure to an agency, organization, or individual for the purpose of performing audit or oversight operations as authorized by law, but only such information as is necessary and relevant to such audit or oversight function.
(3) Routine uses will include disclosure to contractors and their agents, grantees, experts, consultants, and others performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other work assignment for the USPTO, when necessary to accomplish an agency function related to this system of records. Individuals provided information under this routine use are subject to the same Privacy Act requirements and limitations on disclosure as are applicable to the USPTO employees.
(4) Routine uses will also include the Prefatory Statement of General Routine Uses Nos.1–5 and 9–13, as found at 46 FR 63501–63502 (December 31, 1981).
Not applicable.
Paper copy.
Filed alphabetically by name.
Buildings employ security guards. Records are maintained in areas accessible to authorized personnel who are properly screened, cleared, and trained.
Records retention and disposal is in accordance with the series records schedules.
Office of the Solicitor, Mail Stop 8, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313–1450.
Information about the records contained in this system may be obtained by sending a request in writing, signed, to the system manager at the address above or to the address provided in 37 CFR part 102 subpart B for making inquiries about records covered by the Privacy Act. Requesters should provide their name, address, and record sought (including date(s) of testimony or interview, if known) in accordance with the procedures for making inquiries appearing in 37 CFR part 102 subpart B.
Requests from individuals should be addressed as stated in the notification section above.
The general provisions for access, contesting contents, and appealing initial determinations by the individual concerned appear in 37 CFR part 102 subpart B. Requests from individuals should be addressed as stated in the notification section above.
Subject individual, the individual's co-workers, and those authorized by the individual to furnish information.
None.
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.
Notice of amendment of Privacy Act system of records.
In accordance with the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is amending the system of records currently listed under “COMMERCE/PAT–TM–13 Petitioners for License to File for Foreign Patents.” This action is being taken to update the Privacy Act notice. We invite the public to comment on the amendments noted in this publication.
Written comments must be received no later than May 1, 2013. The amendments will become effective as proposed on May 1, 2013, unless the USPTO receives comments that would result in a contrary determination.
You may submit written comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Raul Tamayo, Office of Patent Legal Administration, Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313–1450, (571) 272–7728.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is giving notice of an amendment to a system of records that is subject to the Privacy Act of 1974. This system of records maintains information on patent applicants and their authorized representatives who request a license to file a patent application in a foreign country. The Privacy Act notice is being updated with the current address and departmental information for the system location and system manager. The routine uses of records maintained in the system have been updated to include use in law enforcement, audits and oversight activities, and distribution to contractors, all uses commonly published in other agency system of records notices. The descriptions of storage, retrievability, and safeguards have been revised to reflect current database practices. The rule references for the notification procedure and contesting record procedures have been updated to correspond to the current statutes and rules for those items as related to the USPTO.
The amended Privacy Act system of records notice, “COMMERCE/PAT–TM–13 Petitioners for License to File for Foreign Patents,” is published in its entirety below.
Petitioners for License to File for Foreign Patents.
Unclassified.
Patent Examining Operation, Technology Center 3600, United States Patent and Trademark Office, 501 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA 22314.
Petitioners for license to file a patent application in any foreign country.
Petitioner's name, address, and description of subject matter, or, where a corresponding U.S. application has been filed, identification of applicant, application serial number, filing date, title to invention, applicant's address and addresses of applicant's duly appointed representatives.
35 U.S.C. 1, 6, and 184.
To carry out the duties of the USPTO to grant and issue patents, including the requirements for authorizing the filing of a patent application in a foreign country under 35 U.S.C. 184.
Routine uses of records maintained in the system, including categories of users and the purposes of such uses:
(1) Routine uses will include disclosure for law enforcement purposes to the appropriate agency or other authority, whether federal, state, local, foreign, international or tribal, charged with the responsibility of enforcing, investigating, or prosecuting a violation of any law, rule, regulation, or order in any case in which there is an indication of a violation or potential violation of law (civil, criminal, or regulatory in nature).
(2) Routine uses will include disclosure to an agency, organization, or individual for the purpose of performing audit or oversight operations as
(3) Routine uses will include disclosure to contractors and their agents, grantees, experts, consultants, and others performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other work assignment for the United States Patent and Trademark Office, when necessary to accomplish an agency function related to this system of records. Individuals provided information under this routine use are subject to the same Privacy Act requirements and limitations on disclosure as are applicable to the United States Patent and Trademark Office employees.
(4) Routine uses will also include the Prefatory Statement of General Routine Uses Nos. 1–5, 8–10, and 13, as found at 46 FR 63501–63502 (December 31, 1981).
Not applicable.
Paper copy and electronic storage media.
By number assigned (called P or R number) or by serial number, title of invention, applicant information or docket number, if any. Records are stored in a searchable database.
Buildings employ security guards. Records are maintained in areas accessible only to authorized personnel who are properly screened, cleared, and trained. Where information is retrievable by computer, all safeguards appropriate to secure the system (hardware and software) are utilized.
Records retention and disposal is in accordance with the series records schedules.
Director, Patent Examining Technology Center 3600, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313–1450.
Information about the records contained in this system may be obtained by sending a request in writing, signed, to the system manager at the address above or to the address provided in 37 CFR part 102 subpart B for making inquiries about records covered by the Privacy Act. Requesters should provide their name, address, and record sought (including serial number or P number, if known) in accordance with the procedures for making inquiries appearing in 37 CFR part 102 subpart B.
Requests from individuals should be addressed as stated in the notification section above.
The general provisions for access, contesting contents, and appealing initial determinations by the individual concerned appear in 37 CFR part 102 subpart B. Requests from individuals should be addressed as stated in the notification section above.
Subject individuals or their duly appointed representatives.
None.
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, DoD.
Notice.
In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by May 31, 2013.
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: the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, ATTN: CPO (Colonel Phil Waite), 1400 Defense, The Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301–1400, or call the Directorate for Community and Public Outreach at (703) 695–3845.
Respondents are individuals or representatives of Federal and non-Federal government agencies, community groups, for-profit and non-profit organizations, and civic organizations requesting Armed Forces support for patriotic events conducted in the civilian domain. DD Forms 2535 and 2536 record the type of military support requested, event data, and sponsoring organization information. The completed forms provide the Armed Forces the minimum information necessary to determine whether an event is eligible for military participation and whether the desired support is permissible and/or available. If the forms are not provided, the review process is greatly increased because the Armed Forces must make additional written and telephonic inquiries with the event sponsor. In addition, use of the forms reduces the event sponsor's preparation time because the forms provide a detailed outline of information required, eliminate the need for a detailed letter, and contain concise information necessary for determining appropriateness of military support. Use of the forms is essential to reduce preparation and processing time, increase productivity, and maximize responsiveness to the public.
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (OUSD(P&R)), Federal Voting Assistance Program, DoD.
Notice.
In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by May 31, 2013.
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 the Director, Federal Voting Assistance Program, ATTN: Kathleen McDonnell, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Mailbox 10, Alexandria, Virginia 22350–5000, or call 571–372–1168.
Respondents are UOCAVA citizens who desire to vote in a Federal election but did not receive an absentee ballot from their State of residency with enough time to vote and return it. The information provided by these citizens is used by the States to determine if the citizen is a resident of a jurisdiction within that State, has previously requested an absentee ballot (when applicable) and therefore eligible for the enclosed ballot to be counted. In States that allow the form to be used as a voter registration form, the information provided is used by the States to determine if the citizen is a resident of a jurisdiction within that State, and therefore eligible to vote within that jurisdiction and to provide absentee ballots to these citizens for Federal elections held within each calendar year. This form is mandated by 42 U.S.C. 1973ff. The Department of Defense does not receive, collect nor maintain any data provided on the form by these citizens; this data is collected and maintained by the individual States. The burden in the collection of this data resides in the individual States. If the form is not provided, UOCAVA citizens would not have access to the emergency backup ballot and thus, may be disenfranchised from their right as a U.S. citizen to participate in the electoral process. The previous Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot is the edition dated 08–2011. The form has been updated for usability and consistency. The most significant changes on the form are as follows: The Agency Disclosure Statement has been added to the instruction page of the form as per OMB guidance. Block 2 classification has been clarified to include activated National Guard
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (OUSD(P&R)), Federal Voting Assistance Program, DoD.
Notice.
In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by May 31, 2013.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Director, Federal Voting Assistance Program, ATTN: Kathleen McDonnell, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Mailbox 10, Alexandria, Virginia 22350–5000, or call 571–372–1168.
Respondents are UOCAVA citizens who desire to apply for voter registration and/or request an absentee ballot from their state of residency. The information provided by these citizens is used by the states to determine if the citizen is a resident of a jurisdiction within that state, and therefore eligible to vote within that jurisdiction and to provide absentee ballots to these citizens for Federal elections held within each calendar year. This form is mandated by 42 U.S.C. 1973ff. The Department of Defense does not receive, collect nor maintain any data provided on the form by these citizens; this data is collected and maintained by the individual states. The burden in the collection of this data resides in the individual States. If the form is not provided, UOCAVA citizens may not be able to register to vote in their State of residency nor be able to request absentee ballots and thus may be disenfranchised from their right as a U.S. citizen to participate in the electoral process. The previous Federal Post Card Application is the edition dated 08–2011. The form has been
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice and request for comments regarding a proposed extension of an approved information collection requirement.
In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), DoD announces the proposed extension of a public information collection requirement and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof.
DoD will consider all comments received by May 31, 2013.
You may submit comments, identified by OMB Control Number 0704–0332, using any of the following methods:
Comments received generally will be posted without change to
Ms. Lee Renna, 571–372–6095. The information collection requirements addressed in this notice are available on the World Wide Web at:
DFARS Appendix I–112.2(a)–(d) requires mentor firms to report on the progress made under active mentor-protege agreements semiannually for the periods ending March 31st and September 30th. The September 30th report must address the entire fiscal year. Reports must include—
(1) Data on performance under the mentor-protege agreement, including dollars obligated, expenditures, credit taken under the Program, applicable subcontract awards under DoD contracts, developmental assistance provided, impact of the agreement, and progress of the agreement; and
(2) For each contract where developmental assistance was credited toward an SDB subcontracting goal, a copy of the Individual Subcontracting Report (ISR) or SF 294, and/or the Summary Subcontracting Report (SSR) or SF 295, with a statement identifying—
(i) The amount of dollars credited to the applicable subcontracting goal as a result of developmental assistance
(ii) The number and dollar value of subcontracts awarded to the protege firm(s), broken out per protege.
DFARS Appendix I–112.2(e) requires the protege firm to annually provide data by October 31st on the progress made by the protege firm in employment, revenues, and participation in DoD contracts during each fiscal year of the Program participation term and each of the two fiscal years following the expiration of the Program participation term. During the Program participation term, the firms may provide this data as part of the mentor report required by I–112.2(a) for the period ending September 30th.
Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education
Notice.
Minority Science and Engineering Improvement Program (MSEIP) .
Notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2013.
This priority is:
Projects that are designed to address the following priority area:
Increasing the number and proportion of high-need students (as defined in this notice) who persist in and complete college or other postsecondary education and training.
Applicants seeking to address the competitive priority must do so in the context of meeting all other program requirements, including those provisions requiring a focus on science and engineering education in the grants funded under this program. Applicants should also consider how all elements of their proposed project contribute to the priority.
These priorities are:
This invitational priority invites applications to eliminate systemic problems and impediments that result in high failure and dropout rates within the introductory years of science and engineering programs. We invite applications for projects that are designed to improve student success and retention in the first two years with actions, including, but not limited to, one or more of the following:
(a) Providing greater exposure to science and engineering real-world problems in the first two years through actions such as the appropriate sequencing of courses.
(b) Introducing recent innovations and discoveries in the first two years to make science and engineering education relevant. The students should experience real developments such as those led by nanotechnology, cell biology, and ICT (Information and Communication Technologies).
(c) Widespread integration of research courses into the introductory STEM curricula. Expand the use of scientific research and engineering design courses in the first two years.
(d) Increasing opportunities for student research and design in faculty research laboratories.
(e) Developing new curricula that integrate scientific theory with real-world applications in scientific problem-solving and engineering design, in the context of global environmental, energy, and economic problems.
(f) Adopting pedagogy for integrative teaching.
(g) Establishing programs to train faculty in evidence-based teaching practices, and catalyzing widespread adoption of empirically validated teaching practices.
(h) Seeking institutional and accreditation support for changes in curricular, pedagogical, and graduation requirements that are necessary to improve the first two years of STEM coursework.
(1) Prior test scores and other measures of academic achievement (preferably, the same measures that the study will use to evaluate outcomes for the two groups);
(2) Demographic characteristics, such as age, disability, gender, English proficiency, ethnicity, poverty level, parents' educational attainment, and
(3) The time period in which the two groups are studied (e.g., the two groups are children entering kindergarten in the same year as opposed to sequential years); and
(4) Methods used to collect outcome data (
(1) At least one well-designed and well-implemented (as defined in this notice) experimental or quasi-experimental study (as defined in this notice) supporting the effectiveness of the practice, strategy, or program, with small sample sizes or other conditions of implementation or analysis that limit generalizability;
(2) At least one well-designed and well-implemented (as defined in this notice) experimental or quasi-experimental study (as defined in this notice) that does not demonstrate equivalence between the intervention and comparison groups at program entry but that has no other major flaws related to internal validity; or
(3) Correlational research with strong statistical controls for selection bias and for discerning the influence of internal factors.
(1) More than one well-designed and well-implemented (as defined in this notice) experimental study (as defined in this notice) or well-designed and well-implemented (as defined in this notice) quasi-experimental study (as defined in this notice) that supports the effectiveness of the practice, strategy, or program; or
(2) One large, well-designed and well-implemented (as defined in this notice) randomized controlled, multisite trial that supports the effectiveness of the practice, strategy, or program.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian tribes.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education only.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2014 from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.
Institutional projects, special projects, cooperative, and design.
Institutional project grants are grants that support the implementation of a comprehensive science improvement plan, which may include any combination of activities for improving the preparation of minority students for careers in science.
There are two types of special projects grants. There are special projects grants for which minority institutions are eligible. These special projects grants support activities that: (1) Improve quality training in science and engineering at minority institutions; or (2) enhance the minority institutions' general scientific research capabilities. There are also special projects grants for which all applicants are eligible. These special projects grants support activities that: (1) Provide a needed service to a group of eligible minority institutions; or (2) provide in-service training for project directors, scientists, and engineers from eligible minority institutions.
Cooperative project grants assist groups of nonprofit accredited colleges and universities to work together to conduct a science improvement program.
Design project grants assist minority institutions that do not have their own appropriate resources or personnel to plan and develop long-range science improvement programs. We will not award design project grants in the FY 2013 competition.
(a) For institutional project grants, eligible applicants are limited to:
(1) Public and private nonprofit institutions of higher education that (i) Award baccalaureate degrees; and (ii) are minority institutions;
(2) Public or private nonprofit institutions of higher education that (i) Award associate degrees; and (ii) are minority institutions that (A) Have a curriculum that includes science or engineering subjects; and (B) enter into a partnership with public or private nonprofit institutions of higher education that award baccalaureate degrees in science and engineering.
(b) For special projects grants for which minority institutions are eligible, eligible applicants are described in paragraph (a).
(c) For special projects grants for which all applicants are eligible, eligible applicants include those described in paragraph (a), and
(1) Nonprofit science-oriented organizations, professional scientific societies, and institutions of higher education that award baccalaureate degrees that: (i) Provide a needed service to a group of minority institutions; or (ii) provide in-service training to project directors, scientists, and engineers from minority institutions; or
(2) A consortia of organizations, that provide needed services to one or more minority institutions, the membership of which may include—(i) Institutions of higher education which have a curriculum in science or engineering; (ii) institutions of higher education that have a graduate or professional program in science or engineering; (iii) research laboratories of, or under contract with, the Department of Energy, the Department of Defense or the National Institutes of Health; (iv) relevant offices of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Science Foundation and National Institute of Standards and Technology; (v) quasi-governmental entities that have a significant scientific or engineering mission; or (vi) institutions of higher education that have State-sponsored centers for research in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.
(d) For cooperative projects grants, eligible applicants are groups of nonprofit accredited colleges and universities whose primary fiscal agent is an eligible minority institution as defined in 34 CFR 637.4(b).
As defined in 34 CFR 637.4(b), “minority institution” means an accredited college or university whose enrollment of a single minority group or a combination of minority groups exceeds 50 percent of the total enrollment.
2.
1.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877–8339.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or computer disc) by contacting the program contact persons listed in this section.
2.
Institutional project grants: 40 pages;
Special projects grant application: 35 pages;
Cooperative project grant application: 50 pages.
You must limit the application narrative (Part III) to these established
• A “page” is 8.5″ × 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides. Page numbers and a document identifier may be within the 1″ margin.
• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, except titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, captions, and all text in charts, tables, and graphs. These items may be single spaced; however, they will count toward the page limit.
• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger, or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch). However, you may use a 10 point font in charts, tables, figures, and graphs.
• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial. An application submitted in any other font (including Times Roman or Arial Narrow) will not be accepted.
If you use some but not all of the allowable space on a page, it will be counted as a full page in determining compliance with the page limit.
The page limit does not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the budget justification; Part IV, the one-page abstract, the table of contents, the MSEIP Eligibility Certification Form, required letter(s) of commitment, evidence of partnerships, or the assurances and certifications. If you include any attachments or appendices not specifically requested, these items will be counted as part of the program narrative (Part III) for purposes of the page limit requirement. You must include your complete responses to the selection criteria in the program narrative.
We will reject your application if you exceed the page limit. We will also reject your application if you fail to provide the MSEIP Eligibility Certification Form.
3.
Applications for grants under this program must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov). For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, please refer to section IV.7.
We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.
Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under
4.
5.
6. Data Universal Numbering System Number, Taxpayer Identification Number, Central Contractor Registry, and System for Award Management: To do business with the Department of Education, you must—
a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);
b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the Central Contractor Registry (CCR)—and, after July 24, 2012, with the System for Award Management (SAM)—the Government's primary registrant database;
c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and
d. Maintain an active CCR or SAM registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period.
You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet. A DUNS number can be created within one business day.
If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow 2–5 weeks for your TIN to become active.
The CCR or SAM registration process may take five or more business days to complete. If you are currently registered with the CCR, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your registration annually. This may take three or more business days to complete. Information about SAM is available at SAM.gov.
In addition, if you are submitting your application via Grants.gov, you must (1) be designated by your organization as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and (2) register yourself with Grants.gov as an AOR. Details on these steps are outlined at the following Grants.gov Web page:
7.
a.
Applications for grants under the MSEIP, CFDA Number 84.120A, must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at
We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement
You may access the electronic grant application for the MSEIP at
Please note the following:
• When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation.
• Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your
• The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov.
• You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for this competition to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov under News and Events on the Department's G5 system home page at
• You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format.
• You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: the Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.
• You must upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to your application as files in a PDF (Portable Document) read-only, non-modifiable format. Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only, non-modifiable PDF or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material. Additional, detailed information on how to attach files is in the application instructions.
• Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice.
• After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. (This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department.) The Department then will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send a second notification to you by email. This second notification indicates that the Department has received your application and has assigned your application a PR/Award number (an ED-specified identifying number unique to your application).
• We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.
If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice.
If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed under
The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed to fully register to submit your application to Grants.gov before the application deadline date and time or if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov system.
• You do not have access to the Internet; or
• You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the
and
• No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevent you from using the Internet to submit your application.
If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.
Address and mail or fax your statement to: Krish Mathur, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street NW., room 6032, Washington, DC 20006–8517. Fax: (202) 502–7877.
Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.
b.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address:
You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.
If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A private metered postmark.
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
If your application is postmarked after the application deadline date, we will not consider your application.
The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.
c.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address:
The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.
If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—
(1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and
(2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245–6288.
1.
(a) Identification of need for the project (Total 5 points).
(b) Plan of operation (Total 20 points).
(c) Quality of key personnel (Total 5 points).
(d) Budget and cost effectiveness (Total 10 points).
(e) Evaluation plan (Total 15 points).
(f) Adequacy of resources (Total 5 points).
(g) Potential institutional impact of the project (Total 15 points).
(h) Institutional commitment to the project (Total 5 points).
(i) Expected Outcomes (Total 10 points).
(j) Scientific and educational value of the proposed project (Total 10 points).
2.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary also requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
Tiebreaker for Institutional, Special Project, and Cooperative Grants. If there are insufficient funds for all applications with the same total scores, applications will receive preference in the following manner. The Secretary gives priority to applicants which have not previously received funding from the program and to previous grantees with a proven record of success, as well as to applications that contribute to achieving balance among funded projects with respect to: (1) Geographic region; (2) Academic discipline; and (3) Project type.
3.
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multi-year award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). Please see the application package for details of annual and final reporting requirements. For specific requirements on reporting, please go to
4.
5.
Krish Mathur, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street, NW., room 6155, Washington, DC 20006–8517 by telephone: (202) 502 7512, or by email:
If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the FRS, toll free, at 1–800–877–8339.
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, and service can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, and service can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following open access transmission tariff filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47879), the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for exemption from licensing for the Freedom Falls Hydroelectric Project, to be located on Sandy Stream, in the Town of Freedom, Waldo County, Maine, and has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA). In the EA, Commission staff analyzes the potential environmental effects of the project and concludes that issuing an exemption for the project, with appropriate environmental measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
A copy of the EA is on file with the Commission and is available for public inspection. The EA may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
For further information, contact Samantha Davidson at (202) 502–6839 or
Take notice that the following settlement agreement has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Deadline for filing comments: 20 days from the filing of the Settlement Agreement; reply comments are due 30 days from the filing of the Settlement Agreement.
All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k. The Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCo) filed the Settlement Agreement on behalf of itself and the U.S. Forest Service. The purpose of the Settlement Agreement is to resolve among the signatories all issues associated with issuance of a new license for the project regarding instream flows, water quality, aquatic habitat, terrestrial habitat, recreation, aesthetics, and cultural resources. PSCo requests that the Commission accept and incorporate, without material modification, as license articles in the new license to be issued for the project all of the proposed license articles set forth in Attachment 1 to the Settlement Agreement.
l. A copy of the settlement agreement is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
You may also register online at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of Advisory Committee Meeting Teleconference Call.
Under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92–463, EPA gives notice of a meeting of the National Advisory Committee (NAC) and Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) to the U.S. Representative to the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC). The National and Governmental Advisory Committees advise the EPA Administrator in his capacity as the U.S. Representative to the CEC Council. The Committees are authorized under Articles 17 and 18 of the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, Public Law 103–182, and as directed by Executive Order 12915, entitled “Federal Implementation of the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation.” The NAC is composed of 14 members representing academia, environmental non-governmental organizations, and private industry. The GAC consists of 15 members representing state, local, and Tribal governments. The Committees are responsible for providing advice to the U.S. Representative on a wide range of strategic, scientific, technological, regulatory, and economic issues related to implementation and further elaboration of the NAAEC.
The purpose of this committee meeting is to provide advice on the 2013–14 Draft Operational Plan and Budget of the CEC and to discuss other trade and environment issues related to the NAAEC. The meeting will also include a public comment session. The agenda and meeting materials will be available at
The NAC/GAC will hold a public teleconference on Thursday, April 25, 2013, from 12:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.
The meeting will be held at the U.S. EPA East Building, 1201 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 1132, Washington, DC 20004
Oscar Carrillo, Designated Federal Officer,
Requests to make oral comments or to provide written comments to NAC/GAC should be sent to Oscar Carrillo at
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice; request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), the Federal Communications Commission invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection(s). Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently 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 (PRA) that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) comments should be submitted on or before May 31, 2013. If you anticipate that you will be submitting PRA comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the FCC contact listed below as soon as possible.
Submit your PRA comments to Judith B. Herman, Federal Communications Commission, via the Internet at
Judith B. Herman, Office of Managing Director, (202) 418–0214.
The Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in July 2010 (FCC 10–125) that led to the Healthcare Connect Fund Order, and received OMB pre-approval for the information collection requirements proposed in the NPRM. The Healthcare Connect Fund Order, however, adopted information collection requirements that are in some ways significantly different from those proposed in the NPRM, based on the comments received in the rulemaking proceeding. Many of the proposed requirements have been modified in light of commenters' recommendations on streamlining and simplifying the information collection burden, especially on smaller health care providers.
The information collections described in this notice are contained in new rules adopted in the Healthcare Connect Fund Order (47 CFR 54.601(b), 54.631(a), 54.631(c), 54.632, 54.633(c), 54.634(b), 54.636, 54.639(d), 54.640(b), 54.642, 54.643, 54.645, 54.646, 54.647, 54.648(b), 54.675(d), and 54.679), and existing rules as amended by the Healthcare Connect Fund Order (47 CFR 54.603(a), 54.603(b), 54.609(d)(2), 54.615(c), 54.619(a)(1), 54.619(d), and 54.623(a)).
Beginning in Funding Year 2012, its filing process to provide a simple, web-based, user-friendly interface for submission of the Telecommunications and Internet Access Program information collections. Applicants are also able to upload required documentation (such as a bill) as they complete the online form. The interface is designed to provide online storage of applications and related materials for health care providers, in order to ease compliance with recordkeeping requirements and possible audits.
USAC will implement the information collection for the new Healthcare Connect Fund through an online-only interface on the USAC Web site. Health care providers who lack sufficient Internet access will be able to contact USAC's help desk over the telephone to obtain assistance with filing.
The following are the new Healthcare Connect Fund information collection requirements:
FCC Form 460 will also be used to provide certain basic information about consortia to USAC: (1) The lead entity (“Consortium Leader”); (2) the individual contact person within the lead entity (the “Project Coordinator”); and (3) HCP sites that will participate in a consortium, including sites ineligible to receive support.
(f) Form 461—Request for Services (Competitive Bidding). All HCPs, unless their funding request is subject to a competitive bidding exemption, must submit a request for services (new Form 461 and associated documents) for posting by USAC, wait at least 28 days before selecting a service provider, and select the most cost-effective bid. On FCC Form 461, applicants will provide basic information regarding the HCP(s) on the application (including contact information for potential bidders), a brief description of the desired services, and evaluation criteria for bids. Each applicant must also certify that (1) it is authorized to submit the request and that all statements of fact in the application are true to the best of the signatory's knowledge; (2) it has followed any applicable state or local procurement rules; (3) the supported services and/or equipment will be used solely for purposes reasonably related to the provision of health care service or instruction that the HCP is legally authorized to provide under the law of the state in which the services are provided and will not be sold, resold, or transferred in consideration for money or any other thing of value; (4) the HCP or consortium satisfies all program requirements and will abide by all such requirements; and (5) all statements of facts contained therein are true to the best of their knowledge, information, and belief, and that under federal law, persons willfully making false statements on the form can be punished by fine, forfeiture, or imprisonment.
(g) Form 461 Attachment—Network Planning for Consortia. Consortium applicants must also submit a narrative attachment with FCC Form 461 that includes: (1) Goals and objectives of the proposed network; (2) strategy for aggregating the specific needs of HCPs (including providers that serve rural areas) within a state or region; (3) strategy for leveraging existing technology to adopt the most efficient and cost effective means of connecting
(h) Form 461 Attachment—Request for Proposals (RFP). Submission of a separate RFP document with Form 461 is required for (1) applicants who are required to issue an RFP under applicable state, Tribal, or local procurement rules or regulations; (2) consortium applications that seek more than $100,000 in program support in a funding year; and (3) consortium applications that seek support for infrastructure (i.e. HCP-owned facilities) as well as services. In addition, any applicant is free to submit an RFP to USAC for posting. All applicants who utilize an RFP in conjunction with their competitive bidding process must submit the RFP to USAC for posting. RFPs must provide sufficient information to enable an effective competitive bidding process, including describing the HCP's service needs; specify the period during which bids will be accepted; and include the scoring criteria that will be used to evaluate bids for cost-effectiveness. In addition, certain additional requirements apply to RFPs if the applicant seeks support for long-term capital investments (such as HCP-constructed infrastructure or fiber indefeasible rights-of-use); dark fiber; services or equipment that include an ineligible component; or HCP-owned and constructed network facilities.
(i) FCC Form 462—Request for Funding. Once a service provider is selected, applicants will submit a “Funding Request” on FCC Form 462 (and supporting documentation) to provide information about the services and service providers (vendors) selected and certify that the services were the most cost-effective offers received. FCC Form 462 is the means by which an applicant identifies the service(s), rates, service provider(s), and date(s) of service provider selection. Applicants will also certify on FCC Form 462 that: (1) The person signing the application is authorized to submit the application on behalf of the applicant, and has examined the form and all attachments, and to the best of his or her knowledge, information, and belief, all statements of fact contained therein are true; (2) each service provider selected is, to the best of the applicant's knowledge, information, and belief, the most cost-effective service provider available, as defined in the Commission's rules; (3) all Healthcare Connect Fund support will be used only for the eligible health care purposes, as described in this Order and consistent with the Act and the Commission's rules; (4) the applicant is not requesting support for the same service from both the Healthcare Connect Fund and from other RHC programs; (5) the applicant satisfies all of the requirements under section 254 of the Act and applicable Commission rules, and understands that any letter from USAC that erroneously commits funds for the benefit of the applicant may be subject to rescission; (6) the applicant has reviewed all applicable requirements for the program and will comply with those requirements; and (7) the applicant will maintain complete billing records for the service for five years (and for long-term capital investments, for five years after the end of the useful life of the facility).
(j) FCC Form 462 Attachment—Contracts or Similar Documentation. All applicants must submit a contract or other documentation that clearly identifies (1) the vendor(s) selected and the HCP(s) who will receive the services; (2) the service, bandwidth, and costs for which support is being requested; (3) the term of the service agreement(s) if applicable (
(k) FCC Form 462 Attachment—Cost Allocation Method for Ineligible Entities or Components. Applicants who seek to include ineligible entities within a consortium, or to obtain support for services or equipment that include both eligible and ineligible components, should submit a written description of their allocation method(s) to USAC with their funding requests. If ineligible entities participate in a network, the allocation method must be memorialized in writing, such as a formal agreement among network members, a master services contract, or for smaller consortia, a letter signed and dated by all (or each) ineligible entity and the Consortium Leader. Applicants should also submit with their funding requests any agreements that memorialize cost-sharing arrangements with ineligible entities.
(l) FCC Form 462 Attachment—Competitive Bidding Documents. Applicants must submit documentation to support their certifications that they have selected the most cost-effective option. Relevant documentation includes a copy of each bid received (winning, losing, and disqualified), the bid evaluation criteria, and any other related documents, such as bid evaluation sheets; a list of people who evaluated bids (along with their title/role/relationship to the applicant organization); memos, board minutes, or similar documents related to the vendor selection/award; copies of notices to winners; and any correspondence with service providers during the bidding/evaluation/award phase of the process. If the application is exempt from competitive bidding, the applicant should submit sufficient documentation to allow USAC to verify that the applicant is eligible for the exemption.
(m) FCC Form 462 Attachment—Updated Network Planning for Consortia. Consortium applicants should submit any revisions to the project management plan, work plan, schedule, and budget previously submitted with the Request for Services (Form 461). If not previously provided with the project management plan, applicants should also provide (or update) a narrative description of how the network will be managed, including all administrative aspects of the network (including but not limited to invoicing, contractual matters, and network operations.) If the consortium is required to provide a sustainability plan (see below), the revised budget should include the budgetary factors discussed in the sustainability plan requirements.
(n) FCC Form 462 Attachment—List of Participating HCPs and Relevant Information. Consortium applicants will be required to provide electronically (via a spreadsheet or similar method) a list of the participating HCPs (both those eligible for support and those ineligible) and all of their relevant information, including eligible (and ineligible, if applicable) cost information for each participating HCP.
(o) FCC Form 462 Attachment—Evidence of Viable Source for 35 Percent Contribution. All consortium applicants must submit, with their funding requests, evidence of a viable source for their 35 percent contribution.
(p) FCC Form 462 Attachment—Sustainability Plans for Applicants Requesting Support for Long-Term Capital Expenses. Consortia who seek funding to construct and own their own facilities or obtain indefeasible rights of use (IRUs) or capital lease interests must submit a sustainability plan with their funding requests demonstrating how they intend to maintain and operate the facilities that are supported over the relevant time period. Although participants are free to include additional information to demonstrate a project's sustainability, the sustainability plan must, at a minimum, address the following points: (1)
(q) FCC Form 463—Invoicing. Service providers will bill HCPs directly for services that they have provided. Upon receipt of a service provider's bill, the HCP will create and approve an invoice for USAC on FCC Form 463 for the services it has received. On the invoice, (1) the HCP or Consortium Leader must certify to USAC that it has paid its 35 percent contribution directly to the service provider; and (2) the HCP and service provider must certify that they have reviewed the invoice and that it is accurate. USAC will pay the service provider directly based on the invoice. For consortia, the Consortium Leader is responsible for the invoicing process, including certifying that the participant contribution has been paid and that the invoice is accurate.
(r) Extension Request for Lighting Fiber. Fiber must be lit during the funding year for non-recurring charges associated with such fiber to be eligible. Applicants may receive up to a one-year extension to light fiber, however, if they provide documentation to USAC that construction was unavoidably delayed due to weather or other reasons.
(s) Recordkeeping. Program participants and vendors in the Healthcare Connect Fund must maintain required documentation for five years after the service has been delivered (or after the end of the useful life of a facility for which the participant has received support to make a long-term capital investment) and produce these records upon request of the Commission, any auditor appointed by the Administrator or the Commission, or of any other state or federal agency with jurisdiction. For a consortium, the Consortium Leader is responsible for compliance with the Commission's recordkeeping requirements.
(t) Annual Reporting Requirement for Consortium Participants. Consortium participants in the Healthcare Connect Fund will be required to submit annual reports to assist the Commission in measuring progress toward the three program goals for the Healthcare Connect Fund. Additionally, applicants may request support for upfront, non-recurring charges for long-term capital investments, such as constructing their own network facilities, or obtaining an indefeasible right-of-use (IRU) or prepaid lease interest in existing network facilities such as dark fiber. In such a case, the applicant may be obtaining access to facilities that have a useful life extending many years after program funds have been disbursed, but would not need to submit requests for funding on an annual basis once access to the facility is obtained. In order to ensure that such facilities continue to be used for eligible purposes throughout their useful life, the Commission will require such applicants to submit, during the useful life of the facility, additional information identifying the health care providers utilizing the network, and the services they are receiving from the supported network. Much of the data to be collected from participants in the Healthcare Connect Fund, as discussed in the Healthcare Connect Order, is already collected through FCC Forms 460, 461, 462, and 463. In order to minimize the burden posed by the annual report, the Commission and USAC will develop a simple and streamlined, electronic reporting system that integrates data collected through the application process, thereby eliminating the need to resubmit (in the annual report) any information that has previously been provided.
(2) SKILLED NURSING FACILITIES PILOT: Also in December 2012, the Commission adopted the Skilled Nursing Facilities Pilot (SNF Pilot) to test how to support broadband connections for skilled nursing facilities. The SNF Pilot will focus on how the Commission can best utilize program support to assist skilled nursing facilities that are using broadband connectivity to work with eligible health care providers through the use of electronic health records, telemedicine, and other broadband-enabled health care applications. The Commission intends to utilize Healthcare Connect Fund forms for the Skilled Nursing Facilities Pilot Program (
The following new information collection requirements are associated with the SNF Pilot:
(u) Application for Skilled Nursing Facilities Pilot. Participants in the SNF Pilot will be selected using a competitive process. It is anticipated that applications for the SNF Pilot will likely be in a narrative format, and may include the following elements: (1) Project description, budget and goals, including technologies to be used and patient population(s) to be targeted; (2) explanation of the need for broadband connectivity and anticipated health IT uses of supported connectivity; (3) anticipated health care cost savings and/or improvements in the quality of health care enabled through use of broadband-enabled health IT; (4) a detailed explanation of the design, data gathering and evaluation component of the project; (5) a description of the sites to be connected and the network design; and (6) certifications to ensure compliance with program requirements.
The Commission will be developing scoring criteria for applications for the SNF Pilot with the input of relevant stakeholders (such as the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)), consistent with the program goals for the Healthcare Connect Fund. Once the scoring criteria are developed, the Commission will release a Public Notice announcing the application procedures and deadlines. Applicants will include in their applications a demonstration of how they satisfy the scoring criteria.
(v) Reporting Requirements for Skilled Nursing Facilities Pilot Participants. The SNF Pilot Program will seek to collect data on a number of variables related to the broadband connections supported and their health care uses. Applicants must commit to robust data gathering as well as analysis and sharing of the data and to submitting an annual report. Applicants will be expected to explain what types of data they intend to gather and how they intend to gather that data in their applications. At the conclusion of the Pilot, applicants should be prepared to demonstrate with objective, observable metrics the health care cost savings and/or improved quality of patient care that have been realized through greater use of broadband to provide telemedicine to treat the residents of SNFs. The Commission plans to make this data public for the benefit of all interested parties, including third parties that may use such information for their own studies and observations.
(3) REVISIONS TO 2006 PILOT PROGRAM REPORTING REQUIREMENTS: Participants in the 2006 Pilot Program are currently required to submit to USAC and the Commission quarterly reports containing data listed in the Rural Health Care Pilot Program Selection Order, Appendix D.
(w) Revised Reporting Requirements for 2006 Pilot Program Participants. In the Healthcare Connect Fund Order, the Commission modified the 2006 Pilot Program reporting requirements to: (1) Extend through and include the last funding year in which a Pilot project received Pilot support, or, for Pilot Projects that received large upfront payments, for the life of the supported facility; (2) file annually instead of quarterly, filing their first annual report on September 30, 2013 and submitting the report to USAC, rather than USAC and the Commission; and (3) conform their reports with the Healthcare Connect Fund annual reports for consortia, where participants will be required to submit annual reports to assist the Commission in measuring progress toward the three program goals: increase access to broadband for health care providers; develop and deploy of broadband healthcare networks; and measure the cost-effectiveness of the program.
All eligible health care providers applying for discounts under the Telecommunications, Internet Access, and 2006 Pilot Programs must file FCC Forms 465, 466 and/or 466–A, and 467. Eligible health care providers file FCC Form 465 with USAC to make a bona fide request for supported services. Next, after a period of not less than 28-days after filing FCC Form 465, a health care provider that has selected a vendor submits FCC Form 466 and/or 466–A to indicate the type(s) and cost(s) of services ordered, information about the service provider, and the terms of the service agreement. Eligible health care providers must also certify on the applicable FCC Forms 466 and 466–A that the health care provider has selected the most cost-effective method of providing the selected service(s). The last form eligible health care providers submit is FCC Form 467, which is used by the entity to notify USAC that the service provider has begun providing supported services. As part of this information collection, OMB has also previously approved certain templates, samples, and spreadsheets provided to program participants to facilitate the reporting and record keeping requirements under this collection.
Federal Trade Commission (“Commission” or “FTC”).
Notice.
The information collection requirements described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”). The FTC is seeking public comments on its proposal to extend through August 31, 2016, the current PRA clearance for information collection requirements in its Telemarketing Sales Rule (“TSR”). That clearance expires on August 31, 2013.
Comments must be submitted on or before May 31, 2013.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
Requests for additional information or copies of the proposed information requirements for the Franchise Rule should be addressed to Craig Tregillus, Staff Attorney, Division of Marketing Practices, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, Room H–238, 600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326–2970.
Under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501–3521, federal agencies must obtain approval from OMB for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” means agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. 44 U.S.C. 3502(3); 5 CFR 1320.3(c). As required by section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the FTC is providing this opportunity for public comment before requesting that OMB extend the existing paperwork clearance for the TSR, 16 CFR part 310 (OMB Control Number 3084–0097).
The TSR, 16 CFR 310, implements the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act, 15 U.S.C. 6101–6108 (“Telemarketing Act”), as amended by the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (“USA PATRIOT Act”), Public Law 107056 (Oct. 25, 2001). The Act seeks to prevent deceptive or abusive telemarketing practices in telemarketing, which, pursuant to the USA PATRIOT Act, includes calls made to solicit charitable contributions by third-party telemarketers. The Telemarketing Act mandated certain disclosures by telemarketers, and directed the Commission to include recordkeeping requirements in promulgating a rule to prohibit such practices. As required by the Telemarketing Act, the TSR mandates certain disclosures for telephone sales and requires telemarketers to retain certain records regarding advertising, sales, and employees. The required disclosures provide consumers with information necessary to make informed purchasing decisions. The required records are to be made available for inspection by the Commission and other law enforcement personnel to determine compliance with the Rule. Required records may also yield information helpful to measuring and redressing consumer injury stemming from Rule violations.
In 2003, the Commission amended the TSR to include certain new disclosure requirements and to expand the Rule in other ways.
In 2008, the Commission promulgated amendments to the TSR regarding prerecorded calls, 16 CFR 310.4(b)(1)(v), and call abandonment rate calculations, 16 CFR 310.4(b)(4)(i).
In 2010, the Commission published additional amendments taking effect that year to require specific new disclosures in the sale of a “debt relief service,” as that term is defined in Section 310.2(m) to include for-profit credit counseling services, debt settlement, and debt negotiation services. The amendments result in PRA burden for all covered entities—both new and existing respondents—that engage in telemarketing of these services. The amendments, among other things: (1) Applied the TSR to
The estimated burden for recordkeeping is 15,610 hours for all industry members affected by the Rule. The estimated burden for the disclosures that the Rule requires for both the live telemarketing call provisions of the TSR and those regarding prerecorded calls is 1,304,374 hours for all affected industry members. Thus, the total PRA burden is 1,319,984 hours. These estimates are explained below.
In calendar year 2012, 28,601 telemarketing entities accessed the Registry. Of these entities, 641 were “exempt” entities obtaining access to data.
Staff estimates that the above-noted 8,110 telemarketing entities subject to the Rule each require approximately one hour per year to file and store records required by the TSR for an annual total of 8,110 burden hours. The Commission staff also estimates that 75 new entrants per year would need to spend 100 hours each developing a recordkeeping system that complies with the TSR for an annual total of 7,500 burden hours.
Staff believes that in the ordinary course of business a substantial majority of sellers and telemarketers make the disclosures the Rule requires because to do so constitutes good business practice. To the extent this is so, the time and financial resources needed to comply with disclosure requirements do not constitute “burden.” 16 CFR 1320.3(b)(2). Moreover, many state laws require the same or similar disclosures as the Rule mandates. Thus, the disclosure hours burden attributable solely to the Rule is far less than the total number of hours associated with the disclosures overall. As when the FTC last sought 3-year OMB clearance for this Rule, staff estimates that most of the disclosures the Rule requires would be made in at least 75 percent of telemarketing calls even absent the Rule.
Based on previous assumptions, staff estimates that of the 8,110 telemarketing entities noted above, 3,726 conduct inbound telemarketing.
Staff necessarily has made additional assumptions in estimating burden. From the total volume of outbound and inbound calls, staff first calculated disclosure burden for initial transactions that resulted in sales, derived from external data and/or estimates drawn from a range of calendar years (2001–2010). Staff recognizes that disclosure burdens may still be incurred regardless of whether or not a call results in a sale. Conversely, a substantial percentage of outbound calls result in consumers hanging up before the seller or telemarketer makes the required disclosure(s). However, because the requirements in § 310.3(a)(1) for certain disclosures before a consumer pays for a telemarketing purchase apply only to sales, early call cessation (i.e., consumers hanging up pre-disclosure or before full disclosure) is excluded from staff's burden estimates for § 310.3(a)(1).
For transactions in which a sale is not a precursor to a required disclosure,
Based on the most recently available applicable industry data and further FTC extrapolations, staff estimates that 2.4 billion outbound telemarketing calls are subject to FTC jurisdiction, that 484 million of these calls result in direct sales,
Staff bases all ensuing upsell calculations on the volume of additional sales after an initial sale, with the assumption that a consumer is unlikely to be predisposed to an upsell if he or she rejects an initial offer—whether through an outbound or an inbound call. Using industry information, staff assumes an upsell conversion rate of 40% for inbound calls as well as outbound calls.
Based on the above inputs and assumptions, staff estimates that the total time associated with these pre-sale disclosure requirements is 865,333 hours per year: (2.4 billion outbound calls × 40% lasting the duration × 7 seconds of full pre-sale disclosures = 1,866,667) + (2.4 billion outbound calls × 60% terminated after 2 seconds of disclosures = 800,000) + (484 million outbound calls resulting in direct sales × 40% upsell conversions × 3 seconds of related disclosures = 161,333) + (1.9 billion inbound calls × 40% upsell
The TSR also requires several general sales disclosures in telemarketing calls before the customer pays for goods or services.
Staff estimates that the general sales disclosures for outbound calls require 377,949 hours annually. This figure includes the burden for written disclosures (1,242 inbound telemarketing entities estimated to use direct mail
To estimate the time required to provide the general sales disclosures for calls offering debt relief services, staff employs different assumptions and calculations set forth when the debt relief amendments were issued.
To estimate the number of consumers who are delinquent on one or more credit cards, staff assumes that couples constitute a single decision-making unit, as do single adults (widowed, divorced, separated, never married) within each household. According to the most current U.S. Census Bureau data available, there are 157,356,000 decision-making units.
Accordingly, since reciting the general sales disclosures takes eight seconds, staff estimates that the general sales disclosure burden for inbound debt relief calls is 1,723 hours (3,101,581 inbound debt relief calls × 8 seconds × 25% burden ÷ 3,600).
The general sales disclosures required by § 310.3(a)(1)(i)–(iii) must also be made by sellers and telemarketers for some inbound calls that are excluded from the general media and direct mail exemptions from the TSR for inbound calls;
Staff's estimates for each of these types of inbound calls begins by comparing the number of complaints reported to the FTC's Consumer Sentinel system in the most recent year to the total number of reported fraud complaints for the year. The resulting percentage of total fraud complaints must be adjusted to reflect the fact that only a relatively small percentage of telemarketing calls are fraudulent. To extrapolate the percentage of fraudulent telemarketing calls, staff divides a Congressional estimate of annual consumer injury from telemarketing fraud ($40 billion)
Thus, for the 7,117 Sentinel complaints about investment opportunities in 2012,
Additional specific disclosures are required if the call involves a prize promotion,
Staff estimates that reciting the debt relief disclosures in each sales call will take ten seconds, and therefore the disclosure burden associated with the debt relief disclosures is 4,308 hours (3,101,581 outbound debt relief calls × 10 seconds × 25% burden = 2,154 hours) + (3,101,581 inbound debt relief calls × 10 seconds × 25% burden = 2,154 hours). Thus, the total specific sales disclosure burden is 28,279 hours annually (23,971 for non-debt-relief calls) + 4,308 (for debt relief calls).
Cumulatively, therefore, the total annual burden for all of the sales disclosures is 438,771 hours (410,492 general + 28,279 specific sales disclosures) or, by rough approximation (allowing that some entities conducting inbound telemarketing will be exempt from oral disclosure if making certain written disclosures), 54 hours annually per firm (438,771 ÷ 8,110).
Finally, any entity that accesses the Registry, regardless whether it is paying for access, must submit minimal identifying information to the operator of the Registry. This basic information includes the name, address, and telephone number of the entity; a contact person for the organization; and information about the manner of payment. The entity also must submit a list of the area codes for which it requests information and certify that it is accessing the Registry solely to comply with the provisions of the TSR. If the entity is accessing the Registry on behalf of other seller or telemarketer clients, it has to submit basic identifying information about those clients, a list of the area codes for which it requests information on their behalf, and a certification that the clients are accessing the Registry solely to comply with the TSR.
As it has since the Commission's initial proposal to implement user fees under the TSR, FTC staff estimates that affected entities will require no more than two minutes for each entity to submit this basic information, and anticipates that each entity will have to submit the information annually.
Cumulative of the foregoing components, disclosure burden for new and existing telemarketing entities, including those making prerecorded calls,
Assuming a cumulative burden of 7,500 hours a year to set up compliant recordkeeping systems for new telemarketing entities (75 new entrants/year × 100 hours each), and applying to that a skilled labor rate of $25/hour,
Staff believes that the capital and start-up costs associated with the TSR's information collection requirements are
Affected entities may need some storage media such as file folders, computer back-up tapes, or paper in order to comply with the Rule's recordkeeping requirements. Although staff believes that most affected entities would maintain the required records in the ordinary course of business, staff estimates that the approximately 8,110 telemarketing entities subject to the Rule spend an annual amount of $50 each on office supplies as a result of the Rule's recordkeeping requirements, for a total recordkeeping cost burden for both new and existing telemarketing entities, including those making prerecorded calls, of $405,500.
The estimated annual labor cost for disclosures for all telemarketing entities is $15,652,488. This total is the product of applying an assumed hourly wage rate of $12
Oral disclosure estimates, discussed above, and totaling-1,304,374 hours, applied to a retained estimated commercial calling rate of 6 cents per minute ($3.60 per hour), amounts to $4,695,746 in phone-related costs.
Staff believes that the estimated 1,242 inbound telemarketing entities choosing to comply with the Rule through written disclosures incur no additional capital or operating expenses as a result of the Rule's requirements because they are likely to provide written information to prospective customers in the ordinary course of business. Adding the required disclosures to that written information likely requires no supplemental non-labor expenditures.
Thus, cumulatively for both new and existing telemarketing entities, including prerecorded and debt relief calls, total labor costs are $15,593,528 ($301,040 (recordkeeping) + $15,652,488 (disclosure)); total capital and other non-labor costs are $5,101,246 ($405,500 (office supplies) + $4,695,746 (telephone charges)).
Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at
Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, like anyone's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, like medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, do not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which is * * * privileged or confidential” as provided in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16CFR 4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.
If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c).
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you file your comment on paper, write “TSR PRA Comment, FTC File No. P094400” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail or deliver it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H–113 (Annex J), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Visit the Commission Web site at
The meeting announced below concerns Evaluating the Feasibility of a National Surveillance System for Breast, Cervical and Colorectal Cancer Screening, Special Interest Projects (SIP)13–065; and Using Small Media to Increase Breast and Cervical Cancer Population—Based Prevention Activities SIP13–066, Panel A, initial review.
In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the aforementioned meeting:
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the aforementioned meeting:
M. Chris Langub, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, CDC, 4770 Buford Highway NE., Mailstop F–46, Atlanta, Georgia 30341, Telephone: (770) 488–3585,
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
The meeting announced below concerns Understanding the Barriers to Colorectal Cancer Screening among Asian Subgroups, Special Interest Project (SIP)13–067; and Feasibility Study of the New Clinical Measure of Colorectal Cancer Screening for Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs), SIP13–069, Panel B, initial review.
In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the aforementioned meeting:
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
The meeting announced below concerns Monitoring Cause-Specific School Absenteeism for Estimating Community Wide Influenza Transmission, Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) CK13–003, initial review.
The notice was published in the
Monitoring Cause-Specific School Absenteeism for Estimating Community Wide Influenza Transmission, FOA CK13–003, initial review.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
Notice of Cancellation: A notice was published in the
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
The meeting announced below concerns Attitudes Towards Cognitive Health, Cognitive Impairment, and Caregiving—Identifying Attitude Questions and Measures for Public Health Practice, Special Interest Project (SIP)13–071; and Expanding Information about Dementia and Co-occurring Chronic Conditions among Older Adults, SIP13–072, Panel E, initial review.
In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the aforementioned meeting:
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
The meeting announced below concerns Development of an Evidenced—Informed Mall Walking Program Resource Guide, Special Interest Project (SIP)13–070, Panel D, initial review.
In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the aforementioned meeting:
The meeting will include the initial review, discussion, and evaluation of “Development of an Evidenced—Informed Mall Walking Program Resource Guide, SIP13–070, Panel D, initial review.”
M. Chris Langub, Ph.D., Scientific
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Request for information.
To address the public health problem of physical inactivity, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announces the opening of a docket to obtain information from the public on walking as an effective way to be sufficiently active for health. The information obtained will be used to frame an anticpated Surgeon General's call to action on this issue.
Individuals and organizations interested in providing information must submit their written comments on or before May 1, 2013.
Comments may be submitted by any of the two following methods:
•
•
All relevant comments received will be posted without change to
Joan Dorn, Ph.D., Chief, Physical Activity and Health Branch, Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Highway NE., MS–K46, Atlanta, Georgia, 30341–3717 by telephone (770–488–5692) or email (
We invite comments and information on environmental or systems strategies; interventions that increase walkability of communities and walking for individuals; and national-, state-, tribal-, territorial-, community-, organizational-, and individual-level actions. We are particularly interested in strategies that consider individuals with developmental and chronic disease-related disabilities, and groups having health and physical activity disparities or lack resources and opportunities to be physically active.
(1) Barriers to walking for youth; adults; seniors; persons with developmental, injury, and chronic disease-related disabilities; racial and ethnic minorities; and low-income individuals.
(2) Evidence-based strategies for overcoming those barriers and their reach and impact to increase physical activity at the population level and among the above mentioned subpopulations.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Formal Meetings Between the FDA and Biosimilar Biological Product Sponsors or Applicants.” This draft guidance provides recommendations to industry on formal meetings between FDA and sponsors or applicants relating to the development and review of biosimilar biological products regulated by the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) and the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER). The guidance assists sponsors and applicants in generating and submitting a meeting request and the associated meeting package to FDA for biosimilar biological products.
Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by May 31, 2013. Submit either electronic or written comments concerning the proposed collection of information by May 31, 2013.
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 2201, Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002, or Office of Communication, Outreach, and Development (HFM–40), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, Suite 200N, Rockville, MD 20852–1448. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance to
Neel Patel, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 6483, Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002, 301–796–0970; or Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (HFM–17), Food and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, Suite 200N, Rockville, MD 20852–1448, 301–827–6210.
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Formal Meetings Between the FDA and Biosimilar Biological Product Sponsors or Applicants.” This draft guidance provides recommendations to industry on formal meetings between FDA and sponsors or applicants relating to the development and review of biosimilar biological products regulated by CDER and CBER. For the purposes of this draft guidance, “formal meeting” includes any meeting that is requested by a sponsor or applicant following the request procedures provided in this draft guidance and includes meetings conducted in any format (i.e., face-to-face meeting, teleconference, or videoconference).
The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 amended the Public Health Service (PHS) Act and other statutes to create an abbreviated licensure pathway in section 351(k) of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 262(k)) for biological products shown to be biosimilar to, or interchangeable with, an FDA-licensed biological product (see sections 7001 through 7003 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Pub. L. 111–148)). The Biosimilar User Fee Act of 2012 (BsUFA), enacted as part of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (Pub. L. 112–144), amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) to authorize a new user fee program for biosimilar biological products. FDA has committed to meeting certain performance goals in connection with the new user fee program. The performance goals, which are set forth in a letter from the Secretary of Health and Human Services to the Chairman of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate and the Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives,
This draft guidance reflects a unified approach to all formal meetings between sponsors or applicants and FDA for biosimilar biological product development (BPD) programs. It is intended to assist sponsors and applicants in generating and submitting a meeting request and the associated meeting package to FDA for biosimilar biological products. This draft guidance does not apply to new drug or abbreviated new drug applications under section 505 of the FD&C Act or to biologics license applications (BLAs) under section 351(a) of the PHS Act.
FDA expects that review staff will participate in many meetings with biosimilar biological product sponsors
This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the Agency's current thinking on formal meetings between FDA and sponsors or applicants regarding biosimilar biological products. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (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 draft guidance on the procedures for formal meetings between FDA and biosimilar biological product sponsors or applicants describes procedures for requesting, scheduling, conducting, and documenting such formal meetings.
The draft guidance describes two types of collections of information: (1) The submission of a meeting request containing certain information and (2) the submission of an information package that accompanies the meeting request. The draft guidance also refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. The collections of information for 21 CFR 312.48 have been approved under OMB control number 0910–0014.
Under the draft guidance, a sponsor or applicant interested in meeting with CDER or CBER should submit a meeting request to the sponsor's or applicant's application (e.g., investigational new drug application, BLA) through the controlled document system. If there is no application, the request should be submitted to either the appropriate CDER division director with a copy sent to the division's chief of project management staff or to the division director of the appropriate product office within CBER. Before submitting any meeting request by fax or email when there is no application, the sponsor or applicant should contact the appropriate review division or the Biosimilars Program staff, CDER, Office of New Drugs, to determine to whom the request should be directed, how the request should be submitted, and the appropriate format for the request, and to arrange for confirmation of receipt of the request.
FDA recommends that a request be submitted in this manner to prevent the possibility of faxed or emailed requests being overlooked because of the volume of emails received daily by FDA staff. Faxed or emailed requests should be sent during official business hours (8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. EST/EDT) Monday through Friday (except Federal government holidays). Processing and receipt may be delayed for requests where confirmation of receipt has not been prearranged.
Under the draft guidance, FDA requests that sponsors and applicants include in meeting requests certain information about the proposed meeting. This information includes:
1. Product Name.
2. Application Number (if applicable).
3. Proposed Proper Name (or proper name if post-licensure).
4. Structure (if applicable).
5. Reference Product Name.
6. Proposed Indication(s) or Context of Product Development.
7. Meeting Type Being Requested (i.e., Biosimilar Initial Advisory meeting, BPD Type 1, 2, 3, or 4 meeting). The rationale for requesting the meeting type should be included.
8. A Brief Statement of the Purpose of the Meeting. This statement should include a brief background of the issues underlying the agenda. It also can include a brief summary of completed or planned studies and clinical trials or data that the sponsor or applicant intends to discuss at the meeting, the general nature of the critical questions to be asked, and where the meeting fits in overall development plans. Although the statement need not provide detailed documentation of trial designs or completed studies and clinical trials, it should provide enough information to facilitate understanding of the issues, such as a small table that summarizes major results.
9. A List of the Specific Objectives/Outcomes the Requester Expects from the Meeting.
10. A Proposed Agenda, Including Estimated Times Needed for Each Agenda Item.
11. A List of Questions, Grouped by Discipline. For each question there should be a brief explanation of the context and purpose of the question.
12. A List of Ill Individuals with Their Titles and Affiliations Who Will Attend the Requested Meeting from the
13. A List of FDA Staff, if Known, or Disciplines, Asked to Participate in the Requested Meeting.
14. Suggested Dates and Times (e.g., morning or afternoon) for the Meeting Which are Within or Beyond the Appropriate Time Frame of the Meeting Type Being Requested.
15. The Proposed Format of the Meeting (i.e., face-to-face meeting, teleconference, or videoconference).
This information will be used by FDA to determine the utility of the meeting, to identify FDA staff necessary to discuss proposed agenda items, and to schedule the meeting.
FDA requests that a sponsor or applicant submit a meeting package to the appropriate review division with the meeting request. FDA recommends that information packages generally include:
1. Product Name and Application Number (if applicable).
2. Proposed Proper Name (or proper name if postlicensure).
3. Structure (if applicable).
4. Reference Product Name.
5. Proposed Indication(s) or Context of Product Development.
6. Dosage Form, Route of Administration, Dosing Regimen (frequency and duration), and Presentation(s).
7. A List of Sponsor or Applicant Attendees, Affiliations, and Titles.
8. A Background Section that Includes the Following:
a.
b.
9. A Brief Statement Summarizing the Purpose of the Meeting.
10. A Proposed Agenda.
11. A List of Questions for Discussion Grouped by Discipline and with a Brief Summary for Each Question to Explain the Need or Context for the Question.
12. Data to Support Discussion Organized by Discipline and Question. The level of detail of the data should be appropriate to the meeting type requested and the product development stage.
The purpose of the information package is to provide FDA staff the opportunity to adequately prepare for the meeting, including the review of relevant data concerning the product.
The estimated number of respondents submitting meeting requests and information packages is based on the current workload and development expectations for biosimilar biological products. The burden hour estimate includes any time that may be needed by sponsors or applicants for rescheduling and canceling meetings, for premeetings and other communications with FDA about the meetings, and for resolution of disputes about meeting minutes.
Based on the current workload and development expectations, FDA estimates that approximately 15 sponsors and applicants (respondents) may request approximately a total of 30 formal meetings, and submit approximately 30 information packages, with CDER annually, and approximately 1 respondent may request approximately 2 formal meetings, and submit approximately 2 information packages, with CBER annually.
For a meeting request, the hours per response, which is the estimated number of hours that a respondent would spend preparing the information to be submitted with a meeting request in accordance with the draft guidance, is estimated to be approximately 15 hours. Based on FDA's experience, we expect it will take respondents this amount of time to gather and copy brief statements about the product and a description of the purpose and details of the meeting.
For an information package, the hours per response, which is the estimated number of hours that a respondent would spend preparing the information package in accordance with the draft guidance, is estimated to be approximately 30 hours. Based on FDA's experience, we expect it will take respondents this amount of time to gather and copy brief statements about the product, a description of the details for the anticipated meeting, and data and information that generally would already have been compiled for submission to FDA. In total, we expect sponsors to spend 480 hours preparing meeting requests and 960 hours preparing information packages each year.
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a scale-up and post-approval changes (SUPAC) draft guidance for industry entitled “SUPAC: Manufacturing Equipment Addendum.” This revised draft document combines and supersedes “SUPAC IR/MR: Immediate Release and Modified Release Solid Oral Dosage Forms: Manufacturing Equipment Addendum,” published on January 1, 1999; and “SUPAC–SS: Nonsterile Semisolid Dosage Forms; Manufacturing Equipment Addendum,” published as a draft on December 1, 1998. FDA has now revised the draft manufacturing equipment addenda to remove the equipment examples and to clarify the types of processes being referenced.
Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance and on any other part of the SUPAC guidance series, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by July 1, 2013.
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 2201, Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance to
Jon Clark, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002, 301–796–2400.
FDA is announcing the availability of a SUPAC draft guidance for industry entitled “SUPAC: Manufacturing Equipment Addendum.” This revised draft document combines and supersedes the following guidances for industry: (1) “SUPAC IR/MR: Immediate Release and Modified Release Solid Oral Dosage Forms: Manufacturing Equipment Addendum,” published on January 1, 1999, and (2) “SUPAC–SS: Nonsterile Semisolid Dosage Forms; Manufacturing Equipment Addendum,” published as draft on December 1, 1998. When published, these guidances included tables that listed specific equipment that were misinterpreted as a list of FDA required equipment. In addition, FDA is concerned that the equipment addenda may no longer reflect current practices and may be limiting, instead of encouraging, manufacturers to continually evaluate and update practices. FDA has removed the tables listing specific manufacturing equipment from these guidances and combined them into a single addendum. FDA has also made some changes to clarify the types of processes being referenced.
This guidance should be used with the following guidances for industry to determine what documentation should be submitted to FDA regarding equipment changes: (1) “SUPAC–IR: Immediate Release Solid Oral Dosage Forms—Scale-Up and Post-Approval Changes: Chemistry, Manufacturing and Controls, In Vitro Dissolution Testing, and In Vivo Bioequivalence Documentation” (
As part of a greater effort, FDA is thoroughly reviewing the SUPAC guidance series to determine how these guidances fit with current manufacturing practices, including, but not limited to, risk-based assessment approaches and quality by design principles. These efforts will also be considered part of the finalization process for this guidance.
This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the Agency's current thinking on manufacturing equipment. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at either
Notice.
In compliance with section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) will submit an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Comments submitted during the first public review of this ICR will be provided to OMB. OMB will accept further comments from the public during the review and approval period. To request a copy of the clearance requests submitted to OMB for review, email
Data collection activities at application, progress, and annual performance satisfy statutory and programmatic requirements for performance measurement and evaluation (including specific Title III, VII and VIII requirements), as well as Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) requirements. The Affordable Care Act (Pub. L. 111–148) impacted a broad range of health workforce programs administered by BHPr. It reauthorized most of these programs and, in some cases, expanded eligibility, modified program activities, and/or established new requirements. The Affordable Care Act also created new health professions programs. Therefore, it was necessary to reexamine BHPr's existing performance measures to ensure that they address these changes, meet evolving program management needs, and respond to emerging workforce concerns.
The proposed revised data collection will enhance analysis and reporting of grantee training and education activities, outcomes, and intended practice locations. Data collected from these grant programs will also provide a description of the program activities of more than 1,600 reporting grantees to better inform policymakers on the barriers, opportunities, and outcomes involved in health care workforce development. The proposed measures focus on five key outcomes: (1) Increasing the workforce supply of diverse well-educated practitioners; (2) influencing the distribution of practitioners to practice in underserved and rural areas; (3) enhancing the quality of education; (4) diversifying the pipeline for new health professionals; and (5) supporting educational infrastructure to increase the capacity to train more health professionals. Revisions to the current reporting will require the collection of baseline data at the grant application and award stages and will include performance reporting semi-annually by the type of programs: direct financial support programs, infrastructure programs, and multipurpose or hybrid programs (could be direct financial support, infrastructure or both within the same grant program). Measures will be reported at the individual, program-specific and/or program cluster-levels.
The annual estimate of burden is as follows:
Submit your comments to the desk officer for HRSA, either by email to
Under the provisions of Section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), has submitted
To obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, contact Erik Augustson, Ph.D., MPH, Behavioral Scientist/Health Science Administrator, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, 6130 Executive Blvd., EPN–4034, Bethesda, MD 20892–7337 or call non-toll-free number 301–435–7610 or Email your request, including your address to:
OMB approval is requested for 2 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The estimated annualized burden hours are 4,250.
Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Advisory Council.
The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable materials, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory Council for Complementary and Alternative Medicine.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 USC, as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable materials, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Scientific Review Officer, Grants Review Branch, Office of Extramural Affairs, National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH, DHHS, 6001 Executive Blvd., Room 4226, MSC 9550, Bethesda, MD 20892–9550, 301–435–1432,
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 USC, as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable materials, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
The National Toxicology Program (NTP) requests information on medium- or high-throughput technologies/assay systems, which allow for the batch screening of compounds (e.g., 25–50) in biochemical- or cell-based assays or alternative (non-rodent) animal models, that might be used to prioritize compounds for
The deadline for receipt of information is May 1, 2013.
Information may be submitted electronically or as printed copy.
Electronic submissions: Email to
Print submissions: Send 4 copies to Patrick J. Barbour, Contract Specialist, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), P.O. Box 12233 (MD K1–05), Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. Courier address: 530 Davis Drive, Keystone Building, Room 1059, Morrisville, NC 27560.
Patrick J. Barbour, Contract Specialist, NIEHS, P.O. Box 12233 (MD K1–05), Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. Courier address: 530 Davis Drive, Keystone Building, Room 1059, Morrisville, NC 27560. Email:
For the purposes of this request for information (RFI), neurotoxicity means adverse outcomes to the nervous system resulting from exposure during any life stage. Special emphasis is placed on identifying assay systems that interrogate cellular and molecular events that are critical to the development and/or function of the nervous system. The NTP is also interested in receiving
1. Information on technologies/assays currently available for screening critical pathways involved in neurotoxicity where the endpoint is associated with a phenotypic manifestation of toxicity
a. The referred technologies/assays should have the ability to batch screen sets of at least 20 compounds to produce a concentration response curve suitable for defining the potency and efficacy of a response and have been demonstrated to be both reliable and relevant.
b. Specific information requested for each assay includes the robustness of the assay, dose-response and time-course toxicity profiles, as well as to what extent the assay informs on specific neurotoxicity life-stage windows (i.e., developmental, juvenile, ageing).
2. Information on assays that can be used to measure the activity of a compound on a molecular initiating event or key event within a neurotoxicity adverse outcome pathway.
3. Information on the best molecular or cellular targets that accurately characterize the activity of a compound within a specific pathway resulting in an adverse neurotoxic outcome.
4. Information on assays, technologies, or methods that will aid in identifying neurotoxic compounds, which are activated or deactivated by metabolic activity.
Respondents to this RFI are asked to provide the following: the Data Universal Numbering System or DUNS® number, organization name, address, technical and administrative points of contact (including names, titles, addresses, telephone and fax numbers, and email address), the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code, and size and type of business (e.g., 8(a), HUBZone, WOSB, SDVOSB, etc.). Information packages should not exceed one (1) page in length, excluding standard brochures. Telephone and facsimile responses will not be accepted. Electronic information should be submitted in Microsoft Office (Word, PowerPoint, Excel), Adobe PDF, or compatible formats sufficient to clearly read the information provided. Please include a cover page identifying the technical and administrative points of contact for the organization, including names, titles, addresses, telephone and fax numbers, email addresses, and organization name. The deadline for receipt of the requested information is May 1, 2013.
Responses to this request are voluntary. This notice does not obligate the U.S. Government to award a contract or otherwise pay for the information provided in response to this request. The U.S. Government reserves the right to use information provided by respondents for any purpose deemed necessary and legally appropriate. Any organization responding to this request should ensure that its response is complete and sufficiently detailed. Respondents are advised that the U.S. Government is under no obligation to acknowledge receipt of the information received or provide feedback to respondents with respect to any information submitted. No proprietary, classified, confidential, or sensitive information should be included in your response.
The NTP is an interagency program established in 1978 (43 FR 53060) to coordinate toxicology research and testing across the Department of Health and Human Services. Other activities of the program focus on strengthening the science base in toxicology, developing and validating improved testing methods, and providing information about potentially toxic chemicals to health regulatory and research agencies, scientific and medical communities, and the public. Information about the NTP is found at
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) notifies Federal agencies of the Laboratories and Instrumented Initial Testing Facilities (IITF) currently certified to meet the standards of the Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs (Mandatory Guidelines). The Mandatory Guidelines were first published in the
A notice listing all currently certified Laboratories and Instrumented Initial Testing Facilities (IITF) is published in the
If any Laboratory/IITF has withdrawn from the HHS National Laboratory Certification Program (NLCP) during the past month, it will be listed at the end and will be omitted from the monthly listing thereafter.
This notice is also available on the Internet at
Mrs. Giselle Hersh, Division of Workplace Programs, SAMHSA/CSAP, Room 2–1042, One Choke Cherry Road, Rockville, Maryland 20857; 240–276–2600 (voice), 240–276–2610 (fax).
The Mandatory Guidelines were initially developed in accordance with Executive Order 12564 and section 503 of Public Law 100–71. The “Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs”, as amended in the revisions listed above, requires strict standards that Laboratories and Instrumented Initial Testing Facilities (IITF) must meet in order to conduct drug and specimen validity tests on urine specimens for Federal agencies.
To become certified, an applicant Laboratory/IITF must undergo three rounds of performance testing plus an on-site inspection. To maintain that certification, a Laboratory/IITF must participate in a quarterly performance testing program plus undergo periodic, on-site inspections.
Laboratories and Instrumented Initial Testing Facilities (IITF) in the applicant stage of certification are not to be considered as meeting the minimum requirements described in the HHS Mandatory Guidelines. A Laboratory/
In accordance with the Mandatory Guidelines dated November 25, 2008 (73 FR 71858), the following Laboratories and Instrumented Initial Testing Facilities (IITF) meet the minimum standards to conduct drug and specimen validity tests on urine specimens:
None.
ACL Laboratories, 8901 W. Lincoln Ave., West Allis, WI 53227, 414–328–7840/800–877–7016, (Formerly: Bayshore Clinical Laboratory)
ACM Medical Laboratory, Inc., 160 Elmgrove Park, Rochester, NY 14624, 585–429–2264
Advanced Toxicology Network, 3560 Air Center Cove, Suite 101, Memphis, TN 38118, 901–794–5770/888–290–1150
Aegis Analytical Laboratories, 345 Hill Ave., Nashville, TN 37210, 615–255–2400, (Formerly: Aegis Sciences Corporation, Aegis Analytical Laboratories, Inc.)
Alere Toxicology Services, 1111 Newton St., Gretna, LA 70053, 504–361–8989/800–433–3823, (Formerly: Kroll Laboratory Specialists, Inc., Laboratory Specialists, Inc.)
Alere Toxicology Services, 450 Southlake Blvd., Richmond, VA 23236, 804–378–9130, (Formerly: Kroll Laboratory Specialists, Inc., Scientific Testing Laboratories, Inc.; Kroll Scientific Testing Laboratories, Inc.)
Baptist Medical Center-Toxicology Laboratory, 11401 I–30, Little Rock, AR 72209–7056, 501–202–2783, (Formerly: Forensic Toxicology Laboratory Baptist Medical Center)
Clinical Reference Lab, 8433 Quivira Road, Lenexa, KS 66215–2802, 800–445–6917
Doctors Laboratory, Inc., 2906 Julia Drive, Valdosta, GA 31602, 229–671–2281
DrugScan, Inc., 200 Precision Road, Suite 200, Horsham, PA 19044, 800–235–4890
ElSohly Laboratories, Inc., 5 Industrial Park Drive, Oxford, MS 38655, 662–236–2609
Fortes Laboratories, Inc., 25749 SW Canyon Creek Road, Suite 600, Wilsonville, OR 97070, 503–486–1023
Gamma-Dynacare Medical Laboratories*, A Division of the Gamma-Dynacare Laboratory Partnership, 245 Pall Mall Street, London, ONT, Canada N6A 1P4, 519–679–1630
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, 7207 N. Gessner Road, Houston, TX 77040, 713–856–8288/800–800–2387
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, 69 First Ave., Raritan, NJ 08869, 908–526–2400/800–437–4986, (Formerly: Roche Biomedical Laboratories, Inc.)
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, 1904 Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, 919–572–6900/800–833–3984, (Formerly: LabCorp Occupational Testing Services, Inc., CompuChem Laboratories, Inc.; CompuChem Laboratories, Inc., A Subsidiary of Roche Biomedical Laboratory; Roche CompuChem Laboratories, Inc., A Member of the Roche Group)
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, 1120 Main Street, Southaven, MS 38671, 866–827–8042/800–233–6339, (Formerly: LabCorp Occupational Testing Services, Inc.; MedExpress/National Laboratory Center)
LabOne, Inc. d/b/a Quest Diagnostics, 10101 Renner Blvd., Lenexa, KS 66219, 913–888–3927/800–873–8845, (Formerly: Quest Diagnostics Incorporated; LabOne, Inc.; Center for Laboratory Services, a Division of LabOne, Inc.,)
MedTox Laboratories, Inc., 402 W. County Road D, St. Paul, MN 55112, 651–636–7466/800–832–3244
MetroLab-Legacy Laboratory Services, 1225 NE 2nd Ave., Portland, OR 97232, 503–413–5295/800–950–5295
Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Forensic Toxicology Laboratory, 1 Veterans Drive, Minneapolis, MN 55417, 612–725–2088
National Toxicology Laboratories, Inc., 1100 California Ave., Bakersfield, CA 93304, 661–322–4250/800–350–3515
One Source Toxicology Laboratory, Inc., 1213 Genoa-Red Bluff, Pasadena, TX 77504, 888–747–3774, (Formerly: University of Texas Medical Branch, Clinical Chemistry Division; UTMB Pathology-Toxicology Laboratory)
Pacific Toxicology Laboratories, 9348 DeSoto Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, 800–328–6942, (Formerly: Centinela Hospital Airport Toxicology Laboratory)
Pathology Associates Medical Laboratories, 110 West Cliff Dr., Spokane, WA 99204, 509–755–8991/800–541–7891x7
Phamatech, Inc., 10151 Barnes Canyon Road, San Diego, CA 92121, 858–643–5555
Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, 1777 Montreal Circle, Tucker, GA 30084, 800–729–6432, (Formerly: SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories; SmithKline Bio-Science Laboratories)
Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, 400 Egypt Road, Norristown, PA 19403, 610–631–4600/877–642–2216, (Formerly: SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories; SmithKline Bio-Science Laboratories)
Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, 8401 Fallbrook Ave., West Hills, CA 91304, 818–737–6370, (Formerly: SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories)
Redwood Toxicology Laboratory, 3650 Westwind Blvd., Santa Rosa, CA 95403, 707–570–4434
South Bend Medical Foundation, Inc., 530 N. Lafayette Blvd., South Bend, IN 46601, 574–234–4176 x1276
Southwest Laboratories, 4625 E. Cotton Center Boulevard, Suite 177, Phoenix, AZ 85040, 602–438–8507/800–279–0027
STERLING Reference Laboratories, 2617 East L Street, Tacoma, Washington 98421, 800–442–0438
Toxicology & Drug Monitoring Laboratory, University of Missouri Hospital & Clinics, 301 Business Loop 70 West, Suite 208, Columbia, MO 65203, 573–882–1273
US Army Forensic Toxicology Drug Testing Laboratory, 2490 Wilson St., Fort George G. Meade, MD 20755–5235, 301–677–7085
*The Standards Council of Canada (SCC) voted to end its Laboratory Accreditation Program for Substance Abuse (LAPSA) effective May 12, 1998. Laboratories certified through that program were accredited to conduct forensic urine drug testing as required by U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations. As of that date, the certification of those accredited Canadian laboratories will continue under DOT authority. The responsibility for conducting quarterly performance testing plus periodic on-site inspections of those LAPSA-accredited laboratories was transferred to the U.S. HHS, with the HHS' NLCP contractor continuing to have an active role in the performance testing and laboratory inspection processes. Other Canadian laboratories wishing to be considered for the NLCP may apply directly to the NLCP contractor just as U.S. laboratories do.
Upon finding a Canadian laboratory to be qualified, HHS will recommend that DOT certify the laboratory (
Coast Guard, DHS.
Sixty-day notice requesting comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit Information Collection Requests (ICRs) 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: 1625–0049, Waterfront Facilities Handling Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) and Liquefied Hazardous Gas (LHG) and 1625–0063, Marine Occupational Health and Safety Standards for Benzene—46 CFR part 197 Subpart C. Our ICRs describe the information we seek to collect from the public. Before submitting these ICRs to OIRA, the Coast Guard is inviting comments as described below.
Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before May 31, 2013.
You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG–2013–0164] to the Docket Management Facility (DMF) at the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). 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
Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of Information Management, telephone 202–475–3532, 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, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. In response to your comments, we may revise these ICRs or decide not to seek approval of revisions of the Collections. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.
We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG–2013–0164], and must be received by May 31, 2013. We will post all comments received, without change, to
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number [USCG–2013–0164], 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 (
You may submit your comments and material by electronic means, mail, fax, or delivery to the DMF at the address under
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
1.
2.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Sixty-day notice requesting comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval of a revision to the following collection of information: 1625–0087, U.S. Coast Guard International Ice Patrol (IIP) Customer Survey without change. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Before submitting this ICR to OIRA, the Coast Guard is inviting comments as described below.
Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before May 31, 2013.
You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG–2013–0045] to the Docket Management Facility (DMF) at the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). 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 this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at room W12–140 on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find the docket on the Internet at
A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the Internet at
Contact Anthony Smith, Office of Information Management, telephone 202–475–3532, 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. In response to your comments, we may revise this ICR or decide not to seek approval of revisions of the Collection. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.
We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG–2013–0045], and must be received by May 31, 2013. We will post all comments received, without change, to
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number [USCG–2013–0045], 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 (
You may submit your 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
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
Coast Guard, DHS.
Sixty-day notice requesting comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an approval of a revision to the following collection of information: 1625–0056, Labeling Required In 33 CFR parts 181 and 183 and 46 CFR 25.10–3. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Before submitting this ICR to OIRA, the Coast Guard is inviting comments as described below.
Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before May 31, 2013.
You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG–2013–0133] to the Docket Management Facility (DMF) at the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). 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 this 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
Anthony Smith, Office of Information
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. In response to your comments, we may revise this ICR or decide not to seek approval of revisions of the Collection. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.
We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG–2013–0133], and must be received by May 31, 2013. We will post all comments received, without change, to
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number [USCG–2013–0133], 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 (
You may submit your 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
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
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of teleconference meeting.
The Strategic Planning Subcommittee of the National Boating Safety Advisory Council (NBSAC) will meet via teleconference and online webinar to discuss issues related to the strategic plan of the national recreational boating safety program. This teleconference meeting will be open to the public.
The teleconference/webinar meeting will take place on Thursday,
The Subcommittee will meet via teleconference and online webinar. To participate by phone and view the webinar, contact the Alternate Designated Federal Officer (ADFO) listed below in the
If you want to make a presentation, send your request by April 19, 2013, to Mr. Jeff Ludwig, NBSAC ADFO, telephone 202–372–1061, Commandant (CG–BSX–2), 2100 Second Street SW Stop 7581, Washington, DC 20593–7581 or by fax to 202–372–1908. To facilitate public participation we are inviting public comment on the issues to be considered by the committee as listed in the “Agenda” section below. You may submit a written comment on or before April 19, 2013 or make an oral comment during the public comment portion of the meeting.
To submit a comment in writing, use one of the following methods:
•
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
•
•
•
•
Mr. Jeff Ludwig, USCG, NBSAC ADFO, telephone 202–372–1061, email
We are publishing this meeting notice under provisions of the
The agenda for April 25, 2013 includes:
(1) Discussion of progress made on the objectives and strategies of the 2012–2016 national recreational boating safety program strategic plan.
(2) Public comment.
A final agenda will be available on
We have scheduled the last fifteen minutes of the meeting, from 2:45 to 3 p.m., for oral comments from the public. If you wish to make an oral comment, please contact Mr. Jeff Ludwig, listed in the
For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the teleconference, please contact the individuals listed in the
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of teleconference meeting.
The Prevention Through People Subcommittee of the National Boating Safety Advisory Council (NBSAC) will meet via teleconference and online webinar to discuss issues related to improving safety of recreational boating through the development of safer boating practices. This teleconference meeting will be open to the public.
The teleconference/webinar meeting will take place on Monday, April 29, 2013, from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. EST. This meeting may end early if all business is finished before 3 p.m. If you wish to make oral comments at the teleconference, simply notify Mr. Jeff Ludwig before the meeting, as specified in the
The Subcommittee will meet via teleconference and online webinar. To participate by phone and view the webinar, contact the Alternate Designated Federal Officer (ADFO) listed below in the
If you want to make a presentation, send your request by April 19, 2013, to Mr. Jeff Ludwig, NBSAC ADFO, telephone 202–372–1061, Commandant (CG–BSX–2), 2100 Second Street SW., Stop 7581, Washington, DC 20593–7581 or by fax to 202–372–1908. To facilitate public participation, we are inviting public comment on the issues to be considered by the committee as listed in the “Agenda” section below. You may submit a written comment on or before April 19, 2013 or make an oral comment during the public comment portion of the meeting.
To submit a comment in writing, use one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Mr. Jeff Ludwig, USCG, NBSAC ADFO, telephone 202–372–1061, email
We are publishing this meeting notice under provisions of the
The agenda for April 29, 2013 includes:
(1) Discussion of issues related to improving safety of recreational boating through the development of safer boating practices.
(2) Public comment.
A final agenda will be available on
We have scheduled the last fifteen minutes of the meeting, from 2:45 to 3 p.m., for oral comments from the public. If you wish to make an oral comment, please contact Mr. Jeff Ludwig, listed in the
For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the teleconference, please contact the individuals listed in the
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of teleconference meeting.
The Boats and Associated Equipment Subcommittee of the National Boating Safety Advisory Council (NBSAC) will meet via teleconference and online webinar to discuss safety issues related to boats and associated equipment. This teleconference meeting will be open to the public.
The teleconference/webinar meeting will take place on Tuesday, April 16, 2013, from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. EST. This meeting may end early if all business is finished before 3 p.m. If you wish to make oral comments at the teleconference, simply notify Mr. Jeff Ludwig before the meeting, as specified in the
The Subcommittee will meet via teleconference and online webinar. To participate by phone and view the webinar, contact the Alternate Designated Federal Officer (ADFO) listed below in the
If you want to make a presentation, send your request by April 11, 2013, to Mr. Jeff Ludwig, NBSAC ADFO, telephone 202–372–1061, Commandant (CG–BSX–2), 2100 Second Street SW Stop 7581, Washington, DC 20593–7581 or by fax to 202–372–1908. To facilitate public participation, we are inviting public comment on the issues to be considered by the committee as listed in the “Agenda” section below. You may submit a written comment on or before April 11, 2013 or make an oral comment during the public comment portion of the meeting.
To submit a comment in writing, use one of the following methods:
•
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
•
•
•
•
Mr. Jeff Ludwig, USCG, NBSAC ADFO, telephone 202–372–1061, email
We are publishing this meeting notice under provisions of the
The agenda for April 16, 2013 includes:
(1) Discussion of issues related to the required carriage of safety equipment and compliance with standards and regulations in the manufacture of recreational boats.
(2) Public comment.
A final agenda will be available on
We have scheduled the last fifteen minutes of the meeting, from 2:45 to 3 p.m., for oral comments from the public. If you wish to make an oral comment, please contact Mr. Jeff Ludwig, listed in the
For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the teleconference, please contact the individuals listed in the
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. HUD is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
Pursuant to PIH Notice 2011–48, HUD has been collecting information on the compensation provided by public housing authorities (PHAs) to their five most highly compensated employees, similar to the information that nonprofit organizations receiving federal tax exemptions are required to report to the IRS annually. Since PHAs receive significant direct federal funds, such compensation information has been collected by HUD to enhance oversight by HUD and by state and local authorities. After HUD began this information collection, Congress included a provision in its fiscal year 2012 appropriations legislation that placed a specific cap on the use of Section 8 and Section 9 funds to pay the salaries of PHA officials. To obtain information that will help HUD determine PHA compliance with this and future legislation, and to achieve the same overall objectives of the original information collection, HUD is revising the data collection instrument to collect information on base salary, and bonus and incentive compensation, and the extent to which such payments are made with federal funds. Changes include obtaining data on total cash compensation paid for with Section 8 and Section 9 funds. The new elements replace several segments such as “Reportable Compensation from PHA and Related Organizations” and “Contributions to Employee Benefit Plans and Deferred Compensation from the PHA and Related Organizations and “Contributions to Employee Benefit Plans and Deferred Compensation from the PHA and Related Organizations”.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB approval Number (2577–0272) 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 HUD 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:
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 35, as amended.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing, HUD.
Notice.
The proposed information collection requirement described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. HUD is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Reports Liaison Officer, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410, Room 9120 or the number for the Federal Relay Service (1–800–877–8339).
Harry Messner, Project Manager, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708–2121 (this is not a toll free number) for copies of the proposed forms and other available information.
HUD is submitting the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended).
This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
This Notice also lists the following information:
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35, as amended.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice of a Correction to System of Records.
On February 6, 2013, HUD issued a notice in the
The Chief Privacy Officer, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 4156, Washington, DC 20410, (202) 402–8073 (Attention: Capitol View Building, 4th Floor). (This is not a toll-free number.) A telecommunication device for hearing- and speech-impaired individuals (TTY) is available at (800) 877–8339 (Federal Information Relay Service).
Subsequent to the republication on February 6, 2013, HUD discovered that the Prefatory Statement of General Routine Uses inadvertently reported repeated information that HUD proposes to exclude from that publication. In addition, this notice updates and corrects the proposed number of Prefatory Statements of Routine Uses published for that notice to 17.
In conclusion, in the
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of initiation of reviews; request for information.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, are initiating 5-year status reviews under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), of 18 animal species and 38 plant species. A 5-year status review is based on the best scientific and commercial data available at the time of the review; therefore, we are requesting submission of any such information that has become available since the last review for the species. In this notice, we also announce 5-year reviews that were completed for 27 species in California and Nevada between March 1, 2012, and January 31, 2013.
To ensure consideration, we are requesting submission of new information no later than May 31, 2013. However, we will continue to accept new information about any listed species at any time.
For how to submit information, see Request for Information and “How Do I Ask Questions or Provide Information?” in the
For information on a particular species, contact the appropriate person or office listed in the table in the
Under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
A 5-year review considers all new information available at the time of the review. In conducting these reviews, we consider the best scientific and commercial data that have become available since the listing determination or most recent status review, such as:
(A) Species biology, including but not limited to population trends, distribution, abundance, demographics, and genetics;
(B) Habitat conditions, including but not limited to amount, distribution, and suitability;
(C) Conservation measures that have been implemented that benefit the species;
(D) Threat status and trends in relation to the five listing factors (as defined in section 4(a)(1) of the Act); and
(E) Other new information, data, or corrections, including but not limited to taxonomic or nomenclatural changes, identification of erroneous information contained in the List, and improved analytical methods.
Any new information will be considered during the 5-year review and will also be useful in evaluating the ongoing recovery programs for the species.
This notice announces our active review of the species listed in the table below.
To ensure that a 5-year review is complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we request new information from all sources. See “What Information Do We Consider in Our Review?” for specific criteria. If you submit information, please support it with documentation such as maps, bibliographic references, methods used to gather and analyze the data, and/or copies of any pertinent publications, reports, or letters by knowledgeable sources.
If you wish to provide information for any species listed above, please submit your comments and materials to the appropriate contact in the table above. You may also direct questions to those contacts. Individuals who are hearing impaired or speech impaired may call the Federal Relay Service at 800–877–8339 for TTY assistance.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Comments and materials received will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the offices where the comments are submitted.
We also take this opportunity to inform the public of 5-year reviews that we completed between March 1, 2012, and January 31, 2013, for 27 species in California and Nevada. Reviews for these 27 species can be found at
This document is published under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), along with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA, Department of Commerce), State, and tribal partners (co-leaders), announce the availability of the final
The
Mark Shaffer, Office of the Science Advisor, at 703–358–2603 (telephone) or
The Service, in cooperation with its co-leaders—NOAA, State agencies, and tribal partners—announces publication of the final National Fish, Wildlife, and Plants Climate Adaptation Strategy (NFWPCAS or
The adverse impacts of climate change transcend political and administrative boundaries. No single entity or level of government can safeguard wildlife and society against
The climate is changing and these changes are already impacting the nation's valuable natural resources and the people, communities, and economies that depend on them. According to the U.S. Global Change Research Program, there have been significant changes in U.S. climate over the past 50 years, including increases in average temperatures, shifts in rainfall and storm patterns, increases in wildfires, more frequent water shortages, rising sea levels, loss of sea ice, ocean acidification, and coastal flooding and erosion. Given the magnitude of the observed changes in climate, it is not surprising that fish, wildlife, and plant resources in the United States and around the world are already being affected. The impacts can be seen everywhere from working landscapes to wilderness areas far from human habitation. As the climate continues to change over the next century, so too will the effects on species, ecosystems, and their functions. Furthermore, climate-induced changes are also likely to exacerbate existing stressors, such as habitat loss and fragmentation, putting additional pressure on our nation's valued living resources.
Rapid warming and other climate changes are already threatening many of the benefits and services that natural systems provide to people, creating new challenges for human health, infrastructure, agriculture, transportation, and energy supplies that depend on natural system services in a variety of ways. At risk are jobs, income, and businesses; clean air and water; protection from floods and erosion; hunting and fishing; wildlife-related tourism and recreation; food and forest production; and, ultimately, our health and quality of life.
Most simply, climate adaptation means helping people and natural systems prepare for and cope with the effects of a changing climate. Climate adaptation is an essential complement to climate change mitigation, or efforts to decrease the rate and extent of climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions or enhancing carbon uptake and storage. Integrating adaptation planning into existing efforts and coordinating these efforts among government and nongovernment sectors can help decrease the risks and impacts of climate change on our natural resources, communities, and economies. This
Over the past decade, there have been increasing numbers of calls for action by government and nongovernmental entities to better understand, prepare for, and address the impacts of climate change on natural resources and the communities that depend on those resources. For example, in 2007 the U.S. Government Accountability Office released a study entitled
In 2009, Congress asked the Department of the Interior (DOI) and the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to develop a national, government-wide climate adaptation strategy for fish, wildlife, plants, and related ecological processes. Language in the Conference Report for the Fiscal Year 2010 Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (House Report 111–316, pages 76–77) urged CEQ and DOI to “develop a national, government-wide strategy to address climate impacts on fish, wildlife, plants, and associated ecological processes” and “provide that there is integration, coordination, and public accountability to ensure efficiency and avoid duplication.” In addition, CEQ's Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force supported this request and called for the development of a climate adaptation strategy for fish, wildlife, and plants in its 2010 Progress Report to the President (
In the fall of 2010, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and CEQ invited NOAA and State wildlife agencies (with the New York Division of Fish, Wildlife, and Marine Resources as the State agencies' lead representative) to co-lead the development of the
Initial public outreach during 2009 and 2010 contributed toward developing the following set of key principles to guide the effort as it moved forward:
• Build a national framework for cooperative response.
• Foster communication and collaboration across government and non-government entities.
• Engage the public.
• Adopt a landscape/seascape-based approach that integrates best-available science and adaptive management.
• Integrate strategies for natural resources adaptation with those of other sectors.
• Focus actions and investments on natural resources of the United States and its Territories.
• Identify critical scientific and management needs.
• Identify opportunities to integrate climate adaptation and mitigation efforts.
• Act now.
In late 2010, a diverse group of Federal, State, and tribal agencies were asked to participate as members of an intergovernmental Steering Committee, to provide high-level advice and support for development of the
In March of 2011, the Management Team invited more than 90 natural resource professionals (both researchers and managers) from Federal, State, and tribal agencies to form five Technical Teams based around major U.S. ecosystems (marine, coastal, inland waters, forest, and combined grasslands/shrublands/deserts/tundra systems). These Teams, which were co-chaired by Federal, State, and tribal representatives, worked approximately 7 months to provide technical information on climate change impacts and to collectively develop strategies and actions for adapting to climate change.
The co-leaders requested public input for the development of the
After incorporating agency input, the Management Team released a public review draft on January 20, 2012 (77 FR 2996), for a 45-day public comment period. Comments received during the public comment period have now been compiled, analyzed, considered, and, where necessary or appropriate, addressed. This notice of availability announces the final
Please visit the
Public involvement is critical for the development of a robust and relevant response to the impacts of climate change. Particularly valuable to the effort are public guidance on priorities, recommendations for approaches, and suggestions based on local knowledge and experience.
Initial outreach and planning for the Strategy began in 2009 and early 2010, with a number of listening and engagement sessions, as well as several Conservation Leadership Forums. More information about past engagement efforts is available at
During the public comment period, several public workshops were held around the country, in addition to two online “webinars.” These workshops and webinars provided interested members of the public the opportunity to learn more about the development and goals of the
During the public comment period between January 20 and March 5, 2012, more than 55,000 comments were received. The bulk of these were general comments of support submitted as mass mailing comments through campaigns organized by several conservation-focused non-governmental organizations. The remaining 1,400 unique comments were addressed by the NFWPCAS Management Team. Public comments submitted during the 2012 comment period are available on the
The Management Team received 53,600 positive comments that were of a form letter nature. In addition, 78 unique comments that were solely positive and supportive regarding the
The Management Team received 162 unique comments relating to implementation of the
The Management Team received 86 unique comments relating to tribal, native, and indigenous peoples in the United States. These comments included concerns about insufficient discussion of climate change impacts on indigenous peoples and traditional ecological knowledge possessed by tribal, native, and indigenous peoples. In response to these comments, the Management Team added more information regarding climate change impacts on tribal, native, and indigenous peoples as they relate to fish, wildlife, and plants. The Management Team also added specific information on traditional ecological knowledge and the use of tribal, native, and indigenous peoples' lands as potential monitoring sites.
The Management Team received 129 unique comments relating to climate change impacts, including requests for discussion of additional specific impacts, concerns that impacts are covered to a degree that is too in-depth, and challenges to the assertions made in the
The Management Team received 116 unique comments relating to scientific information, tools, and accuracy. These comments ranged from suggestions for additional or substitute references to concerns about uncertainty and consensus surrounding anthropogenic influence on the climate system. While the
The Management Team received 82 unique comments regarding existing stressors on fish, wildlife, plants, and their related habitats. The majority of these comments encouraged further discussion of invasive species in the
The Management Team received 153 unique comments regarding the structure and prioritization of the
The Management Team received 38 unique comments on the need to clarify or be consistent with terms used in the
The Management Team received 163 unique comments that fell outside the scope of the
The Management Team received 270 unique comments that were of an editorial or opinion-based nature. These comments were taken into account during review. The majority of comments of this nature required no change to the document; however, minor changes were made to the
Conference Report for the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) prohibits activities with listed species unless a Federal permit is issued that allows such activities. The ESA requires that we invite public comment before issuing these permits.
We must receive written data or comments on the applications at the address given below, by May 1, 2013.
Documents and other information submitted with the applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act, by any party who submits a written request for a copy of such documents to the following office within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1875 Century Boulevard, Suite 200, Atlanta, GA 30345 (Attn: David Dell, Permit Coordinator).
David Dell, Permit Coordinator, telephone 404–679–7313; facsimile 404–678–7081.
The public is invited to comment on the following applications for permits to conduct certain activities with endangered and threatened species pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
If you wish to comment, you may submit comments by any one of the following methods. You may mail comments to the Fish and Wildlife Service's Regional Office (see
Before including your address, telephone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comments, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comments to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Applicant requests authorization to take (capture, mark, apply transmitters, track, survey, and collect tissues) Indiana bat (
Applicant requests authorization to take (capture, mark, apply transmitters, track, survey, and collect tissues) Indiana bat (
Applicant requests authorization to take (capture, handle, mark, track, and survey) the St. Croix ground lizard (
Applicant requests authorization to take (capture, handle, and survey) pallid sturgeon (
The applicant requests authorization to take the Virgin Islands boa (
The applicant requests authorization to take (capture, handle, release) American burying beetle (
The applicant requests authorization to take (capture, handle, tissue sampling, release) 18 species of freshwater mussels for the purpose of conducting presence/absence/population surveys and assisting in species recovery efforts. These activities will be conducted throughout the range of each species: Ouachita rock pocketbook (
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of availability.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) announces the availability of the Approved Land Use Plan Amendments/Record of Decision (ROD) for Allocation of Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resources on Lands Administered by the BLM in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. The BLM Principal Deputy Director signed the ROD on March 22, 2013, which constitutes the final decision of the BLM and makes the Approved Plan Amendments effective immediately.
The ROD/Approved Plan Amendments document is available now electronically on the following Web site:
Sherri Thompson, BLM Project Manager, at 303–239–3758, (
The decision in the ROD selects a modified version of Alternative 2(b), the proposed plan in the Final Oil Shale and Tar Sands Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), as the Approved Land Use Plan Amendments, which would amend 10 land use plans in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming to make approximately 679,000 acres of lands containing oil shale resources open for application for future leasing and development and approximately 132,000 acres open for application for future leasing and development of tar sands.
The Environmental Protection Agency published a Notice of Availability for the Final Programmatic EIS in the
The BLM has made minor modifications and editorial clarifications to the Approved Plan Amendments. These modifications provided further clarification of some of the decisions.
40 CFR 1506.6.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
Pursuant to the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended by the Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976, and to Bureau of Land Management (BLM) regulations, all interested qualified parties are hereby invited to participate with Ark Land Company on a pro rata cost sharing basis in its program for the exploration of coal deposits owned by the United States of America in Sevier County, Utah.
The notice of invitation to participate in this coal exploration license was published, once each week for 2 consecutive weeks in the
Copies of the exploration plan are available for review from 7:45 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays, (serialized under the number of UTU–89454) in the public room of the BLM Utah State Office, 440 West 200 South, Suite 500, Salt Lake City, UT 84101.
The written notice to participate in the exploration program should be sent to the following addresses: Bureau of Land Management, Utah State Office, Division of Lands and Minerals, Attn: Stan Perkes, 440 West 200 South, Suite 500, Salt Lake City, UT 84101 and Ark Land Company, c/o Sufco Mine, Attn: Mark Bunnell, 597 South SR 24, Salina, UT 84654.
Stan Perkes, Mining Engineer, at 801–539–4036 or by email:
The purpose of the exploration program is to gain additional geologic knowledge of the coal underlying the exploration area for the purpose of assessing the coal resources. The exploration program is fully described and is being conducted pursuant to an exploration license and plan approved by the BLM. The exploration plan may be modified to accommodate the legitimate exploration needs of persons seeking to participate. The area to be explored includes the following-described lands in Sevier County, Utah:
Containing 520.00 acres.
The Federal coal within the above-described lands is currently not leased
43 CFR 3410.2–1(c)(1).
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
All interested-qualified parties are hereby invited to participate with Wasatch Natural Resources on a pro rata cost sharing basis in its program for the exploration of coal deposits owned by the United States of America in Carbon County, Utah.
The notice of invitation to participate in this coal exploration license was published once each week for two consecutive weeks, in the
Copies of the exploration license and plan are available for review from 7:45 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays (serialized under the number of UTU–89492) in the public room of the BLM Utah State Office, 440 West 200 South, Suite 500, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101–1345.
The written notice to participate in the exploration program should be sent to Roger Bankert, Bureau of Land Management, Utah State Office, Division of Lands and Minerals, 440 West 200 South, Suite 500, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101–1345 and to Gregory Hunt, Wasatch Natural Resources, 299 South Main Street, Suite 1300, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111.
Stan Perkes by telephone 801–539–4036, or by email:
The exploration activities will be performed pursuant to the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, 30 U.S.C. 201(b), and to the regulations at 43 CFR Part 3410. The purpose of the exploration program is to gain additional geologic knowledge of the coal underlying the exploration area for the purpose of assessing the coal resources. The exploration program is fully described and is being conducted pursuant to an exploration license and plan approved by the BLM. The exploration plan may be modified to accommodate the legitimate exploration needs of persons seeking to participate. The area to be explored includes the following-described lands in Carbon County, Utah:
The Federal coal within the above-described lands is currently not leased for development of Federal coal resources.
43 CFR 3410.2–1(c)(1).
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of Competitive Coal Lease Sale.
Notice is hereby given that certain Federal coal reserves (Red Wash Tracts 1 and 2) in Moffat and Rio Blanco Counties, Colorado, will be offered for competitive lease by sealed bid in accordance with the provisions of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended.
The lease sale will be held at 10 a.m. on May 29, 2013. The sealed bid must be submitted on or before 9:30 a.m. on May 29, 2013.
The lease sale will be held in the Fourth Floor Conference Room of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado State Office, 2850 Youngfield Street, Lakewood, Colorado 80215. Sealed bids must be submitted to the Cashier, BLM Colorado State Office, at the address given above.
Kurt Barton, Land Law Examiner, at 303–239–3714, or
This coal lease sale is being held in response to a lease by application (LBA) filed by Blue Mountain Energy, Inc. The Federal coal reserves to be offered consist of all reserves recoverable by underground mining methods in the following described lands located in Moffat and Rio Blanco counties, Colorado:
Containing 3,154.76 acres more or less.
The tracts contain an estimated 21.3 million tons of recoverable coal reserves. The underground minable coal is ranked as C bituminous coal. The estimated coal quality on an as-received basis for the tracts is as follows:
The tracts will be leased to the qualified bidder of the highest cash amount provided that the high bid meets or exceeds the BLM's estimate of the fair market value of the tract. The minimum bid for the tracts is $100 per acre or fraction thereof. The minimum bid is not intended to represent fair market value. The fair market value will be determined by the authorized officer after the sale.
The sealed bids should be sent by certified mail, return-receipt requested, or be hand delivered to the Cashier, BLM Colorado State Office, at the address given above and clearly marked ”Sealed Bid for COC–74813 Coal Sale—Not to be opened before 10 a.m., 10 a.m., May 29, 2013.”
The cashier will issue a receipt for each hand-delivered bid. Bids received after 9:30 a.m. May 29, 2013 will not be considered. If identical high bids are received, the tying high bidders will be requested to submit follow-up sealed bids until a high bid is received. All tie-breaking, sealed-bids must be submitted within 15 minutes following the sale official's announcement at the sale that identical high bids have been received. Prior to lease issuance, the high bidder, if other than the applicant, must pay the BLM the cost recovery fees in the amount of $50,969.80 in addition to all processing costs the BLM incurs after the date of this sale notice (43 CFR 3473.2).
A lease issued as a result of this offering will provide for payment of an annual rental of $3 per acre, or fraction thereof, and a royalty payable to the United States in the amount of 8 percent of the value of coal mined by underground methods.
Bidding instructions for the LBA tracts offered and the terms and conditions of the proposed coal lease are included in the Detailed Statement of Lease Sale and available from the BLM Colorado State Office at the address above. Case file documents, COC–74813, are available for inspection at the BLM Colorado State Office Public Room.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is scheduled to file the plats of survey of the lands described below thirty (30) calendar days from the date of this publication in the BLM Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming.
Bureau of Land Management, 5353 Yellowstone Road, P.O. Box 1828, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82003.
These surveys were executed at the request of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and are necessary for the management of these lands. The lands surveyed are:
The plat and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of portions of the Sixth Standard Parallel North, through Range 8 East, the west and north boundaries, the subdivisional lines, and the subdivision of certain sections; and the survey of the subdivision of certain sections, of Township 25 North, Range 8 East, of the Sixth Principal Meridian, Nebraska, Group No. 175, was accepted March 26, 2013.
The plat and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of portions of the Sixth Standard Parallel North, through Range 7 East, the east boundary, the subdivisional lines, and the subdivision of section lines, and the survey of the subdivision of certain sections, Township 24 North, Range 7 East, of the Sixth Principal Meridian, Nebraska, Group No. 177, was accepted March 26, 2013.
Copies of the preceding described plat and field notes are available to the public at a cost of $1.10 per page.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The plats of survey of the following described lands are scheduled to be officially filed in the Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State Office, Portland, Oregon, 30 days from the date of this publication.
A copy of the plats may be obtained from the Public Room at the Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State Office, 333 SW. 1st Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204, upon required payment.
Kyle Hensley, (503) 808–6132, Branch of Geographic Sciences, Bureau of Land Management, 333 SW. 1st Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
A person or party who wishes to protest against this survey must file a written notice with the Oregon State Director, Bureau of Land Management, stating that they wish to protest. A statement of reasons for a protest may be filed with the notice of protest and must be filed with the Oregon State Director within thirty days after the protest is filed. If a protest against the survey is received prior to the date of official filing, the filing will be stayed pending consideration of the protest. A plat will not be officially filed until the day after all protests have been dismissed or otherwise resolved.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of Public Meetings.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Idaho Falls District Resource Advisory Council (RAC), will meet as indicated below.
The Idaho Falls District RAC will meet in Challis, Idaho, April 23–24, 2013 for a two-day meeting at the Challis Field Office, 1151 Blue Mountain Road, Challis, Idaho 83226. The first day will begin at 10:00 a.m. and adjourn at 5:00 p.m. The second day will begin at 8:30 a.m. and adjourn at 2:30 p.m. Members of the public are invited to attend. A comment period will be held following the introductions from 10:00–10:30 a.m. All meetings are open to the public.
The 15-member Council advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Land Management, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in the BLM Idaho Falls District (IFD), which covers eastern Idaho.
Items on the agenda include an overview and tour of the Thompson Creek Mine and proposed Broken Wing Ranch Land Exchange.
The Recreation RAC will convene at approximately 11:15 a.m. to discuss the Caribou-Targhee National Forest proposed new cabin rental fee for the Al Taylor Cabin in Dubois and the Salmon Challis National Forest will provide some informational material regarding potential changes to the river lottery system. Following the morning part of the meeting, a tour of the Broken Wing Ranch will be conducted. The second day RAC members will meet briefly at the office to discuss Thompson Creek Mine and then head to the mine for a tour.
All meetings are open to the public. The public may present written comments to the Council. Each formal Council meeting will also have time allocated for hearing public comments. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation, tour transportation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact the BLM as provided below.
Sarah Wheeler, RAC Coordinator, Idaho Falls District, 1405 Hollipark Dr., Idaho Falls, ID 83401. Telephone: (208) 524–7550. Email:
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior.
Notice of Public Meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Boise District Resource Advisory Council (RAC), will hold a meeting as indicated below.
The meeting will be held April 25, 2013, at the Boise District Office, located at 3948 S. Development Avenue, Boise, Idaho, beginning at 9:00 a.m. and adjourning at 2:00 p.m. Members of the public are invited to attend. A public comment period will be held.
Marsha Buchanan, Supervisory Administrative Specialist and RAC Coordinator, BLM Boise District, 3948 Development Ave., Boise, ID 83705, Telephone (208) 384–3364.
The 15-member Council advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in southwestern Idaho. A report on the wildland fires within Boise District and the region will be provided. An update on the Paradigm Project will be provided by Council members. Council members will discuss priority projects for the coming year. Agenda items and location may change due to changing circumstances. The public may present written or oral comments to members of the Council. At each full RAC meeting, time is provided in the agenda for hearing public comments. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance should contact the BLM Coordinator as provided above. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Northwest
The Northwest Colorado RAC has scheduled a meeting May 22, 2013, from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m., with a public comment period at 11 a.m. The agenda will be available before the meeting at
The meeting will be held at the White River Field Office, 220 E. Market St., Meeker, CO.
David Boyd, Public Affairs Specialist, Colorado River Valley Field Office, 2300 River Frontage Road, Silt, CO. (970) 876–9008. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
The Northwest Colorado RAC advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of public land issues in northwestern Colorado.
Topics of discussion during Northwest Colorado RAC meetings may include the BLM National Sage Grouse Conservation Strategy, working group reports, recreation, fire management, land-use planning, invasive species management, energy and minerals management, travel management, wilderness, wild horse herd management, land exchange proposals, cultural resource management and other issues as appropriate.
These meetings are open to the public. The public may present written comments to the RACs. Each formal RAC meeting will also have time, as identified above, allocated for hearing public comments. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited.
Subcommittees under this RAC meet regarding the McInnis Canyon National Conservation Area, Kremmling Resource Management Plan revision and the White River Field Office Resource Management Plan Oil and Gas Amendment. Subcommittees report to the Northwest Colorado RAC at each council meeting. Subcommittee meetings are open to the public. More information is available at
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice of Availability.
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C), the National Park Service announces the availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the General Management Plan, Lake Meredith National Recreation Area and Alibates Flint Quarries National Monument, Texas.
The National Park Service will accept comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement from the public for 60 days after the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes this Notice of Availability. Public meetings on the draft will be scheduled during the comment period. Interested parties are encouraged to check the park Web site and local media for information.
Information will be available for public review and comment online at
Arlene Wimer, Chief of Resources, Lake Meredith National Recreation Area, P.O. Box 1460, Fritch, TX 79036; or call 806–857–0309.
The document describes three management alternatives for Lake Meredith National Recreation Area and three management alternatives for Alibates Flit Quarries National Monument. Each NPS unit includes a no-action alternative and two action alternatives. The anticipated environmental impacts of all these alternatives are also analyzed.
Lake Meredith National Recreation Area:
Alibates Flint Quarries National Monument:
If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments by any one of several methods. You are encouraged to submit comments via the Internet at
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice that it has instituted reviews pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the Act) to determine whether revocation of the countervailing duty order on polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip (“PET film”) from India and the antidumping duty orders on PET film from India and Taiwan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of the Act, interested parties are requested to respond to this notice by submitting the information specified below to the Commission;
Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202–205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
(1)
(2) The
(3) The
(4) The
(5) An
Former Commission employees who are seeking to appear in Commission five-year reviews are advised that they may appear in a review even if they participated personally and substantially in the corresponding underlying original investigation. The Commission's designated agency ethics official has advised that a five-year review is not considered the “same particular matter” as the corresponding underlying original investigation for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 207, the post employment statute for Federal employees, and Commission rule 201.15(b) (19 CFR 201.15(b)), 73 FR 24609 (May 5, 2008). This advice was developed in consultation with the Office of Government Ethics. Consequently, former employees are not required to seek Commission approval to appear in a review under Commission
(1) The name and address of your firm or entity (including World Wide Web address) and name, telephone number, fax number, and Email address of the certifying official.
(2) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of the
(3) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is willing to participate in these reviews by providing information requested by the Commission.
(4) A statement of the likely effects of the revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on the
(5) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. producers of the
(6) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. importers of the
(7) A list of 3–5 leading purchasers in the U.S. market for the
(8) A list of known sources of information on national or regional prices for the
(9) If you are a U.S. producer of the
(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. production of the
(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to produce the
(c) the quantity and value of U.S. commercial shipments of the
(d) the quantity and value of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of the
(e) the value of (i) net sales, (ii) cost of goods sold (COGS), (iii) gross profit, (iv) selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and (v) operating income of the
(10) If you are a U.S. importer or a trade/business association of U.S. importers of the
(a) The quantity and value (landed, duty-paid but not including antidumping or countervailing duties) of U.S. imports and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. imports of
(b) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping and/or countervailing duties) of U.S. commercial shipments of
(c) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping and/or countervailing duties) of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of
(11) If you are a producer, an exporter, or a trade/business association of producers or exporters of the
(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total production of
(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm(s) to produce the
(c) the quantity and value of your firm's(s') exports to the United States of
(12) Identify significant changes, if any, in the supply and demand conditions or business cycle for the
(13) (OPTIONAL) A statement of whether you agree with the above definitions of the
These reviews are being conducted under authority of Title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.61 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice that it has instituted reviews pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the Act) to determine whether revocation of the countervailing duty order on light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from China and revocation of the antidumping duty orders on light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from China, Korea, Mexico, and Turkey would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of the Act, interested parties are requested to respond to this notice by submitting the information specified below to the Commission;
Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202–205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
(1)
(2) The
(3) The
(4) The
(5) The
(6) An
Former Commission employees who are seeking to appear in Commission five-year reviews are advised that they may appear in a review even if they participated personally and substantially in the corresponding underlying original investigation. The Commission's designated agency ethics official has advised that a five-year review is not considered the “same particular matter” as the corresponding underlying original investigation for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 207, the post employment statute for Federal employees, and Commission rule 201.15(b) (19 CFR 201.15(b)), 73 FR 24609 (May 5, 2008). This advice was developed in consultation with the Office of Government Ethics. Consequently, former employees are not required to seek Commission approval to appear in a review under Commission rule 19 CFR 201.15, even if the corresponding underlying original investigation was pending when they were Commission employees. For further ethics advice on this matter, contact Carol McCue Verratti, Deputy Agency Ethics Official, at 202–205–3088.
(1) The name and address of your firm or entity (including World Wide Web address) and name, telephone number, fax number, and Email address of the certifying official.
(2) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of the
(3) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is willing to participate in these reviews by providing information requested by the Commission.
(4) A statement of the likely effects of the revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on the
(5) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. producers of the
(6) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. importers of the
(7) A list of 3–5 leading purchasers in the U.S. market for the
(8) A list of known sources of information on national or regional prices for the
(9) If you are a U.S. producer of the
(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. production of the
(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to produce the
(c) the quantity and value of U.S. commercial shipments of the
(d) the quantity and value of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of the
(e) the value of (i) net sales, (ii) cost of goods sold (COGS), (iii) gross profit, (iv) selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and (v) operating income of the
(10) If you are a U.S. importer or a trade/business association of U.S. importers of the
(a) The quantity and value (landed, duty-paid but not including antidumping or countervailing duties) of U.S. imports and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. imports of
(b) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping and/or countervailing duties) of U.S. commercial shipments of
(c) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping and/or countervailing duties) of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of
(11) If you are a producer, an exporter, or a trade/business association of producers or exporters of the
(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total production of
(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm(s) to produce the
(c) the quantity and value of your firm's(s') exports to the United States of
(12) Identify significant changes, if any, in the supply and demand conditions or business cycle for the
(13) (OPTIONAL) A statement of whether you agree with the above definitions of the
These reviews are being conducted under authority of Title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.61 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
On March 26, 2013, the Department of Justice lodged two proposed consent decrees with the United States District Court for the Central District of California in the lawsuit entitled
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Goodrich consent decree and the KTI consent decree. Comments should specify which consent decree is being commented upon and should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the Goodrich consent decree and the KTI consent decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site:
Please enclose a check or money order for $51.75 for the Goodrich consent decree and $13.00 for the KTI consent decree (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
Notice is hereby given that, on March 8, 2013, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place of business of the standards development organization is IKECA, Philadelphia, PA. The nature and scope of IKECA's standards development activities are to develop national standards for cleaning, inspection, and maintenance of commercial kitchen exhaust systems.
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (“Act”), 19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor (Department) issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on February 9, 2011, applicable to workers and former workers of RG Steel Sparrows Point LLC, formerly known as Severstral Sparrows Point LLC, a subsidiary of RG Steel LLC, Sparrows Point, Maryland.
On June 22, 2012, July 18, 2012, July 30, 2012 and January 16, 2013, the Department issued amended certification applicable to the subject firm.
Workers at the subject firm were engaged in employment related to production of rolled steel. The worker group includes on-site leased workers from various firms.
The Department reviewed the certification for workers and former workers of the subject firm.
The Department has received information that workers leased from Recycling & Treatment Technologies of Baltimore, LLC were employed on-site at the Sparrows Point, Maryland location of RG Steel Sparrows Point LLC. The Department has determined that these workers from Recycling & Treatment Technologies of Baltimore, LLC were sufficiently under the control of the subject firm to be considered leased workers.
Based on these findings, the Department is amending this certification to include workers leased from Recycling & Treatment Technologies of Baltimore, LLC who worked on-site at the Sparrows Point, Maryland facility.
The amended notice applicable to TA–W–74,919 is hereby issued as follows:
All workers of RG Steel Sparrows Point LLC, formerly known as Severstal Sparrows Point LLC, a subsidiary of RG Steel LLC, including on-Site leased workers from Echelon Service Company, Sun Associated Industries, Inc., MPI Consultants LLC, Alliance Engineering, Inc., Washington Group International, Javan & Walter, Inc., Kinetic Technical Resources Co., Innovative Practical Approach, Inc., CPSI, Accounts International, Adecco, Aerotek, Booth Consulting, Crown Security, Eastern Automation, EDS (HP), TekSystems, URS Corporation, B More Industrial Services LLC, and Recycling & Treatment Technologies of Baltimore, LLC, Sparrows Point, Maryland, who became totally or partially separated from who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after November 22, 2009 through February 9, 2013, and all workers in the group threatened with total or partial separation from employment on February 9, 2011 through February 9, 2013, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (“Act”), 19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on February 18, 2011, applicable to workers of Eastman Kodak Company (GCG), Electrographic Print Solutions, including on-site leased workers from Adecco and Datrose, Spencerport, New York. The Department's Notice of determination was published in the
On its own motion, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers were engaged in activities related to the production of printers and printer consumables. Eastman Kodak has filed for bankruptcy and has ceased to produce printers and printer consumables.
The Department determines that workers at Eastman Kodak Company, IPS, including on-site leased workers from Adecco, Dayton, Ohio, were affected by the shift in production to a foreign country which contributed importantly to the worker separations at Eastman Kodak Company (GCG), Electrographic Print Solutions, Spencerport, New York.
The amended notice applicable to TA–W–74,813 is hereby issued as follows:
All workers of Eastman Kodak Company (GCG), Electrographic Print Solutions, including on-site leased workers from Adecco and Datrose, Spencerport, New York (TA–W–74,813) and Eastman Kodak Company, IPS, including on-site leased workers from Adecco, Dayton, Ohio (TA–W–74,813A), who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after October 29, 2009 through February 18, 2013, and all workers in the group threatened with total or partial separation from employment on date of certification through two years from the date of certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2273) the Department of Labor herein presents summaries of determinations regarding eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance for workers by (TA–W) number issued during the period of March 11, 2013 through March 15, 2013.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for workers of a primary firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(a) of the Act must be met.
I. Under Section 222(a)(2)(A), the following must be satisfied:
(1) a significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2) the sales or production, or both, of such firm have decreased absolutely; and
(3) one of the following must be satisfied:
(A) imports of articles or services like or directly competitive with articles produced or services supplied by such firm have increased;
(B) imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles into which one or more component parts produced by such firm are directly incorporated, have increased;
(C) imports of articles directly incorporating one or more component parts produced outside the United States that are like or directly competitive with imports of articles incorporating one or more component parts produced by such firm have increased;
(D) imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced directly using services supplied by such firm, have increased; and
(4) the increase in imports contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation and to the decline in the sales or production of such firm; or
II. Section 222(a)(2)(B) all of the following must be satisfied:
(1) a significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2) one of the following must be satisfied:
(A) there has been a shift by the workers' firm to a foreign country in the production of articles or supply of services like or directly competitive with those produced/supplied by the workers' firm;
(B) there has been an acquisition from a foreign country by the workers' firm of articles/services that are like or directly competitive with those produced/supplied by the workers' firm; and
(3) the shift/acquisition contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of separation.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for adversely affected workers in public agencies and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(b) of the Act must be met.
(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in the public agency have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2) the public agency has acquired from a foreign country services like or directly competitive with services which are supplied by such agency; and
(3) the acquisition of services contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for adversely affected secondary workers of a firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(c) of the Act must be met.
(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in the workers' firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2) the workers' firm is a Supplier or Downstream Producer to a firm that employed a group of workers who received a certification of eligibility under Section 222(a) of the Act, and such supply or production is related to the article or service that was the basis for such certification; and
(3) either—
(A) the workers' firm is a supplier and the component parts it supplied to the firm described in paragraph (2) accounted for at least 20 percent of the production or sales of the workers' firm; or
(B) a loss of business by the workers' firm with the firm described in paragraph (2) contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of separation.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for adversely affected workers in firms identified by the International Trade Commission and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(f) of the Act must be met.
(1) The workers' firm is publicly identified by name by the International Trade Commission as a member of a domestic industry in an investigation resulting in—
(A) an affirmative determination of serious injury or threat thereof under section 202(b)(1);
(B) an affirmative determination of market disruption or threat thereof under section 421(b)(1); or
(C) an affirmative final determination of material injury or threat thereof under section 705(b)(1)(A) or 735(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b)(1)(A) and 1673d(b)(1)(A));
(2) the petition is filed during the 1-year period beginning on the date on which—
(A) a summary of the report submitted to the President by the International Trade Commission under section 202(f)(1) with respect to the affirmative determination described in paragraph (1)(A) is published in the
(B) notice of an affirmative determination described in subparagraph (1) is published in the
(3) the workers have become totally or partially separated from the workers' firm within—
(A) the 1-year period described in paragraph (2); or
(B) notwithstanding section 223(b)(1), the 1-year period preceding the 1-year period described in paragraph (2).
The following certifications have been issued. The date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(B) (shift in production or services) of the Trade Act have been met.
In the following cases, the investigation revealed that the eligibility criteria for worker adjustment assistance have not been met for the reasons specified.
The investigation revealed that the criterion under paragraph (a)(1), or (b)(1), or (c)(1)(employment decline or threat of separation) of section 222 has not been met.
The investigation revealed that the criteria under paragraphs(a)(2)(A) (increased imports) and (a)(2)(B) (shift in production or services to a foreign country) of section 222 have not been met.
After notice of the petitions was published in the
The following determinations terminating investigations were issued because the petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn.
The following determinations terminating investigations were issued because the petitioning groups of workers are covered by active certifications. Consequently, further investigation in these cases would serve no purpose since the petitioning group of workers cannot be covered by more than one certification at a time.
I hereby certify that the aforementioned determinations were issued during the period of March 11, 2013 through March 15, 2013. These determinations are available on the Department's Web site
Petitions have been filed with the Secretary of Labor under Section 221 (a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (“the Act”) and are identified in the Appendix to this notice. Upon receipt of these petitions, the Director of the Office of Trade
The purpose of each of the investigations is to determine whether the workers are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Title II, Chapter 2, of the Act. The investigations will further relate, as appropriate, to the determination of the date on which total or partial separations began or threatened to begin and the subdivision of the firm involved.
The petitioners or any other persons showing a substantial interest in the subject matter of the investigations may request a public hearing, provided such request is filed in writing with the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than April 11, 2013.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments regarding the subject matter of the investigations to the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than April 11, 2013.
The petitions filed in this case are available for inspection at the Office of the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N–5428, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210.
Notice.
The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(A)]. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the NEA is soliciting information concerning arts-based, creative placemaking projects that have been sponsored by the National Endowment for the Arts Our Town and Mayors' Institute on City Design 25th Anniversary Initiative (MICD25) programs. A copy of the current information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the address section of this notice.
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the address section below on or before May 28, 2013. The NEA is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.
Sunil Iyengar, National Endowment for the Arts, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Room 616, Washington, DC 20506–0001, telephone
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463 as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:
In accordance with Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:
To help facilitate your entry into the building, contact the individual listed above. Your request to attend this meeting should be received by email (
• Directorate for Engineering Update
• Perspectives from the Office of the Director
• NSF Strategic Plan
• NSF CAREER Update
• Panel on Leveraging
• AdCom Member Topics
• Update on Advanced Manufacturing Activities
• Update on Engineering Education Activities
• Planning for Comprehensive Public Access to Research Results
• Roundtable on ENG Strategic Activities and Recommendations
• Closing Remarks, and Wrap Up
Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy, licensee), is the holder of Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR–51 issued by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) pursuant to part 50 of Title 10 of the
On November 2, 2005, Entergy notified the NRC of its intent to transition the facility to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 805 fire protection program in accordance with 10 CFR 50.48(c). Under this initiative, the NRC has exercised enforcement discretion for most fire protection noncompliances that are identified during the licensee's transition to NFPA 805, and for certain existing identified noncompliances that reasonably may be resolved at the completion of transition. NFPA 805 was adopted in 10 CFR 50.48(c) as an alternative fire protection rule, which is one path to resolving longstanding fire protection issues. To receive enforcement discretion for these noncompliances, the licensee must meet the specific criteria as stated in Section 9.1, “Enforcement Discretion for Certain Fire Protection Issues (10 CFR 50.48),” of the “NRC Enforcement Policy,” dated June 7, 2012, and submit an acceptable license amendment application by the date specified in the licensee's commitment letter. In a letter dated June 28, 2011, Entergy committed to submit its license amendment application by August 31, 2012.
In a letter dated August 23, 2012, as supplemented by letters dated November 15, December 13, and December 18, 2012 (collectively, “extension request”), Entergy described its progress for transitioning ANO–1 to NFPA 805. Entergy also notified the NRC that the development of a high-quality application will require more time than originally anticipated and that it will be unable to meet its previously committed submittal date of August 31, 2012.
In the extension request, Entergy reiterated its commitment to transition the facility to NFPA 805, and notified the NRC that Entergy will submit its license amendment request (LAR) no later than January 31, 2014. The newly proposed submittal date is beyond the previous committed submittal date and, thus, exceeds Entergy's enforcement discretion (i.e., until August 31, 2012) that was granted to Entergy for certain fire protection noncompliances. However, if provided with adequate justification, the NRC may revise the submittal date through the use of an Order that would continue the enforcement discretion provided in Section 9.1 of the Enforcement Policy.
Based on the licensee maintaining acceptable compensatory measures and the NRC's review of the licensee's transition status, planned key activities to complete its NFPA 805 LAR, and planned fire risk reduction modifications, the NRC staff concluded that the licensee provided adequate justification for revising the LAR submittal date. The NRC documented its conclusions in its safety evaluation dated January 24, 2013 (ML13009A292). Therefore, the NRC has determined that the date for submitting an acceptable NFPA 805 LAR should be extended. This Order is being issued to revise the original ANO–1 LAR submittal date of August 31, 2012, until January 31, 2014. The new submittal date supports Entergy's continued progress in activities related to the transition to NFPA 805 as described in the letter dated August 23, 2012.
Entergy may, at any time, cease its transition to NFPA 805 and comply with ANO–1's existing licensing basis and the regulations set forth in 10 CFR 50.48. As indicated in the Enforcement Policy, if Entergy decides not to complete the transition to 10 CFR 50.48(c), it must submit a letter stating its intent to retain its existing licensing basis and withdrawing its letter of intent to comply with 10 CFR 50.48(c). If Entergy fails to meet the new LAR submittal date and fails to comply with its existing licensing basis, the NRC will take appropriate enforcement action consistent with the NRC's Enforcement Policy.
On March 12, 2013, Entergy consented to issuing this Order, as described in Section V below. Entergy further agreed that this Order will be effective upon issuance and that it has waived its rights to a hearing.
Based on the licensee maintaining acceptable compensatory measures, and a review of the licensee's status and planned key activities, including the intended NFPA 805 modifications, the NRC has determined that the licensee has provided adequate justification for its commitment given in Section V, and, thus, for the extension of enforcement discretion. Because the licensee will continue to perform facility modifications, with associated procedure updates, to reduce current fire risk in parallel with the development of its NFPA 805 LAR, the staff finds this acceptable to ensure public health and safety. Based on the above and Entergy's consent, this Order is effective upon issuance.
Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 103, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182, and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202, “Orders,”
A. Entergy will submit an acceptable license amendment request for Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1 to adopt NFPA Standard 805 by no later than January 31, 2014.
B. Entergy will continue to receive enforcement discretion until January 31, 2014. If the NRC finds that the LAR is not acceptable, the NRC will take steps consistent with the Enforcement Policy.
The Director of the Office of Enforcement, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, may, in writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions upon demonstration by the licensee of good cause.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, the licensee, under oath or affirmation, must submit a written answer to this Order within 30 days from the date of this Order. Additionally, any person adversely affected by this Order may submit a written answer and/or request a hearing on this Order within 30 days from the date of this Order. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to answer or request a hearing. A request for extension of time must be directed to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001, and include a statement of good cause for the extension.
If a hearing is requested by a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearings. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained.
All documents filed in the NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for a hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public Web site at
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System, users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form, including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on the NRC's public Web site at
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with the NRC guidance available on the NRC's public Web site at
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contracting the NRC Meta System Help Desk thorough the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public Web site at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an extension request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First-class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party using E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket, which is available to the public at
If a person other than the licensee requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.309(d) and (f).
In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions specified in Section V above shall be final 30 days from the date of this Order without further order or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has been approved, the provisions specified in Section V shall be final when the extension expires if a hearing request has not been received.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Exemption.
Steven Lynch, Project Manager, Research and Test Reactor Licensing Branch, Division of Policy and Rulemaking, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001. Telephone: 301–415–1524; email:
SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. (SHINE) intends to submit an application to construct a medical isotope production facility pursuant to the requirements in part 50 of Title 10 of the
By letter dated July 10, 2012 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML12214A434), SHINE requested an interpretation of 10 CFR
NRC staff responded to SHINE's request in a letter dated December 7, 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12319A192). In this letter, staff concluded:
With respect to SHINE's questions regarding 10 CFR 2.101(a)(5), in order for an applicant for a construction permit under part 50 of 10 CFR to submit an application in two parts under 10 CFR 2.101(a)(5), the proposed facility must be subject to 10 CFR 51.20(b) * * * SHINE's proposed action for licensing a medical isotope production facility is not an action identified in 51.20(b); therefore, 10 CFR 2.101(a)(5) is not applicable to SHINE's licensing proposal. However, SHINE could apply for an exemption under 10 CFR 50.12 in order to submit its application for a construction permit in two parts as described in 10 CFR 2.101(a)(5).
Staff went on to say that should an exemption to 10 CFR 2.101(a)(5) be sought, the request must set forth existing special circumstances warranting the exemption, as well as provide the proposed contents of each part of the construction permit application.
Section 2.101(a)(5) of 10 CFR states:
An applicant for a construction permit under part 50 of this chapter * * * for a production or utilization facility which is subject to § 51.20(b) of this chapter, and is of the type specified in § 50.21(b)(2) or (b)(3) or § 50.22 of this chapter * * * may submit the information required of applicants by part 50 * * * of this chapter in two parts.
SHINE's application requested an exemption from the stipulation of 10 CFR 2.101(a)(5) that applications for a construction permit under 10 CFR part 50 must be of the type requiring an environmental impact statement or a supplement to an environmental impact statement as described in 10 CFR 51.20(b). The exemption would allow SHINE to submit a portion of its construction permit up to six months prior to the submittal of the remainder of the application regardless of whether or not an environmental impact statement or a supplement to an environmental impact statement is prepared for its construction permit application. Specifically, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.101(a)(5), SHINE proposes to submit the following in part one of its construction permit application:
• The environmental report required by 10 CFR 50.30(f),
• The description and safety assessment of the site required by 10 CFR 50.34(a)(1),
• The filing fee required by 10 CFR 50.30(e) and 10 CFR 170.21,
• The general information required by 10 CFR 50.33, and
• The agreement limiting access to Classified Information required by 10 CFR 50.37.
Part two of SHINE's construction permit application will contain the remainder of the preliminary safety analysis report required by 10 CFR 50.34(a).
To docket SHINE's construction permit application in two parts under 10 CFR 2.101(a)(5), as proposed, an exemption to the regulations is required. Given the dependency of docketing of an application under 10 CFR 2.101(a) to an applicant meeting the requirements of 10 CFR 50.30, it is appropriate to use the requirements of 10 CFR 50.12 to evaluate this exemption request.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the Commission may, upon application by any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR part 50 when (1) the exemptions are authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to public health or safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security; and (2) when special circumstances are present. While the action requested is not for an exemption to a 10 CFR part 50 regulation, given the dependency of docketing a construction permit application in accordance with 10 CFR 2.101(a) in order to satisfy other requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, it is appropriate to evaluate this exemption using the criteria of 10 CFR 50.12.
This exemption would allow SHINE to submit its application for a 10 CFR part 50 construction permit application in two parts as provided for in 10 CFR 2.101(a)(5). The NRC staff has determined that granting of the proposed exemption will not result in a violation of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the Commission's regulations. Therefore, the exemption is authorized by law.
The underlying purpose of 10 CFR 2.101(a)(5) is to provide a mechanism to facilitate the construction permit application process by allowing applicants to submit their applications for a construction permit in two parts. The provisions for two-part construction permit application submittals were added as an amendment to the regulations of 10 CFR part 2 on April 24, 1974, in the
The current provisions of 10 CFR 2.101(a)(5) state that one part of the submittal must include the environmental report required by 10 CFR 50.30(f), while the other part must include the preliminary safety analysis report required by 10 CFR 50.34(a). Whichever part is submitted first must also contain the following as part of the submittal:
• The filing fee required by 10 CFR 50.30(e) and 10 CFR 170.21,
• The general information required by 10 CFR 50.33,
• The description and safety assessment of the site required by 10 CFR 50.34(a)(1); and
• The agreement limiting access to Classified Information required by 10 CFR 50.37.
For the case where the preliminary safety analysis report required by 10
While the current language of the rule limits its applicability to applications meeting the criteria of licensing and regulatory actions requiring environmental impact statements as described in the provisions of 10 CFR 51.20(b), over time the language of the rule has been expanded to include types of applications not originally considered at the time of the initial rulemaking. For example, in 2007 the language of the rule was modified to include applicants seeking combined licenses under 10 CFR Part 52. The Commission determined that “[t]here are no considerations unique to combined licenses which would weigh against allowing a combined license applicant to submit a two part application under paragraph (a)(5) of § 2.101” (72 FR 49412). Similarly, given the procedural nature of this rule, there are no unique considerations for medical isotope production facilities, which would weigh against allowing a license applicant such as SHINE to submit a two-part application under 10 CFR 2.101(a)(5).
Based on the procedural nature of this request, as described above, no new accident precursors are created by allowing an applicant to submit a construction permit application in two parts; thus, the probability of postulated accidents is not increased. Also, based on the above, the consequences of postulated accidents are not increased. Therefore, there is no undue risk
As discussed above, the proposed exemption would allow SHINE to submit its application for a 10 CFR part 50 construction permit application in two parts as provided for in 10 CFR 2.101(a)(5). The timing of submitting a construction permit application has no relation to security issues. Therefore, the common defense and security is not impacted by this exemption.
Special circumstances, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.12, are present whenever application of the regulation in the particular circumstances would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule.
Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the exemption is authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and is consistent with the common defense and security. Also, special circumstances are present. Therefore, the Commission hereby grants SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. an exemption from the requirement of 10 CFR 2.101(a)(5) limiting the regulation's applicability to licensing and regulatory actions requiring environmental impact statements as described in the provisions of 10 CFR 51.20(b). The granting of this exemption allows SHINE to submit the construction permit application for its medical isotope production facility in two parts in accordance with the remainder of the provisions of 10 CFR 2.101(a)(5).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the Commission has determined that the granting of this exemption will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment as it is procedural in nature. Furthermore, the Commission has determined that this exemption request meets the criteria in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25) for a licensing action that is categorically excluded from an environmental assessment because the granting of this exemption: (1) Neither involves a significant reduction in the margin of safety nor creates a possibility of an accident, thus resulting in no significant hazards consideration; (2) would not result in the release of effluents, thus resulting in no significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite; (3) neither introduces new radiological hazards nor increases existing radiological hazards, thus resulting in no significant increase in individual or cumulative public or occupational radiation exposure; (4) would not involve construction, thus resulting in no significant construction impact; (5) would occur prior to any radiological components being in place at the facility and would not create any new accident precursors, thus resulting in no significant increase in the potential for or consequences from radiological accidents; and (6) would allow the submission of a construction permit application in two parts, which is related to a scheduling requirement and is administrative in nature in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(G) and (I), respectively. This exemption is effective upon issuance.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of public meeting and availability of report.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) will conduct a meeting to discuss and accept public comments on the Kewaunee Power Station (KPS) Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report (PSDAR), Revision 0, on Wednesday, April 24, 2013, at 7:00 p.m., DST, in a meeting room at the Kewaunee City Council Chambers, City of Kewaunee offices, 401 Fifth Street, Kewaunee, WI 54216.
Dr. Karl Feintuch, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301- 415–3079 or email:
Also pursuant to section 50.82(a)(4)(ii) of Title 10 of the
Kewaunee Power Station began commercial operation in June 1974. On February 25, 2013, Dominion Energy Kewaunee, LLC (DEK, the licensee) provided to the NRC its “certification of permanent cessation of operations” (Cert1) consistent with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50.4(b)(8) and as described in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1)(i). Cert1 submitted by DEK stated that the date on which operations will cease at KPS is May 7, 2013. Thereafter, all fuel will be permanently removed from the reactor vessel and placed in the spent fuel pool.
Upon completion of the permanent removal of fuel from the reactor vessel, DEK will have met the requirements to submit written certification of permanent fuel removal (Cert2) consistent with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.4(b)(9) and as described in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1)(ii).
Cert1 may be viewed in the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML13058A065. In a prior communication on November 2, 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12312A018), DEK had notified the NRC of its intention to permanently cease power operations at KPS pending completion of a grid stability review by the Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
Upon docketing of Cert1 and Cert2, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2), the 10 CFR Part 50 renewed facility operating license for KPS will no longer authorize operation of the reactor or emplacement or retention of fuel in the reactor vessel. Also, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.51, “Continuation of license,” Subpart (b), the facility license remains in effect until the NRC notifies the licensee that the license has been terminated.
The PSDAR, Revision 0, is available for public viewing at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) or electronically through NRC ADAMS at Accession No. ML13063A248. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the PDR, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852.
Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the ADAMS Public Library component on the NRC Web site,
For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of availability.
Mr. Alan Bjornsen, Project Manager, Environmental Review Branch, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Telephone: 301–415–1195, fax number: 301–415–5369; email:
On February 12, 2013, the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Bureau of Land Management, United States Department of the Interior (BLM) entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) concerning the development of uranium or thorium resources on BLM administered public lands, including Federal mineral estates. The MOU sets forth the cooperative working relationship between the NRC and the BLM, primarily for the purpose of enhancing each agency's compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). In particular, the MOU improves interagency communications, facilitates sharing of special expertise and information, and coordinates the preparation of studies, reports and environmental analyses. The MOU supersedes the original memorandum of understanding entered into between the NRC and the BLM on November 30, 2009.
The MOU provides a framework for this cooperative relationship and identifies the responsibilities of each agency. The intent of the MOU is to improve interagency communications, facilitate the sharing of special expertise and information, and coordinate the preparation of studies, reports and environmental analyses pertaining to NRC licensing actions that involve BLM administered public lands. The MOU includes provisions that cover compliance with NEPA and Section 106 of the NHPA. The agencies will implement the MOU through periodic coordination meetings between the NRC and BLM management and staff, establishing points of contact at each agency, identifying information gaps that can be filled by each agency, and ensuring that specific environmental and historic preservation issues of interest to each agency are addressed in environmental reviews. To the fullest extent possible, NRC and BLM will participate either as lead agency, co-lead or cooperating agency on the preparation of site-specific environmental review documents.
•
•
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Standard review plan-draft section revision; extension of comment period.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is extending the comment period of a notice that was published in the
The comment period has been extended and expires on May 1, 2013. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so. The NRC is only able to assure consideration of comments received on or before this date.
You may access information and comment submissions related to this document, which the NRC possesses and is publicly available, by searching on
•
•
•
For additional direction on accessing information and submitting comments, see “Accessing Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Amy E. Cubbage, Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415–2875, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2013–0041 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may access information related to this document, which the NRC possesses and are publicly available, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC–2013–0041 in the subject line of your comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in you comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
Notice of intent to request extension of OMB approval of information collection.
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (“PBGC”) intends to request the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) to extend approval, under the Paperwork Reduction Act, of a collection of information under its regulation on Rules for Administrative Review of Agency Decisions. This notice informs the public of PBGC's intent and solicits public comment on the collection of information.
Comments should be submitted by May 31, 2013.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
PBGC will make all comments available on its Web site,
Copies of the collection of information may also be obtained without charge by writing to the Disclosure Division of the Office of the General Counsel of PBGC at the above address or by visiting the Disclosure Division or calling 202–326–4040 during normal business hours. (TTY and TDD users may call the Federal relay service toll-free at 1–800–877–8339 and ask to be connected to 202–326–4040.) PBGC's regulation on Administrative Appeals may be accessed on PBGC's Web site at
Catherine B. Klion, Assistant General Counsel, or Donald McCabe, Attorney, Regulatory Affairs Group, Office of the General Counsel, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20005–4026, 202–326–4024. (For TTY and TDD, call 800–877–8339 and request connection to 202–326–4024.)
PBGC's regulation on Rules for Administrative Review of Agency Decisions (29 CFR part 4003) prescribes rules governing the issuance of initial determinations by PBGC and the procedures for requesting and obtaining administrative review of initial determinations through reconsideration or appeal. Subpart A of the regulation specifies which initial determinations are subject to reconsideration. Subpart C prescribes rules on who may request reconsideration, when to make such a request, where to submit it, form and content of reconsideration requests, and other matters relating to reconsiderations.
Any person aggrieved by an initial determination of PBGC under § 4003.1(b)(1) (determinations that a plan is covered by section 4021 of ERISA), § 4003.1(b)(2) (determinations concerning premiums, interest, and late payment penalties under section 4007 of ERISA), § 4003.1(b)(3) (determinations concerning voluntary terminations), § 4003.1(b)(4) (determinations concerning allocation of assets under section 4044 of ERISA), or § 4003.1(b)(5) (determinations with respect to penalties under section 4071 of ERISA) may request reconsideration of the initial determination. Requests for reconsideration must be in writing, be clearly designated as requests for reconsideration, contain a statement of the grounds for reconsideration and the relief sought, and contain or reference all pertinent information.
OMB has approved the reconsiderations collection of information under control number 1212–0063 through July 31, 2013. PBGC intends to request that OMB extend approval of this collection of information for three years. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
PBGC estimates that an average of about 700 appellants per year will respond to this collection of information. PBGC further estimates that the average annual burden of this collection of information is about one-half hour and about $500 per person, with an average total annual burden of about 240 hours and about $380,000.
PBGC is soliciting public comments to—
• Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice of an application for an order under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Act”) for an exemption from sections 2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), 22(d) and 22(e) of the Act and rule 22c–1 under the Act, and under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act for an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and (2) of the Act, and under section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act for an exemption from sections 12(d)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act.
Neuberger Berman ETF Trust (the “Trust”) and Neuberger Berman Management LLC (“NBM” or
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving Applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on April 19, 2013, and should be accompanied by proof of service on Applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090. Applicants: 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158.
Jean E. Minarick, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551–6811 or Daniele Marchesani, Branch Chief, at (202) 551–6821 (Division of Investment Management, Exemptive Applications Office).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or an Applicant using the Company name box, at
1. The Trust will be registered as an open-end management investment company under the Act and is organized as a Delaware statutory trust. The Trust will initially offer one series, the Neuberger Berman Real Return Active ETF (the “Initial Fund”). The investment objective of the Initial Fund will be to provide risk-adjusted returns through investments in U.S. and foreign equity and fixed income markets. NBM, a Delaware limited liability company, will serve as the investment adviser to the Initial Fund. Each Adviser (as defined below) is or will be registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”).
2. Applicants request that the order apply to the Initial Fund and any future series of the Trust or of any other open-end management investment company that is an actively managed exchange-traded fund (“ETF”) and (a) advised by NBM or an entity controlling, controlled by, or under common control with NBM (an “NBM Affiliate,” and each of NBM and such NBM Affiliates that serve as an investment adviser to a Fund, an “Adviser”) and (b) complies with the terms and conditions of the application (collectively, “Future Funds,” and together with the Initial Fund, the “Funds”).
3. Each Fund will consist of a portfolio of securities (including equity securities and/or fixed income securities), currencies, shares of other ETFs and shares of money market mutual funds or other investment companies that invest primarily in short-term fixed income securities, and other assets traded in the U.S. or non-U.S. markets.
4. Applicants anticipate that a Creation Unit will consist of at least 50,000 Shares and that the price of a Share will range from $10 and $100. All orders to purchase Creation Units must be placed with the Distributor by or through a party that has entered into a participant agreement with the Trust, the Distributor and the transfer agent of the Trust (“Authorized Participant”) with respect to the creation and redemption of Creation Units. An Authorized Participant is either: (a) A broker or dealer registered under the Exchange Act (“Broker”) or other participant in the Continuous Net Settlement System of the National Securities Clearing Corporation, a clearing agency registered with the Commission and affiliated with the Depository Trust Company (“DTC”) or (b) a participant in DTC (such participant, “DTC Participant”). The Shares will be purchased and redeemed in Creation Units and generally on an in-kind basis. Except where the purchase or redemption will include cash under the limited circumstances specified below, purchasers will be required to purchase Creation Units by making an in-kind deposit of specified instruments (“Deposit Instruments”), and shareholders redeeming their Shares will receive an in-kind transfer of specified instruments (“Redemption
5. Purchases and redemptions of Creation Units may be made in whole or in part on a cash basis, rather than in kind solely under the following circumstances: (a) To the extent there is a Balancing Amount, as described above; (b) if, on a given Business Day, a Fund announces before the open of trading that all purchases, all redemptions or all purchases and redemptions on that day will be made entirely in cash; (c) if, upon receiving a purchase or redemption order from an Authorized Participant, a Fund determines to require the purchase or redemption, as applicable, to be made entirely in cash;
6. Each Business Day, before the open of trading on a national securities exchange, as defined in section 2(a)(26) of the Act (“Exchange”), on which Shares are listed, each Fund will cause to be published through the NSCC the names and quantities of the instruments comprising the Creation Basket, as well as the estimated Balancing Amount (if any), for that day. The published Creation Basket will apply until a new Creation Basket is announced on the following Business Day, and there will be no intra-day changes to the Creation Basket except to correct errors in the published Creation Basket. An Exchange will disseminate every 15 seconds throughout the trading day through the facilities of the Consolidated Tape Association an amount representing, on a per Share basis, the sum of the current value of the Portfolio Instruments that were publicly disclosed prior to the commencement of trading in Shares on the Exchange that day.
7. An investor purchasing or redeeming a Creation Unit from a Fund will be charged a fee (“Transaction Fee”) to protect existing shareholders of the Fund from the dilutive costs associated with the purchase and redemption of Creation Units.
8. Shares will be listed and traded at negotiated prices on an Exchange and traded in the secondary market. Applicants expect that Exchange specialists (“Specialists”) or market makers (“Market Makers”) will be assigned to Shares. The price of Shares trading on the Exchange will be based on a current bid/offer market. Transactions involving the purchases and sales of Shares on the secondary market will be subject to customary brokerage commissions and charges.
9. Applicants expect that purchasers of Creation Units will include institutional investors and arbitrageurs. Specialists, or Market Makers, acting in their role to provide a fair and orderly secondary market for Shares, also may purchase Creation Units for use in their own market making activities.
10. Neither the Trust nor any Fund will be marketed or otherwise held out as a “mutual fund.” Instead, each Fund will be marketed as an “actively-managed exchange-traded fund.” Any advertising material where features of obtaining, buying or selling Creation Units or Shares traded on the Exchange are described or refer to redeemability, will prominently disclose that Shares are not individually redeemable and will disclose that the owners of Shares may acquire those Shares from a Fund or tender those Shares for redemption to a Fund in Creation Units only.
11. The Funds' Web site, which will be publicly available prior to the public offering of Shares, will include the Prospectus and additional quantitative information updated on a daily basis, including, on a per Share basis for each Fund, the prior Business Day's NAV and the market closing price or mid-point of the bid/ask spread at the time of calculation of such NAV (“Bid/Ask Price”), and a calculation of the premium and discount of the market closing price or the Bid/Ask Price against such NAV. On each Business Day, before commencement of trading in Shares on the Exchange, the Fund will disclose on its Web site the identities and quantities of the Portfolio Instruments held by the Fund that will form the basis for the Fund's calculation of NAV at the end of the Business Day.
1. Applicants request an order under section 6(c) of the Act granting an exemption from sections 2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), 22(d) and 22(e) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act, under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act for an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and (a)(2) of the Act, and under section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act for an exemption from sections 12(d)(1)(A) and 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act.
2. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security or transaction, or any class of persons, securities or transactions, from any provisions of the Act, if and to the extent that such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to exempt a proposed transaction from section 17(a) of the Act if evidence establishes that the terms of the transaction, including the consideration to be paid or received, are reasonable and fair and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned, and the proposed transaction is consistent with the policies of the registered investment company and the general provisions of the Act. Section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or transaction, or any class or classes of persons, securities or transactions, from any provision of section 12(d)(1) if the exemption is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors.
3. Section 5(a)(1) of the Act defines an “open-end company” as a management investment company that is offering for sale or has outstanding any redeemable security of which it is the issuer. Section 2(a)(32) of the Act defines a redeemable security as any security, other than short-term paper, under the terms of which the holder, upon its presentation to the issuer, is entitled to receive approximately a proportionate share of the issuer's current net assets, or the cash equivalent. Because Shares will not be individually redeemable, applicants request an order that would permit the Trust (and any Fund, if applicable) to register as an open-end management investment company and redeem Shares in Creation Units only. Applicants state that investors may purchase Shares in Creation Units from each Fund and redeem Creation Units from each Fund. Applicants further state that because the market price of Creation Units will be disciplined by arbitrage opportunities, investors should be able to sell Shares in the secondary market at prices that do not vary materially from their NAV.
4. Section 22(d) of the Act, among other things, prohibits a dealer from selling a redeemable security, that is currently being offered to the public by or through a principal underwriter, except at a current public offering price described in the prospectus. Rule 22c–1 under the Act generally requires that a dealer selling, redeeming, or repurchasing a redeemable security do so only at a price based on its NAV. Applicants state that secondary market trading in Shares will take place at negotiated prices, not at a current offering price described in the Prospectus, and not at a price based on NAV. Thus, purchases and sales of Shares in the secondary market will not comply with section 22(d) of the Act and rule 22c–1 under the Act. Applicants request an exemption under section 6(c) from these provisions.
5. Applicants assert that the concerns sought to be addressed by section 22(d) of the Act and rule 22c–1 under the Act with respect to pricing are equally satisfied by the proposed method of pricing Shares. Applicants maintain that while there is little legislative history regarding section 22(d), its provisions, as well as those of rule 22c–1, appear to have been designed to (a) prevent dilution caused by certain riskless-trading schemes by principal underwriters and contract dealers, (b) prevent unjust discrimination or preferential treatment among buyers resulting from sales at different prices, and (c) assure an orderly distribution of investment company shares by eliminating price competition from Brokers offering shares at less than the published sales price and repurchasing shares at more than the published redemption price.
6. Applicants believe that none of these purposes will be thwarted by permitting Shares to trade in the secondary market at negotiated prices. Applicants state that (a) secondary market trading in Shares does not involve the Funds as parties and cannot result in dilution of an investment in Shares, and (b) to the extent different prices exist during a given trading day, or from day to day, such variances occur as a result of third-party market forces, such as supply and demand. Therefore, applicants assert that secondary market transactions in Shares will not lead to discrimination or preferential treatment among purchasers. Finally, applicants contend that the proposed distribution system will be orderly because arbitrage activity should ensure that the
7. Section 22(e) of the Act generally prohibits a registered investment company from suspending the right of redemption or postponing the date of payment of redemption proceeds for more than seven days after the tender of a security for redemption. Applicants observe that settlement of redemptions of the International Funds will be contingent not only on the settlement cycle of the U.S. securities markets but also on the delivery cycles present in foreign markets where the International Funds invest. Applicants have been advised that, under certain circumstances, the delivery cycles for transferring Redemption Instruments to redeeming investors, coupled with local market holiday schedules, will require a delivery process longer than 7 calendar days for International Funds. Applicants therefore request relief from section 22(e) to provide payment or satisfaction of redemptions within the maximum number of calendar days required for such payment or satisfaction in the principal local markets where transactions in the Portfolio Instruments of each International Fund customarily clear and settle, up to a maximum of 14 calendar days.
8. Applicants submit that Congress adopted section 22(e) to prevent unreasonable, undisclosed or unforeseen delays in the actual payment of redemption proceeds. Applicants state that allowing redemption payments for Creation Units of a Fund to be made within a maximum of 14 calendar days would not be inconsistent with the spirit and intent of section 22(e). Applicants are not seeking relief from section 22(e) with respect to International Funds that do not effect creations and redemptions of Creation Units in-kind.
1. Section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act prohibits a registered investment company from acquiring shares of an investment company if the securities represent more than 3% of the total outstanding voting stock of the acquired company, more than 5% of the total assets of the acquiring company, or, together with the securities of any other investment companies, more than 10% of the total assets of the acquiring company. Section 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act prohibits a registered open-end investment company, its principal underwriter, or any other broker or dealer from selling its shares to another investment company if the sale will cause the acquiring company to own more than 3% of the acquired company's voting stock, or if the sale will cause more than 10% of the acquired company's voting stock to be owned by investment companies generally.
2. Applicants request relief to permit Investing Funds (as defined below) to acquire Shares in excess of the limits in section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act and to permit the Funds, their principal underwriters and any Brokers to sell Shares to Investing Funds in excess of the limits in section 12(d)(l)(B) of the Act (“Investing Fund Relief”). Applicants request that these exemptions apply to each management investment company or unit investment trust registered under the Act that is not part of the same “group of investment companies” as the Funds within the meaning of section 12(d)(1)(G)(ii) of the Act and that enters into a Participation Agreement (as defined below) with a Fund (such management investment companies are referred to herein as “Investing Management Companies,” such unit investment trusts are referred to herein as “Investing Trusts,” and Investing Management Companies and Investing Trusts together are referred to herein as “Investing Funds”). Investing Funds do not include the Funds. Each Investing Trust will have a sponsor (“Sponsor”) and each Investing Management Company will have an investment adviser within the meaning of section 2(a)(20)(A) of the Act (“Investing Fund Adviser”) that does not control, is not controlled by or under common control with the Adviser. Each Investing Management Company may also have one or more investment advisers within the meaning of section 2(a)(20)(B) of the Act (each, an “Investing Fund Subadviser”).
3. Applicants submit that the proposed conditions to the requested relief are designed to address the concerns underlying the limits in section 12(d)(1), which include concerns about undue influence, excessive layering of fees and overly complex structures.
4. Applicants propose a condition to prohibit an Investing Fund or Investing Fund Affiliate from causing an investment by an Investing Fund in a Fund to influence the terms of services or transactions between an Investing Fund an Investing Fund Affiliate and the Fund or Fund Affiliate.
5. Applicants propose other conditions to limit the potential for an Investing Fund and certain affiliates of an Investing Fund (including Underwriting Affiliates) to exercise undue influence over a Fund and
6. Applicants propose several conditions to address the concerns regarding layering of fees and expenses. Applicants note that the board of directors or trustees of any Investing Management Company, including a majority of the directors or trustees who are not “interested persons” within the meaning of section 2(a)(19) of the Act (“disinterested directors or trustees”), will be required to find that the advisory fees charged under the contract are based on services provided that will be in addition to, rather than duplicative of, services provided under the advisory contract of any Fund in which the Investing Management Company may invest. In addition, an Investing Fund Adviser, trustee of an Investing Trust (“Trustee”) or Sponsor, as applicable, will waive fees otherwise payable to it by the Investing Fund in an amount at least equal to any compensation (including fees received pursuant to any plan adopted by a Fund under rule 12b–1 under the Act) received from a Fund by the Investing Fund Adviser, Trustee or Sponsor or an affiliated person of the Investing Fund Adviser, Trustee or Sponsor, other than any advisory fees paid to the Investing Fund Adviser, Trustee or Sponsor or its affiliated person by a Fund, in connection with the investment by the Investing Fund in the Fund. Applicants also propose a condition to prevent any sales charges or service fees charged with respect to shares of an Investing Fund from exceeding the limits applicable to a fund of funds set forth in NASD Conduct Rule 2830.
7. Applicants submit that the proposed arrangement will not create an overly complex fund structure. Applicants note that a Fund will be prohibited from acquiring securities of any investment company or company relying on sections 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the Act in excess of the limits contained in section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act, except to the extent permitted by exemptive relief from the Commission permitting the Fund to purchase shares of other investment companies for short-term cash management purposes.
8. To ensure that the Investing Funds understand and comply with the terms and conditions of the requested order, any Investing Fund that intends to invest in a Fund in reliance on the requested order will be required to enter into a participation agreement (“Participation Agreement”) with the Fund. The Participation Agreement will include an acknowledgment from the Investing Fund that it may rely on the order only to invest in the Funds and not in any other investment company.
9. Section 17(a) of the Act generally prohibits an affiliated person of a registered investment company, or an affiliated person of such person (“second-tier affiliate”), from selling any security to or purchasing any security from the company. Section 2(a)(3) of the Act defines “affiliated person” to include any person directly or indirectly owning, controlling, or holding with power to vote 5% or more of the outstanding voting securities of the other person and any person directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common control with, the other person. Section 2(a)(9) of the Act defines “control” as the power to exercise a controlling influence over the management or policies of a company and provides that a control relationship will be presumed where one person owns more than 25% of another person's voting securities. Each Fund may be deemed to be controlled by an Adviser and hence affiliated persons of each other. In addition, the Funds may be deemed to be under common control with any other registered investment company (or series thereof) advised by an Adviser (an “Affiliated Fund”).
10. Applicants request an exemption under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Act to permit in-kind purchases and redemptions of Creation Units from the Funds by persons that are affiliated persons or second tier affiliates of the Funds solely by virtue of one or more of the following: (a) Holding 5% or more, or in excess of 25% of the outstanding Shares of one or more Funds; (b) having an affiliation with a person with an ownership interest described in (a); or (c) holding 5% or more, or more than 25% of the Shares of one or more Affiliated Funds.
11. Applicants assert that no useful purpose would be served by prohibiting such affiliated persons from making in-kind purchases or in-kind redemptions of Shares of a Fund in Creation Units. Except as described above, the Deposit Instruments and the Redemption Instruments will be the same regardless of the identity of the purchaser or redeemer, respectively, and will correspond
12. Applicants also submit that the sale of Shares to and redemption of Shares from an Investing Fund meets the standards for relief under sections 17(b) and 6(c) of the Act. Applicants
The Applicants agree that any order of the Commission granting the requested relief will be subject to the following conditions:
1. As long as a Fund operates in reliance on the requested order, the Shares of the Fund will be listed on an Exchange.
2. Neither the Trust nor any Fund will be advertised or marketed as an open-end investment company or a mutual fund. Any advertising material that describes the purchase or sale of Creation Units or refers to redeemability will prominently disclose that the Shares are not individually redeemable and that owners of the Shares may acquire those Shares from the Fund and tender those Shares for redemption to the Fund in Creation Units only.
3. The Web site for the Funds, which is and will be publicly accessible at no charge, will contain, on a per Share basis, for each Fund the prior Business Day's NAV and the market closing price or Bid/Ask Price, and a calculation of the premium or discount of the market closing price or Bid/Ask Price against such NAV.
4. On each Business Day, before commencement of trading in Shares on the Exchange, the Fund will disclose on its Web site the identities and quantities of the Portfolio Instruments held by the Fund that will form the basis for the Fund's calculation of NAV at the end of the Business Day.
5. No Adviser or Subadviser, directly or indirectly, will cause any Authorized Participant (or any investor on whose behalf an Authorized Participant may transact with the Fund) to acquire any Deposit Instrument for the Fund through a transaction in which the Fund could not engage directly.
6. The requested relief to permit ETF operations will expire on the effective date of any Commission rule under the Act that provides relief permitting the operation of actively managed ETFs.
1. The members of the Investing Fund's Advisory Group will not control (individually or in the aggregate) a Fund within the meaning of section 2(a)(9) of the Act. The members of the Investing Fund's Subadvisory Group will not control (individually or in the aggregate) a Fund within the meaning of section 2(a)(9) of the Act. If, as a result of a decrease in the outstanding voting securities of a Fund, the Investing Fund's Advisory Group or the Investing Fund's Subadvisory Group, each in the aggregate, becomes a holder of more than 25 percent of the outstanding voting securities of a Fund, it will vote its Shares of the Fund in the same proportion as the vote of all other holders of the Fund's Shares. This condition does not apply to the Investing Fund's Subadvisory Group with respect to a Fund for which the Investing Fund Subadviser or a person controlling, controlled by or under common control with the Investing Fund Subadviser acts as the investment adviser within the meaning of section 2(a)(20)(A) of the Act.
2. No Investing Fund or Investing Fund Affiliate will cause any existing or potential investment by the Investing Fund in a Fund to influence the terms of any services or transactions between the Investing Fund or an Investing Fund Affiliate and the Fund or a Fund Affiliate.
3. The board of directors or trustees of an Investing Management Company, including a majority of the disinterested directors or trustees, will adopt procedures reasonably designed to ensure that the Investing Fund Adviser and any Investing Fund Subadviser are conducting the investment program of the Investing Management Company without taking into account any consideration received by the Investing Management Company or an Investing Fund Affiliate from a Fund or a Fund Affiliate in connection with any services or transactions.
4. Once an investment by an Investing Fund in the Shares of a Fund exceeds the limit in section 12(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, the Board of a Fund, including a majority of the disinterested Board members, will determine that any consideration paid by the Fund to the Investing Fund or an Investing Fund Affiliate in connection with any services or transactions: (i) Is fair and reasonable in relation to the nature and quality of the services and benefits received by the Fund; (ii) is within the range of consideration that the Fund would be required to pay to another unaffiliated entity in connection with the same services or transactions; and (iii) does not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned. This condition does not apply with respect to any services or transactions between a Fund and its investment adviser(s), or any person controlling, controlled by or under common control with such investment adviser(s).
5. The Investing Fund Adviser, or Trustee or Sponsor, as applicable, will waive fees otherwise payable to it by the Investing Fund in an amount at least equal to any compensation (including fees received pursuant to any plan adopted by a Fund under rule 12b–1 under the Act) received from a Fund by the Investing Fund Adviser, or Trustee or Sponsor, or an affiliated person of the Investing Fund Adviser, or Trustee or Sponsor, other than any advisory fees paid to the Investing Fund Adviser, or Trustee or Sponsor, or its affiliated person by the Fund, in connection with the investment by the Investing Fund in the Fund. Any Investing Fund Subadviser will waive fees otherwise payable to the Investing Fund Subadviser, directly or indirectly, by the Investing Management Company in an amount at least equal to any compensation received from a Fund by the Investing Fund Subadviser, or an affiliated person of the Investing Fund Subadviser, other than any advisory fees paid to the Investing Fund Subadviser or its affiliated person by the Fund, in connection with the investment by the Investing Management Company in the Fund made at the direction of the Investing Fund Subadviser. In the event that the Investing Fund Subadviser waives fees, the benefit of the waiver will be passed through to the Investing Management Company.
6. No Investing Fund or Investing Fund Affiliate (except to the extent it is acting in its capacity as an investment adviser to a Fund) will cause a Fund to purchase a security in an Affiliated Underwriting.
7. The Board of a Fund, including a majority of the disinterested Board members, will adopt procedures reasonably designed to monitor any purchases of securities by the Fund in an Affiliated Underwriting, once an investment by an Investing Fund in the securities of the Fund exceeds the limit of section 12(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, including any purchases made directly from an Underwriting Affiliate. The Board will review these purchases periodically, but no less frequently than
8. Each Fund will maintain and preserve permanently in an easily accessible place a written copy of the procedures described in the preceding condition, and any modifications to such procedures, and will maintain and preserve for a period of not less than six years from the end of the fiscal year in which any purchase in an Affiliated Underwriting occurred, the first two years in an easily accessible place, a written record of each purchase of securities in Affiliated Underwritings once an investment by an Investing Fund in the securities of the Fund exceeds the limit of section 12(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, setting forth from whom the securities were acquired, the identity of the underwriting syndicate's members, the terms of the purchase, and the information or materials upon which the Board's determinations were made.
9. Before investing in a Fund in excess of the limit in section 12(d)(1)(A), an Investing Fund will execute a Participation Agreement with the Fund stating, without limitation, that their respective boards of directors or trustees and their investment advisers, or Trustee and Sponsor, as applicable, understand the terms and conditions of the order, and agree to fulfill their responsibilities under the order. At the time of its investment in Shares of a Fund in excess of the limit in section 12(d)(1)(A)(i), an Investing Fund will notify the Fund of the investment. At such time, the Investing Fund will also transmit to the Fund a list of the names of each Investing Fund Affiliate and Underwriting Affiliate. The Investing Fund will notify the Fund of any changes to the list as soon as reasonably practicable after a change occurs. The Fund and the Investing Fund will maintain and preserve a copy of the order, the Participation Agreement, and the list with any updated information for the duration of the investment and for a period of not less than six years thereafter, the first two years in an easily accessible place.
10. Before approving any advisory contract under section 15 of the Act, the board of directors or trustees of each Investing Management Company, including a majority of the disinterested directors or trustees, will find that the advisory fees charged under such contract are based on services provided that will be in addition to, rather than duplicative of, the services provided under the advisory contract(s) of any Fund in which the Investing Management Company may invest. These findings and their basis will be recorded fully in the minute books of the appropriate Investing Management Company.
11. Any sales charges and/or service fees charged with respect to shares of an Investing Fund will not exceed the limits applicable to a fund of funds as set forth in NASD Conduct Rule 2830.
12. No Fund relying on the section 12(d)(1) Relief will acquire securities of any investment company or company relying on section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the Act in excess of the limits contained in section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act, except to the extent permitted by exemptive relief from the Commission permitting the Fund to purchase shares of other investment companies for short-term cash management purposes.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94–409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday, April 4, 2013 at 3:45 p.m.
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.
The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.
Commissioner Paredes, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the Closed Meeting in a closed session.
The subject matter of the Closed Meeting will be:
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.
For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551–5400.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to modify Chapter XV, Section 2, entitled “NASDAQ Options Market—Fees and Rebates,” which governs pricing for NASDAQ members using the NASDAQ Options Market (“NOM”), NASDAQ's facility for executing and routing standardized equity and index options, to establish fees and rebates for the option contracts overlying 10 shares of a security (“Mini Options”) applicable to NASDAQ members using NOM.
The text of the proposed rule change is available at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of this proposal is to modify Chapter XV, Section 2, entitled “NASDAQ Options Market—Fees and Rebates,” to establish fees and rebates for Mini Options applicable to NASDAQ members using NOM.
Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to assess market participants on a per trade basis the following fees and rebates on Mini Options:
The Exchange believes that the $0.030 and $0.015 rebate per trade for Customers and NOM Market Makers, respectively, should encourage these market participants to trade Mini Options on NOM and serves as a means to incentivize order flow and to promote this new infant product for trading on NOM. The Exchange is not offering at this time any rebate per trade to Professionals, Firms, Broker/Dealers, or Non-NOM Market Makers.
The Fee to Remove Liquidity for all market participants will be $0.049 on a per trade basis. The Exchange believes that this is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees since the Exchange is assessing all market participants the same rate to transact trades in Mini Options.
On a per trade basis, the Rebate to Add Liquidity or Fee to Remove Liquidity will be rounded to the nearest $0.01 using standard rounding rules. For example, a NOM Market Maker adding liquidity is contra to a Customer removing liquidity for seven contracts. The NOM Market Maker's total Rebate to Add Liquidity for this transaction will be $0.105 rounded to $0.11 and the Customer will be assessed $0.343 rounded to $0.34.
Additionally, Mini Options volume will not count toward the Penny Pilot and Non-Penny pilot tiers, where applicable.
While the changes to the NOM rules pursuant to this proposal are effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated these changes to be operative on March 18, 2013.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its rules is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
Even though the Exchange is proposing lower per trade fees as compared to standard option contracts, as it believes is necessary for the product to trade on NOM due to its smaller exercise and assignment value of a Mini Option, the Exchange recognizes the costs to the Exchange to process quotes and orders in Mini Options, perform regulatory surveillance and retain quotes and orders for archival purposes will be comparable to the same as a for a standard contract. The Exchange believes, therefore, that adopting the proposed fees for Mini Options is appropriate, not unreasonable, not unfairly discriminatory and not burdensome on competition between participants or between the Exchange and other exchanges in the listed options market place.
Specifically, the proposed Fee to Remove Liquidity is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all market participants will be charged the same fee of $0.049 per contract. The Exchange believes that treating all market participants equally, in turn, will increase order flow and will provide increased liquidity to the market and benefit all participants. The Exchange also believes that the proposed $0.049 per contract Fee to Remove Liquidity is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because in the current U.S. options market many of the standard contracts are quoted in pennies. Under this pricing structure, the minimum penny tick increment equates to a $1.00 economic value difference per contract, given that a single standardized U.S. options contract covers 100 shares of the underlying stock. Where contracts are quoted in $0.05 increments (non-pennies), the economic value per tick is $5.00 in proceeds to the investor transacting in these contracts. Since the Exchange is planning to file to permit Mini Options to have the same minimum tick as permitted for standard options, including penny increments, the minimum penny tick increment equates to a $0.10 economic value in comparison to fee structures on
The Exchange believes that the proposed Rebate to Add Liquidity for Mini Options is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because Customers and NOM Market Makers, receiving rebates of $0.030 and $0.015 per trade respectively, would be the only market participants to receive a rebate. The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to assess Customers and NOM Market Makers lower fees as compared to other market participants because these market participants contribute to the market in terms of liquidity and trading environment as compared to other market participants. For NOM Market Makers this includes its specific Market Maker quoting obligations and certain other obligations to the market that do not apply to other market participants.
Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees and rebates are reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory because the fees are consistent with price differentiation that exists today on all option exchanges.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that by offering Mini Options it will encourage order flow to be directed to the Exchange, which will benefit all market participants by increasing liquidity on the Exchange. The Exchange will assess a Fee to Remove Liquidity of $0.049 per contract on all market participants, essentially treating market participants equally and ignoring their varying contributions to the market. Additionally, Customers and NOM Market Makers are eligible for a Rebate to Add Liquidity. The Exchange believes these pricing amendments do not impose a burden on competition but rather that the proposed rule change will continue to promote competition on the Exchange and position the Exchange as an attractive alternative when compared to other options exchanges.
The Exchange believes that the adoption of the proposed fees and rebates for Mini Options, which will be listed for trading on one or more exchange, will not impose any unnecessary burden on intramarket competition. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market, comprised of eleven exchanges, where market participants are highly knowledgeable and can easily and without any material impediments, direct Mini Options orders to the options exchange that they believe is the most attractive for their business.
Accordingly, the fees that are assessed and the rebates paid by the Exchange described in the above proposal are influenced by these robust market forces and therefore must remain competitive with fees charged and rebates paid by other venues on other products and therefore must continue to be reasonable and equitably allocated.
Written comments were neither solicited nor 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 (the “Act”),
CBOE proposes to amend Rules 6.53 (Certain Types of Orders Defined), 6.74 (Crossing Orders), 6.74A (Automated Improvement Mechanism (“AIM”)) and 6.74B (Solicitation Auction Mechanism). Each of these rules sets forth minimum order quantities predicated on an option contract delivering 100 shares. The proposal would amend these rules to maintain the same minimum order quantities in amounts proportional to mini-options delivering 10 shares (
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
CBOE recently amended its rules to allow for the listing of mini-options that deliver 10 physical shares on SPDR S&P 500 (“SPY”), Apple, Inc. (“AAPL”), SPDR Gold Trust (“GLD”), Google Inc. (“GOOG”) and Amazon.com Inc. (“AMZN”).
Standard equity and exchange-traded fund (“ETF”) option contracts have a unit of trading of 100 shares deliverable and mini-options will have a unit of trading of 10 shares deliverable.
Prior to the commencement of trading mini-options, the Exchange proposes to amend Rules 6.53 (Certain Types of Orders Define), 6.74 (Crossing Orders), 6.74A (AIM) and 6.74B (Solicitation Auction Mechanism). Each of these rules sets forth minimum order quantities predicated on an option contract delivering 100 shares. The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend these rules to maintain the same minimum order quantities in amounts proportional to mini-options delivering 10 shares (
CBOE Rule 6.53 sets forth different order types that may be made available on a class-by-class basis for trading on the Exchange. Subparagraph (u) to CBOE Rule 6.53 provides for the availability of QCC orders, which are orders to buy (sell) at least 1,000 standard options that are identified as being a part of a qualified contingent trade coupled with a contra-side order to buy (sell) an equal number of contracts.
A controversial feature of QCC orders is that they “may execute without exposure provided the execution (1) is not at the same price as a public customer order resting in the electronic book and (2) is at or between the [National Best Bid or Offer]”.
Accordingly, CBOE proposes to amend CBOE Rule 6.53(u) to specify that the minimum QCC order size for standard options is 1,000 contracts and the minimum order size for mini-
CBOE Rule 6.74 sets forth rules of priority and order allocation procedures that apply to crossing orders in open outcry. Subparagraph (d) to Rule 6.74 provides that Floor Brokers may cross a certain percentage of a public customer order with a facilitation order of the originating firm (
Accordingly, CBOE proposes to amend CBOE Rule 6.74(d) to specify that the minimum crossing order size for standard options may not be less than 50 contracts and the minimum crossing order size for mini-options may not be less than 500 contracts.
CBOE Rule 6.74(f) sets forth rules regarding the Open Outcry “SizeQuote Mechanism,” which is a process by which a Floor Broker may execute and facilitate large-size orders in open outcry. The eligible order size may not be less than 250 standard option contracts (which is equivalent to 2,500 mini-option contracts). The Exchange proposes to maintain the minimum eligible order size for mini-options that is required for standard options in proportion.
Accordingly, CBOE proposes to amend CBOE Rule 6.74(f)(i)(A) to specify that the minimum order size for standard options may not be less than 250 contracts and the minimum order size for mini-options may not be less than 2,500 contracts.
The Exchange proposes to make a technical, non-substantive change to CBOE Rule 6.74(f)(i) to delete obsolete rule text that references a pilot program that expired on February 15, 2008.
CBOE Rule 6.74.10 provides that Rule 6.9 (Solicited Transactions) does not prohibit a Trading Permit Holder (“TPH”) or TPH organization from buying or selling a stock, security futures or futures position following receipt of an option order, including a complex order. Prior to announcing such an order to the trading crowd, the option order must be in a class that has been designated eligible for “tied hedge” transactions and must be within the designated tied hedge eligibility size parameters, which are established by CBOE on class-by-class basis and which may not be smaller than 500 standard option contracts per order (which is equivalent to 5,000 mini-option contracts). Multiple orders may not be aggregated to satisfy the size parameter. The Exchange proposes to maintain the minimum designated tied hedge eligibility size parameters for mini-options that are required for standard options in proportion.
Accordingly, CBOE proposes to amend CBOE Rule 6.74.10 to specify that the minimum order size for standard options may not be smaller than 500 contracts and the minimum order size for mini-options may not be smaller than 5,000 contracts.
CBOE Rule 6.74A permits a TPH that represents agency orders to electronically execute an order it represents as an agent (“Agency Order”) against principal interest or against a solicited order provided it submits the Agency Order for electronic execution into the AIM auction pursuant to the requirements of CBOE Rule 6.74A. CBOE Rule 6.74A sets forth minimum size requirements for initiating auctions. Specifically, CBOE Rule 6.74A(a)(1) and (2) provide:
• if the Agency Order is for 50 standard option contracts (which is equivalent to 500 mini-option contracts) or more, the Initiating Trading Permit Holder must stop the entire Agency Order as principal or with a solicited order at the better of the NBBO or the Agency Order's limit price (if the order is a limit order); and
• if the Agency Order is for less than 50 option standard contracts (which is equivalent to 500 mini-option contracts), the Initiating Trading Permit Holder must stop the entire Agency Order as principal or with a solicited order at the better of (A) the NBBO price improved by one minimum price improvement increment, which increment shall be determined by the Exchange but may not be smaller than one cent; or (B) the Agency Order's limit price (if the order is a limit order).
Similarly, CBOE Rule 6.74A(b)(1)(A) sets forth provisions governing the auction period and request for responses (“RFRs”). CBOE Rule 6.74A(b)(1)(A) sets forth order procedures for automatic matching based on size that provide:
• the Agency Order will be stopped at the NBBO (if 50 standard contracts or greater (which is equivalent to 500 mini-option contracts)), or
• one cent/one minimum increment better than the NBBO (if less than 50 contracts (which is equivalent to 500 mini-option contracts)).
The Exchange proposes to maintain the order sizes for mini-options that are required for standard options in proportion.
Accordingly, CBOE proposes to amend CBOE Rule 6.74A(a)(2) and (3) and 6.74A(b)(1)(A) to specify that order size for standard options is 50 contracts and the order size for mini-options is 500 contracts.
CBOE Rule 6.74B permits a TPH that represents agency orders to electronically execute orders it represents as agent (“Agency Order”) against solicited orders provided it submits the Agency Order for electronic execution into the solicitation auction mechanism (the “Auction”) pursuant to the requirements of CBOE Rule 6.74B. CBOE Rule 6.74B requires the Exchange to determine minimum eligible size parameters for participation in Auctions, however, the eligible order size may not be less than 500 standard option contracts (which is equivalent to 5,000 mini-option contracts). The Exchange proposes to maintain the minimum eligibility size parameters for mini-options that are required for standard options in proportion.
Accordingly, CBOE proposes to amend CBOE Rule 6.74B(a)(1) to specify that the minimum order size for standard options may not be less than 500 contracts and the minimum order size for mini-option may not be less than 5,000 contracts.
Standard option series subject to an adjustment will be subject to the minimum order quantities for standard options contained in the CBOE Rules addressed by this filing and mini-option series subject to an adjustment will be subject to the minimum order quantities for mini-options contained in the CBOE Rules addressed by this filing.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder, including the requirements
Specifically, the Exchange believes that investors would benefit from the current rule proposal because it would clarify how minimum order quantities that are predicated on an option contract delivering 100 shares will apply to mini-options. The Exchange believes that the marketplace and investors will be expecting clarification by the Exchange on this issue. As a result, the Exchange believes that this change would lessen investor and marketplace confusion because the rules being amended by this filing will be clear as to the application to mini-options.
The Exchange also believes that the current proposal is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade because it will maintain the same minimum order quantities in amounts proportional to mini-options.
This proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In this regard, since mini-options are permitted on multiply-listed classes, the Exchange understands and expects similar rule filings will be submitted by other exchanges to similarly change any order type and auction rules so that their rules that set forth minimum order quantities for standard options will apply in amounts proportional to mini-options. CBOE also believes that the proposed rule change will enhance competition by providing for the same proportional minimum order quantities contained in order type and auction rules to apply to standard and mini-options on the same security.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change: (1) Does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (2) does not impose any significant burden on competition; and (3) by its terms does not become operative for 30 days after the date of this filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b–4(f)(6) normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing. However, Rule 19b–4(f)(6)(iii) permits the Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange requests that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposed rule change may coincide with the anticipated launch of trading in Mini Options. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
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 (the “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 purpose of this proposed rule change is to implement pricing applicable to the Exchange's options platform (“BATS Options”) with respect to executions in Mini Options. Mini Options are options that overlie 10 equity or ETF shares, rather than the standard 100 shares.
Currently, all orders executed on BATS Options are subject to standard pricing, which includes variable fees and/or rebates based on whether the order adds or removes liquidity, the capacity of the order (Professional,
The Exchange is proposing that executions in Mini Options will be free for both orders that add to and orders that remove liquidity from the BATS Options book and that no executions in Mini Options will be eligible for additional liquidity rebates. Specifically, executions in Mini Options will not be eligible for any rebate, including the NBBO setter liquidity rebate or the quoting incentive program liquidity rebates. It should be noted, however, that executions in Mini Options will be counted in calculations of ADV
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act.
The introduction of pricing for Mini Options, as described above and proposed by this filing, is intended to allow the Exchange to begin trading in Mini Options without charging any fees
The Exchange notes that this proposal is not increasing fees or decreasing rebates for any existing products traded on or routed by BATS Options, but rather, the proposal only propose to introduce a pricing structure for Mini Options, which will be available to trade on BATS Options on March 18, 2013.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, the Exchange notes that this rule change is being proposed as a competitive offering at a time when many other options exchanges are commencing trading of Mini Options. As a result of the competitive environment, market participants will have various pricing models to choose from in making determinations on where to execute transactions in Mini Options. As stated above, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels to be excessive if they deem fee levels to be excessive.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any written comments from members or other interested parties.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) 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 address the manner in which options contracts overlying 10 shares of a security (“Mini Options”) will trade in a PIXL
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to further clarify the manner in which Mini Options will trade in a PIXL auction or as a QCC Order pursuant to Exchange Rule 1080. The Exchange previously filed to list and trade Mini Options.
With respect to PIXL, Rule 1080(n) specifies that a member may electronically submit for execution an order it represents as agent on behalf of a public customer, broker dealer, or any other entity (“PIXL Order”) against principal interest or against any other order (except as provided in Rule 1080(n)(i)(E)) it represents as agent (an “Initiating Order”) provided it submits the PIXL Order for electronic execution into the PIXL Auction (“Auction”) pursuant to this Rule. The Exchange is proposing to clarify that with respect to Mini Options, the same contract size shall apply consistent with standard options. The Exchange proposes to add a sentence to Rule 1080(n) to note that a Mini Options PIXL Order will trade consistent with standard options.
Today the Exchange provides the Commission certain PIXL pilot reports, including, but not limited to orders of fewer than 50 contracts into the PIXL Auction.
With respect to QCC Orders, Exchange Rule 1080(o) provides that a QCC Order is comprised of an order to buy or sell at least 1000 contracts that is identified as being part of a qualified contingent trade, as that term is defined in subsection [sic] Rule 1080(o)(3), coupled with a contra-side order to buy or sell an equal number of contracts. The Exchange proposes to permit Mini Option QCC Orders to be defined as an order to buy or sell at least 10,000 contracts, instead of 1,000 contracts. The Exchange proposes to add text to Rule 1080(o) and Rule 1064(e) to note the different quantity required to transact QCC Orders in Mini Options.
The Exchange proposes to commence trading Mini Options on March 28, 2013.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Securities and [sic] Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”),
Specifically, the Exchange believes that investors and other market participants would benefit from the current rule proposal because it would allow market participants to take advantage of legitimate investment strategies and execute PIXL Orders and QCC Orders in Mini Options. Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change will avoid investor confusion by clarifying how Mini Options will trade the same or different as compared to standard options with respect to PIXL Orders and QCC Orders.
The Exchange believes that trading PIXL Orders in Mini Options and standard options in the same manner will avoid investor confusion. Also, the Exchange believes that the current PIXL rules in Rule 1080(n) as applied to Mini Options will promote just and equitable principles of trade and continue to permit fair competition. The Exchange does not believe treating Mini Option and standard option PIXL Orders in a like manner creates any unfair disadvantage to investors.
The Exchange believes that adjusting the quantity of a QCC Orders [sic] in Rule 1080(o) (applicable to electronic orders) and Rule 1064(e) (applicable to floor orders) from 1,000 to 10,000 contracts with respect to QCC Orders will protect investors by maintaining the same number of underlying securities for Mini Options as with standard options. The Exchange believes that maintaining the same number of underlying securities will prevent unfair discrimination among market participants. All members are eligible to transact PIXL Orders and QCC Orders on Phlx.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. All members may transact PIXL Orders and QCC Orders on Phlx. The rule change does not permit unfair discrimination and does not impose a burden on Members with respect to trading Mini Options.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change: (1) Does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (2) does not impose any significant burden on competition; and (3) by its terms does not become operative for 30 days after the date of this filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b–4(f)(6) normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing. However, Rule 19b–4(f)(6)(iii) permits the Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange requests that the Commission
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 (the “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 pricing applicable to the Exchange's options platform (“BATS Options”) with respect to orders in Mini Options routed by the Exchange and executed at an away options exchange. Mini Options overlie 10 equity or ETF shares, rather than the standard 100 shares.
In conjunction with the beginning of trading in Mini Options on March 18, 2013, the Exchange is proposing to implement pricing for routing orders in Mini Options to other options exchanges. The Exchange is proposing to introduce simple pricing in which the Exchange will charge one of two possible fees for routed orders in Mini Options: one flat rate for all orders in Mini Options that are directed intermarket sweep orders (“Directed ISOs”) that execute at an away options exchange and a separate flat rate for all orders in Mini Options that are not Directed ISOs that are routed to and executed at an away options exchange. The Exchange is proposing to charge these flat rates for routing orders in Mini Options to away options exchanges based on the approximate cost of routing to such venues. These fees are based on the cost of transaction fees assessed by each venue as well as costs to the Exchange for routing (
Based on applicable Routing Costs, the Exchange is proposing to: (i) charge $0.15 per contract for all orders in Mini Options that are Directed ISOs that are routed to and executed at away options exchanges; and (ii) charge $0.10 per contract for all other orders in Mini Options that are routed to and executed at away options exchanges. Notices distributed by other options exchanges indicate that removal fees will range from free to $0.12 per contract executed in Mini Options. In order to provide certainty around execution costs for participants, the Exchange is proposing to introduce these flat routing fees that approximate the Exchange's Routing Costs.
The Exchange is not proposing to modify fees for any of its existing routing services.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act.
As explained above, the Exchange generally attempts to approximate the cost of routing to other options exchanges, including other applicable costs to the Exchange for routing. The Exchange believes that a pricing model based on approximate Routing Costs is a reasonable, fair and equitable approach to pricing. Specifically, the Exchange believes that its proposal to implement fees for routing Mini Options is fair, equitable and reasonable because the fees are generally an approximation of the cost to the Exchange for routing orders to such exchanges. The Exchange believes that its flat fee structure for orders routed to various venues is a fair and equitable approach to pricing, as it provides certainty with respect to execution fees at away options exchanges. Under its flat fee structure, taking all costs to the Exchange into account, the Exchange may operate at a slight gain or a slight loss for orders in Mini Options routed to and executed at away options exchanges. As a general matter, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees will allow it to recoup and cover its costs of providing routing services to such exchanges. The Exchange also believes that the proposed fee structure for orders in Mini Options routed to and executed at these away options exchanges is fair and equitable and not unreasonably discriminatory in that it applies equally to all Members.
The Exchange reiterates that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels to be excessive or providers of routing services if they deem fee levels to be excessive. Finally, the Exchange notes that it constantly evaluates its routing fees, including profit and loss attributable to routing, as applicable, in connection with the operation of a flat fee routing service, and would consider future adjustments to the proposed pricing structure to the extent it was recouping a significant profit from routing to another options exchange.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed changes will assist the Exchange in recouping costs for routing orders to other options exchanges on behalf of its participants. The Exchange also notes that Members may choose to mark their orders as ineligible for routing to avoid incurring routing fees.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any written comments from members or other interested parties.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) 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 (“Act”)
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to update Schedule 502 of the ICC Rules in order to be consistent with the scheduled index series listings occurring on March 20, 2013, and March 27, 2013.
In its filing with the Commission, ICC 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. ICC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to update Schedule 502 of the ICC Rules in order to be consistent with the scheduled index series listings occurring on March 20, 2013, and March 27, 2013. The credit default swap indices scheduled to be listed (the “Scheduled Indices”) are: North American Investment Grade, Series 20, 3-, 5-, 7- and 10-year to be listed on March 20, 2013; Emerging Markets, Series 19, 5-year to be listed on March 20, 2013; North American High Yield, Series 20, 5-year to be listed on March 27, 2013; European iTraxx Main Series 19, 5- and 10-year to be listed on March 20, 2013; European iTraxx XOver Series 19, 5-year to be listed on March 20, 2013; and European iTraxx HiVol Series 19, 5-year to be listed on March 20, 2013. The Scheduled Indices update does not require any changes to the body of the ICC Rules. Also, the Scheduled Indices update does not require any changes to the ICC risk management framework. The only change being submitted is the update to the Scheduled Indices in Schedule 502 of the ICC Rules.
ICC believes that the update to the Scheduled Indices is consistent with the purposes and requirements of Section 17A of the Act
ICC does not believe the proposed rule change would have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition.
Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not been solicited or received. ICC will notify the Commission of any written comments received by ICC.
The foregoing rule change has become effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) 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.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR–ICC–2013–04 and should be submitted on or before April 22, 2013.
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 IM–5050–10 (Mini Options Contracts). The text of the proposed rule change is available from the principal office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the Exchange's Internet Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of 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 proposes to amend its rules related to Mini Options traded on the Exchange. Mini Options overlie 10 equity or ETF shares, rather than the standard 100 shares.
The purpose of this proposed rule change is to amend IM–5050–10 (Mini Options Contracts) to codify the minimum contract threshold requirement for the execution of Mini Options in the Exchange's Facilitation Auction and Solicitation Auction. The Facilitation Auction is a process by which an OFP can attempt to execute a transaction wherein the OFP seeks to facilitate a block-size order it represents as agent (“Agency Order”), and/or a transaction wherein the OFP solicited interest to execute against an Agency Order. OFPs must be willing to execute the entire size of Agency Orders entered into the Facilitation Auction through the submission of a contra “Facilitation Order”.
The Exchange now proposes to amend IM–5050–10 (Mini Options Contracts) to adjust the minimum contract threshold for executing Mini Options in the Facilitation Auction and Solicitation Auction by ten times their current requirement. Thus, Mini Options executed in the Facilitation Auction must be for five hundred (500) or more Mini Option contracts, and Mini Options executed in the Solicitation Auction must be for five thousand (5,000) or more Mini Option contracts.
The Exchange believes it is appropriate to adjust the minimum contract threshold for Mini Options so they are equivalent (same number of underlying securities) to the minimum contract threshold required for standard options that are executed in the Facilitation Auction and Solicitation Auction. The Exchange believes that adjusting the minimum contract threshold will remove any confusion on the part of market participants that want to use these Exchange functionalities to execute Mini Options.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”), in general, and Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest. In particular, the proposed rule change will assure that standard options and Mini Options on the same underlying security will have an equivalent minimum contract threshold for the execution of orders in the Exchange's Facilitation Auction and Solicitation Auction. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change will also avoid investor confusion because in the absence of this proposal, the minimum contract threshold for executing Mini Options in the Facilitation Auction and Solicitation Auction would have been different than that for standard options (
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In this regard and as indicated above, the Exchange notes that the rule change is being proposed as a competitive response to the filing submitted by ISE.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change: (1) Does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (2) does not impose any significant burden on competition; and (3) by its terms does not become operative for 30 days after the date of this filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b–4(f)(6) normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing. However, Rule 19b–4(f)(6)(iii) permits the Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange requests that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposed rule change may become immediately operative. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
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.
There will be a meeting of the Cultural Property Advisory Committee May 14–17, 2013, at the U.S. Department of State, Annex 5, 2200 C Street NW., Washington, DC Portions of this meeting will be closed to the public, as discussed below.
During the closed portion of the meeting, the Committee will review the proposal to extend the
The Committee's responsibilities are carried out in accordance with provisions of the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (19 U.S.C. 2601
If you wish to make an oral presentation at the open session, you must request to be scheduled and must submit a written text of your oral comments, ensuring that it is received no later than April 23, 2013, at 11:59 p.m. (EDT), via the eRulemaking Portal (see below), to allow time for distribution to Committee members prior to the meeting. Oral comments will be limited to allow time for questions from members of the Committee. All oral and written comments must relate specifically to the determinations under 19 U.S.C. 2602 of the Act, pursuant to which the Committee must make findings. This statute can be found at the Web site noted above.
If you do not wish to make oral comment, but still wish to make your views known, you may send written comments for the Committee to consider. Again, your comments must relate specifically to the determinations under 19 U.S.C. 2602 of the Act. Submit all written materials electronically through the eRulemaking Portal (see below), ensuring that they are received no later than April 23, 2013 at 11:59 p.m. (EDT). Our adoption of this procedure facilitates public participation, implements Section 206 of the E-Government Act of 2002, Public Law 107–347, 116 Stat. 2915, and supports the Department of State's “Greening Diplomacy” initiative which aims to reduce the State Department's environmental footprint and reduce costs.
Confidential written comments: If you wish to submit information that is privileged or confidential in your comments, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 2605(i)(1), you may do so via regular mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Only confidential comments will be accepted via those methods.
As a general reminder, comments submitted by fax or email are not accepted. In the past, twenty copies of texts over five pages in length were requested. Please note that this is no longer necessary; all comments, other than confidential comments, should now be submitted via the eRulemaking Portal only.
Please submit comments only once.
•
• Comments submitted in confidence only:
Comments submitted in electronic form are not private. They will be posted on the site
The Department of State requests that any party soliciting or aggregating comments received from other persons for submission to the Department of State inform those persons that the Department of State will not edit their comments to remove any identifying or contact information, and that they therefore should not include any information in their comments that they do not want publicly disclosed.
As noted above, portions of the meeting will be closed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B) and 19 U.S.C. 2605(h), the latter of which stipulates that “The provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act shall apply to the Cultural Property Advisory Committee except that the requirements of subsections (a) and (b) of section 10 and 11 of such Act (relating to open meetings, public notice, public participation, and public availability of documents) shall not apply to the Committee, whenever and to the extent it is determined by the President or his designee that the disclosure of matters involved in the Committee's proceedings would compromise the government's negotiation objectives or bargaining positions on the negotiations of any agreement authorized by this title.” Pursuant to law, executive order, and delegation of authority, I have made such a determination.
Personal information regarding attendees is requested pursuant to Public Law 99–399 (Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986), as amended; Public Law 107–56 (USA PATRIOT Act); and Executive Order 13356. The purpose of the collection is to validate the identity of individuals who enter Department facilities. The data will be entered into the Visitor Access Control System (VACS–D) database. Please see the Security Records System of Records Notice (State-36) at
The Government of the People's Republic of China has informed the Government of the United States of America of its interest in an extension of the Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the People's Republic of China Concerning the Imposition of Import Restrictions on Categories of Archaeological Material from the Paleolithic Period Through the Tang Dynasty and Monumental Sculpture and Wall Art At Least 250 Years Old (“MOU”).
Pursuant to the authority vested in the Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, and pursuant to the requirement under 19 U.S.C. 2602(f)(1), an extension of this MOU is hereby proposed.
Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 2602(f)(2), the views and recommendations of the Cultural Property Advisory Committee regarding this proposal will be requested.
A copy of the MOU, the Designated List of restricted categories of material, and related information can be found at the following Web site:
The
The
Three working group volumes and a synthesis report comprise the Fifth Assessment Report.
In October 2009, the IPCC approved the outline for the Working Group II contribution to the 5th Assessment Report (Working Group II Table of Contents:
As part of the U.S. Government Review of the Second Order Draft of the Working Group II Contribution to the 5th Assessment Report, the U.S. Government is soliciting comments from experts in relevant fields of expertise (Again, the Table of Contents for the Working Group contribution can be viewed here:
Experts may now register to review the draft report at:
The
Experts may choose to provide comments directly through the IPCC's expert review process, which occurs in parallel with the U.S. government review. More information on the IPCC's comment process can be found at
This certification will be published in the
Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR).
Request for comments and notice of a public hearing.
On March 20, 2013, the United States Trade Representative (USTR) notified Congress of the Administration's intention to enter into negotiations for a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) agreement with the European Union (EU) aimed at achieving a substantial increase in transatlantic trade and investment. Before initiating such negotiations, the Trade Act of 1974 requires that, with respect to any proposed trade agreement, any interested persons be afforded an opportunity to present his or her view regarding any matters related to the proposed trade agreement. Accordingly, USTR is seeking public comments on the proposed TTIP, including regarding U.S. interests and priorities, in order to develop U.S. negotiating positions. Comments may be provided in writing and orally at a public hearing.
Written comments are due by midnight, May 10, 2013. Persons wishing to testify orally at the hearing must provide written notification of their intention, as well as a summary of their testimony, by midnight, May 10, 2013. The hearing will be held on May 29 and 30 beginning at 9:30 a.m., at the main hearing room of the United States International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
Public comments should be submitted electronically at
For procedural questions concerning written comments, please contact Yvonne Jamison at the above number. All other questions regarding the TTIP agreement should be directed to David Weiner, Deputy Assistant USTR for Europe, at (202) 395–9679.
The decision to launch negotiations for a TTIP agreement follows a year-long exploratory process conducted by the U.S.-EU High Level Working Group on Jobs and Growth (HLWG), established by President Obama and EU leaders during their November 2011 Summit Meeting, and led by U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk and EU Commissioner for Trade Karel De Gucht. USTR provided two opportunities for the public to comment as part of the HLWG mandate in 2012; comments received in response to these solicitations, and during a large number of advisory committee briefings and other meetings with stakeholders, played an important role in shaping the HLWG's recommendations. In its February 11, 2013 Final Report, the HLWG concluded that an agreement that addresses a broad range of bilateral trade and investment policies, as well as global issues of common interest, could generate substantial economic benefits on both sides of the Atlantic. (See
USTR is observing the consultative and administrative procedures of the Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority Act of 2002 (19 U.S.C. 3804) with respect to notifying and consulting with Congress regarding the TTIP negotiations. These procedures include providing Congress with 90 days advance written notice of the President's intent to enter into negotiations and consulting with appropriate Congressional committees regarding the negotiations. To that end, on March 20, 2013, after having consulted with relevant Congressional committees, the USTR notified Congress that the President intends to enter into negotiations of an agreement with the EU, with the objective of concluding a high-standard agreement that will benefit U.S. workers, manufacturers, service suppliers, farmers, ranchers, innovators, creators, small- and medium-sized businesses, and consumers.
In addition, under the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2151, 2153), in the case of an agreement such as the proposed TTIP agreement, the President must (i) afford interested persons an opportunity to present their views regarding any matter relevant to the proposed agreement, (ii) designate an agency or inter-agency committee to
(a) General and product-specific negotiating objectives for the proposed agreement;
(b) economic costs and benefits to U.S. producers and consumers of removal of tariffs and removal or reduction in non-tariff barriers on articles traded with the EU;
(c) treatment of specific goods (described by HTSUS numbers) under the proposed agreement, including comments on—
(1) product-specific import or export interests or barriers,
(2) experience with particular measures that should be addressed in the negotiations, and
(3) approach to tariff negotiations, including recommended staging and ways to address export priorities and import sensitivities in the context of the proposed agreement;
(d) adequacy of existing customs measures to ensure that duty rates under an agreement with the EU apply only to goods eligible to receive such treatment, and appropriate rules of origin for goods entering the United States under the proposed agreement;
(e) existing sanitary and phytosanitary measures and technical barriers to trade that should be addressed in the negotiations;
(f) opportunities for greater transatlantic regulatory compatibility, including concrete ideas on how greater compatibility could be achieved in a particular economic sector, without diminishing the ability of the United States to continue to meet legitimate regulatory objectives, for example with respect to health, safety and the environment, and which sectors should be the focus of such efforts;
(g) opportunities to reduce unnecessary costs and administrative delays stemming from regulatory differences, including how that could be achieved in a particular economic sector;
(h) opportunities to enhance customs cooperation between the United States and the EU and its member states, ensure transparent, efficient, and predictable conduct of customs operations, and ensure that customs measures are not applied in a manner that creates unwarranted procedural obstacles to trade;
(i) existing barriers to trade in services between the United States and the EU that should be addressed in the negotiations;
(j) relevant electronic commerce and cross-border data flow issues that should be addressed in the negotiations;
(k) relevant investment issues that should be addressed in the negotiations;
(l) relevant competition-related matters that should be addressed in the negotiations;
(m) relevant government procurement issues, including coverage of any government agencies or state-owned enterprises engaged in procurements of interest, that should be addressed in the negotiations;
(n) relevant environmental issues that should be addressed in the negotiations;
(o) relevant labor issues that should be addressed in the negotiations;
(p) relevant transparency and anticorruption issues that should be addressed in the negotiations; and
(q) relevant trade-related intellectual property rights issues that should be raised with the EU.
In addition to the matters described above, the TPSC invites comments on new principles or disciplines addressing emerging challenges in international trade that should be pursued in the negotiations and that would benefit U.S.-EU trade as well as strengthen the multilateral rules-based trading system and support other trade-related priorities, including, for example, with respect to state-owned enterprises, “localization” barriers to trade, and other developments on which the United States and the EU may share similar concerns.
At a later date, USTR, through the TPSC, will publish notice of reviews regarding (a) the possible environmental effects of the proposed agreement and the scope of the U.S. environmental review of the proposed agreement, and (b) the impact of the proposed agreement on U.S. employment and labor markets.
Persons submitting comments must do so in English and must identify (on the first page of the submission) the “Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.” In order to be assured of consideration, comments should be submitted by May 10, 2013.
In order to ensure the timely receipt and consideration of comments, USTR strongly encourages commenters to make on-line submissions, using the
The
For any comments submitted electronically containing business confidential information, the file name of the business confidential version should begin with the characters “BC”. Any page containing business confidential information must be clearly marked “BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL” on the top of that page. Filers of submissions containing business confidential information must also submit a public version of their comments. The file name of the public version should begin with the character “P”. The “BC” and “P” should be followed by the name of the person or entity submitting the comments or reply comments. Filers submitting comments containing no business confidential information should name their file using the name of the person or entity submitting the comments.
Please do not attach separate cover letters to electronic submissions; rather, include any information that might appear in a cover letter in the comments themselves. Similarly, to the extent possible, please include any exhibits, annexes, or other attachments in the same file as the submission itself, not as separate files.
As noted, USTR strongly urges submitters to file comments through
Comments will be placed in the docket and open to public inspection, except business confidential information. Comments may be viewed on the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice; request for public comment.
FMCSA provides notice and requests comments on the Agency's process for determining the appropriate use of the Limited Service Exclusion (LSE), a statutory exception to the definition of Household Goods (HHG) motor carrier provided at 49 U.S.C. 13102(12)(C). In addition, this notice explains the registration requirements of brokers that arrange for the transportation of shipments that are eligible for the LSE.
You must submit comments on or before May 1, 2013.
You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket Management System Number FMCSA–2013–0087 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. All submissions must include the Agency name and docket number for this notice. See the “Public Participation” heading below for instructions on submitting comments and additional information.
Mr. Kenneth Rodgers, Commercial Enforcement and Investigations Division, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590–0001. Telephone (202)366–3031 or
FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted without change to
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (FMCSA–2013–0087), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so the Agency can contact you if it has questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change this enforcement policy based on your comments.
To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this notice as being available in the docket, go to
All comments received will be posted with personal information you have provided to
The Limited Service Exclusion (LSE) is a statutory provision that pertains to the definition of “household goods motor carrier” at 49 U.S.C. 13102(12)(C). Congress defined a HHG motor carrier in 49 U.S.C. 13102(12)(A) as a “motor carrier that, in the ordinary course of its business of providing transportation of household goods, offers some or all of the following additional services: (i) Binding and nonbinding estimates; (ii) Inventorying; (iii) Protective packing and unpacking of individual items at personal residences; and (iv) Loading and unloading at personal residences.”
Through the LSE, Congress specifically excluded certain motor carriers from the definition of HHG motor carrier: “[W]hen the motor carrier provides transportation of household goods in containers or trailers that are entirely loaded and unloaded by an individual (other than an employee or agent of the motor carrier) . . .” the carrier is not considered a HHG motor carrier. 49 U.S.C. 13102(12)(C). Transportation falling under the LSE is not subject to the consumer protection regulations applicable to HHG shipments at 49 CFR Part 375, HHG motor carrier registration requirements at 49 CFR Part 365, or the cargo insurance requirements at 49 CFR Part 387.
The FMCSA is issuing this notice to provide clarity on those transportation services which fall within the scope of the LSE. The Agency has examined the legislative history relating to this provision, which makes clear that Congress intended to distinguish traditional, full service moving companies that offer some or all of the “additional services” noted above from “a motor carrier solely providing transportation of household goods entirely packed in, or unpacked from, one or more containers….” Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, § 4202(b), Public Law 109–59, Conf. Rep. No. 109–203.
The FMCSA understands that Congress thereby intended to create an economic opportunity for companies providing a lower cost, “no frills” moving option for shippers willing to pack their own belongings or to hire separate labor. Congress directed, however, that the loading and unloading may not be provided by an agent or employee of the company transporting the packed container.
Regarding the applicability of the LSE to specific entities, given the varied nature of the moving industry, FMCSA has concluded that whether an individual motor carrier is or is not eligible for the LSE must be determined on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the entirety of the relationship between a motor carrier and the individual that loads and unloads the HHG.
For enforcement purposes, the factors relevant to the determination of whether or not the LSE should apply are:
(1) Web site statements and other advertising, including claims or statements implying that the container company will provide HHG packing or other specialized services, or, by contrast, disclaiming HHG motor carrier status and clarifying that the company does not provide such services;
(2) The level of control by the motor carrier over the individual providing packing and loading services;
(3) The organizational structure of the motor carrier and the relationship of that entity to the individual providing loading and unloading services;
(4) Commonality of employees between the motor carrier and any entity providing loading and unloading services, including, but not limited to corporate officers;
(5) The nature of referrals for loading and packing services;
(6) The nature and extent of business income derived from the referral for packing and loading services;
(7) Other factors that may be relevant to defining the relationship between the motor carrier and individual providing packing and loading services; or
(8) Other factors relevant to a determination that a motor carrier holds itself out as providing “full service” HHG services.
FMCSA believes that Congress did not intend the LSE as a mechanism for companies engaged in traditional household goods moving to evade regulatory oversight. Thus, the Agency will examine very closely any company statements on the Internet or in other advertising claiming to offer “full service moving” or similar comprehensive moving service packages. The Agency will generally deem companies holding themselves out as HHG movers through such statements to be, in fact, HHG movers and ineligible for the LSE.
By statute, the LSE also does not apply where the relationship between a motor carrier and the individual that loads or unloads the HHG is determined to be that of an employer/employee or principal/agent. Under these circumstances, FMCSA will consider the container company a HHG motor carrier if it meets the definition of HHG motor carrier under 49 U.S.C. 13102(12)(A).
While no single factor is paramount in assessing the business relationships between a container company and loading/packing labor, the extent of a motor carrier's control over the individual performing the loading/packing service is highly significant. Generally, the closer the relationship between the motor carrier and the individual loading/unloading the HHG, the less likely the motor carrier will be to qualify for the LSE. FMCSA will take into account the totality of the circumstances in defining the relationship between the motor carrier and the individual loading and unloading. As noted, FMCSA determines eligibility for the LSE on a case by case basis, utilizing factors including those above.
We are seeking comments on the Agency's factors for determining if the operation is eligible for the LSE.
The following examples illustrate how FMCSA would determine if the LSE applies.
Bach's Movers, a container company, advertises itself as “The Lowest Cost Moving Option” on its company Web site. The Web site has a link to “XYZ Moving Helpers” and recommends that Bach's customers contact XYZ directly for assistance with packing and unpacking. FMCSA investigation reveals that XYZ pays Bach's a 3 percent referral fee for every customer that contracts with XYZ after visiting Bach's Web site. Two of Bach's employees work part time for XYZ on weekends. The two companies have separate management, however, and FMCSA has
Q-Bic Crates Movers, Inc. claims on its Web site to be a “Top Notch Moving Company” and to provide “the lowest cost, high quality moving services.” Q-Bic Crates provides binding and nonbinding estimates and inventorying services. The company's Web site refers customers to Q-Bic Muscles, Inc. for assistance with packing and unpacking. FMCSA has received complaints that when Q-Bic Crates employees deliver containers to shippers' homes, they attempt to pressure shippers into signing agreements for labor from Q-Bic Muscles. Investigation reveals that Q-Bic Crates Movers and Q-Bic Muscles have owners and officers in common, are run out of the same location and pool their revenue to pay salaries to several of the same individuals. Approximately 95 percent of Q-Bic Muscles' revenue is from Q-Bic Crates customers. Q-Bic Crates is not eligible for the LSE and must comply with the consumer protection and other regulations applicable to HHG motor carriers.
One determinant of whether or not a carrier is providing transportation that qualifies for the LSE is whether an “agent” of the carrier is performing loading and unloading services. The FMCSA defines the term “agent” by applying its commonly accepted meaning: “one who is authorized to act for or in place of another; a representative.” Black's Law Dictionary, (8th ed. 2004). “Agency is the fiduciary relationship that arises when one person (a `principal') manifests assent to another person (an `agent') that the agent shall act on the principal's behalf and subject to the principal's control and the agent manifests assent or otherwise so consents to act.” Restatement (Third) of Agency § 1.01. What does or does not constitute authorization to act for or in place of another will depend upon the details and circumstances of the parties' relationship.
The FMCSA defines a “household goods broker,” in part, as a person that arranges “for transportation of household goods by motor carrier for compensation.” 49 CFR 371.103. Therefore, whether or not a broker is a “household goods broker” is based upon whether “transportation of household goods” is taking place. The FMCSA and its predecessor, the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), have long focused on the nature of the service, as opposed to the physical goods being transported, to determine whether HHG transportation is taking place.
Moreover, 49 CFR 371.105 states that “[y]ou may only act as a household goods broker for a motor carrier that has a valid, active U.S. DOT number and valid operating authority issued by FMCSA to transport household goods in interstate or foreign commerce.” In other words, HHG brokers may not act as property brokers (“You may only act as a household goods broker * * *”). Unless HHG brokers have separate property broker authority, they are not permitted to perform brokerage of regular freight loads or for carriers that do not have valid HHG operating authority. Thus, a HHG broker is an entity that brokers transportation for a HHG motor carrier. However, as defined in 49 U.S.C. 13102(12)(C), a motor carrier operating subject to the LSE is not considered a HHG motor carrier. Accordingly, the entity that brokers such transportation is not a HHG broker.
However, as with a container company that engages in activities associated with HHG movements, if a broker makes claims on its Web site or elsewhere about “full service moving” or other specialized services, FMCSA may investigate whether the broker meets the definition of HHG broker, i.e., “holds itself out by solicitation, advertisement, or otherwise as selling, providing, or arranging for, transportation of household goods by motor carrier for compensation.” 49 CFR 371.103. If FMCSA makes such a finding, the broker would be subject to the consumer protection regulations at 49 CFR part 371, subpart B “Special Rules for Household Goods Brokers.” In analyzing a broker's regulatory status, FMCSA will look at whether the broker is making claims that it arranges services for HHG motor carriers as defined at 49 U.S.C. § 13102(12)(A). Those carriers offer some or all of the following services: Binding and nonbinding estimates, inventorying, protective packing and unpacking of individual items at personal residences and loading and unloading at personal residences.
In sum, only property broker authority is required when arranging for the transportation of shipments eligible for the LSE. However, if a broker also performs activities constituting the arrangement of “transportation of household goods by motor carrier for compensation” (49 CFR 371.103), it needs HHG brokerage authority as well.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury.
Notice and Request for comment.
The OCC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on a continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OCC is soliciting comment concerning its information collection titled, “Community and Economic Development Entities, Community Development Projects, and Other Public Welfare Investments—12 CFR part 24.”
Comments must be submitted on or before May 31, 2013.
Because paper mail in the Washington, DC area and at the OCC is subject to delay, commenters are encouraged to submit comments by email if possible. Comments may be sent to: Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Attention: 1557–0194, 400 7th Street, SW., Suite 3E–218, Mail Stop 9W–11, Washington, DC 20219. In addition, comments may be sent by fax to (571) 465–4326 or by electronic mail to
All comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Do not enclose any information in your comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.
You may request additional information or a copy of the collection from Johnny Vilela or Mary H. Gottlieb, OCC Clearance Officers, (202) 649–5490, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW., Suite 3E–218, Mail Stop 9W–11, Washington, DC 20219.
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) to include 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
The OCC is proposing to extend the following information collection:
Section 24.5(a) provides that an eligible national bank may make an investment without prior notification to, or approval by, the OCC if the bank submits an after-the-fact notification of an investment within 10 days of making the investment.
Section 24.5(a)(5) provides that a national bank that is not an eligible bank, but that is at least adequately capitalized, and has a composite rating of at least 3 with improving trends under the Uniform Financial Institutions Rating System, may submit a letter to the OCC requesting authority to submit after-the-fact notices of its investments.
Section 24.5(b) provides that if a national bank does not meet the requirements for after-the-fact notification, the bank must submit an investment proposal to the OCC.
The OCC requests that OMB approve its revised estimates and extend its approval of the information collection.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on:
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the OCC, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the OCC's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e) Estimates of capital or startup costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Notice 2004–11, Research Credit Record Retention Agreements.
Written comments should be received on or before May 31, 2013 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Yvette Lawrence, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the regulations should be directed to Martha R. Brinson at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at (202) 622–3869, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Revenue Procedure 98–20, Certification for No Information Reporting on the Sale of a Principal Residence; REG–105170–97 (TD 8930) and REG–112991–01 (TD 9104), Credit for Increasing Research Activities (§ 1.41–8(b)); Form 12815, Return Post Card for the Community Based Outlet Participants; the Tip Rate Determination Agreement (for use by employers in the food and beverage industry); and REG–107186–00 (TD 9114), Electronic Payee Statements.
Written comments should be received on or before May 31, 2013 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Yvette Lawrence, Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224. Please send separate comments for each specific information collection listed below. You must reference the information collection's title, form number, reporting or record-keeping requirement number, and OMB number (if any) in your comment.
Requests for additional information or copies of the collection tools should be directed to R. Joseph Durbala, Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at (202) 622–3634, or through the internet at
Currently, the IRS is seeking comments concerning the following information collection tools, reporting, and record-keeping requirements:
(1)
Estimated Number of Respondents: 2,300,000.
Estimated Time per Respondent: 10 minutes.
(2)
(3)
Abstract: This post card is used by the Community Based Outlet Program (CBOP) participants (
(4)
(5)
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 8879–B, IRS
Written comments should be received on or before May 31, 2013 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Yvette Lawrence, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Martha R. Brinson, (202) 622–3869, or at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet, at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number.
Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13(44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning, Obligations of States and Political Subdivisions.
Written comments should be received on or before May 31, 2013 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Yvette Lawrence, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the regulations should be directed to Martha R. Brinson at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at (202) 622–3869, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13(44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Revenue Procedure 2007–21, Regarding 6707/6707A Rescission Request Procedures.
Written comments should be received on or before May 31, 2013 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Yvette Lawrence, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the revenue procedure should be directed to Martha R. Brinson at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at (202) 622–3869, or through the Internet at
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13(44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 8282, Donee Information Return (Sale, Exchange or Other Disposition of Donated Property) and Form 8283, Noncash Charitable Contributions; Form 8716, Election To Have a Tax Year Other Than a Required Tax Year; Form 706–QDT, U.S. Estate Tax Return for Qualified Domestic Trusts; INTL–24–94 (TD 8671), Taxpayer Identifying Numbers (TINs) (§ 301.6109–1); and T.D. 9032, Election to Treat Trust as Part of an Estate (§ 1.645–1).
Written comments should be received on or before May 31, 2013 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Yvette Lawrence, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224. Please send separate comments for each specific information collection listed below. You must reference the information collection's title, form number, reporting or record-keeping requirement number, and OMB number (if any) in your comment.
Requests for additional information or copies of the collection tools should be directed to R. Joseph Durbala, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at (202)622–3634, or through the internet at
Currently, the IRS is seeking comments concerning the following information collection tools, reporting, and record-keeping requirements:
(1)
Form 8282:
Form 8283:
(2)
(3)
(4)
The burden for the collection of information is reflected in the burden for Form W–7, Application for IRS Individual Tax Identification Number (For Non-U.S. Citizens or Nationals).
(5)
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13(44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 720–TO, Terminal Operator Report; Form 8734, Support Schedule for Advance Ruling Period; Form 8806, Information Return for Acquisition of Control or Substantial Change in Capital Structure; Revenue Procedure 2004–12, Health Insurance Costs of Eligible Individuals; and Form 8908, Energy Efficient Home Credit.
Written comments should be received on or before May 31, 2013 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Yvette Lawrence, Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224. Please send separate comments for each specific information collection listed below. You must reference the information collection's title, form number, reporting or record-keeping requirement number, and OMB number (if any) in your comment.
Requests for additional information or copies of the collection tools should be directed to R. Joseph Durbala, Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at (202) 622–3634, or through the Internet at
Currently, the IRS is seeking comments concerning the following information collection tools, reporting, and record-keeping requirements:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13(44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Revenue Procedure 2006–42, Automatic Consent to Change Certain Elections Relating to the Apportionment of Interest Expense, Research and Experimental Expenditures Under Section 1.861.
Written comments should be received on or before May 31, 2013 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Yvette Lawrence, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the revenue procedure should be directed to Martha R. Brinson, (202) 622–3869, or at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet, at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning, Disclosure Requirements With Respect to Prohibited Tax Shelter Transactions.
Written comments should be received on or before May 31, 2013 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Yvette Lawrence, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the regulation should be directed to Martha R. Brinson, (202) 622–3869, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 4506–T Request for Transcript of Tax Return.
Written comments should be received on or before May 31, 2013 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Yvette Lawrence, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Martha R. Brinson, at (202) 622–3869, or at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet, at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning, Suspension or Reduction of Safe Harbor Nonelective Contributions.
Written comments should be received on or before May 31, 2013 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Yvette Lawrence, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the regulation should be directed to Martha R. Brinson, (202) 622–3869, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number.
Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13(44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Forms W–2, W–2c, W–2AS, W–2GU, W–2VI, W–3, W–3c, W–3cPR, W–3PR, and W–3SS; Form 1120, U. S. Corp. Income Tax Return and its affiliated schedules; Form 4768, Application for Extension of Time To File a Return and/or Pay U.S. Estate (and Generation-Skipping Transfer) Taxes; Form 1139, Corporation Application for Tentative Refund; and Form 8038, Information Return for Tax-Exempt Private Activity Bond Issues, Form 8038–G, Information Return for Tax-Exempt Governmental Obligation, and Form 8038–GC, Information Return for Small Tax-Exempt Governmental Bond Issues, Leases, and Installment Sales.
Written comments should be received on or before May 31, 2013 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Yvette Lawrence, Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224. Please send separate comments for each specific information collection listed below. You must reference the information collection's title, form number, reporting or record-keeping requirement number, and OMB number (if any) in your comment.
Requests for additional information or copies of the collection tools should be directed to R. Joseph Durbala, Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at (202) 622–3634, or through the internet at
Currently, the IRS is seeking comments concerning the following information collection tools, reporting, and record-keeping requirements:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Revenue Procedure 2001–20, Voluntary Compliance on Alien Withholding Program (“VCAP”).
Written comments should be received on or before May 31, 2013 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Yvette Lawrence, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the revenue procedure should be directed to Martha R. Brinson at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at (202) 622–3869, or through the Internet at Martha.R.Brinson@irs.gov.
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service, Department of Treasury.
Request for Nominations.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) requests nominations of individuals for selection to the Information Reporting Program Advisory Committee (IRPAC). Nominations should describe and document the proposed member's qualifications for IRPAC membership, including the applicant's past or current affiliations and dealings with the particular tax segment or segments of the community that he or she wishes to represent on the committee. In addition to individual nominations, the IRS is soliciting nominations from professional and public interest groups that wish to have representatives on the IRPAC. IRPAC will be comprised of 21 members. There are eight positions open for calendar year 2014. It is important that IRPAC continue to represent a diverse taxpayer and stakeholder base. Accordingly, to maintain membership diversity, selection is based on the applicant's qualifications as well as the taxpayer or stakeholder base he/she represents.
The IRPAC advises the IRS on information reporting issues of mutual concern to the private sector and the federal government. The committee works with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and other IRS leadership to provide recommendations on a wide range of information reporting administration issues.
Membership is balanced to include representation from the tax professional community, small and large businesses, banks, insurance companies, colleges and universities, and industries such as securities, payroll, finance and software.
Written nominations must be received on or before May 31, 2013.
Nominations should be sent to: Ms. Caryl Grant, National Public Liaison, CL:NPL:SRM, Room 7559 IR, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, Attn: IRPAC Nominations. Applications may be submitted via fax to 202–622–8345. Application packages are available on the IRS Web site at
Caryl Grant at 202–622–6440 (not a toll-free number) or
Established in 1991 in response to an administrative recommendation in the final Conference Report of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989, the IRPAC works closely with the IRS to provide recommendations on a wide range of issues intended to improve the information reporting program and achieve fairness to taxpayers. Conveying the public's perception of IRS activities to the Commissioner, the IRPAC is comprised of individuals who bring substantial, disparate experience and diverse backgrounds to the Committee's activities.
Each IRPAC member is nominated by the Commissioner with the concurrence of the Secretary of Treasury to serve a three-year term. Working groups address policies and administration issues specific to information reporting. Members are not paid for their services. However, travel expenses for working sessions, public meetings and orientation sessions, such as airfare, per diem, and transportation are reimbursed within prescribed federal travel limitations.
Receipt of applications will be acknowledged, and all individuals will be notified when selections have been made. In accordance with Department of Treasury Directive 21–03, a clearance process including fingerprints, annual tax checks, a Federal Bureau of Investigation criminal check and a practitioner check with the Office of Professional Responsibility will be conducted. Federally registered lobbyists cannot be members of the IRPAC.
Equal opportunity practices will be followed for all appointments to the IRPAC in accordance with the Department of Treasury and IRS policies. The IRS has special interest in assuring that women and men, members of all races and national origins, and individuals with disabilities are welcomed for service on advisory committees: and therefore, extends particular encouragement to nominations from such appropriately qualified candidates.
U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission.
Notice of open public hearing—April 4, 2013, Washington, DC.
Notice is hereby given of the following hearing of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission.
The hearing will be co-chaired by Commissioners Peter Brookes and Katherine C. Tobin. Any interested party may file a written statement by April 4, 2013, by mailing to the contact below. A portion of each panel will include a question and answer period between the Commissioners and the witnesses.
Any member of the public seeking further information concerning the hearing should contact Reed Eckhold, 444 North Capitol Street NW., Suite 602, Washington DC 20001; phone: 202–624–1496, or via email at
Congress created the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission in 2000 in the National Defense Authorization Act (Pub. L. 106–398), as amended by Division P of the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003 (Pub. L. 108–7), as amended by Public Law 109–108 (November 22, 2005).