Forest Service
Antitrust Division
Economic Development Administration
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Air Force Department
Navy Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Presidential Documents
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
Indian Health Service
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Transportation Security Administration
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Indian Health Service
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Antitrust Division
Drug Enforcement Administration
Employment and Training Administration
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Fiscal Service
United States Sentencing Commission
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Transportation Security Administration
Bureau of the Fiscal Service
Fiscal 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.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Model A300 B4–601, B4–603, B4–620, B4–605R, and B4–622R airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report that the door frame shells of passenger doors 2 and 4 may not have sufficient structural strength to enable the airplane to operate safely. This AD requires reinforcing the door frame shells of passenger doors 2 and 4 on both sides of the fuselage. We are issuing this AD to prevent structural failure of the door frame shells, which could result in in-flight decompression of the airplane and consequent injury to passengers.
This AD becomes effective July 5, 2013.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of July 5, 2013.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; telephone 425–227–2125; fax 425–227–1149.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the
As a result of the Extended Service Goal 2 exercise (ESG2) it was shown that the door frame shells of passenger doors 2 and 4 (both sides of the aeroplane) may not have sufficient structural strength to enable the aeroplane to operate safety beyond ESG1 (Extended Service Goal 1 equal to 42,500 Flight Cycles—FC or 89,000 Flight Hours—FH) and up to ESG2 (Extended Service Goal 2 equal to 51,000 FC or 89,000 FH) limits.
This condition, if not corrected, could lead to structural failure of the affected door shells, possibly resulting in in-flight decompression of the aeroplane and consequent injury to occupants.
For the reasons stated above, this [European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)] AD requires the reinforcement at door frame shells of passenger doors 2 and 4.
You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We have considered the comments received.
FedEx requested that copies of Airbus Service Bulletin A300–53–6170, dated May 16, 2011, be provided to understand the full intent of the modification. FedEx stated that copies of Airbus Service Bulletin A300–53–6170, dated May 16, 2011, are not available to operators without paying for the modification kit for ESG–2 operations.
As stated in the NPRM (77 FR 58785, September 24, 2012), copies of the referenced service information may be reviewed at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. No change has been made to the AD in this regard. After publication of the final rule, you may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
FedEx requested an exception for the passenger door 2 on airplanes modified from passenger to freighter per supplemental type certificate (STC) ST01431NY* (
We disagree with the commenter's request. Operators should work with the STC holder to evaluate and determine what actions might be necessary to address the unsafe condition if it exists. Operators may request approval of an alternative method of compliance to address this evaluation. No change has been made to the AD in this regard.
We reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 58785, September 24, 2012) for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 58785, September 24, 2012).
We estimate that this AD will affect 124 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 400 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $10,000
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective July 5, 2013.
None.
This AD applies to Airbus Model A300 B4–601, B4–603, B4–620, B4–605R, and B4–622R airplanes; certificated in any category; all serial numbers.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by a report that the door frame shells of passenger doors 2 and 4 may not have sufficient structural strength to enable the airplane to operate safely. We are issuing this AD to prevent structural failure of the door frame shells, which could result in in-flight decompression of the airplane and consequent injury to passengers.
You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done.
Before the accumulation of 42,500 total flight cycles or within 2,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later: Do the actions specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, as applicable.
(1) For Model A300 B4–622R airplanes: Reinforce the door frame shells of passenger doors 2 and 4 on both sides of the fuselage, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300–53–6170, dated May 16, 2011.
(2) For Model A300 B4–601, B4–603, B4–620, and B4–605R airplanes: Reinforce the door frame shells of passenger doors 2 and 4 on both sides of the fuselage, using a method approved by either the Manager, International Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) (or its delegated agent).
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness Directive 2012–0044, dated March 23, 2012; and Airbus Service Bulletin A300–53–6170, dated May 16, 2011; for related information.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A300–53–6170, dated May 16, 2011.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness
(4) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Model A330–200 Freighter, A330–200, A330–300, A340–200, A340–300, A340–500, and A340–600 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by several reports of a burning smell and/or smoke in the cockpit during cruise phase leading, in some cases, to diversion to alternate airports. This AD requires an inspection to identify the installed windshields and replacement of any affected windshield. We are issuing this AD to prevent significantly increased workload for the flightcrew, which could, under some flight phases and/or circumstances, constitute an unsafe condition.
This AD becomes effective July 5, 2013.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of July 5, 2013.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; telephone (425) 227–1138; fax (425) 227–1149.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the
Several operators have reported cases of burning smell and/or smoke in the cockpit during cruise phase leading in some cases to diversion.
Findings have shown that the cause of these events is the burning of the Saint-Gobain Sully (SGS) windshield connector terminal block.
This condition, if not corrected, could significantly increase the flight crew workload which would, under some flight phases and/or circumstances, constitute an unsafe condition.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires the identification of the installed windshields and replacement of the affected part.
Since the NPRM (77 FR 66760, November 7, 2012) was published, we have received the following service information:
• Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330–56–3009, Revision 02, including Appendix 01, dated February 8, 2012;
• Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340–56–4008, Revision 01, including Appendix 01, dated February 8, 2012; and
• Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340–56–5002, Revision 01, including Appendix 01, dated February 8, 2012.
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comments received. The Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) stated that it supports the NPRM (77 FR 66760, November 7, 2012).
Airbus requested that the applicability stated in the NPRM (77 FR 66760, November 7, 2012) be revised to state the generic Model “A330–200/–300” and “A340–500/–600” series airplanes instead of the specific airplane models. Airbus stated that the actions of the NPRM are actually required for all the series airplanes instead of only the models stated in the NPRM.
We disagree. The models stated in paragraph (c) of the NPRM (77 FR 66760, November 7, 2012) correspond to the model and series airplanes validated by the FAA and identified in an FAA type certificate data sheet (TCDS). Some series airplanes that were identified in the MCAI are not listed on any FAA TCDS and cannot be imported and placed on the U.S. register until that model is validated and identified on an FAA TCDS. If a model identified in the MCAI is identified on an FAA TCDS in the future, we might consider additional rulemaking. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
We reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 66760, November 7, 2012) for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 66760, November 7, 2012).
We estimate that this AD will affect 55 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $9,350, or $170 per product.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 10 work-hours and require parts costing $0, for a cost of $850 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective July 5, 2013.
None.
This AD applies to airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.
(1) Airbus Model A330–201, –202, –203, –223, –223F, –243, –243F, –301, –302, –303, –321, –322, –323, –341, –342, and –343 airplanes.
(2) Airbus Model A340–211, –212, –213, –311, –312, –313, –541, and –642 airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 56, Windows.
This AD was prompted by several reports of a burning smell and/or smoke in the cockpit during cruise phase leading, in some cases, to diversion to alternate airports. We are issuing this AD to prevent significantly increased workload for the flightcrew, which could, under some flight phases and/or circumstances, constitute an unsafe condition.
You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done.
Within 1,200 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, inspect to identify the manufacturer, the part number, and the serial number of the left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) windshields installed on the airplane, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable Airbus service information identified in paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), or (g)(3) of this AD. A review of airplane delivery or maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the manufacturer, part number, and serial number of the installed windshields can be conclusively determined from that review.
(1) For Model A330–201, –202, –203, –223, –223F, –243, –243F, –301, –302, –303, –321, –322, –323, –341, –342, and –343 airplanes: Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330–56–3009, Revision 02, including Appendix 01, dated February 8, 2012.
(2) For Model A340–211, –212, –213, –311, –312, and –313 airplanes: Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340–56–4008, Revision 01, including Appendix 01, dated February 8, 2012.
(3) For Model A340–541 and –642 airplanes: Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340–56–5002, Revision 01, including Appendix 01, dated February 8, 2012.
If it is found, during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, that any installed LH or RH windshield was manufactured by Saint-Gobain Sully (SGS) and the part number and serial number are identified in the applicable Airbus service information identified in paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), or (g)(3) of this AD: Within 9 months or 1,200 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, replace all affected LH and RH windshields, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable Airbus service information identified in paragraph (h)(1), (h)(2), or (h)(3) of this AD.
(1) For Model A330–201, –202, –203, –223, –223F, –243, –243F, –301, –302, –303, –321, –322, –323, –341, –342, and –343 airplanes: Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330–56–3009, Revision 02, including Appendix 01, dated February 8, 2012.
(2) For Model A340–211, –212, –213, –311, –312, and –313 airplanes: Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340–56–4008, Revision 01, including Appendix 01, dated February 8, 2012.
(3) For Model A340–541 and –642 airplanes: Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin
This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the applicable service information identified in paragraphs (i)(1) through (i)(4) of this AD, which are not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(1) Airbus Service Bulletin A330–56–3009, dated May 4, 2010 (for Model A330–201, –202, –203, –223, –223F, –243, –243F, –301, –302, –303, –321, –322, –323, –341, –342, and –343 airplanes).
(2) Airbus Service Bulletin A330–56–3009, Revision 01, dated January 27, 2011 (for Model A330–201, –202, –203, –223, –223F, –243, –243F, –301, –302, –303, –321, –322, –323, –341, –342, and –343 airplanes).
(3) Airbus Service Bulletin A340–56–4008, dated May 4, 2010 (for Model A340–211, –212, –213, –311, –312, and –313 airplanes).
(4) Airbus Service Bulletin A340–56–5002, dated May 4, 2010 (for Model A340–541 and –642 airplanes).
As of the effective date of this AD, do not install on an airplane any affected windshield from SGS having a part number and serial number identified in the applicable service information identified in paragraphs (j)(1), (j)(2), and (j)(3) of this AD, unless a suffix “U” is present at the end of the serial number.
(1) For Model A330–201, –202, –203, –223, –223F, –243, –243F, –301, –302, –303, –321, –322, –323, –341, –342, and –343 airplanes: Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330–56–3009, Revision 02, including Appendix 01, dated February 8, 2012.
(2) For Model A340–211, –212, –213, –311, –312, and –313 airplanes: Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340–56–4008, Revision 01, including Appendix 01, dated February 8, 2012.
(3) For Model A340–541 and –642 airplanes: Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340–56–5002, Revision 01, including Appendix 01, dated February 8, 2012.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2011–0242, dated December 19, 2011 (corrected February 15, 2012), and the service information identified in paragraphs (l)(1)(i) through (l)(1)(iii) of this AD, for related information.
(i) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330–56–3009, Revision 02, including Appendix 01, dated February 8, 2012.
(ii) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340–56–4008, Revision 01, including Appendix 01, dated February 8, 2012.
(iii) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340–56–5002, Revision 01, including Appendix 01, dated February 8, 2012.
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS—Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email
(1) The Director of the
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330–56–3009, Revision 02, including Appendix 01, dated February 8, 2012.
(ii) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340–56–4008, Revision 01, including Appendix 01, dated February 8, 2012.
(iii) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340–56–5002, Revision 01, including Appendix 01, dated February 8, 2012.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS—Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email
(4) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Cessna Aircraft Company Model 500, 501, 550, 551, S550, 560, 560XL, and 650 airplanes. This AD was prompted by multiple reports of smoke and/or fire in the tailcone caused by sparking due to excessive wear of the brushes in the air conditioning (A/C) motor. This AD requires inspecting to determine if certain A/C compressor motors are installed and to determine the accumulated hours on certain A/C drive motor assemblies; repetitive replacement of the brushes in the drive motor assembly, or, as an option to the brush replacement, deactivation of the A/C system and placard installation; and return of replaced brushes to Cessna. We are issuing this AD to prevent the brushes in the A/C motor from wearing down beyond their limits, which could result in the rivet in the brush contacting the commutator causing sparks and consequent fire and/or smoke in the tailcone with no means to detect or extinguish the fire and/or smoke.
This AD is effective July 5, 2013.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of July 5, 2013.
For service information identified in this AD, contact Cessna
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Christine Abraham, Aerospace Engineer, Electrical Systems and Avionics Branch, ACE–119W, FAA, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Mid-Continent Airport, Wichita, Kansas 67209; phone: 316–946–4165; fax: 316–946–4107; email:
We issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that would apply to the specified products. That SNPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the SNPRM (78 FR 9636, February 11, 2013) or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed—except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the SNPRM (78 FR 9636, February 11, 2013) for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the SNPRM (78 FR 9636, February 11, 2013).
We consider this AD interim action. The reporting data required by this AD will enable us to obtain better insight into brush wear. The reporting data will also indicate if the replacement intervals we established are adequate. After we analyze the reporting data received, we might consider further rulemaking.
Model 525 airplanes are not subject to this AD. We are currently considering requiring similar actions for these airplanes.
We estimate that this AD will affect 1,987 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective July 5, 2013.
None.
This AD applies to the following Cessna Aircraft Company airplanes, certificated in any category.
(1) Model 500 and 501 airplanes, serial numbers (S/N) 0001 through 0689 inclusive.
(2) Model 550 and 551 airplanes, S/Ns 0002 through 0733 inclusive, and 0801 through 1136 inclusive.
(3) Model S550 airplanes, S/Ns 0001 through 0160 inclusive.
(4) Model 560 airplanes, S/Ns 0001 through 0707 inclusive, and 0751 through 0815 inclusive.
(5) Model 560XL airplanes, S/Ns 5001 through 5300 inclusive.
(6) Model 650 airplanes, S/Ns 0200 through 0241 inclusive, and 7001 through 7119 inclusive.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 21, Air Conditioning.
This AD was prompted by multiple reports of smoke and/or fire in the tailcone caused by sparking due to excessive wear of the brushes in the air conditioning (A/C) motor. We are issuing this AD to prevent the brushes in the A/C motor from wearing down, which could result in the rivet in the brush contacting the commutator causing sparks and consequent fire and/or smoke in the tailcone with no means to detect or extinguish the fire and/or smoke.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 30 days or 10 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first: Inspect the A/C compressor motor to determine whether P/N 1134104–1 or P/N 1134104–5 is installed. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the part number of the A/C compressor motor can be conclusively determined from that review.
If, during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, any A/C compressor motor is found having P/N 1134104–1 or P/N 1134104–5: Within 30 days or 10 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, determine the hour reading on the A/C compressor hour meter as specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD.
(1) Inspect the number of hours on the A/C compressor hour meter. And,
(2) Check the airplane logbook for any entry for replacing the A/C compressor motor brushes with new brushes, or for replacing the compressor motor or compressor condenser module assembly (pallet) with a motor or assembly that has new brushes.
(i) If the logbook contains an entry for replacement of parts, as specified in paragraph (h)(2) of this AD, determine the number of hours on the A/C compressor motor brushes by comparing the number of hours on the compressor motor since replacement and use this number in lieu of the number determined in paragraph (h)(1) of this AD. Or,
(ii) If, through the logbook check you cannot positively determine the number of hours on the A/C compressor motor brushes, as specified in paragraph (h)(2) of this AD, use the number of hours on the A/C compressor hour meter determined in paragraph (h)(1) of this AD or presume the brushes have over 500 hours time-in-service.
Using the hour reading on the A/C compressor hour meter determined in paragraph (h) of this AD, replace the A/C compressor motor brushes with new brushes at the later of the times specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD. Thereafter, repeat the replacement of the A/C compressor motor brushes at intervals not to exceed 500 hours time-in-service on the A/C compressor motor. Do the replacement in accordance with the applicable Cessna maintenance manual subject specified in paragraphs (j)(1) through (j)(7) of this AD.
(1) Before the accumulation of 500 total hours time-in-service on the A/C compressor motor.
(2) Before further flight after doing the inspection required in paragraph (h) of this AD.
Use the instructions in the applicable Cessna maintenance manual subject specified in paragraphs (j)(1) through (j)(7) of this AD to do the replacement required by paragraph (i) of this AD.
(1) Subject 4–11–00, Replacement Time Limits, of Chapter 4, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 10, dated April 23, 2012, of the Cessna Model 550 Bravo Maintenance Manual.
(2) Subject 4–11–00, Replacement Time Limits, of Chapter 4, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 8, dated April 23, 2012, of the Cessna Model 550Maintenance Manual.
(3) Subject 4–11–00, Replacement Time Limits, of Chapter 4, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 20, dated April 23, 2012, of the Cessna Model 560 Maintenance Manual.
(4) Subject 4–11–00, Replacement Time Limits, of Chapter 4, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 13, dated April 23, 2012, of the Cessna Model 560XLMaintenance Manual.
(5) Subject 4–11–00, Replacement Time Limits, of Chapter 4, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 30, dated April 23, 2012, of the Cessna Model 650 Maintenance Manual.
(6) Subject 4–11–00, Replacement Time Limits-General, of Chapter 4, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 4, dated April 23, 2012, of the Cessna Model 500/501Maintenance Manual.
(7) Subject 4–11–00, Replacement Time Limits, of Chapter 4, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 7, dated April 23, 2012, of the Cessna Model S550 Maintenance Manual.
In lieu of replacing the A/C compressor motor brushes as required by this AD, deactivate the A/C system as specified in paragraph (k)(1), (k)(2), or (k)(3) of this AD, as applicable.
(1) For all airplanes except Model 560XL and 650 airplanes: Pull the vapor cycle A/C circuit breaker labeled “AIR COND,” do the actions specified in paragraphs (k)(1)(i) and (k)(1)(ii) of this AD, and document deactivation of the system in the airplane logbook, referring to this AD as the reason for deactivation. While the system is deactivated, the airplane operator must remain aware of operating temperature limitations specified in the applicable airplane flight manual.
(i) Fabricate a placard that states: “A/C DISABLED” with
(ii) Install the placard on the airplane instrument panel within 6 inches of the A/C selection switch.
(2) For Model 650 airplanes: Pull the vapor cycle A/C circuit breaker labeled “FWD EVAP FAN,” do the actions specified in paragraphs (k)(1)(i) and (k)(1)(ii) of this AD, and document deactivation of the system in the airplane logbook, referring to this AD as the reason for deactivation. While the system is deactivated, the airplane operator must remain aware of operating temperature limitations specified in the applicable airplane flight manual.
(3) For Model 560XL airplanes: Do the actions specified in paragraphs (k)(1)(i) and (k)(1)(ii) of this AD, and document deactivation of the system in the airplane logbook, referring to this AD as the reason for
(i) Open the battery door.
(ii) Disconnect the main battery connector and remove external electrical power.
(iii) Tag the battery and external power receptacle with a warning tag that reads: “WARNING: Do not connect the battery connector during the maintenance in progress.”
(iv) Gain access to the J-Box through the tailcone access door.
(v) Remove the wing nuts that attach the cover to the J-Box.
(vi) Remove the J-Box cover.
(vii) Remove nuts securing compressor fuse limiter (reference designator HZ116, P/N ANL130) to the bus bar.
(viii) Remove the compressor motor fuse limiter from the terminals and retain for future reinstallation once the compressor motor brushes have been replaced.
(ix) Install fuse limiter nuts on the terminals and torque to 100 inch-pounds +/– 5 inch-pounds.
(x) Install the J-Box cover with wing nuts.
(xi) Remove the warning tag on the battery and external power receptacle.
(xii) Connect the battery and restore electrical power to the airplane.
(xiii) Close the tailcone access door.
If an operator chooses to deactivate the A/C system, as specified in paragraph (k) of this AD, and then later chooses to return the A/C system to service: Before returning the A/C system to service and removing the placard, perform the inspection specified in paragraph (h) of this AD, and do the replacements specified in paragraph (i) of this AD, at the times specified in paragraph (i) of this AD. Return the A/C system to service by doing the actions specified in paragraph (l)(1), (l)(2), or (l)(3) of this AD, as applicable.
(1) For all airplanes except Model 560XL and 650 airplanes: Push in the vapor cycle A/C circuit breaker labeled “AIR COND,” remove the placard by the A/C selection switch that states “A/C DISABLED,” and document reactivation of the system in the airplane logbook.
(2) For Model 650 airplanes: Push in the vapor cycle A/C circuit breaker labeled “FWD EVAP FAN,” remove the placard by the A/C selection switch that states “A/C DISABLED,” and document reactivation of the system in the airplane logbook.
(3) For Model 560XL airplanes: Remove the placard by the A/C selection switch that states “A/C DISABLED,” and document reactivation of the system in the airplane logbook. Re-install the fuse limiter by doing the actions specified in paragraphs (l)(3)(i) through (l)(3)(viii) of this AD, and return to the airplane to service by doing the actions specified in paragraphs (l)(3)(ix) through (l)(3)(xiii) of this AD.
(i) Open the battery door.
(ii) Disconnect the main battery connector and remove external electrical power.
(iii) Tag the battery and external power receptacle with a warning tag that reads: “WARNING: Do not connect the battery connector during the maintenance in progress.”
(iv) Gain access to the J-Box through the tailcone access door.
(v) Remove the wing nuts that attach the cover to the J-Box.
(vi) Remove the J-Box cover.
(vii) Remove the fuse limiter nuts on the bus bar terminals for the fuse limiter.
(viii) Install the compressor motor fuse limiter (reference designator HZ116, P/N ANL130).
(ix) Install fuse limiter nuts on the terminals and torque to 100 inch-pounds +/– 5 inch-pounds.
(x) Install the J-Box cover with wing nuts.
(xi) Remove the warning tag on the battery and external power receptacle.
(xii) Connect the battery and restore electrical power to the airplane.
(xiii) Close the tailcone access door.
For the first two A/C compressor motor brush replacement cycles on each airplane, send the brushes that were removed to Cessna Aircraft Company, Cessna Service Parts and Programs, 7121 Southwest Boulevard, Wichita, KS 67215. Provide the brushes and the information specified in paragraphs (m)(1) through (m)(6) of this AD within 30 days after the replacement, if the replacement was done on or after the effective date of this AD, or within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, if the replacement was done before the effective date of this AD.
(1) The model and serial number of the airplane.
(2) The part number of the motor.
(3) The part number of the brushes, if known.
(4) The elapsed amount of motor hours since the last brush/motor replacement, if known.
(5) If motor hours are unknown, report the elapsed airplane flight hours since the last brush/motor replacement and indicate that motor hours are unknown.
(6) The number of motor hours currently displayed on the pallet hour meter.
As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install an A/C compressor motor having P/N 1134104–1 or P/N 1134104–5, unless the inspection specified in paragraph (h) of this AD is done before further flight, and the replacements specified in paragraph (i) of this AD are done at the times specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.
Operation of the A/C system is prohibited while flying with a special flight permit issued for this AD.
A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a 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 current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 2120–0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES–200.
(1) The Manager, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in the Related Information section of this AD.
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
For more information about this AD, contact Christine Abraham, Aerospace Engineer, Electrical Systems and Avionics Branch, ACE–119W, FAA, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Mid-Continent Airport, Wichita, Kansas 67209; phone: 316–946–4165; fax: 316–946–4107; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Subject 4–11–00, Replacement Time Limits, of Chapter 4, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 10, dated April 23, 2012, of the Cessna Model 550 Bravo Maintenance Manual. The revision level of Chapter 4 is identified only on the title page of Chapter 4.
(ii) Subject 4–11–00, Replacement Time Limits, of Chapter 4, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 8, dated April 23, 2012, of the Cessna Model 550 Maintenance Manual. The revision level of Chapter 4 is
(iii) Subject 4–11–00, Replacement Time Limits, of Chapter 4, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 20, dated April 23, 2012, of the Cessna Model 560 Maintenance Manual. The revision level of Chapter 4 is identified only on the title page of Chapter 4.
(iv) Subject 4–11–00, Replacement Time Limits, of Chapter 4, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 13, dated April 23, 2012, of the Cessna Model 560XL Maintenance Manual. The revision level of Chapter 4 is identified only on the title page of Chapter 4.
(v) Subject 4–11–00, Replacement Time Limits, of Chapter 4, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 30, dated April 23, 2012, of the Cessna Model 650 Maintenance Manual. The revision level of Chapter 4 is identified only on the title page of Chapter 4.
(vi) Subject 4–11–00, Replacement Time Limits-General, of Chapter 4, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 4, dated April 23, 2012, of the Cessna Model 500/501Maintenance Manual. The revision level of Chapter 4 is identified only on the title page of Chapter 4.
(vii) Subject 4–11–00, Replacement Time Limits, of Chapter 4, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 7, dated April 23, 2012, of the Cessna Model S550 Maintenance Manual. The revision level of Chapter 4 is identified only on the title page of Chapter 4.
(3) For Cessna service information identified in this AD, contact Cessna Aircraft Co., P.O. Box 7706, Wichita, KS 67277; telephone 316–517–6215; fax 316–517–5802; email
(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final Rule; Request for Comments.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL–215–1A10 and CL–215–6B11 (CL–215T Variant) airplanes. This AD requires repetitive detailed inspections for cracking of the left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) wing lower skin, and repair if necessary. This AD also provides terminating action for the repetitive detailed inspections. This AD was prompted by reports of a fractured wing lower rear spar cap and reinforcing strap. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracked wing structure, which could result in failure of the wing.
This AD becomes effective June 14, 2013.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of June 14, 2013.
We must receive comments on this AD by July 15, 2013.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Ricardo Garcia, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE–171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone (516) 228–7331; fax (516) 794–5531.
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Emergency Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF–2013–11, dated April 17, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
While performing modifications on a CL–215–1A10 aeroplane, an operator discovered that the wing lower rear spar cap and reinforcing strap were fractured at Wing Stations (WS) 49.5 and 50 respectively and the rear spar web and wing lower skin were also cracked. It is suspected that a crack initiated at the wing lower spar cap, leading to its failure, the subsequent failure of the reinforcing strap and cracking of the spar web and wing lower skin. The damage was outside of the area addressed by the repetitive ultrasonic inspections required by AD CF–1992–26R2 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2012–11–04, Amendment 39–17067 (77 FR 32892, June 4, 2012)] and was found 95 hours air time after the last ultrasonic inspection.
Failure and cracking of the above-noted wing structure, if not detected, could result in failure of the wing. In order to mitigate the unsafe condition, this [Canadian] AD mandates a repetitive [detailed] visual inspection [for cracking] of the wing lower skin until an eddy current inspection [for cracking] of the [LH and RH wing lower front and rear] spar cap[s] is performed or a [detailed] visual inspection [for cracking] of the wing structures [i.e., the LH and RH wing lower skin, front and rear spar caps, front and rear spar webs, and reinforcing straps] is performed by removing the fuel bladder[, and repair if any cracking is found during any inspection]. Transport Canada may mandate additional corrective actions pending the outcome of the failure investigation and fleet findings. The requirements of AD CF–1992–26R2 remain applicable.
Bombardier, Inc. has issued Alert Service Bulletin 215–A558, dated April 5, 2013. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
The service information specifies to contact the manufacturer for instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but this AD requires repairing those conditions using a method approved by the FAA or TCCA (or its delegated agent).
We considered this AD interim action. The inspection reports that are required by this AD will enable us to obtain better insight into the nature, cause, and extent of the cracking, and eventually to develop final action to address the unsafe condition. Once final action has been identified, we might consider further rulemaking.
An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because an operator discovered that the wing lower rear spar cap and reinforcing strap were fractured at WS 49.5 and 50 respectively, and that the rear spar web and wing lower skin were also cracked. Failure and cracking of the wing structure, if not detected, could result in failure of the wing. Therefore, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in fewer than 30 days.
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We estimate that this AD will affect 5 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take up to 20 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $8,500, or $1,700 per product.
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective June 14, 2013.
None.
This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model CL–215–1A10 airplanes, serial numbers (S/Ns) 1001 through 1125 inclusive; and Model CL–215–6B11 (CL–215T Variant) airplanes, S/Ns 1056 through 1125 inclusive; certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57; Wings.
This AD was prompted by reports of a fractured wing lower rear spar cap and reinforcing strap. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracked wing structure, which could result in failure of the wing.
You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done.
Within 10 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, do a detailed inspection for cracking of the left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) wing lower skin between wing stations (WS) 45.00 and 51.00, in accordance with Part A of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin 215–A558, dated April 5, 2013. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 25 flight hours, until the inspection specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD has been accomplished. If any cracking is found during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, before further flight, repair the crack using a method approved by the Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA) (or its delegated agent).
(1) Accomplishing a one-time detailed inspection for cracking of the LH and RH wing lower skin, front and rear spar caps, front and rear spar webs, and reinforcing straps, in accordance with Part B of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin 215–A558, dated April 5, 2013, terminates the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD. If any cracking is found during the one-time detailed inspection, before further flight, repair the crack using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO, FAA; or TCCA (or its delegated agent).
(2) Accomplishing a one-time eddy current inspection for cracking of the LH and RH wing lower front and rear spar caps, in accordance with paragraph 3.B. and paragraphs 4. through 9. (Part C–1), and paragraphs 10. through 16. (Part C–2), of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin 215–A558, dated April 5, 2013, terminates the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD. If any cracking is found during the one-time eddy current inspection, before further flight, repair the crack using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO, FAA; or TCCA (or its delegated agent).
Submit a report of the crack findings of the inspections specified in paragraphs (g), (h)(1), and (h)(2) of this AD to Bombardier Aerospace Specialized and Amphibious Aircraft Technical Support at email:
(1) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 14 days after the inspection.
(2) If the inspection was done before the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 14 days after the effective date of this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information Canadian Emergency Airworthiness Directive CF–2013–11, dated April 17, 2013; and Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin 215–A558, dated April 5, 2013; for related information.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin 215–A558, dated April 5, 2013.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514–855–5000; fax 514–855–7401; email
(4) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action establishes Class E Airspace at Bass Harbor, ME, to accommodate a new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) special Standard Instrument Approach Procedure (SIAP) serving Bass Harbor Heliport. This action enhances the safety and airspace management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations within the National Airspace System. Also, geographic coordinates are corrected under their proper heading.
Effective 0901 UTC, August 22, 2013. The Director of the Federal
John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305–6364.
On March 28, 2013, the FAA published in the
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9W dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15, 2012, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Bass Harbor, ME, providing the controlled airspace required to support the new Copter RNAV (GPS) special standard instrument approach procedures for Bass Harbor Heliport. Controlled airspace within a 6-mile radius of the point in space coordinates of the heliport is necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations at the heliport. Geographic coordinates for the heliport and points in space are corrected and separately listed.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore, (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes controlled airspace at Bass Harbor Heliport, Bass Harbor, ME.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
Administration Order 7400.9W, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2012, effective September 15, 2012, is amended as follows:
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6- mile radius of the Point in Space Coordinates (lat. 44°14′49″ N., long. 68°20′18″ W.) serving Bass Harbor Heliport
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security; Department of the Treasury.
Final rule.
This document adopts as a final rule, with two changes, interim amendments to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) regulations which were published in the
Effective July 1, 2013.
On June 30, 2007, the United States and the Republic of Korea (hereinafter “Korea”) signed the United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement (hereinafter “UKFTA” or the “Agreement”). On December 3, 2010, the United States and Korea concluded new agreements, reflected in letters signed on February 10, 2011, that provide new market access and level the playing field for U.S. auto manufacturers and workers. The provisions of the FTA were adopted by the United States with the enactment of the United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (the “Act”), Public Law 112–41, 125 Stat. 428 (19 U.S.C. 3805 note), on October 21, 2011. Sections 103(b) and 208 of the Act require that regulations be prescribed as necessary to implement the provisions of the UKFTA.
Following Presidential Proclamation 8783, CBP published on March 19, 2012, CBP Dec. 12–03 in the
Although the interim regulatory amendments were promulgated without prior public notice and comment procedures and took effect on March 15, 2012, CBP Dec. 12–03 provided for the submission of public comments that would be considered before the adoption of the interim regulations as a final rule. The prescribed public comment period closed on May 18, 2012.
Two responses were received to the solicitation of comments on the interim rule set forth in CBP Dec. 12–03. The comments are discussed below.
A commenter cited four subjects of CBP's interim regulations which it found favorable, namely: (1) The flexibility for certifications to be issued by the producer, exporter, or importer who possesses the required origin information; (2) the consistent application of the rules of origin to UKFTA; (3) clear regulatory procedures regarding actions that CBP will take with respect to inquiries, audits, and enforcement actions; and (4) the exemption from the
The commenter, however, requested clarification concerning the period of validity for blanket certification issued for a twelve-month period for multiple shipments of identical goods from a manufacturer under 19 CFR 10.1004(a)(3)(vii) with respect to the four-year period of a properly executed certificate provided for in 19 CFR 10.1004(f)). For example, a U.S. importer receives a blanket certificate from a Korean supplier (producer) for a one-year period (1/1/2013 through 12/31/2013). Based on the validity of the four-year period for the certificate (1/1/2013 through 12/31/2016) as permitted under 19 CFR 10.1004(f), the commenter asks whether the certificate is valid for use to make a duty free claim after the expiration of the one-year period from the supplier (producer), that is, whether the one-year blanket for multiple shipments of identical goods could be extended for another three years.
Section 10.1004 of the CBP regulations concerning certification implements, among other provisions, Article 6.15.5 of the UKFTA and requires that a certification be valid for four years after the date it was issued. CBP will not accept a certification that is more than four years old. The time period that a blanket certification may cover is limited to a one-year period. In the example above, the blanket certification issued on 1/1/2013 applies to the one-year period of time during which the identical goods were produced (1/1/2013–12/31/2013). The producer would need to have a new blanket certification for another year's production. Please note that the four-year certification period (through 12/31/2016) would continue to cover only the goods that were produced during the blanket one-year period from 1/1/2013 to 12/31/2013 if these goods were imported into the United States three years after they were produced. The producer would need an amended blanket certification to cover further production of identical goods beyond the initial one-year period, such as 1/1/2014 to 12/31/2014.
A commenter stated that the use of denial of entry under 19 CFR 10.1027 could be a disproportionate measure and that any action against textile or apparel goods under the UKFTA should be limited to denial of preferential treatment. The commenter requested that CBP consider revising section 10.1027 of part 10 to either (1) remove references to “denial of entry” to textile or apparel goods, or, (2) to further specify the conditions that would trigger a denial of entry requiring a CBP finding of either (a) repeated unlawful activity or (b) willful presentation of inaccurate origin information.
CBP believes the language in section 10.1027 of the interim regulations accurately reflects the text of the UKFTA and the Act. Article 4.3.10 of the UKFTA specifies that if the importing party is unable to make the determination described in either Article 4.3.3 (verification to determine that a claim of origin for a textile or apparel good is accurate) or Article 4.3.5 (verification to determine that a person is complying with applicable customs measures affecting trade in textile or apparel goods when the importing party has a reasonable suspicion that the person is engaging in unlawful activity relating to trade in textile and apparel goods) within 12 months after its request for a verification, or makes a negative determination, it may, consistent with its law, take appropriate action. Section 207(d)(2) of the Act specifically defines “appropriate action” to include denial of entry into the United States for goods subject to a verification under section 207(a)(1), namely textile or apparel goods.
With regard to country of origin determinations of textile or apparel goods in general, if the CBP port director is unable to determine the country of origin of a textile or apparel product, the importer must submit additional information as requested by the port director. Release of the product from CBP custody will be denied until
CBP is making two technical corrections to the interim regulatory text as a result of its further review. The first is to correct a cross-reference in section 10.1009(c)(2) to paragraph (c)(1). The second is to the regulatory text of section 10.1027 to improve readability and logical flow by changing the order of paragraphs (c) and (d) concerning verifications of U.S. imports of textile and apparel goods in Korea. This change will move the provision on action by U.S. officials in conducting a verification abroad to appear before the provision on denial of permission to conduct a verification. Accordingly, after further review of the comments and further consideration, CBP has determined that the interim regulations published as CBP Dec. 12–03 should be adopted as a final rule with two technical corrections to 19 CFR 10.1009 and 10.1027 as discussed above.
This document is not a regulation or a rule subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), because it pertains to a foreign affairs function of the United States and implements an international agreement, as described above, and therefore is specifically exempted by section 3(d)(2) of Executive Order 12866.
CBP Dec. 12–03 was issued as an interim rule rather than a notice of proposed rulemaking because CBP had determined that the interim regulations involve a foreign affairs function of the United States pursuant to section 553(a)(1) of the Administrative Procedure Act. Because no notice of proposed rulemaking was required, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. 601
The collections of information contained in these regulations have previously been reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507) under control number 1651–0117, which covers many of the free trade agreements requirements that CBP administers. The collections of information in these regulations are in §§ 10.1003 and 10.1004. This information is required in connection with claims for preferential tariff treatment under the UKFTA and the Act and will be used by CBP to determine eligibility for tariff preference under the UKFTA and the Act. The likely respondents are business organizations including importers, exporters and manufacturers.
The estimated average annual burden associated with the collection of information in this final rule is 0.2 hours per respondent or recordkeeper. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden estimate and suggestions for reducing this burden should be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503. A copy should also be sent to the Trade and Commercial Regulations Branch, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 799 9th Street NW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20229–1179. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and an individual is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number.
This document is being issued in accordance with § 0.1(a)(1) of the CBP regulations (19 CFR 0.1(a)(1)) pertaining to the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury (or his/her delegate) to approve regulations related to certain customs revenue functions.
Alterations, Bonds, Customs duties and inspection, Exports, Imports, Preference programs, Repairs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Trade agreements.
Accounting, Customs duties and inspection, Financial and accounting procedures, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Trade agreements, User fees.
Administrative practice and procedure, Customs duties and inspection, Penalties, Trade agreements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Customs duties and inspection, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Trade agreements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, the interim rule amending parts 10, 24, 162, 163, and 178 of the CBP regulations (19 CFR parts 10, 24, 162, 163, and 178), which was published at 77 FR 15943 on March 19, 2012, is adopted as final with the following changes:
1. The general authority citation for Part 10 and the specific authority citations for subpart R continue to read as follows:
19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States), 1321, 1481, 1484, 1498, 1508, 1623, 1624, 3314;
Sections 10.1001 through 10.1034 also issued under 19 U.S.C. 1202 (General Note 33, HTSUS), 19 U.S.C. 1520(d), and Pub. L. 112–41, 125 Stat. 428 (19 U.S.C. 3805 note).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final rule.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is issuing a final rule that adopts, without change, the interim final rule (IFR) entitled “Information Required in Prior Notice of Imported Food” that published in the
This rule is effective May 30, 2013.
Anthony C. Taube, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Office of Regional Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 12420 Parklawn Dr., ELEM–4051, Rockville, MD 20857, 866–521–2297.
Each year about 48 million people (1 in 6 Americans) get sick; 128,000 are hospitalized; and 3,000 die from food borne diseases, according to 2011 data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (
The FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) (Pub. L. 111–353), signed into law by President Obama on January 4, 2011, enables FDA to better protect public health by helping to ensure the safety and security of the food supply. It enables FDA to focus more on preventing food safety problems rather than relying primarily on reacting to problems after they occur. The law also provides FDA with new enforcement authorities to help it achieve higher rates of compliance with prevention- and risk-based food safety standards and to better respond to and contain problems when they do occur. The law also gives FDA important new tools to better ensure the safety of imported foods and directs FDA to build an integrated national food safety system in partnership with State and local authorities.
Section 304 of FSMA amended section 801(m) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 381(m)) to require that additional information be provided in a prior notice of imported food submitted to FDA. This change requires a person submitting prior notice of imported food, including food for animals, to report, in addition to other information already required, “any country to which the article has been refused entry.” Section 304 also required the Secretary of Health and Human Services to issue an IFR implementing this statutory change no later than 120 days following the date of enactment of FSMA and further specified that the amendment made by section 304 take effect 180 days after the date of FSMA's January 4, 2011, enactment, which was July 3, 2011. On May 5, 2011, FDA issued an IFR that implemented section 304 and contained a request for comments. The IFR became effective on July 3, 2011. This final rule adopts, without making any changes, the regulatory requirements established in the IFR.
To the extent that 5 U.S.C. 553 applies to this action, the Agency's implementation of this action with an immediate effective date comes within the good cause exception in 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) (21 CFR 10.40(c)(4)(ii)). As this final rule imposes no new regulatory requirements, a delayed effective date is unnecessary.
The Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 (the Bioterrorism Act) was signed into law on June 12, 2002, and among other things, it amended the FD&C Act by adding section 801(m). This provision created the requirement that FDA receive certain information about imported foods before arrival in the United States. It also provided that an article of food imported or offered for import is subject to refusal of admission into the United States if adequate prior notice has not been provided to FDA. The Secretary of Health and Human Services was directed to issue implementing regulations, after consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, by December 12, 2003, requiring prior notice of imported food.
In accordance with the Bioterrorism Act, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Department of the Treasury jointly published a notice of proposed rulemaking (proposed rule) in the
In the
The prior notice regulations are codified at Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 1, subpart I (21 CFR 1.276 to 1.285). Section 1.281 of the regulations (21 CFR 1.281) describes the information that must be submitted in a prior notice. The 2011 IFR amended those regulations as required by section 304 of FSMA. Specifically, the 2011 IFR amended paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of § 1.281 to require that the prior notice include the identity of any country to which an article of food has been refused entry. This final rule adopts these changes to § 1.281.
FDA received 15 comments in response to the IFR. After considering these comments, the Agency is not making any changes to the regulatory language included in the IFR. Relevant portions of these comments are summarized and responded to in this document. To make it easier to identify comments and FDA's responses, the word “Comment,” in parentheses, appears before the comment's description, and the word “Response,” in parentheses, appears before FDA's response. Each comment is numbered to help distinguish among different comments. The number assigned to each comment is purely for organizational purposes and does not signify the comment's value or importance.
(Comment 1) Several comments requested that FDA clarify the scope of the term “refused entry” in the requirement to report in a prior notice the name of “any country to which an article of food has been refused entry”. Many comments stated that refusals can occur for various reasons (e.g., labeling, noncompliance with wood packing materials/pallets or food safety reasons) and suggested limiting the reporting requirement to refusals due to food safety-related reasons. One comment noted that only requiring reporting of refusals associated with safety risks will avoid an influx of nonmission-critical data and enable FDA's Division of Food Defense Targeting (formerly known as the Prior Notice Center) to allocate its resources in a manner that is effective and consistent with FDA's goal to ensure the safety and security of the U.S. food supply.
(Response) For purposes of this regulation, FDA considers “refused entry” to mean a refusal of entry or admission of human or animal food based on food safety reasons, such as intentional or unintentional contamination of an article of food. FDA agrees that only refusals for food safety reasons should be reported. This is consistent with the intent of the provision, which is to provide FDA with additional information to better identify imported food shipments that may pose a safety or security risk to U.S. consumers. FDA plans to explain the meaning of refused entry in its guidance on the prior notice rule and this should prevent confusion regarding the term.
(Comment 2) Several comments suggested including information regarding the reason for refusal in the prior notice to facilitate and better inform FDA's decisionmaking process. One comment recommended the use of affirmation of compliance codes for various types of refusals, using the country identifier as the affirmation of compliance qualifier.
(Response) At this time, FDA is not requiring the reason for refusal to be submitted along with the identity of the country. As FDA reviews the prior notice submission information, it may contact the submitter or other parties to obtain further information to assist with its review.
(Comment 3) Several comments requested that FDA clarify the scope of the term “article of food” in the requirement to report in a prior notice the name of any country to which an “article of food” has been refused entry. In particular, comments suggested clarifying whether ”article of food” refers to a specific shipment of food that is the subject of a specific prior notice, or to food within the same lot or batch numbers that may be sent to other countries. Two comments recommended limiting the scope of the term “article of food” to a specific article of food that is the subject of a specific prior notice so that compliance with the rule does not create a burden on industry.
(Response) For purposes of this regulation, FDA considers the term “article of food” to refer only to the specific food item for which prior notice is being submitted. As such, FDA does not consider “article of food” to refer to food from the same batch or lot that is not being imported or offered for import into the United States and for which prior notice will not be submitted, or to refer to food of a similar type that was previously refused entry by a country. As an example, consider a situation where some of the food from a batch or lot is shipped to the United States and at the same time the rest of the food is shipped to Country A. If Country A refuses entry, this fact is not submitted as part of prior notice for the portion that had been shipped to the United States. However, if the food that was originally shipped to Country A is subsequently shipped to the United States, then the prior notice for this shipment must include Country A as the country to which the article has been refused entry.
(Comment 4) One comment suggested that FDA clearly define the term “any country” as that term is used in the requirement to report in a prior notice the name of “any country” to which an article of food has been refused entry.
(Response) FDA considers this term sufficiently clear and thus is not defining it in the regulation. For the purpose of the prior notice requirements and reporting the name of “any country” to which an article of food has been refused as required by 21 CFR 1.281(a)(18), (b)(12), and (c)(19), “any country” refers to the country or countries, including the United States, where an Agency or representative of the government of the country has refused entry to the article of food.
(Comment 5) A few comments suggested that FDA clarify what documentation or verification is required to support the declaration or nondeclaration in a prior notice of imported food the name of any country to which the article of food has been refused entry.
(Response) The prior notice regulation does not contain any specific requirements regarding documentation of the information submitted as part of prior notice. However, in some circumstances FDA may request documents or other information pertaining to the refusal to facilitate FDA's review of the prior notice. In addition, FDA may request such information to help inform its admissibility decisions.
(Comment 6) One comment suggested that FDA provide clear guidance on the criteria being used when admissibility decisions are made about an article of food that has been refused entry by another country.
(Response) FDA uses prior notice information to make decisions about which imported food shipments to inspect at the time of arrival. Currently, we target foods which, based on the information submitted and our further review, may pose a significant risk to public health. In addition, the fact that another country has refused admission can help inform FDA's admissibility decisions. When the article of food has been refused entry by another country, it may have been for a reason that would also constitute a violation of U.S. law. Even if it is not, this fact will be considered with other information in determining whether a product is subject to refusal of admission in the United States.
(Comment 7) Two comments expressed the importance of ensuring that the new regulations do not become a barrier to trade.
(Response) The comments did not assert that the new requirement is a barrier to trade, and FDA believes it is consistent with the obligations of the United States under applicable trade agreements.
(Comment 8) One comment stated that it is unreasonable to hold importers liable for what could later be found to be a false declaration because importers or their agents, through no fault of their
(Response) Per § 1.278, prior notice must be submitted by a person with knowledge of the required information. When there is a violation of the prior notice regulations, FDA will look at the totality of the circumstances in determining whether and how to enforce the violation. FDA has guidance on enforcing the requirements for submitting prior notice, contained in a compliance policy guide entitled “Sec. 110.310 Prior Notice of Imported Food Under the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002” (
FDA has examined the impacts of this final rule under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612), and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4). Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct Agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this is not a significant regulatory action as defined by the Executive Orders.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires Agencies to determine whether a final rule will have a significant impact on small entities when an Agency issues a final rule “after being required . . . to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking.” Although we are not required to perform a regulatory flexibility analysis because we were not required to publish a proposed rule prior to this final rule, we have nonetheless conducted a regulatory flexibility analysis for this final rule. Because the costs per entity of this rule are small, the Agency also concludes that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Section 202(a) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) requires that Agencies prepare a written statement, which includes an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits, before proposing “any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year.” The current threshold after adjustment for inflation is $139 million, using the most current (2011) Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. FDA does not expect this final rule to result in any 1-year expenditure that would meet or exceed this amount.
Section 304 of FSMA requires a person submitting prior notice of imported food, including food for animals, to report the name of any country to which the article has been refused entry. The 2011 IFR implemented section 304 of FSMA by amending the prior notice regulation that had been in effect. This final rule adopts, without making any changes, the regulatory requirements established in the IFR.
In the 2003 IFR, FDA analyzed the economic impact of the requirements for submitting prior notice for human and animal food that is imported or offered for import into the United States. The Economic Impact Analysis of the 2008 final rule (73 FR 66294 at 66386) revised the analysis set forth in the 2003 IFR using new data and explained the marginal benefits and costs of the final rule itself, relative to the 2003 IFR.
Based on the analysis set forth in the 2008 final rule, the Economic Impact Analysis of the 2011 IFR estimated the marginal benefits and costs of the new statutory requirement in section 304 of FSMA. The 2011 analysis explained that any additional costs are from the additional time it will take submitters to read and enter the new information. The time needed for reading or entering new information was estimated as the average between 7 and 108 seconds per entry or 58 seconds (on average) per entry. Since the additional time required to provide the new information is a small fraction of the variation in time it can take to complete the prior notice for an entry, the marginal cost for the additional 58 seconds (on average) that it would take to provide the additional information would be negligible.
The 2011 analysis did not quantify potential benefits from the 2011 IFR. However, potential benefits can result from FDA's ability to use the additional information to better identify imported food shipments that may pose a safety or security risk to U.S. consumers. Personnel at the Division of Food Defense Targeting (formerly known as the Prior Notice Center) decide on a case-by-case basis whether the article of food needs to be held for examination upon arrival at the port. Having notice of an article of food imported or offered for import into the United States before it reaches a U.S. port allows FDA personnel to be ready at any time to respond to shipments that appear to pose a significant health risk to humans or animals.
FDA did not receive any comments that would warrant further revising the economic analysis of the 2011 IFR. Thus, this economic analysis confirms the economic impact analysis of the 2011 IFR. For a full explanation of the economic impact analysis of this final rule, interested persons are directed to the text of the 2011 (76 FR 25542 at 25543) and the 2008 (73 FR 66294 at 66386) economic impact analyses.
A regulatory flexibility analysis is required only when the Agency must publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (5 U.S.C. 603, 604). Section 304 of FSMA directed us to issue an IFR implementing that statutory provision, and FDA published the 2011 IFR and this final rule without a notice of proposed rulemaking. Although FDA was not required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking and, therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required, FDA has nonetheless conducted such an analysis and examined the economic implications of this final rule on small entities. FDA concludes that this final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small businesses.
This final rule contains information collection requirements that are subject to review by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). The collections of information in § 1.281 have been submitted to OMB for review as required by section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The requirements were approved and assigned OMB control number 0910–0683. This approval expires April 30, 2014. 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.
FDA did not receive comments that would affect the Paperwork Reduction Act burden estimates made in the 2011 IFR (76 FR 25542 at 25544). Therefore the estimated Paperwork Reduction Act burden for this final rule is the same as the estimated burden in the 2011 IFR.
The Agency has carefully considered the potential environmental effects of this action. FDA has concluded under 21 CFR 25.30(h) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
FDA has analyzed this final rule in accordance with the principles set forth in Executive Order 13132. FDA has determined that the rule does not contain policies that 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. Accordingly, the Agency has concluded that the rule does not contain policies that have federalism implications as defined in the Executive Order and, consequently, a federalism summary impact statement is not required.
Cosmetics, Drugs, Exports, Food labeling, Imports, Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Final rule; announcement of effective date.
This rule provides an effective date for previously published regulations implementing the Treaty Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Australia Concerning Defense Trade Cooperation (referred to herein as “the Treaty”).
Sarah J. Heidema, Office of Defense Trade Controls Policy, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC 20522–0112, telephone (202) 663–2809, email
The rule (Public Notice 8270, 78 FR 21523), published on April 11, 2013, amends the International Traffic in Arms Regulations to implement the Treaty, and identifies via a supplement the defense articles and defense services that may not be exported pursuant to the Treaty. The Department of State indicated in the rule that it would become effective upon the entry into force of the Treaty, and that the Department of State would publish another rule announcing its effective date. The Treaty entered into force on May 16, 2013. Therefore, the rule is in effect as of that date. The Department's regulatory analyses with respect to this Rule were published at 78 FR 21523, and are hereby incorporated by reference.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); rescission.
We propose to rescind an airworthiness directive (AD) for PIAGGIO AERO INDUSTRIES S.p.A. Model P–180 airplanes. The existing AD resulted from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as partial detachment of the inner protective film of the composite nacelles. Since issuance of that AD, we have determined that the unsafe condition does not exist or is not likely to develop on affected type design airplanes, and therefore the AD should be rescinded. The proposed AD would allow the public the opportunity to comment on the FAA's determination of the unsafe condition no longer existing before it is officially rescinded.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 15, 2013.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Mike Kiesov, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329–4144; fax: (816) 329–4090; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
On March 18, 1999, we issued AD 99–07–10, Amendment 39–11095 (64 FR 14824, March 29, 1999). That AD required actions intended to address an unsafe condition on the products listed above.
Since we issued AD 99–07–10, Amendment 39–11095 (64 FR 14824, March 29, 1999), the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued AD Cancellation Notice No.: 2013–0085–CN, dated April 8, 2013, which cancelled Ente Nazionale per l'Aviazione Civile (ENAC) (the airworthiness authority for Italy) AD No. 98–208, dated June 9, 1998. Italian AD No. 98–208 required the inspections and corrective actions of Piaggio Service Bulletin (Mandatory) No.: SB–80–0101, Original Issue: May 6, 1998. AD 99–07–10, Amendment 39–11095 (64 FR 14824, March 29, 1999), is the result of mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by ENAC.
We have been notified that since 2000, all nacelles for PIAGGIO AERO INDUSTRIES S.p.A Model P–180 airplanes have been manufactured by a different supplier, and no new occurrences of film detachment have been reported on earlier manufactured airplanes. Therefore, nacelle inner panel protective film detachment is no longer considered probable. Consequently, PIAGGIO AERO INDUSTRIES S.p.A. issued Mandatory Service Bulletin No. SB 80–0101, Rev. N. ZZ, dated February 19, 2013, to cancel the previous revision of this service bulletin.
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition identified in the existing AD no longer exists and the AD is not necessary.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by July 15, 2013.
This AD rescinds AD 99–07–10, Amendment 39–11095 (64 FR 14824, March 29, 1999).
This AD applies to PIAGGIO AERO INDUSTRIES S.p.A Model P–180 airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any category.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 54; Nacelles/Pylons.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; withdrawal.
NMFS withdraws a proposed rule for proposed regulations governing the requests for determinations of fishery resource disasters as a basis for acquiring disaster assistance, which was published on January 15, 2009. Instead of going forward with a final rule directly resulting from the 2009 proposed rule, NMFS issued an internal policy on June 16, 2011.
The proposed rule published on January 15, 2009 (74 FR 2467) is withdrawn as of May 30, 2013.
Christopher L. Wright, Fishery Policy Analyst, 301–427–8570, or via email
In accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) and the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act (IFA), NMFS (on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce) proposed regulations that were to govern the requests for determinations of fishery resource disasters as a basis for acquiring potential disaster assistance. The proposed regulations would have established definitions, characteristics of commercial fishery failures, fishery resource disasters, serious disruptions affecting future production, and harm incurred by fishermen. It also established requirements for initiating a review by NMFS, and the administrative process it would follow in response to such requests. The intended result of the proposed procedures and requirements was to clarify and interpret the fishery disaster assistance provisions of the MSA and the IFA through rulemaking and, thereby, ensure consistency and facilitate the processing of requests.
On June 16, 2011, NMFS issued an internal policy for determinations of fishery resource disasters as a basis for acquiring potential disaster assistance titled:
16 U.S.C 1801
Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, (USDA).
Notice of meeting.
The National Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Council will meet on June 4, 5, and 6, 2013. The meeting will be held in Denver, CO. at the Webb Municipal and the Denver City/County Buildings. The purpose of this meeting is to introduce new members, develop the 2014 work plan, develop the 2015 grant categories, listen to local constituents urban forestry concerns, prepare for the 10-year action plan revisions, receive Forest Service budget and program updates, and initiate the 2013 accomplishment/recommendations report.
The meeting will be held on June 4 at the Webb Muncipal Building and on June 5 and 6 at the Denver City/County Building from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. or until Council business is completed.
The meeting on June 4 will be held at the Webb Municipal Building, 201 West Colfax Ave., Denver, CO. The meeting on June 5 and 6 will be held at the Denver City/County Building, 1437 Bannock Street C, Denver, CO.
Written comments concerning this meeting should be addressed to Nancy Stremple, Executive Staff, National Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Council, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., MS–1151, Washington, DC 20250–1151. Comments may also be sent via email to
All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. Visitors wishing to view these documents are encouraged to call ahead to facilitate entry into the USDA Forest Service temporary location: 1621 North Kent Street, RPE Building, 9th floor, Rosslyn,VA 22209.
Nancy Stremple, Executive Staff, National Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Council, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., MS–1151, Washington, DC, desk phone 202–205–7829, or cell phone 202–309–9873, email:
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. Those interested in attending should contact Nancy Stremple to be placed on the meeting attendance list and to facilitate entrance to the Webb Municipal and the Denver City/County Buildings. Council discussion is limited to Forest Service staff and Council members; however, persons who wish to bring urban and community forestry matters to the attention of the Council may file written statements with the Council Executive Staff (1400 Independence Ave. SW., MS–1151, Washington, DC 20250–1151, email:
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 focus of this research effort is two-fold: (1) to gain an understanding of how building occupants with mobility impairments currently evacuate multi-story buildings in the United States during fire emergencies, and (2) to learn about the concerns of persons with mobility impairments on using elevators during fire evacuations. This research aims to provide guidance to designers and building managers on aspects of fire evacuation that concern occupants with mobility impairments and on how to improve elevator design and usage during fire emergencies. The research includes four opportunities for participation:
(a) Building managers and designated safety personnel from a sample of four to ten existing and new federal high-rise buildings in the United States will be contacted to complete a questionnaire requesting information on the emergency plans and procedures for the building, including how the buildings' evacuation plans incorporate the use of the existing elevator system to evacuate occupants with mobility impairments during fire emergencies. The building emergency plan will be requested from either the General Services Administration (GSA) or from the building manager.
(b) Occupants with mobility impairments in the buildings identified in part (a) will be asked for basic information on their mobility with
(c) Occupants with mobility impairments identified in part (b) will participate in a one-on-one interview requesting more detailed information on previous evacuation experiences, awareness of emergency procedures, and views and preferences on using an elevator to evacuate during a fire emergency.
(d) Professionals involved with emergency planning (e.g., GSA, USDA, DHS, building emergency managers, researchers) and building occupants with mobility impairments will be invited to participate in one of two focus groups. A preliminary analysis of the data resulting from parts (a) through (c) will be summarized in the form of two sets of potential plans for the use of elevators during fire evacuation by occupants with mobility impairments: one for existing buildings and one for new buildings. Members of the focus groups will review both of these potential plans. They will then participate in a discussion that will lead to guidance for designers and building managers on aspects of fire evacuation that concern occupants with mobility impairments and on how to improve elevator design and usage during fire emergencies. The order of the discussion of plans for existing and new buildings will be switched for the two focus groups to ensure that each plan receives the same amount of attention overall.
Collections (b) and (c): Selected high-rise building occupants with mobility impairments.
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 OMB Desk Officer, Jasmeet Seehra, FAX Number (202) 395–5167, or
Economic Development Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice and opportunity for public comment.
Pursuant to Section 251 of the Trade Act 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2341 et seq.), the Economic Development Administration (EDA) has received petitions for certification of eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance from the firms listed below. Accordingly, EDA has initiated investigations to determine whether increased imports into the United States of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by each of these firms contributed importantly to the total or partial separation of the firm's workers, or threat thereof, and to a decrease in sales or production of each petitioning firm.
Any party having a substantial interest in these proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter. A written request for a hearing must be submitted to the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms Division, Room
Please follow the requirements set forth in EDA's regulations at 13 CFR 315.9 for procedures to request a public hearing. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance official number and title for the program under which these petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms.
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by the Bi-State Authority, grantee of FTZ 146, requesting authority to reorganize the zone under the alternative site framework (ASF) adopted by the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.2(c)). The ASF is an option for grantees for the establishment or reorganization of zones and can permit significantly greater flexibility in the designation of new subzones or “usage-driven” FTZ sites for operators/users located within a grantee's “service area” in the context of the FTZ Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for a zone. The application was submitted pursuant to the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on May 20, 2013.
FTZ 146 was approved by the FTZ Board on February 11, 1988 (Board Order 371, 53 FR 5436, 2/24/1988) and expanded on April 18, 2000 (Board Order 1085, 65 FR 24675, 4/27/2000).
The current zone includes the following sites:
The grantee's proposed service area under the ASF would be Clay, Crawford, Edwards, Hamilton, Lawrence, Richland and Wayne Counties, Illinois, as described in the application. If approved, the grantee would be able to serve sites throughout the service area based on companies' needs for FTZ designation. The proposed service area is within and adjacent to the Evansville Customs and Border Protection port of entry.
The applicant is requesting authority to reorganize its existing zone project to include both of the existing sites as “magnet” sites. The applicant is also requesting approval of the following “usage-driven” site:
In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Elizabeth Whiteman of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to evaluate and analyze the facts and information presented in the application and case record and to report findings and recommendations to the FTZ Board.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is July 29, 2013. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to August 13, 2013.
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230–0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via
On March 18, 2013, the Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board docketed an application submitted by the Philadelphia Regional Port Authority, grantee of FTZ 35, requesting subzone status subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 35, on behalf of Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., in North Wales, Chalfont, Kutztown and Sellersville, Pennsylvania.
The application was processed in accordance with the FTZ Act and Regulations, including notice in the
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is conducting a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on multilayered wood flooring (“MLWF”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). The period of review (“POR”) is May 26, 2011 through May 31, 2012. The review covers one exporter of subject merchandise, Power Dekor Group Co., Ltd. (“Power Dekor”). We have preliminarily found that Power Dekor has not made sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value.
Trisha Tran, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4852.
The merchandise covered by the order includes MLWF, subject to certain exceptions.
The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes only; the written product description of the scope of the order is dispositive.
The Department is conducting this review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1)(B) and 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”) and 19 CFR 351.214. The Department calculated export prices in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Because the PRC is a nonmarket economy (“NME”) within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act, the Department calculated normal value in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act. Specifically, we valued the respondent's factors of production using the Philippines as the surrogate country, which is economically comparable to the PRC and a significant producer of comparable merchandise.
For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
The Department preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists:
The Department will disclose calculations performed for these preliminary results to the parties within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties may submit written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review.
Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice.
The Department will issue the final results of this new shipper review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such comments, within 90 days of publication of these preliminary results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), the deadline for submission of publicly available information to value factors of production under 19 CFR 351.408(c) is 20 days after the date of publication of the preliminary results. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(4), if an interested party submits factual information less than ten days before, on, or after (if the Department has extended the deadline), the applicable deadline for submission of such factual information, an interested party may submit factual information to rebut, clarify, or correct the factual
Upon issuing the final results of the new shipper review, the Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of this new shipper review. For any individually examined respondents whose weighted-average dumping margin is above
We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this new shipper review when the importer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above
The final results of this new shipper review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this new shipper review for shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by sections 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For merchandise produced by Guangzhou Homebon Timber Manufacturing Co. Ltd. and exported by Power Dekor, the cash deposit rate will be that established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213.
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
The U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service (CS), an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce's International Trade Administration, is organizing a Healthcare Trade Mission to Moscow and St. Petersburg, Russia from October 21–25, 2013 which will be led by a Senior Commerce official.
Russia, with 140 million consumers and almost unlimited medical needs, presents lucrative opportunities for U.S. companies. In addition Russia's recent membership into the WTO will benefit U.S. exports to Russia. Significant equipment, technologies, and investments are needed in the healthcare sector, specifically in the medical equipment, dental equipment
The mission will help participants gain market insights, make industry contacts, solidify business strategies, and advance specific projects with the goal of increasing U.S. exports to Russia. The mission will include one-on-one business appointments with pre-screened potential partners, market briefings, and networking events. Participating companies will enhance their ability to assess the Russian market by joining this official U.S. delegation.
Russia is one of the world's fastest growing economies and its healthcare system is evolving rapidly with a promising outlook for U.S. healthcare exports, particularly with medical equipment, dental equipment and biotechnology. It is estimated that only 20% of Russia's population has access to quality healthcare in a system that is {primarily government run} and under-funded.
As a result, approximately 20% of overall health care spending is covered out-of-pocket by patients. Voluntary healthcare insurance programs account for approximately one-third of total private healthcare expenditures. According to future reform plans, mandatory insurance funds will serve as the main source of healthcare funding and will provide transparency and monetary control within the system.
The National Health Project was developed in 2005 and was designed to significantly improve Russian healthcare. From 2011–2013, $15.4 billion was allocated from both the federal budget and the Mandatory Healthcare Insurance Fund. The Program of Healthcare Modernization 2011–2012, aimed at renovating and upgrading healthcare facilities, was financed at $11 billion. In addition, Russian healthcare providers need modern technologies for diagnostics and treatment. Russian patients are becoming more aware of modern medical technologies around the world and expect the same types of treatment in Russia.
In addition to these programs, the Ministry of Health has recently developed a draft government program called “Development of Healthcare in the Russian Federation.” This document is currently under review for approval. It contains the principles of preventive medicine, quality of provided healthcare services, education of medical personnel, and overall changes in the healthcare infrastructure.
The Ministry of Industry and Trade is also currently developing a strategy for the development of the medical industry until 2020. With continued growth in this sector,
The medical equipment sector is one of the fastest growing sectors of the economy. There is a relatively stable macroeconomic situation in Russia with much unsatisfied deferred demand for medical equipment across the country. In addition, the Russian government pays close attention to this field and is making efforts for greater transparency and efficiency, resulting in increased government financing for the purchase of medical equipment. For example, the Program of High-Tech Medical Assistance 2011–2013 was financed at $4 billion.
The medical equipment sector is one of the fastest growing sectors of the economy. There is a relatively stable macroeconomic situation in Russia with much unsatisfied deferred demand for medical equipment across the country. In addition, the Russian government pays close attention to this field and is making efforts for greater transparency and efficiency, resulting in increased government financing for the purchase of medical equipment. For example, the Program of High-Tech Medical Assistance 2011–2013 was financed at $4 billion.
Since commercialization of medical equipment manufactured in Russia remains low, the market for medical equipment is heavily dependent on imports. The average annual increase in the import market for medical equipment from 2006 to 2011 was approximately 23%. Medical equipment imports in 2006 were $14.2 billion with steady growth to $41 billion in 2011.
In 2011, the market for specific subsector of diagnostics and imaging equipment was estimated at $4.9 billion. During the next nine years the experts expect the yearly market growth at 13.5%. This includes diagnostics and imaging equipment, cardiovascular equipment, ophthalmology, orthopedics, laboratory diagnostics and urology.
Membership in the WTO will also benefit foreign exports to Russia. After full implementation of the WTO accession and Permanent Normal Trade Relations, tariffs for medical equipment are estimated to range from 0% to 7%. Currently, tariffs range as high as 15% to 20%.
The Russian dental market is also an area that is expanding and showing good growth potential. In 2011, total world imports into Russia for dental equipment were approximately $500 million and the total market for dental services was approximately $6 billion.
The number of clinics, practicing dentists, technicians and patient visits are all on the rise. There are over 9,500 dental units operating in Moscow, with 3,000 state clinics and over 6,500 private clinics. There are 670 municipal dental clinics and 2900 dental departments within those clinics.
The highest level of {dental industry privatization} is in the Moscow region. The number of practicing dentists in Russia is 68,000, of which 35,000 are members of the Russian Dental Association. The number of patient visits is approximately 150 million a year. However, the ratio of dentists to patients in Russia is still only 45/100,000 people, which is below levels in the U.S and most European countries. In the U.S., the ratio of patients to dentists is 60/100,000.
The dental market is one of the most highly controlled and organized markets in Russia. The largest associations are the Russian Dental Association which has 69 regional divisions and the Dental Industry (DI ROSI) which has 45 member companies. These associations play an important role in the introduction of new technologies and practices, actively participate in trade events and publish in professional journals. As a result, they have a large impact on the industry. The two major dental universities are Moscow State Medical and Dental University and the Sechenov Medical Academy in Moscow.
Domestic production of dental equipment is insufficient in Russia and produces very few new products. Local manufacturers such as Averon, VladMiVa, Raduga Rossii, Geosoft, Stomadent Omega, and Tselit produce a wide range of dental equipment. Since Russia's domestic dental production level meets only 20% of total demand, imports play a significant role in the market. The majority of dental equipment is supplied from the U.S,
Many large U.S. and international companies have offices in Russia, including Densply, 3M, Nobel Biocare, Mileston, Midmarek, 3i, Sirona, Kavo, Colgate, Kodak-Eastman, Philips-Sonicare, Discuss Dental (now owned by Philips), Oral B, and Wrigley Adeck.
There are about 500 distributors of dental equipment in Russia. The major distributors are located in Moscow and work in other regions through smaller local distributors or through regional representatives. Import customs clearances are executed more easily in larger cities like Moscow and St. Petersburg. There are strict product registration and certification procedures necessary for the release of dental equipment into the market. The registration and certification process can be complicated, time-consuming, and expensive. It may require a regular market presence by the manufacturer or an authorized representative with competent Russian language skills and knowledge of the local market to be able to complete the process.
In the last several years, Russia has been developing an innovative modern economy by focusing on information technologies and nanotechnologies. The biotechnologies area has large potential and is underdeveloped, but is evolving because of the need to extend life expectancies within the country. Large companies like Celgene, Amgen, and Genzyme are established in the market and are already working in the biotechnology field. Despite the fact that major companies from Europe and the U.S. have already entered the market, there is still room for small innovative companies in the biotechnology area. Good examples include two small biotechnology companies, Bind and Selecta, who have recently opened offices in Russia to start R & D which is a priority of the Russian government.
The Government Commission on High Technologies and Innovations signed a decision in April, 2011 to create a State Coordination Program for the Development of Biotechnology in the Russian Federation until 2020. The Ministry of Economic Development is responsible for this program which focuses on several areas including biopharmaceuticals and biomedicine.
Biopharmaceuticals (essential medicines, including biogenerics, hormones, cytokines, therapeutic monoclonal antibodies, peptides, phytomedicines, new generation vaccines, antibiotics and bacteriophages).
Biomedicine (molecular diagnostics, personalized medicine, engineered cell and tissue for therapeutic purposes, biocompatible materials).
The Russian market of biopharmaceuticals in 2010 was estimated at $2.2 billion, of which $1.3 billion was dedicated to cytokines, genetically engineered hormones (including insulin), coagulants and therapeutic enzymes, monoclonal antibodies ($350 million), and vaccines ($350 million). The sales of the two former antibodies and vaccines are expected to rise to $480 million and $370 million respectively by the year 2015.
The Russian biomedicine market is focused on the development and manufacturing of biotechnological products for the diagnosis and treatment of human diseases and for the prevention of harmful effects of the environment on humans. The world market of biotechnology (used for molecular genetics diagnostic technologies) was $13.5 billion in 2010, and is expected to be $33.3 billion by 2015. The access to credible biomedicine data for the Russian market is low because the segment has not been fully developed, but it is expected to mature in the near future.
Biotechnology is a large part of the overall pharmaceutical sector. According to industry experts, Russia is currently one of the ten largest pharmaceutical markets in the world. In 2011, the pharmaceutical market volume amounted to $26 billion in end user prices, which is 12% higher than in 2010.
An important recent trend was the planning and formation of “pharmaceutical clusters”. This was due in part to the completion of the “Strategy of Development of the Pharmaceutical Industry—2020”, developed by the Ministry of Industry and Trade which outlines some government priorities.
The Russian pharmaceutical market is import driven with 76% of drugs taken in Russia produced abroad. The only domestic manufacturer in the top 20 leading players in the Russian pharmaceutical market is Pharmstandart.
The goal of the Healthcare Trade Mission to Russia is to promote the export of U.S. goods and services by: (1) introducing U.S. companies to industry representatives and potential clients and partners; and (2) introducing U.S. companies to industry experts to learn about policy initiatives that will impact the Russian healthcare industry in general as well as the major segments: medical equipment, dental equipment and biotechnology.
In Moscow, trade mission members will participate in an Embassy briefing from industry experts and take part in one-on-one business appointments with private-sector organizations and/or government agencies as appropriate. In addition, they will enjoy a networking event with industry leaders and partners. In St. Petersburg, all of the delegates will have customized one-on-one business appointments and attend another networking reception.
Matchmaking efforts will involve partners such as the Association of International Pharmaceutical Manufacturers (AIPM), Innovative Pharma, Association of International Manufacturers of Medical Devices (IMEDA), and the American Chamber of Commerce in Russia. U.S. participants will be counseled before, during, and after the mission by CS Russia staff actively involved in the healthcare trade mission.
All parties interested in participating in the Healthcare Trade Mission to Russia must complete and submit an application package for consideration by the Department of Commerce. All applicants will be evaluated on their ability to meet certain conditions and best satisfy the selection criteria as outlined below. A minimum of 15 U.S. companies and/or trade associations and maximum of 20 companies and/or trade associations will be selected to participate in the mission from the applicant pool. U.S. companies or trade associations already doing business with Russia, as well as U.S. companies or trade associations seeking to enter these countries for the first time may apply.
After a company or trade association has been selected to participate in the mission, a payment to the Department of Commerce in the form of a participation fee is required. The participation fee will be $
Expenses for travel, lodging, meals, and incidentals will be the responsibility of each mission participant. Delegation members will be able to take advantage of U.S. Embassy rates for hotel rooms as of Sunday, October 20 through to Wednesday, October 23 in Moscow and Wednesday through Friday, October 25 in St. Petersburg. Please note that the trade mission begins in Moscow and ends in St. Petersburg. Early arrival nights in Moscow, return transportation to Moscow from St. Petersburg, or the extension of stay in St. Petersburg will be the responsibility of the participants.
An applicant must submit a completed and signed mission application and supplemental application materials, including adequate information on the company's products and/or services, primary market objectives, and goals for participation. If the Department of Commerce receives an incomplete application, the Department may reject the application, request additional information, or take the lack of information into account when evaluating the applications.
Each applicant must also certify that the products and services it seeks to export through the mission are either produced in the United States, or, if not, marketed under the name of a U.S. firm and have at least 51 percent U.S. content of the value of the finished product or service.
Selection will be based on the following criteria:
1. Suitability of the company's products or services to the market. Please note that due to Government procurement restrictions the Russian healthcare market is not receptive to used or refurbished products. For the purpose of this mission therefore, participants may not promote used or refurbished goods in the context of this mission.
2. Applicant's potential for business in Russia and in the region, including likelihood of exports resulting from the mission.
3. Consistency of the applicant's goals and objectives with the stated scope of the mission.
Diversity of company or trade association size, sector or subsector, and location may also be considered during the review process.
Referrals from political organizations and any documents containing references to partisan political activities (including political contributions) will be removed from an applicant's submission and not considered during the selection process.
Mission recruitment will be conducted in an open and public manner, including publication in the
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (“Department”) hereby publishes a list of scope rulings and anticircumvention
Jennifer Moats, AD/CVD Operations, China/NME Group, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202–482–2615.
The Department's regulations provide that the Secretary will publish in the
Requestor: LDA Incorporado; finished electrical rigid metal conduit produced by PYTCO, S.A. de C.V. and finished electrical metal tubing produced by Conduit, S.A. de C.V. are not within the scope of the antidumping duty order; November 15, 2012.
Requestor: Self-initiated by the Department; glycine exported from the People's Republic of China that is further processed in India is within the scope of the antidumping duty order; December 3, 2012.
Requestor: NextDoor Design & Manufacturing LLC; its valet laundry bag is not within the scope of the antidumping duty order; October 5, 2012.
Requestor: Medline Industries, Inc.; Medline's Hospital Bed End Panels are within the scope of the antidumping duty order; December 21, 2012.
Requestor: Esselte Corporation: Oxford Stone Paper Note Books are within the scope of the antidumping duty order; preliminary ruling December 28, 2012.
Requestor: Tobacco Import USA (“TIU”); hookah charcoal tablets imported by TIU are not within the scope of the antidumping duty order; December 17, 2012.
Requestor: The Chemical Company; acetyl tributyl citrate is not within the scope of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders; November 19, 2012.
Requestor: A.O. Smith Corporation; aluminum anodes for water heaters are not within the scope of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders; October 17, 2012.
Requestor: Innovative Controls Inc.; side mount valve controls are not within the scope of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders; October 26, 2012.
Requestor: Clenergy (Xiamen) Technology Co. Ltd. (“Clenergy”); Clenergy's solar panel mounting systems are not within the scope of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders; October 31, 2012.
Requestor: Valeo Group and its affiliates; certain aluminum inlet parts for automotive heating and cooling systems are within the scope of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders; October 31, 2012.
Requestor: Plasticoid Manufacturing Inc.; certain finished aluminum rails for cutting and marking straight edges are within the scope of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders; November 13, 2012.
Requestor: Signtex Lighting, Inc.; aluminum mounting plates are within the scope of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders; November 14, 2012.
Requestor: UQM Technologies Inc.; certain assembled motor cases are within the scope of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders; certain assembled motor cases in stators are not within the scope of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders; November 19, 2012.
Requestor: Northern California Glass Management Association and the Curtain Wall Coalition; curtain wall units and other parts and components of curtain walls are within the scope of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders; November 30, 2012.
Requestor: Meridian Products LLC; certain refrigerator/freezer trim kits are within the scope of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders; December 19 2012.
Requestor: Signature Brands, LLC; 17 of its birthday candles are within the scope of the antidumping duty order; five of its birthday candle models are not within the scope of the antidumping duty order; preliminary ruling October 5, 2012.
Requestor: SmileMakers, Inc.; its model Item #TSHP bag is within the scope of the antidumping duty order; November 19, 2012.
Requestor: Duferco Steel Inc.; its tap hole sleeve systems are not within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders; October 31, 2012.
Requestor: GEO Specialty Chemicals, Inc. and Chattem Chemicals, Inc.; all glycine produced and/or exported by AICO Laboratories India Ltd. and Salvi Chemical Industries Limited is circumventing the antidumping duty order; December 10, 2012.
Requestor: Vulcan Threaded Products, Inc.; certain steel threaded rod containing greater than 1.25 percent chromium exported by Gem-Year Industrial Co. Ltd., is circumventing the
Interested parties are invited to comment on the completeness of this list of completed scope and anticircumvention inquiries. Any comments should be submitted to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., APO/Dockets Unit, Room 1870, Washington, DC 20230.
This notice is published in accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(o).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; request for comments.
The Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, Northeast Region, NMFS (Assistant Regional Administrator), has made a preliminary determination that an exempted fishing permit application contains all of the required information and warrants further consideration. This exempted fishing permit would exempt commercial fishing vessels from the prohibition on landing unshucked surfclams into any container other than a standard surfclam/ocean quahog cage, and would allow project participants to test alternatives to the industry standard cage used in the Atlantic surfclam fishery. The research would be coordinated by the Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen's Association.
Regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act require publication of this notification to provide interested parties the opportunity to comment on applications for proposed exempted fishing permit.
Comments must be received on or before June 14, 2013.
You may submit written comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Jason Berthiaume, Fishery Management Specialist, 978–281–9177,
The Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen's Association (CCCHFA) submitted a complete application for an exempted fishing permit on May 14, 2013, to conduct commercial fishing activities that the regulations would otherwise restrict. The Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP) would authorize up to three vessels to research the feasibility of a day-boat Atlantic surfclam fishery for smaller vessels based out of Cape Cod by testing alternatives to the large industry-standard cages and 32-bu (1,703.68 L) cage tags. The traditional cages do not fit on smaller day-boats and, as a result, vessels not capable of carrying a cage onboard must offload directly into cages. The applicant stated that offloading into cages can be burdensome and dangerous and the extra handling and the compression of clams in the bottom of the cage can lead to damaged product. The CCCHFA proposes to explore the use of smaller containers that would result in less damaged product, thus creating a market for a lower volume, high quality product.
In addition, the applicant seeks to devise a means for tagging and quantifying cage equivalents. The Atlantic surfclam fishery manages quota allocations by using a tagging system, with each tag representing 32 bu (1,703.68 L) of allocation, or one cage. In addition to managing allocations, the tagging requirement is also important to maintain product chain of custody to allow harvested product to be tracked and disposed of, in the event the shellfish are harvested from contaminated waters and are determined to not be fit for human consumption. For these reasons, every cage containing surfclams must remain tagged from when the clams are first offloaded to the point of final disposition. Because this exempted fishing permit would exempt the cage requirements, by default the cage-tagging requirements would not be applicable. However, because tags are essential to carrying out the surfclam fishery, the applicants would work with NMFS and the National Band and Tag Company to convert standard cage tags into single-bushel tags to ensure all product harvested would be tagged. To allow for the flexibility to test a variety of experimental cage alternatives, 1-bu (53.24–L) tags would be developed and utilized on all cage alternatives.
Surfclams would be landed in bushel increments using standardized fishery bushel methodology. Participants propose to test the viability of three different cage alternatives:
1. Standardized shellfish bag (1 bu (53.24 L));
2. Standardized stackable fish tote (1 bu (53.24 L)); and
3. Standardized fish vat (used for skates and dogfish) (16 bu (851.84 L)).
Standardized shellfish bags and stackable fish totes would each hold 1 bu (53.24 L) and would be tagged with a 1-bu (53.24–L) tag. The standardized fish vat measures nearly 16 bu (851.84 L), and would be tagged with no fewer than sixteen, 1-bu (53.24–L) tags. The shellfish bags and fish totes would be further constrained to weigh no more than 89 lb (40.4 kg), the standard weight equivalent of a single bushel of clams.
Quota and tags would be tracked using methods consistent with the standard Atlantic surfclam fishery reporting requirements. All Atlantic surfclams would be sold to federally permitted dealers. In addition, when offloading to the dealer, weight samples would be taken to verify weights as to further develop the experimental containers.
The target species would be Atlantic surfclam, with some possible landings of stinson's clams. All clams caught would be sold and would be applied against the CCCHFA quota allocation of 31,136 bu (1.6 million L). A 4-ft (122-cm) hydraulic clam dredge would be used on 30–40, 15-min tows, on up to 150 trips. The research would be conducted from June through October, in Federal waters surrounding Nantucket Island within 30 mi (48 km) of shore.
If approved, the applicant may request minor modifications and extensions to the EFP throughout the year. EFP modifications and extensions may be granted without further notice if they are deemed essential to facilitate completion of the proposed research and have minimal impacts that do not change the scope or impact of the initially approved EFP request. Any fishing activity conducted outside the
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; request for comments.
The Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, Northeast Region, NMFS (Assistant Regional Administrator), has made a preliminary determination that an exempted fishing permit application contains all of the required information and warrants further consideration. This exempted fishing permit would exempt vessels from monkfish days-at-sea possession limits to commercially harvest monkfish during compensation fishing in support of a project funded under the 2012 Monkfish Research Set-Aside Program. The primary goal of the research is to validate monkfish aging methods and would be conducted by the University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth, School for Marine Science and Technology.
Regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act require publication of this notification to provide interested parties the opportunity to comment on applications for proposed exempted fishing permits.
Comments must be received on or before June 14, 2013.
You may submit written comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Jason Berthiaume, Fishery Management Specialist, 978–281–9177.
The University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth, School for Marine Science and Technology (SMAST) submitted a complete application for an exempted fishing permit (EFP) on January 7, 2013, to conduct fishing activities that the regulations would otherwise prohibit. The EFP would exempt compensation fishing vessels from monkfish days-at-sea (DAS) possession limits in the Northern and Southern Monkfish Fishery Management Areas (NFMA and SFMA). Fishing activity would otherwise be conducted under normal monkfish commercial fishing practices. The vessels would use standard commercial gear and land monkfish for sale. Compensation fishing may occur through April 2014.
SMAST has been awarded 129 monkfish DAS under the 2012 Monkfish Research Set-Aside (RSA) Program to conduct research that focuses on validating the age of monkfish by incorporating a chemical marker into the age structures in a laboratory study and examining the influence of temperature. To facilitate compensation fishing in support of this research, the applicant has requested exemptions from monkfish DAS possession limits at 50 CFR 648.94(b)(1) and (2). The applicant stated that these exemptions would provide the vessels with flexibility to fulfill the financial needs of the project, while minimizing vessel operating expenses.
Monkfish EFPs that waive possession limits were first issued in 2007, and each year thereafter through 2011. The EFPs were approved to increase operational efficiency and to optimize research funds generated from RSA DAS. To ensure that the amount of monkfish harvested by vessels operating under the EFPs was similar to the amount of monkfish that was anticipated to be harvested under the 500 RSA DAS set-aside by the New England Fishery Management Council, NMFS has used 3,600 lb (1,633 kg) of whole monkfish per RSA DAS. This amount of monkfish was the equivalent of a double possession limit of Permit Category A and C vessels fishing in the SFMA. This was deemed a reasonable approximation because it was reflective of how the standard monkfish commercial fishery operates. It is likely that RSA grant recipients optimize their RSA DAS award by utilizing this possession limit.
SMAST developed its RSA proposal and budget in a manner that was consistent with previously approved EFPs. However, prior to submission of the RSA proposal, NMFS implemented Amendment 5 to the Monkfish FMP. Amendment 5 adjusted the tail-to-whole-weight conversion factor from 3.32 to 2.91, which essentially reduced the whole weight possession limits. Because this project was originally awarded DAS in fishing year 2012 and the budget was designed using 3,600 lb (1,633 kg) per DAS, the EFP, if approved, would allow this project to continue operating under this limit until the project's conclusion on April 30, 2014. This project was awarded 129 DAS. Therefore, participating vessels could use up to 129 DAS, catch up to 464,400 lb (210,648 kg) whole monkfish, or fish under the EFP until April 30, 2014, whichever comes first.
When applicable, or as required by the regulations, participating vessels may also concurrently use Northeast multispecies DAS while conducting monkfish compensation fishing. All catch of Northeast multispecies would be accounted for under applicable Northeast multispecies quotas.
If approved, the applicant may request minor modifications to the EFP throughout the year. EFP modifications may be granted without further notice if they are deemed essential to facilitate completion of the proposed research and have minimal impacts that do not change the scope or impact of the initially approved EFP request. Any fishing activity conducted outside the scope of the exempted fishing activity would be prohibited.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Notice; request for comments.
The Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, Northeast Region, NMFS (Assistant Regional Administrator), has made a preliminary determination that an exempted fishing permit application contains all of the required information and warrants further consideration. This exempted fishing permit would exempt vessels from monkfish days-at-sea possession limits to commercially harvest monkfish during compensation fishing in support of a project funded under the Monkfish Research Set-Aside Program. The primary goal of the research is to determine if monkfish constitute a single or multiple stocks over their coast-wide distribution and would be conducted by the Cornell Cooperative Extension of Suffolk County Marine Program.
Regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act require publication of this notification to provide interested parties the opportunity to comment on applications for proposed exempted fishing permits.
Comments must be received on or before June 14, 2013.
You may submit written comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Jason Berthiaume, Fishery Management Specialist, 978–281–9177.
The Cornell Cooperative Extension (CCE) was awarded 371 days-at-sea (DAS) under the 2012 Monkfish Research Set-Aside (RSA) Program. The primary goal of the study is to determine if monkfish constitute one or more stocks over their coast-wide distribution. CCE is using a genetic approach with microsatellite DNA analysis. Biological samples are being collected throughout the monkfish range. The vessels are using standard commercial gear and are landing monkfish for sale, but the sampling locations are determined by CCE. The research is being conducted under normal monkfish commercial fishing practices. Thirty vessels have been identified by the researcher to conduct compensation fishing under the exempted fishing permit (EFP).
To conduct compensation fishing in support of the project, CCE submitted a complete application for an EFP on April 17, 2012, requesting exemptions from the monkfish DAS possession limits. However, due to the complications resulting from the Endangered Species Act listing of Atlantic sturgeon, an EFP for the project was not approved. To mitigate concerns with Atlantic sturgeon, the applicant modified its EFP application to only conduct compensation fishing in offshore waters and submitted a modified application on March 5, 2013. The modified EFP was approved on May 21, 2013, which authorized participating vessels to fish seaward of 50 fathoms, where Atlantic sturgeon interactions are extremely rare.
However, during the EFP review process, the Northeast Fisheries Science Center published an updated analysis on Atlantic sturgeon abundance estimates, which are substantially higher than previous estimates (Kocik
The revised EFP would exempt vessels from monkfish DAS possession limits in the Northern and Southern Monkfish Fishery Management Areas. Category F vessels would be charged monkfish RSA DAS at a higher pro-rated rate of 2.909:1 RSA DAS for Category A and C vessels and 3.555:1 RSA DAS for Category B and D vessels, consistent with the Monkfish Fishery Management Plan.
Monkfish EFPs that waive possession limits were first issued in 2007, and each year thereafter through 2011. The EFPs were approved to increase operational efficiency and to optimize research funds generated from RSA DAS. To ensure that the amount of monkfish harvested by vessels operating under the EFPs was similar to the amount of monkfish that was anticipated to be harvested under the 500 RSA DAS set-aside by the New England Fishery Management Council, NMFS has used 3,600 lb (1,633 kg) of whole monkfish per RSA DAS. This amount of monkfish was the equivalent of a double possession limit of Permit Category A and C vessels fishing in the SFMA. This was deemed a reasonable approximation because it was reflective of how the standard monkfish commercial fishery operates. It is likely that RSA grant recipients optimize their RSA DAS award by utilizing this possession limit.
CCE developed its RSA proposal and budget in a manner that was consistent with previously approved EFPs. However, prior to submission of the RSA proposal, NMFS implemented Amendment 5 to the Monkfish FMP. Amendment 5 adjusted the tail-to-whole-weight conversion factor from 3.32 to 2.91, which essentially reduced the whole weight possession limits. Because this project was originally awarded DAS in fishing year 2012 and the budget was designed using 3,600 lb (1,633 kg) per DAS, the EFP, if approved, would allow this project to continue operating under this limit until the project's conclusion on April 30, 2014. This project was awarded 371 DAS. Therefore, participating vessels could use up to 371 DAS, or catch up to 900,000 lb (408,233 kg) of whole monkfish, or fish under the EFP until April 30, 2014, whichever comes first.
When applicable, or as required by the regulations, participating vessels may also concurrently use Northeast multispecies DAS while conducting monkfish compensation fishing. All catch of Northeast multispecies would be accounted for under applicable Northeast multispecies quotas.
If approved, the applicant may request minor modifications to the EFP throughout the year. EFP modifications may be granted without further notice if they are deemed essential to facilitate completion of the proposed research and have minimal impacts that do not change the scope or impact of the initially approved EFP request. Any fishing activity conducted outside the scope of the exempted fishing activity would be prohibited.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notification of availability; response to comments.
NMFS reviewed the Alaska, Atlantic, and Pacific regional marine mammal stock assessment reports (SARs) in accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and solicited public comment on draft 2012 SARs. Subsequently, SARs for ten stocks of marine mammals in the Atlantic region have been updated with revised abundance estimates and some corrections to bycatch estimates. These ten reports are final and available to the public.
The 2012 final SARs and supporting documentation are available in electronic form via the Internet at
Shannon Bettridge, Office of Protected Resources, 301–427–8402,
Section 117 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (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 three years for non-strategic stocks. The term strategic stock means a marine mammal stock: (A) For which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds the potential biological removal level; (B) which, based on the best available scientific information, is declining and is likely to be listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act within the foreseeable future; or (C) which is listed as a threatened species or endangered species under the Endangered Species Act. NMFS and the 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 independent Scientific Review Groups (SRGs), reviewed the status of marine mammal stocks as required and revised reports in the Alaska, Atlantic, and Pacific regions to incorporate new information. NMFS solicited public comments on the draft 2012 SARs on August 7, 2012 (77 FR 47043); the 90-day public comment period closed on November 5, 2012.
Subsequent to soliciting public comment on the draft 2012 SARs, NMFS revised the 2011 abundance estimates and the 2010 northeast sink gillnet serious injury and mortality estimates for several Atlantic marine mammal stocks after discovering errors based upon further review of the abundance estimation methods and upon receiving updated bycatch data. This new information prompted the agency to correct and revise the SARs for the following marine mammal stocks affected by these updates: 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 closed on April 16, 2013. This notice announces the availability of the final 2012 reports for the ten stocks identified above; the reports are available on NMFS' Web site (see
NMFS received comments on the ten revised draft Atlantic SARs from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission), the Humane Society of the United States and the Center for Biological Diversity, two individuals, and the National Park Service.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of availability and request for comment.
Notice is hereby given that NMFS has prepared a draft Environmental Assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of the potential effects of the issuance of a direct take permit for a hatchery program in Nason Creek, in the upper Columbia River basin. The permit application was provided by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and the Public Utility District No. 2 of Grant County (Grant PUD). The proposed permit would be issued for a period of 10 years. This document serves to notify the public of the draft environmental assessment for public review, comment, and submission of written data, views, arguments, or other relevant information before a final decision on whether to issue a Finding of No Significant Impact is made by NMFS. Also available for public review and comment are two addenda, one updating the Nason Creek application and one describing a proposed adult management program associated with spring Chinook salmon hatchery plans for major tributaries to the Wenatchee River. All comments and other information received will become part of the public record and will be available for review pursuant to section 10(c) of the ESA.
Comments and other submissions must be received at the appropriate address or fax number (see
Written responses to the draft environmental assessment should be sent to Allyson Purcell, National Marine Fisheries Services, Salmon Management Division, 1201 N.E. Lloyd Boulevard, Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232. Comments may also be submitted by email to:
Allyson Purcell at (503) 736–4736 or email:
Chinook salmon (
Steelhead (
Section 9 of the ESA and Federal regulations prohibit the “taking” of a species listed as endangered or threatened. The term “take” is defined under the ESA to mean harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. NMFS may issue permits to take listed species for any act otherwise prohibited by section 9 for scientific purposes or to enhance the propagation or survival of the affected species, under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA. NMFS regulations governing permits for threatened and endangered species are promulgated at 50 CFR 222.307.
On September 15, 2009, Grant PUD and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife submitted an application for an ESA permit to operate the Nason Creek spring Chinook salmon artificial propagation (hatchery) program. That application was made available previously for public review and comment (75 FR 14133, March 24, 2010). The hatchery program would collect adult spring Chinook salmon at Tumwater Dam or a Nason Creek weir; spawn, incubate, hatch, and rear the resulting progeny at Eastbank Hatchery and an acclimation facility to be constructed on Nason Creek; release juvenile Chinook salmon into Nason Creek; and manage natural and hatchery adult returns. Adult natural-origin fish in excess of broodstock needs could be
Subsequent to providing the original application, the WDFW provided an addendum to the HGMP describing how management of returning adult spring Chinook salmon would be addressed in conjunction with the hatchery program. The adult management plan represents an important component of the permit application.
NEPA requires Federal agencies to conduct an environmental analysis of their proposed actions to determine if the actions may affect the human environment. NMFS expects to take action on an application for a permit under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA. Therefore, NMFS is seeking public input on the scope of the required NEPA analysis, including the range of reasonable alternatives and associated impacts of any alternatives.
Corporation for National and Community Service.
Notice.
The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirement on respondents can be properly assessed.
Currently, CNCS is soliciting comments concerning its proposed renewal of the Peer Reviewer Application (OMB Number 3045–0090), used by CNCS to recruit external reviewers to assess grant applications. The information will be provided by individuals wishing to serve as peer review participants for CNCS' grant review processes. The completion of this information collection is required to be considered as a potential reviewer for CNCS.
Copies of the information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed in the addresses section of this notice.
Written comments must be submitted to the individual and office listed in the
You may submit comments, identified by the title of the information collection activity, by any of the following methods:
(1)
(2) By hand delivery or by courier to the CNCS mailroom at Room 8100 at the mail address given in paragraph (1) above, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
(3)
(4) Electronically through
Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TTY–TDD) may call 1–800–833–3722 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.
Vielka Garibaldi, (202) 606–6886, or by email at
CNCS is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of CNCS, 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 expected to respond, including 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).
CNCS provides grants on a competitive basis to support organizations that use service as a strategy for addressing national and community needs. As part of the grant applications review process, CNCS uses external reviewers to assess the quality of grant proposals submitted to CNCS. The peer reviewer application is used by individuals that wish to serve as peer reviewers or peer review panel coordinators for CNCS' grant reviews. The information collected will be used by CNCS to select review participants for each grant competition. The information is collected electronically using eGrants, CNCS' web-based grant management system.
CNCS seeks to renew the current information collection. Minor revisions are proposed to clarify eGrants instructions and reflect adjustments to the Corporation for National and Community Service eGrants system. The information collection will otherwise be used in the same manner as the existing application. CNCS also seeks to continue using the current application until the revised application is approved by OMB. The current application is due to expire on September 30, 2013.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics), Department of Defense.
Federal Advisory Committee Meeting Notice; Notice of cancellation.
On Monday, May 20, 2013 (78 FR 29334–29335), the Department of Defense published a notice announcing a June 12–13, 2013 meeting of the Threat Reduction Advisory Committee. This notice announces that the Department of Defense Threat Reduction Advisory Committee meeting scheduled for June 12–13, 2013 is hereby cancelled.
The meeting of the Threat Reduction Advisory Committee that was to be on Wednesday, June 12, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and Thursday, June 13, 2013, from 8:45 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. is hereby cancelled.
Mr. William Hostyn, Committee's Designated Federal Officer, DoD, Defense Threat Reduction Agency/J2/5/8R–ACP, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, MS 6201, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060–6201. Email:
The decision was based on matters discussed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), inputs from the public and regulatory agencies, and other relevant factors. The Final EIS was made available to the public on November, 26, 2010 through a NOA in the
Lisa McCarrick, 56 RMO/ESMP 7101 Jerstad Ln Bldg 500, Luke AFB, AZ 85309, 623–856–9475.
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice.
The Department of the Navy hereby gives notice of its intent to grant to Lumedyne Technologies, Inc., a revocable, nonassignable, partially exclusive license in the United States to practice the Government-Owned inventions described in Navy Case No. 100910: Harvesting Rotational Energy Using Linear-Based Energy Harvesters//Navy Case No. 101501: Reconfigurable Actively Switched Flying Capacitor Array//Navy Case No. 101592: Method for Analytical Reconstruction of Digital Signals Via Stitched Polynomial Fitting//Navy Case No. 101761: Apparatus and Methods for Time Domain Measurements of Oscillation Perturbations Using Phase Shifted Virtual Intervals//Navy Case No. 101804: Light Field Imaging Assisted Inertial Mapping and Navigation//Navy Case No. 101875: Inertial Sensors Using Sliding Plane Proximity Switches.
Anyone wishing to object to the grant of this license must file written objections along with supporting evidence, if any, not later than June 14, 2013.
Written objections are to be filed with the Office of Research and Technology Applications, Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Pacific, Code 72120, 53560 Hull St., Bldg. A33 Room 2531, San Diego, CA 92152–5001.
Brian Suh, Office of Research and Technology Applications, Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Pacific, Code 72120, 53560 Hull St., Bldg. A33 Room 2531, San Diego, CA 92152–5001, telephone 619–553–5118, E-Mail:
Office of Innovation and Improvement, Department of Education.
Notice; correction.
On May 3, 2013, we published notices in the
Effective May 30, 2013.
Carol Lyons, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., room 4W203, Washington, DC 20202–5930. Telephone: (202) 453–7122. FAX: (202) 205–5631 or by email: i3@ed.gov.
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.
1. In the
“
In addition, the grantee and its independent evaluator must agree to cooperate with any technical assistance provided by the Department or its contractor and comply with the requirements of any evaluation of the program conducted by the Department. This includes providing to the Department, within 100 days of a grant award, an updated comprehensive evaluation plan in a format and using such tools as the Department may require. Grantees must update this evaluation plan at least annually to reflect any changes to the evaluation. All of these updates must be consistent with the scope and objectives of the approved application. (2013 i3 NFP)”
2. In the
“
In addition, the grantee and its independent evaluator must agree to cooperate with any technical assistance provided by the Department or its contractor and comply with the requirements of any evaluation of the program conducted by the Department. This includes providing to the Department, within 100 days of a grant award, an updated comprehensive evaluation plan in a format and using such tools as the Department may require. Grantees must update this evaluation plan at least annually to reflect any changes to the evaluation. All of these updates must be consistent with the scope and objectives of the approved application. (2013 i3 NFP)”
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Division A, Section 14007, Pub. L. 111–5.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
In notice document 2013–12212 appearing on pages 31359–31365 in the issue of May 23, 2013, make the following correction:
On page 31359, in the first column, the Subject in the heading is corrected to read as set forth above.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities 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.
Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.
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 qualifying facility 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:
Take notice that on May 17, 2013, pursuant to section 206 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission), 18 CFR 385.206 and section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824(e), the New England Power Generators Association (Complainant) filed a formal complaint against ISO New England Inc. (Respondent) alleging that certain newly imposed obligations articulated in a November 5, 2012 memorandum issued by the Respondent violate FPA section 205 and are therefore unenforceable.
The Complainant certifies that copies of the complaint were served on the contacts for the Respondent as listed on the Commission's list of Corporate Officials.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
On April 22, 2013, Commission staff issued an order approving South Carolina Electric and Gas Company's request to convey approximately 0.172 acres of land of the Saluda Hydroelectric Project No. 516, located on the Saluda and Congaree Rivers in Lexington, Newberry, Richland, and Saluda Counties, South Carolina.
Rule 214(b)(2) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures states in relevant part that a motion to intervene must show in sufficient detail that the movant's participation is in the public interest.
Under section 313(a) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 825
This notice constitutes final agency action. Requests for rehearing by the Commission of this notice must be filed within 30 days of the date of issuance of this notice pursuant to section 313(a) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. 825
Take notice that on May 16, 2013, pursuant to section 305(a) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 USC 825d(a) and Rule 207of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, CER Generation II, LLC, Constellation Mystic Power, LLC, Constellation NewEnergy, Inc., Constellation Power Source Generation, Inc. and Criterion Power Partners, LLC (collectively, Petitioner) filed a petition for declaratory order requesting that the Commission declare that the payment of dividends, as more fully described in this petition, are not implicated by section 305(a) of the FPA.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Petitioner.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
On May 2, 2013, the Lewis County Development Corporation (Lewis County Corp), filed an application for a successive preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Croghan Dam Hydroelectric Project (project) to be located at the existing Croghan Dam, on the Beaver River, in Lewis County, New York. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
The proposed project would consist of: (1) An existing concrete gravity dam structure consisting of an 11.5-foot-high by 120-foot-long section, and a 9.5-foot-high by 103-foot-long section; (2) an existing impoundment with a normal water surface elevation of 818 feet mean sea level extending 2.7 miles upstream; (3) a new 75-foot-long by 35-foot-wide powerhouse; (4) a new turbine generator unit with a total installed capacity of 500 kilowatts; (5) a new 13.2-kilovolt transmission line interconnecting with the National Grid; and (6) appurtenant facilities. The proposed project would operate in run-of-river mode and generate an estimated average annual generation of 1,387 megawatt-hours.
Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements of 18 CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of the Commission's Web site at
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives notice that members of the Commission's staff may attend the following meeting related to the transmission planning activities of the Southern Company Services, Inc.:
For more information, contact Valerie Martin, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (202) 502–6139 or
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces EPA's approval of the State of Arkansas' request to revise/modify certain of its EPA-authorized programs to allow electronic reporting.
EPA's approval is effective May 30, 2013.
Evi Huffer, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Mail Stop 2823T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, (202) 566–1697,
On October 13, 2005, the final Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) was published in the
On August 22, 2012, the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) submitted an application titled “State and Local Emissions Inventory System” for revisions/modifications of its EPA-authorized programs under title 40 CFR. EPA reviewed ADEQ's request to revise/modify its EPA-authorized programs and, based on this review, EPA determined that the application
Part 52—Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans; and
Part 70—State Operating Permit Programs.
ADEQ was notified of EPA's determination to approve its application with respect to the authorized programs listed above.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
On June 15, 1984, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delegated to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) its approval authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.16, to approve of and assign OMB control numbers to collection of information requests and requirements conducted or sponsored by the Board under conditions set forth in 5 CFR part 1320 Appendix A.1. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. Copies of the Paperwork Reduction Act Submission, supporting statements and approved collection of information instruments are placed into OMB's public docket files. The Federal Reserve may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Comments must be submitted on or before July 29, 2013.
You may submit comments, identified by
•
•
•
•
•
All public comments are available from the Board's Web site at
Additionally, commenters may send a copy of their comments to the OMB Desk Officer—Shagufta Ahmed—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395–6974.
A copy of the PRA OMB submission, including the proposed reporting form and instructions, supporting statement, and other documentation will be placed into OMB's public docket files, once approved. These documents will also be made available on the Federal Reserve Board's public Web site at:
Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Cynthia Ayouch—Division of Research and Statistics, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551 (202) 452–3829. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263–4869, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.
The following information collection, which is being handled under this delegated authority, has received initial Board approval and is hereby published for comment. At the end of the comment period, the proposed information collection, along with an analysis of comments and recommendations received, will be submitted to the Board for final approval under OMB delegated authority. Comments are invited on the following:
a. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Federal Reserve's functions; including whether the information has practical utility;
b. The accuracy of the Federal Reserve's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
c. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
d. Ways to minimize the burden of information collection 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.
Proposal to approve under OMB delegated authority the extension for three years, with revision, the following information collection:
The FR 4011 is voluntary and is authorized under Sections 4(j) and 4(k) of the BHC Act, 12 U.S.C. 1843(j) through (k); and sections 225.88, and 225.89, of Regulation Y, 12 CFR 225.88, and 225.89.
The FR 4012 is mandatory and is authorized under Section 4(l)(1) and 4(m) of the BHC Act, 12 U.S.C. 1843(l)(1) and (m); section 10(c)(2)(H) of the Home Owner's Loan Act 12 U.S.C. 1467a(c)(2)(H); section 8(a) of the International Banking Act, 12 U.S.C. 3106(a); and sections 225.83 and 225.93 of Regulation Y, 12 CFR 225.83 and 225.93; and section 238.66(b) of Regulation LL 12 CFR 238.66(b).
The FR 4017 is required to obtain a benefit and is authorized under Section 9 of the Federal Reserve Act, 12 U.S.C. 335; and section 208.76 of Regulation H, 12 CFR 208.76.
The FR 4019 is required to obtain a benefit and is authorized under Section 4(k)(7) of the BHC Act, 12 U.S.C. 1843(k)(7); and sections 225.171(e)(3), 225.172(b)(4), and 225.173(c)(2) of Regulation Y, 12 CFR 225.171(e)(3), 225.172(b)(4), and 225.173(c)(2).
The FR 4023 is mandatory and is authorized under Section 4(k)(7) of the BHC Act, 12 U.S.C. 1843(k)(7); and sections 225.171(e)(4) and 225.175 of Regulation Y, 12 CFR 225.171(e)(4) and 225.175.
For the FR 4010, FR 4011, FR 4017, FR 4019, and information related to a failure to meet capital requirements on the FR 4012, a company may request confidential treatment of the information contained in these information collections pursuant to section (b)(4) and (b)(6) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)(5 U.S.C. 552 (b)(4) and (b)(6)). Information related to a failure to meet management requirements on the FR 4012 is confidential and exempt from disclosure under section (b)(4), because the release of this information would cause substantial harm to the competitive position of the entity, and (b)(8) if the information is related to examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of an agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial institutions. Since the Federal Reserve does not collect the FR 4023, no issue of confidentiality under the FOIA arises. FOIA will only be implicated if the Board's examiners retained a copy of the records in their examination or supervision of the institution, and would likely be exempt from disclosure pursuant to FOIA (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4), (b)(6), and (b)(8)).
There are no formal reporting forms for these collections of information, which are event generated, though in each case the type of information required to be filed is described in the Board's regulations. These collections of information are required pursuant to amendments made by the GLB Act to the BHC Act or the Federal Reserve Act, or Board regulations issued to carry out the GLB Act.
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services, has submitted an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. The ICR is for a new collection. Comments submitted during the first public review of this ICR will be provided to OMB. OMB will accept further comments from the public on this ICR during the review and approval period.
Comments on the ICR must be received on or before July 1, 2013.
Submit your comments to
Information Collection Clearance staff,
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the Information Collection Request Title and document identifier HHS–OS–19129–30D for reference.
• Measure the effect of the HIPAA Audit program on covered entities;
• Gauge their attitudes towards the audit overall and in regards to major audit program features, such as the document request, communications received, the on-site visit, the audit-report findings and recommendations;
• Obtain estimates of costs incurred by covered entities, in time and money, spent responding to audit-related requests;
• Seek feedback on the effect of the HIPAA Audit program on the day-to-day business operations; and
• Assess whether improvements in HIPAA compliance were achieved as a result of the Audit program.
The information, opinions, and comments collected using the online survey will be used to produce recommendations for improving the HIPAA Audit program.
Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice of public meeting and request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC), and Federal Communication Commission (FCC) seek broad input from stakeholders and experts on the elements we should consider as we develop a report that contains a proposed strategy and recommendations on an appropriate, risk-based regulatory framework for health IT, including mobile medical applications, that promotes innovation, protects patient safety, and avoids regulatory duplication. To that end, we are requesting comments on the topics identified in Section III.
This Docket on
Steven Posnack, Director, Federal Policy Division, Office of Policy and Planning, Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT, 202–690–7151.
Section 618(a) of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA) of 2012 (Pub. L. 112–144) directs the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), acting through the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and in consultation with the HHS Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) and the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), to publish a report that will offer a proposed strategy and recommendations for an appropriate risk-based Health IT regulatory framework that would include mobile medical applications and promotes innovation, protects patient safety, and avoids regulatory duplication.
To assist the agencies' efforts in developing this report, the FDA in collaboration with ONC and FCC formed a new workgroup, referred to as the FDASIA Workgroup, under ONC's HIT Policy Committee to help the HIT Policy Committee provide appropriate input and recommendations to FDA, ONC, and FCC as suggested by section 618(b) of FDASIA. Accordingly, the FDASIA Workgroup is charged with providing input on issues relevant to the report FDA, ONC, and FCC will develop, which include:
• Types of risk that may be posed by health IT that impact patient safety, the likelihood that these risks will be realized, and the impact of these considerations on a risk-based approach;
• Factors or approaches that could be included in a risk-based regulatory approach for health IT that also promote innovation and protect patient safety; and
• Approaches to avoid duplicative or overlapping regulatory requirements.
The workgroup's membership includes agency officials and representatives from a wide range of stakeholders, including patients, consumers, health care providers, startup companies, health plans and other third-party payers, venture capital investors, information technology vendors, health information technology vendors, small businesses, purchasers, and employers.
Through this request for comments, FDA, ONC, and FCC would like to provide an opportunity for broad public input on section 618 of FDASIA. Timely submitted written comments will inform the new FDASIA Workgroup's deliberations on the input it will provide to the HIT Policy Committee regarding the report required by section 618 of FDASIA. We seek input on a number of specific topics identified in Section III, but welcome any other pertinent information stakeholders wish to share.
On May 30 and 31, 2013, in Washington, DC, the FDASIA Workgroup will hold an in-person meeting which will also be Webcast. Persons interested in attending the in-person meeting or viewing the Webcast can access information about doing so at this URL:
Interested parties may submit electronic comments to
Health IT is being rapidly adopted by the health care industry and there is a growing need for the Federal government to develop a coordinated approach to its oversight of health IT that promotes innovation, protects patient safety, and avoids regulatory duplication. FDA, FCC, and ONC each have important roles with respect to the development and use of health IT that significantly impacts public health and welfare. Congress recognized the importance of a coordinated regulatory approach and through FDASIA, specifically tasked the FDA, ONC, and FCC with creating a report that includes a proposed strategy and recommendations for an appropriate, risk-based regulatory framework for health IT. To inform the report required by FDASIA, FDA, ONC, and FCC, in addition to receiving input from the HIT Policy Committee, intend to provide multiple opportunities, as appropriate, for input from other stakeholders at different stages throughout the report's development, including, if feasible, feedback on the draft framework prior to finalizing the report.
Public comment is sought on any or all of the following topics below.
a. What types of health IT should be addressed by the report developed by FDA, ONC, and FCC?
a. What are the risks to patient safety posed by health IT and what is the likelihood of these risks?
b. What factors or approaches could be included in a risk-based regulatory approach for health IT to promote innovation and protect patient safety?
a. Are there current areas of regulatory overlap among FDA, ONC, and/or FCC and if so, what are they? Please be specific if possible.
b. If there are areas of regulatory overlap, what, if any, actions should the agencies take to minimize this overlap? How can further duplication be avoided?
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
As stipulated by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), in collaboration with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), are hereby giving notice that a meeting of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) will be held. This meeting will be open to the public.
The meeting will be held on June 13, 2013 from 8:30 a.m.–11:30 a.m. e.d.t. and June 14, 2013 from 8:30 a.m.–3:45 p.m. e.d.t.
The meeting will be accessible by webcast on the Internet or by attendance in-person. For in-person participants, on June 13, 2013, the meeting will take place in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Masur Auditorium. On June 14, 2013, the meeting will be held in the NIH Foundation for Advanced Education in the Sciences (FAES) Academic Center. Both facilities are located at the NIH Clinical Center, Building 10, 10 Center Drive, 9000 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20892.
Designated Federal Officer (DFO), 2015 DGAC, Richard D. Olson, M.D., M.P.H.; Alternate DFO, 2015 DGAC, Kellie (O'Connell) Casavale, Ph.D., R.D., Nutrition Advisor; Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, OASH/HHS; 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite LL100 Tower Building; Rockville, MD 20852: Telephone: (240) 453–8280; Fax: (240) 453–8281; Lead USDA Co-Executive Secretary, Colette I. Rihane, M.S., R.D., Director, Nutrition Guidance and Analysis Division, Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, USDA; 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 1034; Alexandria, VA 22302; Telephone: (703) 305–7600; Fax: (703) 305–3300; and/or USDA Co-Executive Secretary, Shanthy A. Bowman, Ph.D., Nutritionist, Food Surveys Research Group, Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center, Agricultural Research Service, USDA; 10300 Baltimore Avenue, BARC-West Bldg 005, Room 125; Beltsville, MD 20705–2350; Telephone: (301) 504–0619. Additional information about the 2015 DGAC is available on the Internet at
Under Section 301 of Public Law 101–445 (7 U.S.C. 5341, the National Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research Act of 1990, Title III) the Secretaries of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Agriculture (USDA) are directed to issue at least every five years a report titled
The 2015 DGAC is authorized under 42 U.S.C. 217a, Section 222 of the Public Health Service Act, as amended.
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) and the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) announce the following meeting of the aforementioned committee:
Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by July 29, 2013.
Submit electronic comments on the collection of information to
Ila S. Mizrachi, Office of Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., P150–400B, Rockville, MD 20850, 301–796–7726,
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
FDA is requesting that OMB extend approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 USC 3501–3520) for the information collection resulting from the requirement that the content of labeling for prescription drug products be submitted to FDA electronically in a form that FDA can process, review, and archive. This requirement was set forth in the final rule entitled “Requirements for Submission of Labeling for Human Prescription Drugs and Biologics in Electronic Format” (December 11, 2003; 68 FR 69009), which amended FDA regulations governing the format in which certain labeling is required to be submitted for FDA review with new drug applications (NDAs) (21 CFR 314.50(l)(1)(i)), including supplemental NDAs, abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) (21 CFR 314.94(d)(1)(ii)), including supplemental ANDAs, and annual reports (21 CFR 314.81(b)(2)(iii)(
This OMB approval request is only for the burden associated with the electronic submission of the content of labeling. The burden for submitting labeling as part of NDAs, ANDAs, supplemental NDAs and ANDAs, and annual reports, has been approved by OMB under control number 0910–0001.
We estimate that it should take applicants approximately 1.25 hours to convert the content of labeling from Word or PDF to structured labeling format (SPL) format. The main task involved in this conversion is copying the content from one document (Word or PDF) to another (SPL). Over the past few years, several enhancements have been made to SPL authoring software which significantly reduces the burden and time needed to generate well-formed SPL documents. SPL authors may now copy a paragraph from a Word or PDF document and paste the text into the appropriate section of an SPL document. In those cases where an SPL author needs to create a table, the table text may be copied from the Word or PDF document and pasted into each table cell in the SPL document, eliminating the need to retype any information. Enhancements have also been made to the software for conversion vendors. Conversion software vendors have designed tools which will import the Word version of the content of labeling and, within minutes, automatically generate the SPL document (a few formatting edits may have to be made).
Based on the number of content of labeling submissions received during the past few years, we estimate that approximately 5,750 content of labeling submissions are made annually with original NDAs, ANDAs, supplemental NDAs and ANDAs, and annual reports by approximately 500 applicants. Therefore, the total annual hours to convert the content of labeling from Word or PDF to SPL format would be approximately 7,187.50 hours.
Concerning costs, we conclude that there are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information. In May 2009, FDA issued a guidance for industry entitled “Providing Regulatory Submissions in Electronic Format—Drug Establishment Registration and Listing.” The guidance describes how to electronically create and submit SPL files using defined code sets and codes for establishment registration and drug listing information, including labeling. The information collection resulting from this guidance, discussed in the
After the SPL file is created, the registrant would upload the file through the ESG, as explained in the January 8, 2009,
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Fax written comments on the collection of information by July 1, 2013.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: 202–395–7285, or emailed to
Domini Bean, Office of Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50–400T, Rockville, MD 20850,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
Under the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101–535), the Nutrition Facts label is required on most packaged foods and this information must be provided in a specific format in accordance with the provisions of § 101.9 (21 CFR 101.9). When FDA was determining which Nutrition Facts label format to require, the Agency undertook consumer research to evaluate alternatives (Refs. 1 to 3). More recently, FDA conducted qualitative consumer research on the format of the Nutrition Facts label on behalf of the Agency's Obesity Working Group (Ref. 4), which was formed in 2003 and tasked with outlining a plan to help confront the problem of obesity in the United States (Ref. 5). In addition to conducting consumer research, in the
Research has suggested that consumers use the Nutrition Facts label in various ways, including, but not limited to, using the Nutrition Facts label to determine if products are high or low in a specific nutrient and to compare products (Ref. 6). One component of the Nutrition Facts label that serves as an aid in these uses is the percent Daily Value. Early consumer research indicated that the percent Daily Value format improved consumers' abilities to make correct dietary judgments about a food in the context of a total daily diet (Ref. 3), which led FDA to require both quantitative and percentage declarations of nutrient Daily Values in the Nutrition Facts label in the 1993 Nutrition Labeling final rule (58 FR 2079, January 6, 1993).
Research in subsequent years, however, suggested that consumers' understanding and use of percent Daily Value may be somewhat inconsistent (Refs. 7 and 8). Additionally, FDA has received several public comments suggesting that further research on percent Daily Values may be warranted, along with research on other modifications to the Nutrition Facts label. Suggested research on potential modifications includes research on: (1) The removal of the statements, “Percent Daily Values are based on a 2,000 calorie diet. Your Daily Values may be higher or lower depending on your calorie needs”; (2) the removal of the table in the footnote that lists the Daily Values for total fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, sodium, total carbohydrate, and dietary fiber based on 2,000 and 2,500 calorie diets as described in § 101.9(d)(9); and (3) changes to the presentation of and amount of information provided in the Nutrition Facts label. Therefore, the FDA, as part of its effort to promote public health, proposes to use this study to explore consumer responses to various food label formats for the footnote area of the Nutrition Facts label, including those that exhibit information such as a description of percent Daily Value, a succinct statement about daily caloric intake, a general guideline for interpreting percent Daily Values, or a footnote about nutrients whose daily intake should be limited.
This study will also explore how declaring the added sugars content of foods might affect consumers' attention to and understanding of the sugars and calorie contents and other information on the Nutrition Facts label. FDA received numerous comments regarding the declaration of added sugars in response to the 2007 ANPRM even though the Agency did not ask any
The proposed collection of information is a controlled, randomized, experimental study. The study will use a Web-based survey, which will take about 15 minutes to complete, to collect information from 10,000 English-speaking adult members of an online consumer panel maintained by a contractor. The study will aim to recruit a sample that reflects the U.S. Census on gender, education, age, and ethnicity/race.
The study will randomly assign each of its participants to view Nutrition Facts label images from a set of food labels that will be created for the study. The label formats will vary in the presence or absence of: (1) A footnote describing percent Daily Value (“The % Daily Value tells you how much a nutrient in a serving of food contributes to a daily diet”); (2) a footnote indicating those nutrients whose daily intake should be limited (i.e., saturated fat, trans fat, cholesterol, sodium, and sugars); (3) a footnote including a general guideline for interpreting percent Daily Values, such as, “5% or less is a little, 20% or more is a lot”; (4) a footnote including a succinct statement about daily caloric intake (e.g., “2,000 calories a day is used for general nutrition advice, but people have different calorie needs”); and (5) a declaration for added sugars. All label images will be mockups resembling Nutrition Facts labels that may be found in the marketplace. Images will show product identity (e.g., yogurt or frozen meal), but not any real or fictitious brand name.
The survey will ask its participants to view label images and answer questions about their understanding, perceptions, and reactions related to the viewed label. The study will focus on the following types of consumer reactions: (1) Judgments about a food product in terms of its nutritional attributes and overall healthfulness; (2) ability to use the Nutrition Facts label in tasks, such as comparing two products, identifying a product's nutrient contents, and evaluating the levels of vitamin, mineral, and other nutrient content of a product; and (3) label perceptions (e.g., helpfulness and credibility). To help understand consumer reactions, the study will also collect information on participants' background, including but not limited to, use of the Nutrition Facts label and health status.
The study is part of the Agency's continuing effort to enable consumers to make informed dietary choices and construct healthful diets through labeling, consumer education, or both. Results of the study will be used primarily to enhance the Agency's understanding of how various potential modifications to the Nutrition Facts label may affect how consumers perceive a product or a label, which may in turn affect their dietary choices, and how to better educate people in using the Nutrition Facts label. Results of the study will not be used to develop population estimates.
In the
The responses included in this notice address comments that pertain directly to the currently proposed collection of information. Specifically, this notice addresses those comments that relate to the topics on which the FDA invited comments in the
(Comment 1) While a number of comments supported the proposed collection of information, a number of comments also questioned whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility. Among the issues raised with regard to whether the information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions was whether the Agency has sufficient justification to require, or the ability to enforce, added sugars declarations on Nutrition Facts labels. These comments discussed an uncertain relationship between added sugars and chronic health conditions, the current inability of most analytical methods to detect added sugars content in foods, and views on added sugars declarations that the Agency has historically expressed.
(Response 1) The Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2010 (2010 DGA) recommend the reduction in consumption of added sugars which currently comprise 16% of the daily energy intake. The DGA noted that “many foods that contain added sugars often supply calories, but few or no essential nutrients and no dietary fiber.” The current Nutrition Facts label does not permit the declaration of added sugars on the label. Section 403(q)(2)(A) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 343) provides that the Secretary of Health and Human Services may, by regulation, require other nutrients to be declared in nutrition labeling if the Secretary determines that a nutrient will provide information regarding the nutritional value of a food that will assist consumers in maintaining healthy dietary practices. The Agency proposes to examine added sugars declarations, along with other label modifications, in this information collection. The information gathered will have utility for the Agency as general information about consumers' current perceptions and use of information appearing on the Nutrition Facts label and will inform future education efforts. The study may also inform the Agency about what changes it should consider related to the Nutrition Facts label. The Agency's proposal to conduct consumer research on added sugars declarations does not constitute a proposal for changes in which nutrients must or may be declared on the Nutrition Facts label. Comments concerning regulatory, policy, and nutrition science related to added sugars declarations are outside the scope of this proposed collection of information. If and when the Agency
(Comment 2) A number of comments offered suggestions about additional consumer research or raised policy or nutrition science matters for consideration. Specifically, one comment recommended that FDA evaluate the effects of labels that show only added sugars and juice sugars, instead of showing total sugars. The same comment also suggested that FDA test consumers' understanding of how much sugar a food contains when amounts are provided in teaspoons as opposed to grams. Two comments urged FDA to set a daily value for sugars, added sugars, or both. One comment urged FDA to evaluate the effect on consumers of distinguishing between whole versus refined fiber on the Nutrition Facts label, as recommended by the Institute of Medicine. One comment suggested identifying a disqualifying level of total or added sugars that would make a product ineligible to have a health claim on its packaging because certain foods that are high in sugars may bear health claims and mislead consumers to think a product is healthier than it is. One comment noted that certain juice products may have more added sugars than, but the same or lower level of total sugars as, other juice or dried fruit products. The comment claimed that highlighting added sugars would minimize the health benefits of those products that contain more added sugar but lower total sugar than other juice or fruit products.
(Response 2) These comments are outside of the scope of the proposed collection of information described in the 60-day notice and therefore are not addressed here.
(Comment 3) Multiple comments cited the importance of evaluating consumer responses to potential changes to the Nutrition Facts label and how consumer understanding of the nutritional attributes of packaged foods may be affected by these changes, and therefore supported the proposed study.
(Response 3) The Agency agrees with these comments.
(Comment 4) Multiple comments noted the importance of educating consumers about how to make positive food choices, rather than relying solely on Nutrition Facts labeling as a method of assisting consumers in maintaining healthy dietary practices.
(Response 4) FDA agrees that consumer education is important to help consumers understand how to make healthy dietary choices, and has been conducting and sponsoring a variety of education efforts through its Web site (e.g., Refs. 9 to 14) and other programs such as the “Spot the Block” campaign (Refs. 13 and 14). The results of the proposed study will provide the Agency additional information to help guide future consumer education about how to use food labels to make healthy dietary choices.
(Comment 5) One comment noted that while Internet-administered questionnaires minimize burden on respondents and possible administration errors, expedite the timeliness of data collection and processing, and are less intrusive and less costly than other modes of questionnaire administration, there are also drawbacks to this mode of survey administration. Two comments noted limitations pertaining to online consumer panels, specifying that because panel-based samples are not representative of the general U.S. population, the results of the study cannot be applied to all U.S. consumers. One comment questioned why the Agency has not elected to restrict the research to respondents who shop for food or who read Nutrition Facts labels. The comment suggested that the study should screen for consumers who have a high probability of seeing Nutrition Facts labels or who actually consume or purchase the types of food products to be included in the proposed study.
(Response 5) The Agency acknowledges the limitations of Internet-administered research and the constraints associated with using samples drawn from online consumer panels. We note that the study is a controlled experimental study that would employ random assignment and is intended to examine causal relationships between certain label format modifications and respondents' reactions to the modifications. The study is not a survey that aims to generate population estimates of how many consumers would react to different modifications in particular ways. Because the study is not intended to generate population estimates, the Agency disagrees that the limitations of the sample would preclude meaningful conclusions about potential effects of the label format modifications, or that the study should be limited to participants characterized by particular label use or product use habits. In describing the data collected and results of the analysis, FDA will clearly acknowledge that the experimental data do not provide nationally representative population estimates of consumer understanding, behaviors, or perceptions, but nevertheless provide valid and quantitative estimates of differences across experimental conditions.
(Comment 6) Three comments expressed concern about asking respondents to judge the overall healthfulness of the products they view in the study. These comments noted that consumers' definitions of healthfulness may or may not be consistent with FDA's regulatory definition of healthy. Because different consumers are likely to define “healthier” using different criteria, one comment suggested providing a definition of “healthier” to ensure that all respondents are using the same definition. The comment asserted that because respondents may use idiosyncratic bases for responding to such questions, it is unclear how the results can be compared across respondents. The same comment noted similar concerns about asking participants to report their perceptions of how much sugar a product contains, how well they understand the content of a given label, or how likely they would be to include a given product as part of their diet.
(Response 6) The Agency disagrees with these comments. These comments fail to account for the randomized, controlled, experimental design of the proposed research and mischaracterize the primary function of the selected measures in the context of the proposed study. The proposed study is not a cross-sectional survey, but rather an experiment. Relative to cross-sectional surveys, properly designed experiments are better able to determine causal effects attributable to the independent variables, such as the nutrient levels shown on the Nutrition Facts label, which have been systematically varied by the experimenter. As an experiment, the focus is on the differences observed between treatment groups (e.g., those who see labels with format modifications) and control groups (e.g., those who see labels in the current Nutrition Facts format). Because participants will be randomly assigned to experimental conditions that systematically vary in certain respects, idiosyncratic variations, such as individuals' understanding of healthfulness and different ways of judging the relative nutrient content of various foods, are likely to be distributed evenly across conditions. As a result, differences in outcomes that
Thus, the Agency has proposed an experimental method for understanding the causal effects of added sugars declarations on consumer responses to Nutrition Facts labels. The measurement approaches selected for the proposed study are well-established and have been employed in numerous peer-reviewed scientific publications (see, for example, Refs. 1 to 3; 15 to 24). In studies such as these, participants demonstrate their practical understanding of the nutritional information about selected foods through their completion of selected dietary tasks, such as comparing the healthfulness of different food items or judging how healthful they think a product is. Importantly, research has demonstrated that if consumers perceive that a product is healthful, they may be more likely to purchase or consume more of that food, and may be more likely to view that food as possessing other positive attributes that it may not objectively have (Refs. 25 and 26). Thus, consumer judgments of product healthfulness as well as calorie and nutrient levels will serve as vital indicators of how various Nutrition Facts information and formats may assist consumers in identifying healthful food products and in comparing the calorie and nutrient contents of different food products. In turn, data derived from this research will assist the Agency in determining directions for future research and educational activities.
For the purposes of this study, it is not necessary to provide consumers with a specific definition of “healthier.” The study aims to examine what consumers may infer from the Nutrition Facts labels based on their own interpretations, not to examine definitions of “healthy” or “healthier” according to regulatory or scientific perspectives. Evaluating potential effects of added sugars declarations on consumers with a diverse range of nutrition knowledge using a randomized, controlled, experimental study will provide useful information about consumers' current perceptions and use of information appearing on the Nutrition Facts label and will inform future education efforts.
While random assignment is the most robust method for significantly reducing the plausibility of individual difference explanations for observed differences between treatment and control conditions, we also plan to collect measures of individual characteristics that will allow for some statistical control of potential confounders. The measurement of these additional covariates (e.g., how often people eat and purchase the categories of foods included in the study, people's typical label use frequency, demographic characteristics, etc.) will further enhance the study's explanatory power.
(Comment 7) One comment questioned the utility of collecting participants' ratings of a given label's usefulness and helpfulness for making various dietary judgments.
(Response 7) The measures to which this comment refers (e.g., asking respondents to rate on a scale from 1 = “not at all” to 5 = “very” how hard it is to understand the information shown on the label) are indicators of consumers' attitudinal responses toward the label formats. FDA draws a distinction between these types of attitudinal measures and behavioral performance measures (i.e., how well consumers use a label format for completing a specific task, such as judging healthfulness and identifying nutritional characteristics of a product). The Agency has typically considered behavioral performance measures to be more consequential than ratings of label usefulness, understandability, and helpfulness. Nevertheless, the Agency also collects these ratings because it is possible that inferior ratings of usefulness, understandability, and helpfulness could be indicative of a potential problem with a particular label modification or label format. It is therefore important to collect these kinds of ratings.
(Comment 8) Some comments asserted that including added sugars declarations would detract from consumers' focus on other nutrition information, specifically total calories. Related comments noted that consumers would be confused or misled by added sugars declarations. A few comments proposed that consumer research should focus on exactly how consumers understand the term “added sugars,” the particular meanings that consumers attach to various kinds of sugars, and the health effects that consumers associate with added sugars. Two comments asked if FDA plans to explore whether including “added sugar” and “naturally occurring sugar” on the Nutrition Facts label under total sugars would increase consumer understanding of products' nutritional attributes and healthfulness. One comment requested that the Agency establish definitions that differentiate between added sugars and naturally occurring sugars before conducting consumer research. These comments expressed concern that consumer understanding about sugars does not match definitions that might be endorsed by various regulatory or scientific entities. Another comment suggested that the Agency study how information about added sugars in ingredient listings might affect attention to and understanding of information in the Nutrition Facts.
(Response 8) The Agency agrees that the questions raised in these comments would be suitable for future research. The purpose of the currently proposed study is to provide the Agency with an initial understanding of potential consumer reactions to added sugars declarations on Nutrition Facts labels, information that would, in turn, help guide education efforts. In response to comments that raised concerns about the potential for added sugars declarations to affect consumer attention to and perceptions of other nutritional attributes presented in Nutrition Facts labels, FDA notes that the proposed experimental design is intended to address this possibility through the collection of respondent judgments of the nutritional attributes and overall healthfulness of foods that contain varying levels of calories, fat, and other nutrients. Additionally, as previously noted, FDA recognizes the importance of evaluating the potential effects of any proposed Nutrition Facts label modifications on consumer understanding. The proposed study will therefore include systematically varied experimental conditions and controls, and will employ appropriate measures to assess how various format modifications may affect consumer understanding of the Nutrition Facts label information. Due to resource limitations, the study cannot accommodate additional experimental conditions to evaluate consumer responses to ingredient listings. The study will, however, collect information about what names of various types of added sugars respondents recognize that might appear in ingredient listings.
(Comment 9) One comment objected to asking consumers about health effects (e.g., heart disease and diabetes) that consumers would associate with consuming a particular food product. The comment argued that consumer research questions should align with FDA's regulations regarding health claims, regulations which preclude suggestions that food substances may prevent, treat, or cure any particular disease or condition.
(Response 9) FDA disagrees with these comments. Several health conditions have been linked to dietary quality, and dietary quality is
(Comment 10) One comment suggested that, instead of asking respondents if they use Nutrition Facts labels “To see if something said in advertising or on the package is actually true,” the item be reworded to say “To confirm a statement in advertising or on the package,” arguing that the former implies that inconsistency may exist between advertising and labeling statements and that consumers can independently verify label declarations.
(Response 10) The comment did not provide any data to support this rationale, and the Agency is not aware of any evidence to suggest that consumers interpret the survey item in question in the manner described in the comment. Nevertheless, this comment is no longer applicable to the proposed study because the item in question has been removed in order to prioritize collection of other information that is considered more relevant to the objectives of the current study.
(Comment 11) One comment stated that if the Agency is intending to include added sugars information on the Nutrition Facts label by indenting the phrase “Added Sugars” below where the declaration for “Sugars” appears, it is possible that consumers may not understand that added sugars are a subset of the amount of sugars. The comment suggested that the Agency study consumer responses to a Nutrition Facts format that adds the word “total” to the sugars declaration, so that this alternative format can also be evaluated in the proposed consumer research, noting that it might be beneficial to test more than one added sugars declaration format.
(Response 11) The Agency agrees with this comment and will plan to include an alternative label format that adds the word “total” to the sugars declaration in the proposed research. Thus, the study will include two formats for declaring “Added Sugars” on the Nutrition Facts label: One format in which the declaration is indented below a “Sugars” declaration, and one format in which the declaration is indented below a “Total Sugars” declaration.
(Comment 12) One comment suggested that the Agency use the cognitive interviews to ask consumers their understanding of the phrase “added sugars” as it appears on some of the experimental Nutrition Facts formats. The comment also recommended that the number of cognitive interviews be sufficient to assess the level of comprehension of this terminology.
(Response 12) The Agency plans to conduct in-person cognitive interviews with participants of various ages, educational levels, and household incomes. The Agency agrees that it may be useful to ask cognitive interview participants about their understanding of the phrase “added sugars” and will include questions about this topic in all of the cognitive interviews that are conducted for the proposed study. Given that the primary purpose of the cognitive interviews is to assist with refinement of the questionnaire, the Agency does not agree that the number of cognitive interviews should be modified for assessing comprehension of added sugars terminology.
(Comment 13) One comment suggested that the proposed sample size for the study might be larger than necessary, unless the Agency expects to conduct subgroup analyses within experimental conditions.
(Response 13) As the comment noted, the Agency confirms that allowing for subgroup analyses constitutes one of the reasons for the proposed sample size. Another reason for the proposed sample size is to allow for assessment of interactions between the various experimental factors (e.g., label format × food category × nutrition profile). Indeed, the ability to detect interactions is of equal, if not more, importance to fulfilling the Agency's information objectives than the ability to detect only the main effects of experimental factors such as label format, food category, or nutrition profile.
(Comment 14) One comment suggested two alternative definitions for percent Daily Value: (1) “The Percent Daily Value tells you how much of a day's worth of a nutrient one serving of this food provides”; and (2) “The Percent Daily Value tells you how much of a day's worth of a nutrient you would get from one serving of this food.”
(Response 14) Due to resource limitations, the Agency is not able to test the alternative definitions of percent Daily Value suggested in this comment.
(Comment 15) One comment objected to asking respondents to evaluate whether a product is an “excellent source” of or “low” in a particular nutrient relative to footnote messages that indicate that 5% or less of the Daily Value for a nutrient is “low” or “a little” and 20% or more of the Daily Value is “high” or “a lot.” The comment raised concerns that consumers may not interpret or apply such footnote messages as FDA intends.
(Response 15) FDA agrees that some consumers may not interpret or apply a particular footnote message as FDA intends. That is one reason for asking respondents to characterize the vitamin and nutrient content of selected products. Collecting information about differences between consumer interpretations of information versus FDA definitions will help guide FDA's ongoing informational efforts to provide consumer guidance on how to use percent Daily Values.
(Comment 16) Two comments suggested that FDA test effects of including “high” and “low” text next to the appropriate nutrients on the NF label in accordance with the 5% and 20% guideline levels. One of these comments also suggested certain nutrients and their amounts be printed in red ink or against a red background, in conjunction with the word “high” being printed in red and positioned between the amount of the nutrient and the percent Daily Value.
(Response 16) The Agency has studied the use of adjectives such as “high” and “low” on Nutrition Facts labels in prior research (Refs. 1 and 3). That research found that Nutrition Facts formats that included adjectives did not significantly improve respondents' accuracy in dietary judgment tasks relative to Nutrition Facts formats that did not include such adjectives. Specifying a particular color scheme for selected content in the Nutrition Facts label or adding amount descriptors next to certain nutrients are beyond the scope of this study.
(Comment 17) One comment suggested testing alternative statements for recommended caloric intake, including statements of calorie ranges; statements indicating that calorie requirements change with age, height, and activity level; and statements suggesting consumers check their own caloric needs on a Government run Web site (e.g.,
(Response 17) Due to resource limitations, the Agency is not able to test the alternative statements for recommended caloric intake suggested in this comment. In addition to calorie requirements changing with age, height, and activity level, as the comment stated, calorie requirements also vary according to a number of other factors, including body composition (percentages of lean body mass and body fat), basal and resting metabolic rate, ambient temperature, genetic factors, whether a woman is pregnant or lactating, and others. An accurate label statement explaining how calorie needs vary would be too lengthy and complex for inclusion on Nutrition Facts labels. Using the phrase “recommended daily intake” for calorie requirements, as the comment suggests, could also be problematic, since 2,000 calories is not a recommended intake level, but is rather used as the basis for setting Daily Reference Values (DRVs) for nutrients having DRVs that are based on caloric intake. Finally, there are many Web sites that provide information on estimating individual calorie needs. The question of whether it would be suitable for the Nutrition Facts label to single out any one particular Web site is beyond the scope of the study.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
The following references have been placed on display in the Division of Dockets Management (see
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Fax written comments on the collection of information by July 1, 2013.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: 202–395–7285, or emailed to
Domini Bean, Office of Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50–400T, Rockville, MD 20850, 301–796–5733,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
Shell eggs contaminated with
On July 9, 2009, FDA published in the
Section 118.10 of FDA's regulations (21 CFR 118.10) requires recordkeeping for all measures the farm takes to prevent SE in its flocks. Since many existing farms participate in voluntary egg quality assurance programs, those respondents may not have to collect any additional information. Records are maintained on file at each farm site and examined there periodically by FDA inspectors.
Section 118.10 also requires each farm site with 3,000 or more egg-laying hens that sells raw shell eggs to the table egg market, other than directly to the consumer, and does not have all of the shell eggs treated, to design and implement an SE prevention plan. Section 118.10 requires recordkeeping for each of the provisions included in the plan and for plan review and modifications if corrective actions are taken.
Finally, § 118.11 of FDA's regulations (21 CFR 118.11) requires that each farm covered by § 118.1(a) register with FDA using Form FDA 3733. The term “Form FDA 3733” refers to both the paper version of the form and the electronic system known as the Shell Egg Producer Registration Module, which is available at
Recordkeeping and registration are necessary for the success of the SE prevention measures. Written SE prevention plans and records of actions taken due to each provision are essential for farms to implement SE prevention plans effectively. Further, they are essential for us to be able to determine compliance. Information provided under these regulations helps us to notify quickly the facilities that might be affected by a deliberate or accidental contamination of the food supply. In addition, data collected through registration is used to support our enforcement activities.
In the
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
FDA is retaining most of the estimates published in the Shell Eggs final rule with regard to the estimated number of respondents and the average burden per recordkeeping (74 FR 33030 at 33089 to 33091). FDA bases the remaining recordkeeping burden estimates and the reporting burden estimates on its experience implementing the final rule and the number of registrations and cancellations received in the past 3 years.
The number of recordkeepers estimated in column 2 of Table 1 and all other estimates discussed in this section are drawn from estimates of the total number of layer and pullet houses affected by the Shell Eggs final rule (74 FR 33030 at 33078 to 33080). In the final rule, we assumed that those farms that were operating according to recognized industry or State quality assurance plans were already largely in compliance with the plan design and recordkeeping provisions discussed in this section, and therefore would not experience additional costs to comply with recordkeeping provisions. We found that 59 percent of farms with more than 50,000 layers were members of State or industry quality assurance plans. Fewer than 8 percent of farms with fewer than 50,000 layers were members of quality assurance plans. Thus, we estimated the number of layer farms incurring a new recordkeeping burden because of the Shell Eggs final rule to be 2,600, and the number of houses affected to be 4,731. A detailed breakdown of this estimation is shown in Table 29 of the Shell Eggs final rule (74 FR 33030 at 33078).
Prevention plan design (§ 118.10(a)(1)) records will be kept on a per farm basis but because the Shell Eggs final rule has been fully implemented, FDA assumes that new prevention plan design will only be undertaken by new entrants to the industry. Refrigeration records (§ 118.10(a)(3)(iv)) will also be kept on a per farm basis so the estimated number of recordkeepers for this provision is 2,600.
Records of chick and pullet procurement (§ 118.10(a)(2)), rodent and other pest control (§ 118.10(a)(3)(ii)), and biosecurity (§ 118.10(a)(3)(i)) will be kept on a per house basis, so the estimated number of recordkeepers for these provisions is 4,731.
Records of cleaning and disinfection (§ 118.10(a)(3)(iii)) will also be kept on a per house basis, but will only need to be kept in the event that a layer house tests environmentally positive for SE. Prevention plan review and modifications (§ 118.10(a)(4)) will also need to be performed every time a house tests positive. As discussed in Section V.F. of the Shell Eggs final rule (74 FR 33030 at 33078 to 33080), FDA estimated that 7.0 percent will test positive after the provisions of the rule took effect. Therefore, the number of recordkeepers for these provisions is estimated to be 331 (4,731 houses × 0.070) annually.
Records of testing, diversion, and treatment (§ 118.10(a)(3)(v–viii)) will be kept on a per house basis and will include records on flocks from pullet houses. In the Shell Eggs final rule, FDA estimated that there are one third as many pullet houses as there are layer houses. Therefore the total number of recordkeepers for these provisions is 6,308 (4,731 + (4,731/3)). The number of annual records kept depends on whether or not houses test positive for SE. Annually, 343 layer and pullet houses ((4,731 layer houses × 0.070) + ((4731/3 pullet houses) × 0.0075)) are expected to test positive and 5,965 are expected to test negative ((4,731 layer
We assume that refrigeration records will be kept on a weekly basis on a per farm basis under § 118.10(a)(3)(iv)). We estimate that 2,600 recordkeepers will maintain 52 records each for a total of 135,200 records and that it will take approximately 0.5 hour per recordkeeping. Thus, the total annual burden for refrigeration records is estimated to be 67,600 hours (135,200 × 0.5 hour).
We assume that records of testing, diversion, and treatment under § 118.10(a)(3)(v–viii)) will be kept weekly in the event a layer house tests environmentally positive for SE. We estimate that 343 layer and pullet houses will test positive and thus 343 recordkeepers will maintain 52 records each for a total of 17,836 records and that it will take approximately 0.5 hour per recordkeeping. Thus, the total annual burden for testing, diversion, and treatment records in the event of a positive test result is estimated to be 8,918 hours (17,836 × 0.5 hour).
Given a positive environmental test for SE., we estimate the weighted average number of egg tests per house under § 118.10(a)(3)(vii)) to be 7. We estimate that 331 recordkeepers will maintain 7 records each for a total of 2,317 records and that it will take approximately 8.3 hours per recordkeeping. Thus, the total annual burden for egg testing is estimated to be 19,231 hours (2,317 × 8.3 hours).
FDA estimates that all 1,577 pullet and 4,731 layer houses not currently testing (6,308 recordkeepers) will incur the burden of a single environmental test annually under § 118.10(a)(3)(v)). The number of samples taken during the test depends on whether a farm employs the row based method (an average of 12 samples per house) or the random sampling method (32 samples per house). For the purposes of this analysis we estimate that roughly 50 percent of the houses affected will employ a row based method and 50 percent will employ a random sampling method, implying an average of 23 samples per house. Thus, we estimate that 6,308 recordkeepers will take 23 samples each for a total of 145,084 samples. The time burden of sampling is estimated on a per swab sample basis. We estimate that it will take approximately 15 minutes to collect and pack each sample. Thus, the total annual burden for environmental testing is estimated to be 36,271 hours (145,084 × 0.25 hour).
We estimate that records of testing, diversion, and treatment under § 118.10(a)(3)(v–viii)) will be kept annually in the event a layer house tests environmentally negative for SE. We estimate that 5,965 layer and pullet houses will test negative and thus 5,965 recordkeepers will maintain one record of that testing that will take approximately 0.5 hour per record. Thus, the total annual burden for testing, diversion, and treatment records in the event of a negative test result is estimated to be 2,983 hours (5,965 × 0.5 hour).
Prevention plan review and modifications under § 118.10(a)(4)) will need to be performed every time a house tests positive. As discussed, we estimate that 331 layer houses will test positive requiring plan review and modifications and that it will take 10 hours to complete this work. Thus, the total annual burden for prevention plan review and modifications in the event of a positive test result is estimated to be 3,310 hours (331 × 10 hours).
We estimate that chick and pullet procurement records under § 118.10(a)(2) will be kept roughly once annually per layer house basis. We estimate that 4,731 layer houses will maintain 1 record each and that it will take approximately 0.5 hour per recordkeeping. Thus, the total annual burden for chick and pullet procurement recordkeeping is estimated to be 2,366 hours (4,731 × 0.5 hour).
We estimate that rodent and other pest control records under § 118.10(a)(3)(ii)) and biosecurity records under § 118.10(a)(3)(i) will be kept weekly on a per layer house basis. We assume that 4,731 layer houses will maintain a weekly record under each provision. Thus, we estimate 9,462 recordkeepers will maintain 52 records each for a total of 492,024 records. We estimate a recordkeeping burden of 0.5 hours per record for a total of 246,012 burden hours (492,024 × 0.5 hour).
New prevention plan design required by § 118.10(a)(1) will only be undertaken by new farms and records will be kept on a per farm basis. We estimate that there are 150 new farm registrations annually and we assume that this reflects 150 new farms requiring prevention plan design. We estimate that it will take 20 hours to complete this work. Thus, the total annual burden for prevention plan design is estimated to be 3,000 hours (150 × 20 hours).
Cleaning and disinfection recordkeeping under § 118.10(a)(3)(iii) will need to be performed every time a house tests positive. As discussed, we estimate that 331 layer houses will test positive requiring 1 record each and that it will take approximately 0.5 hour per recordkeeping. Thus, the total annual burden for cleaning and disinfection recordkeeping in the event of a positive test result is estimated to be 166 hours (331 × 0.5 hour).
This estimate is based on FDA's experience implementing the Shell Eggs final rule and the average number of new Shell Egg Producer registrations and cancellations received in the past 3 years under § 118.11. Based on FDA experience with implementing the registration provisions of the Shell Eggs final rule, which had staggered compliance dates and gave producers with fewer than 50,000 but at least 3,000 laying hens until July 9, 2012, to register (74 FR 33030 at 33034), FDA expects that it will receive fewer registrations or updates each year over the next 3 years,
FDA estimated in the Shell Eggs final rule that listing the information required by the final rule and presenting it in a format that will meet the Agency's registration regulations will require a burden of approximately 2.3 hours per average registration. As detailed in section V.F. of the final rule (see 74 FR 33030 at 33080), FDA estimates that it will take the average farm 2.3 hours to register taking into account that some respondents completing the registration may not have readily available Internet access. Thus, the total annual burden for new Shell Egg Producer registrations or updates is estimated to be 345 hours (150 × 2.3 hours).
FDA estimates cancelling a registration will, on average, require a burden of approximately 1 hour, taking into account that some respondents may not have readily available Internet access. Thus, the total annual burden for cancelling Shell Egg Producer registrations is estimated to be 15 hours (15 cancellations × 1 hour).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will be open to the public.
FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is available at
Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Cindy Hong at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463), notice is hereby given of the following meeting:
Members of the public and interested parties may request to provide comments or attend the meeting via webinar by emailing their first name, last name and full email address to
Anyone requesting information regarding the ACICBL should contact Dr. Joan Weiss, Designated Federal Official within the Bureau of Health Professions, Health Resources and Services Administration, in one of three ways: (1) send a request to the following address: Dr. Joan Weiss, Designated Federal Official, Bureau of Health Professions, Health Resources and Services Administration, Parklawn Building, Room 9C–05, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857; (2) call (301) 443–6950; or (3) send an email to
This notice amends Part R of the Statement of Organization, Functions and Delegations of Authority of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) (60 FR 56605, as amended November 6, 1995; as last amended at 78 FR 16514–16515 dated March 15, 2013).
This notice reflects organizational changes in the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). Specifically, the Office of Management (RB4) will realign the Voluntary Leave Transfer Program from the Division of Management Services (RB43) to the Division of Human Resources Management (RB42) and update the functional statements for the Office of Management (RB4). These changes are to better align functional responsibility, improve accountability and to provide better customer service to both internal and external customers.
Delete in its entirety and replace with the following:
The Office of Management (RB4) is headed by the Director, Office of Management, who reports directly to the Chief Operating Officer, Office of Operations (RB). The Office of Management includes the following components:
(1) Division of Policy and Information Coordination (RB41);
(2) Division of Human Resources Management (RB42);
(3) Division of Management Services (RB43); and
(4) Division of Workforce Development (RB44).
(1) Delete the functional statement for the Office of Management (RB4) in its entirety and replace with the following:
Provides HRSA-wide leadership, program direction, and coordination of all phases of administrative management. Specifically, the Office of Management: (1) Provides management expertise, staff advice, and support to the Administrator in program and policy formulation and execution; (2) provides administrative management services including human resources, property management, space planning, safety, physical security, and general administrative services; (3) conducts HRSA-wide workforce analysis studies and surveys; (4) plans, directs, and coordinates HRSA's activities in the areas of human resources management, including labor relations, personnel security, and performance; (5) coordinates the development of policy and regulations; (6) oversees the development of annual operating objectives and coordinates HRSA work planning and appraisals; (7) directs and coordinates the agency's organizations, functions and delegations of authority programs; (8) administers the agency's Executive Secretariat and committee management functions; (9) provides staff support to the agency Chief Travel Official; (10) provides staff support to the Deputy Ethics Counselor; and (11) directs, coordinates, and conducts workforce development activities for the agency.
(1) Advises the Administrator and other key agency officials on cross-cutting policy issues and assists in the identification and resolution of cross-cutting policy issues and problems; (2) establishes and maintains tracking systems that provide HRSA-wide coordination and clearance of policies, regulations and guidelines; (3) plans, organizes and directs the Executive Secretariat with primary responsibility for preparation and management of written correspondence; (4) arranges briefings for Department officials on critical policy issues and oversees the development of necessary briefing documents; (5) coordinates the preparation of proposed rules and regulations relating to HRSA programs and coordinates review and comment
(1) Provides advice and guidance on all aspects of the HRSA human resources management program; (2) provides the full range of human resources operations including: Employment; staffing and recruitment; compensation; classification; executive resources; labor and employee relations; employee benefits; and retirement; (3) develops and coordinates the implementation of human resources policies and procedures for HRSA's human resources activities; (4) monitors, evaluates, and reports on the effectiveness, efficiency, and compliance with HR laws, rules, and regulations; (5) provides advice and guidance for the establishment or modification of organization structures, functions, and delegations of authority; (6) manages the ethics program; (7) administers the agency's performance management programs; (8) manages the incentive and honor awards programs; (9) represents HRSA in human resources matters both within and outside of the Department; (10) oversees the commissioned corps liaison activities including the day-to-day operations of workforce management; (11) monitors accountability; and (12) manages the HR information technology.
Plans, directs, and coordinates agency administrative activities. Specifically: (1) Provides administrative management services including property, space planning, safety, physical security, and general administrative services; (2) ensures implementation of statutes, Executive Orders, and regulations related to official travel, transportation, and relocation; (3) provides oversight for the HRSA travel management program involving use of travel management systems, passenger transportation, and travel charge cards; (4) provides planning, management, and oversight of all space planning projects, move services and furniture requirements; (5) develops space and furniture standards and related policies; (6) provides analysis of office space requirements required in supporting decisions relating to the acquisition of commercial leases; (7) provides advice, counsel, direction, and support to employees to fulfill the agency's primary safety responsibility of providing a workplace free from recognizable safety and health concerns; (8) manages, controls, and/or coordinates all matters relating to mail management within HRSA, including developing and implementing procedures for the receipt, delivery, collection, and dispatch of mail; (9) maintains overall responsibility for the HRSA Forms Management Program; and (10) manages the personnel security, badging, Transhare and quality of work life programs.
(1) Plans, directs, and manages HRSA-wide training programs, intern, professional and leadership development programs, the long-term training program, and the mentoring program; (2) develops, designs, and implements a comprehensive strategic human resource leadership development and career management program for all occupational series throughout HRSA; (3) provides technical assistance in organizational development, career management, employee development, and training; (4) maximizes economies of scale through systematic planning and evaluation of agency-wide training initiatives to assist HRSA employees in achieving required competencies; (5) identifies relevant scanning/benchmarking on workforce and career development processes, services and products; (6) establishes policies governing major learning initiatives and new learning activities, and works collaboratively with other components of HRSA in planning, developing and implementing policies related to training initiatives; (7) plans, directs, and manages HRSA-wide training and service programs for fellowships and internships sponsored by other partner organizations and implemented within HRSA; (8) conducts agency-wide workforce analysis studies and surveys; (9) develops comprehensive workforce strategies that meet the requirements of the Office of Personnel Management and the Department of Health and Human Services, programmatic needs of HRSA, and the governance and management needs of HRSA leadership; and (10) evaluates employee development practices to develop and enhance strategies to ensure HRSA retains a cadre of public health professionals and reduces risks associated with turnover in mission critical positions.
All delegations of authority and re-delegations of authority made to HRSA officials that were in effect immediately prior to this reorganization, and that are consistent with this reorganization, shall continue in effect pending further re-delegation.
This reorganization is effective upon date of signature.
Indian Health Service, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with Section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Indian Health Service (IHS) is submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for renewal for the collection of information titled, “Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Contracts, 25 C.F.R Part 900,” OMB Control Number 1076–0136. This proposed information collection project was previously published in the
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before July 1, 2013.
Send your comments and suggestions regarding the proposed information collection contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated
Please send a copy of your comments to Mr. Chris Buchanan, Director, IHS Office of Direct Services and Contracting Tribes (ODSCT), 801 Thompson Ave., STE. 220, Rockville, MD 20852; send via facsimile to (301) 443–4666; or send via email to
Contact Mr. Chris Buchanan through the methods listed in the above section or by calling (301) 443–1104, regarding the IHS information collection activities. You may review the information collection request online at
Representatives of the IHS seek renewal of the approval for information collections conducted under 25 CFR part 900, implementing the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA), as amended (25 U.S.C. 450 et seq.), which describes how contracts are awarded to Indian Tribes. The rule at 25 CFR part 900 was developed through negotiated rulemaking with Tribes in 1996 and governs, among other things, what must be included in a Tribe's initial ISDEAA contract proposal to IHS. A response is required to obtain and retain a benefit.
The information requirements for this rule represent significant differences from other agencies in several respects. Under the Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services is directed to enter into self-determination contracts with Tribes upon request, unless specific declination criteria apply, and, generally, Tribes may renew these contracts annually, whereas other agencies provide grants on a discretionary or competitive basis. Additionally, IHS awards contracts for multiple programs whereas other agencies usually award single grants to Tribes.
The IHS uses the information collected to determine applicant eligibility, evaluate applicant capabilities, protect the service population, safeguard Federal funds and other resources, and permit the Federal agency to administer and evaluate contract programs. Tribal governments or Tribal organizations provide the information by submitting contract proposals, and related information, to the IHS, as required under Public Law 93–638. No third party notification or public disclosure burden is associated with this collection.
The IHS requests your comments on this collection concerning: (a) the necessity of this information collection for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (hours and cost) of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways we could enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways we could minimize the burden of the collection of the information on the respondents.
Please note that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and an individual need not respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB Control Number.
It is our policy to make all comments available to the public for review at the location listed in the
Under the provisions of Section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), 0020, the National Institutes of Health, has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
To obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, or request more information on the proposed project contact: Shari Eason Ludlam, Project Officer, Women's Health Initiative Program Office, 6701 Rockledge Drive, 2 Rockledge Centre, Room 9188, MSC 7913, Bethesda, MD 20892–7936, or call (301) 402–2900 or Email your request, including your address to:
OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time, which is estimated at $308,218 for all respondents. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 13,927.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 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.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Thirty-day notice requesting comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR), abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension of its approval to the following collection of information: 1625–0089, National Recreational Boating Survey. Before submitting this ICR to OMB, the Coast Guard is inviting comments as described below.
Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before July 1, 2013.
To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket [USCG–2012–1047], please use only one of the following means:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
The DMF maintains the public docket for this Notice. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in this Notice as being available in the docket, will become part of the docket and will be available for inspection or copying at Room W12–140 on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find the docket on the Internet at
A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the Internet at
Contact Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of Information Management, telephone 202–475–3532, or fax 202–475–3929, for questions on these documents. Contact Ms. Barbara Hairston, 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 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 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 collection; 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. These comments will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICR referred to in this Notice.
We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number of this request, [USCG 2012–1047], and must be received by July 1, 2013. We will post all comments received, without change, to
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
OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at
Anyone can search the electronic form of all 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 the Privacy Act statement regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008 issue of the
This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (77 FR 74686, December 17, 2012) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited three comments.
1. The first commenter wrote: “It would be helpful to recreational boaters if you would take the broadcast from channel 16 and 21 (VHF) as well as DSC distress calls and republish on a twitter feed. Local boaters could follow the feed for “there” [sic] area. (AOR) This is a simple but helpful solution to increase awareness for boating safety issues. Please contact me if you need more information. I am also in the CGA. Thanks.
2. The second commenter wrote: “we have two federal agencies gouging american taxpayers for wasted tax dollars the sport fishing and boating council of the fws and the us coast guard. to me, the coast guad should be fully in charge of boating. i see absolutely no reason why taxpayers are being gouged to pay for the lobbying organization called the sport fishing and boating council, which obviously should be existing on private dollars and not giouging us taxpayers and pretending to be a federal agency working for the good of all americans, when clearly it is working for corporate profitability. when will the gouging of tax payers stop? when will we shut down obvioius loggying groups that should not be getting one cent of american taxpayers dollars like th esport fishing and boating council of the usfws. the excesses and out of control spending of this govt is oppressive. l out of 2 americans are living in poverty and they are being dunned for taxes so a boating council can operate wastefully, when they have no hope of ever in their lives getting on a boat. the washington excesses are disgusting and depraved. make some cuts here. the coast guard we need. take the money away from the boating council and give it to the coast guard, who should be defending this country's borders from the leaches massively sneaking in here.”[sic]
3. The third commenter wrote: “BoatUS is the largest organization of recreational boaters in the United States, with more than half a million members nationwide. As an active participant in the U.S. Coast Guard's boating safety efforts, we appreciate the opportunity to provide our views on the National Recreational Boating Survey.
The development of an accurate picture of the many facets of recreational boating is a commendable goal, particularly for the
The current budget constraints faced by various government agencies and non-profit groups with a direct interest in boating safety should also be considered. In reviewing the supporting documentation for this information request, it is apparent this is an ambitious undertaking that will require significant, on-going resources. As this information request is reviewed, we suggest consideration be given to the impact its funding might have on other boating safety programs, particularly those administered by the non-profit sector.
We further believe that The U.S. Coast Guard should review the scope and methodology of the survey. In our view, gathering safety related information should be the priority. The breadth of this survey is too broad given current budget conditions. We also suggest greater use of the Internet, or other less costly methods to implement the survey. Given the continuing advances in access to the Internet by large sections of the United States populations (some 49 million U.S. households have such access) the Coast Guard should work to make greater use of this economical medium to gather data.
The development of timely, accurate data should be integral to the Coast Guard's recreational boating safety mission, and we support that goal. The cost of developing this data, which is funded by the recreational boating community itself through the Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Trust Fund, must, however, be carefully managed. Other crucial boating safety programs should not be sacrificed in the process of gathering this information. Thoughtful deployment of these funds to maximize their safety benefit is crucial to the continued support of the recreational boating community. Thank you for the opportunity to provide our views on the proposed survey.”
•
•
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Thirty-day notice requesting comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR), abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an approval of revisions to the following collection of information: 1625–0086, Great Lakes Pilotage. Before submitting this ICR to OMB, the Coast Guard is inviting comments as described below.
Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before July 1, 2013.
To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket [USCG–2013–0037], please use only one of the following means:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
The DMF maintains the public docket for this Notice. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in this Notice as being available in the docket, will become part of the docket and will be available for inspection or copying at room W12–140 on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find the docket on the Internet at
A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the Internet at
Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of Information Management, telephone 202–475–3532, or fax 202–475–3929, for questions on these documents. Contact Ms. Barbara Hairston, 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 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 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 collection; 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. These comments will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICR referred to in this Notice.
We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number of this request, [USCG 2013–0037], and must be received by July 1, 2013. We will post all comments received, without change, to
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
OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at
Anyone can search the electronic form of all 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 the Privacy Act statement regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008 issue of the
This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (78 FR 12083, February 21, 2013) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited no comments.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Request for applications.
The Coast Guard seeks applications for membership on the Navigation Safety Advisory Council (NAVSAC). NAVSAC provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard, on matters relating to maritime collisions, rammings, and groundings; Inland Rules of the Road; International Rules of the Road; navigation regulations and equipment, routing measures, marine information, diving safety, and aids to navigation systems.
Applicants must submit a cover letter and resume on or before July 12, 2013.
Applicants should submit a cover letter and resume via one of the following methods:
•
• By fax to 202–372–1991; or
• By email to
Mr. Mike Sollosi, the NAVSAC Alternate Designated Federal Officer (ADFO), at telephone 202–372–1545, fax 202–372–1991, or email
NAVSAC is a federal advisory committee authorized by Title 33 United States Code Section 2073 and chartered under the
NAVSAC is expected to meet at least twice each year, or more often with the approval of the Designated Federal Officer (DFO). All members serve at their own expense and receive no salary from the Federal Government, although travel reimbursement and per diem may be provided for called meetings. The NAVSAC is comprised of not more than 21 members who shall have expertise in Inland and International vessel navigation Rules of the Road, aids to maritime navigation, maritime law, vessel safety, port safety, or commercial diving safety. Each member shall be appointed to represent the viewpoints and interests of one of the following groups or organizations, and at least one member shall be appointed to represent each membership category:
a. Commercial vessel owners or operators
b. Professional mariners
c. Recreational boaters
d. The recreational boating industry
e. State agencies responsible for vessel or port safety
f. The Maritime Law Association.
Members serve as representatives and are not Special Government Employees as defined in section 202(a) of Title 18, United States Code.
The Coast Guard will consider applications for seven positions that will become vacant on November 4, 2013, in the following categories:
a. Commercial vessel owners or operators
b. Professional mariners
c. Recreational boaters
d. State agencies responsible for vessel or port safety.
To be eligible, you should have experience in one of the categories listed above.
Members shall serve terms of office of up to three (3) years. Members may be considered to serve up to two (2) consecutive terms. In the event NAVSAC is terminated, all appointments to the Council shall terminate.
Registered lobbyists are not eligible to serve on Federal advisory committees. Registered lobbyists are lobbyists required to comply with provisions contained in the
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not discriminate in employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, political affiliation, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, disability and generic information, age, membership in an employee organization, or other non-merit factor. DHS strives to achieve a widely diverse candidate pool for all of its recruitment actions.
If you are interested in applying to become a member of the Council, submit your complete application package to Mr. Mike Sollosi, NAVSAC ADFO via one of the transmittal methods provided above. Indicate the position you wish to fill and specify your area of expertise, knowledge and experience that qualifies you for service on NAVSAC. Note that during the pre-selection vetting process, applicants may be asked to provide their date of birth and social security number.
To visit our online docket, go to
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Illinois (FEMA–4116–DR), dated May 10, 2013, and related determinations.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–2833.
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Illinois is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of May 10, 2013.
Bureau, Crawford, Henderson, Knox, Livingston, Marshall, Mason, McDonough, Peoria, Rock Island, Schuyler, Stark, Tazewell, and Woodford Counties for Individual Assistance.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the State of Oklahoma (FEMA–4117–DR), dated May 20, 2013, and related determinations.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–2833.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated May 21, 2013, the President amended the cost-sharing arrangements regarding Federal funds provided under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
I authorize as a pilot project: 1) Eligible debris removal completed within thirty (30) days from the start of the incident period will be subject to an eighty-five percent (85%) Federal cost share; 2) Eligible debris removal completed between thirty-one (31) and ninety (90) days from the start of the incident period will be subject to an eighty percent (80%) Federal cost share; 3) Eligible debris removal completed during the authorized period of performance and after ninety (90) days of the start of the incident period will be subject to the standard seventy-five percent (75%) Federal cost share; and 4) For debris planning, an increase of two percent (2%) to the applicable Federal cost share for up to ninety (90) days from the start of the incident period for a debris removal subgrant when the subgrantee has adopted an acceptable debris management plan prior to the disaster event.
Eligible debris removal for the pilot is limited to the reimbursement of work performed by eligible applicants. Debris removed through Direct Federal Assistance is not eligible for the pilot cost share adjustments. Further, under this pilot program, FEMA shall obtain any applicable private insurance payments for debris removal to reimburse Federal costs to the extent permitted by law.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the State of New York (FEMA–4085–DR), dated October 30, 2012, and related determinations.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–2833.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated May 23, 2013, the President amended the cost-sharing arrangements regarding Federal funds provided under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of New York resulting from Hurricane Sandy during the period of October 27 to November 8, 2012, is of sufficient severity and magnitude that special cost sharing arrangements are warranted regarding Federal funds provided under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the “Stafford Act”).
Therefore, I amend my declaration of October 30, 2012, as previously amended, to authorize Federal funds for all categories of Public Assistance at 90 percent of total eligible costs, except assistance previously designated at 100 percent Federal share.
This adjustment to State and local cost sharing applies only to Public Assistance costs and direct Federal assistance eligible for such adjustments under the law. The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act specifically prohibits a similar adjustment for funds provided for Other Needs Assistance (Section 408) and the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (Section 404). These funds will continue to be reimbursed at 75 percent of total eligible costs.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians (FEMA–4103–DR), dated March 1, 2013, and related determinations.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–2833.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated May 22, 2013, the President amended the cost-sharing arrangements regarding Federal funds provided under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
I have determined that the damage to the lands associated with the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians resulting from severe storms, flooding, landslides, and mudslides during the period of January 14–17, 2013, is of sufficient severity and magnitude that special cost sharing arrangements are warranted regarding Federal funds provided under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the “Stafford Act”).
Therefore, I amend my declaration of March 1, 2013, to authorize Federal funds for all categories of Public Assistance at 90 percent of total eligible costs.
This adjustment to the cost sharing applies only to Public Assistance costs and direct Federal assistance eligible for such adjustments under the law. The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act specifically prohibits a similar adjustment for funds provided for the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (Section 404). These funds will continue to be reimbursed at 75 percent of total eligible costs.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Illinois (FEMA–4116–DR), dated May 10, 2013, and related determinations.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–2833.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated May 10, 2013, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of Illinois resulting from severe storms, straight-line winds, and flooding during the period of April 16 to May 5, 2013, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Individual Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The time period prescribed for the implementation of section 310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed six months after the date of this declaration.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, W. Michael Moore, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas of the State of Illinois have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
Cook, DeKalb, DuPage, Fulton, Grundy, Kane, Kendall, Lake, LaSalle, McHenry, and Will Counties for Individual Assistance.
All counties within the State of Illinois are eligible to apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of South Dakota (FEMA–4115–DR), dated May 10, 2013, and related determinations.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–2833.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated May 10, 2013, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of South Dakota resulting from a severe winter storm and snowstorm during the period of April 8–10, 2013, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the “Stafford Act”). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in the State of South Dakota.
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. You are further authorized to provide snow assistance under the Public Assistance program for a limited period of time during or proximate to the incident period. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Gary R. Stanley, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas of the State of South Dakota have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
Douglas, Hutchinson, Lincoln, McCook, Minnehaha, Shannon, and Turner Counties and the Pine Ridge Reservation located within Shannon County for Public Assistance. Snow assistance will be provided for a period of 48 hours for Shannon County and the Pine Ridge Reservation located within Shannon County.
All counties within the State of South Dakota are eligible to apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Iowa (FEMA–4114–DR), dated May 6, 2013, and related determinations.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–2833.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated May 6, 2013, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of Iowa resulting from a severe winter storm during the period of April 9–11, 2013, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the “Stafford Act”). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in the State of Iowa.
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. Direct Federal assistance is authorized. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Joe M. Girot, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas of the State of Iowa have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
Dickinson, Lyon, O'Brien, Osceola, and Sioux Counties for Public Assistance. Direct federal assistance is authorized.
All counties within the State of Iowa are eligible to apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Minnesota (FEMA–4113–DR), dated May 3, 2013, and related determinations.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–2833.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated May 3, 2013, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of Minnesota resulting from a severe winter storm during the period of April 9–11, 2013, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Kari Suzann Cowie, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas of the State of Minnesota have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
Cottonwood, Jackson, Murray, Nobles, and Rock Counties for Public Assistance.
All counties within the State of Minnesota are eligible to apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
Transportation Security Administration, DHS.
60-day notice.
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) invites public comment on one currently approved Information Collection Request (ICR), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number 1652–0013, abstracted below that we will submit to OMB for renewal in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. The collection involves surveying travelers to measure customer satisfaction of aviation security in an effort to more efficiently manage airport performance.
Send your comments by July 29, 2013.
Comments may be emailed to TSAPRA@dhs.gov or delivered to the TSA PRA Officer, Office of Information Technology (OIT), TSA–11, Transportation Security Administration, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598–6011.
Susan L. Perkins at the above address, or by telephone (571) 227–3398.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement 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;
(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 using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
• Travel on weekdays or weekends;
• Those who travel in the morning, mid-day, or evening;
• Those who pass through each of the different security screening locations in the airport;
• Those who are subject to more intensive screening of their baggage or person; and
• Those who experience different volume conditions and wait times as they proceed through the security checkpoints.
TSA collects this information in order to continue to assess customer satisfaction in an effort to more efficiently manage TSA employee performance. In its future surveys, TSA wishes to obtain more detailed, airport-specific data that TSA will use to enhance customer experiences and TSA employee performance. In order to gain more detailed information regarding customer experiences, TSA is submitting 84 questions to OMB for approval. Eighty-one questions have been previously approved by OMB and three questions are being submitted to OMB for the first time. The new questions will allow TSA to better measure customer satisfaction with Risk-Based Security, an effort to focus TSA resources and improve the passenger experience at security checkpoints by applying new intelligence-driven, risk-based screening procedures and enhancing the use of technology. Since there are some passengers who present a low level of risk, Risk-Based Security allows TSA to focus resources on higher-risk or unknown travelers, thereby increasing the level of security.
Each survey question seeks to gain information regarding one of the following categories:
TSA personnel use a random method to select passengers to voluntarily participate in the survey until TSA obtains the desired sample size. The samples may be selected with one randomly selected time and location or span multiple times and locations. Designated TSA personnel at each airport may choose one or more of the following sample methods when planning the survey, which include a business card that directs customers to an online portal, a customer satisfaction card with survey questions on the card, or a customer satisfaction card with survey questions on the card and a link to the online portal. All responses are voluntary and there is no burden on passengers who choose not to respond.
TSA personnel at airports have the capability to conduct this survey. We estimate that TSA personnel at 25 airports will conduct the survey each year. Based on prior survey data and research, TSA assumes a maximum volume for the survey would be 1,000 surveys per airport. We assume the burden on passengers who choose to respond to be approximately five minutes per respondent. Therefore, 1,000 surveys × 25 airports = 25,000 respondents a year, the total burden is 25,000 × 5 = 125,000 minutes, or 2,083.3 hours per year.
Transportation Security Administration, DHS.
60-Day notice.
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) invites public comment on one currently approved Information Collection Request (ICR), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number 1652–0047, abstracted below that we will submit to OMB for renewal in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. The Office of Management and Budget approved the collection of information for six months and TSA now seeks the maximum three-year approval. The collection involves the submission of identifying and other information by individuals applying for a TWIC and a customer satisfaction survey.
Send your comments by July 29, 2013.
Comments may be emailed to TSAPRA@dhs.gov or delivered to the TSA PRA Officer, Office of Information Technology (OIT), TSA–11, Transportation Security Administration, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598–6011.
Susan L. Perkins at the above address, or by telephone (571) 227–3398.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement 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;
(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 using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
The program implements authorities set forth in the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA) (Pub. L. 107–71; Nov. 19, 2002; sec. 106), the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (MTSA) (Pub. L. 107–295; Nov. 25, 2002; sec. 102), and the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act—A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU) (Pub. L. 109–59; Aug. 10, 2005; sec. 7105), codified at 49 U.S.C. 5103a(g). TSA and the U.S. Coast Guard issued a joint notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on May 22, 2006, 71 FR 29396. After consideration of public comments on the NPRM, TSA issued a joint final rule with the Coast Guard on January 25, 2007 (72 FR 3492), applicable to the maritime transportation sector that would require this information collection.
TSA collects data from applicants during an optional pre-enrollment step or during the enrollment session at an enrollment center. TSA will use the information collected to conduct a security threat assessment, which includes: (1) a criminal history records check; (2) a check of intelligence databases; and (3) an immigration status check. TSA invites all TWIC applicants to complete an optional survey to gather information on the applicants' overall customer satisfaction with the enrollment process. This optional survey is administered by a Trusted Agent (a representative of the TWIC enrollment contractor, who performs enrollment functions) during the process to activate the TWIC. These surveys are collected at each enrollment center and compiled to produce reports that are reviewed by the contractor and TSA. The current estimated annualized hour burden is 829,774 hours and the estimated annualized cost burden is $47,633,777.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
Through this Notice, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announces that the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) is extending the designation of El Salvador for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for 18 months from September 10, 2013 through March 9, 2015.
The extension allows currently eligible TPS beneficiaries to retain TPS through March 9, 2015 so long as they otherwise continue to meet the terms and conditions of TPS status. The Secretary has determined that an extension is warranted because the conditions in El Salvador that prompted the TPS designation continue to be met. There continues to be a substantial, but temporary, disruption of living conditions in El Salvador resulting from a series of earthquakes in 2001, and El Salvador remains unable, temporarily, to handle adequately the return of its nationals.
Through this Notice, DHS also sets forth procedures necessary for nationals of El Salvador (or aliens having no nationality who last habitually resided in El Salvador) to re-register for TPS and to apply for renewal of their Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Re-registration is limited to persons who have previously registered for TPS under the designation of El Salvador and whose applications have been granted. Certain nationals of El Salvador (or aliens having no nationality who last habitually resided in El Salvador) who have not previously applied for TPS may be eligible to apply under the late initial registration provisions, if they meet: (1) At least one of the late initial filing criteria and (2) all TPS eligibility criteria (including continuous residence in the United States since February 13, 2001, and continuous physical presence in the United States since March 9, 2001).
For individuals who have already been granted TPS under the El Salvador designation, the 60-day re-registration period runs from May 30, 2013 through July 29, 2013. USCIS will issue new EADs with a March 9, 2015 expiration date to eligible Salvadoran TPS beneficiaries who timely re-register and apply for EADs under this extension. Given the timeframes involved with processing TPS re-registration applications, DHS recognizes that not all re-registrants will receive new EADs before their current EADs expire on September 9, 2013. Accordingly, through this Notice, DHS automatically extends the validity of EADs issued under the TPS designation of El Salvador for 6 months, from September 9, 2013 through March 9, 2014, and explains how TPS beneficiaries and their employers may determine which EADs are automatically extended and their impact on Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I–9) and the E-Verify processes.
The 18-month extension of the TPS designation of El Salvador is effective September 10, 2013, and will remain in effect through March 9, 2015. The 60-day re-registration period runs from May 30, 2013 through July 29, 2013.
• For further information on TPS, including guidance on the application process and additional information on eligibility, please visit the USCIS TPS Web page at
• You can also contact the TPS Operations Program Manager at the Family and Status Branch, Service Center Operations Directorate, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529–2060; or by phone at (202) 272–1533 (this is not a toll-free number).
• Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available
• Further information will also be available at local USCIS offices upon publication of this Notice.
• TPS is a temporary immigration status granted to eligible nationals of a country designated for TPS under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), or to persons without nationality who last habitually resided in the designated country.
• During the TPS designation period, TPS beneficiaries are eligible to remain in the United States and may obtain work authorization, so long as they continue to meet the requirements of TPS status.
• TPS beneficiaries may also be granted travel authorization as a matter of discretion.
• The granting of TPS does not lead to permanent resident status.
• When the Secretary terminates a country's TPS designation, beneficiaries return to the same immigration status they maintained before TPS, if any (unless that status has since expired or been terminated), or to any other lawfully obtained immigration status they received while registered for TPS.
On March 9, 2001, the Attorney General designated El Salvador for TPS based on an environmental disaster within that country, specifically the devastation resulting from a series of earthquakes that occurred in 2001.
Section 244(b)(1) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(1), authorizes the Secretary, after consultation with appropriate Government agencies, to designate a foreign state (or part thereof) for TPS.
At least 60 days before the expiration of a country's TPS designation or extension, the Secretary, after consultation with appropriate Government agencies, must review the conditions in a foreign state designated for TPS to determine whether the conditions for the TPS designation continue to be met.
Over the past year, DHS and the Department of State (DOS) have continued to review conditions in El Salvador. Based on this review and after consulting with DOS, the Secretary has determined that an 18-month extension is warranted because many of the adverse country conditions in El Salvador resulting from the environmental disaster that prompted the March 9, 2001 designation persist. As a result, the substantial, but temporary disruption of living conditions in the affected areas continue, and El Salvador remains temporarily unable to handle adequately the return of its nationals, hundreds of thousands of whom hold TPS but no other valid immigration status in the United States.
Three severe earthquakes in January and February 2001 in El Salvador resulted in the loss of over 1,000 lives, approximately 8,000 people injured, displacement of thousands more, extensive destruction of physical infrastructure, and severe damage to the country's economic system.
Based on estimates reported by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the earthquakes affected approximately 1.5 million people, and El Salvador suffered catastrophic damage and losses. Economic losses (which include housing, infrastructure, and agriculture) were reported to be as high as $2.8 billion USD, almost 15 percent of El Salvador's gross domestic product at the time. In response to the devastation, the USAID, the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), the World Bank, and the European Union (EU) initiated reconstruction throughout the country. Despite these programs, recovery in the affected areas of El Salvador has been slow and disrupted by subsequent natural disasters, including a recent 7.4 magnitude earthquake in 2012 and Tropical Depression 12E in October 2011. The Tropical Depression flooded approximately 10 percent of the country, caused $840 million USD in damage, displaced approximately 55,000 people, and led to a declaration of state of emergency throughout El Salvador. These most recent environmental disasters have compounded the already substantial disruption to living conditions resulting from the 2001 earthquakes.
According to the government of El Salvador, the 2001 earthquakes damaged or destroyed over 276,000
According to the Ministry of Education of El Salvador, as of July 2004, over 2,300 schools destroyed in 2001 were rebuilt, but the remaining 270 schools damaged by the earthquakes required $21.7 million USD in financing to complete construction. The USAID Reconstruction Office also reported that the reconstruction of schools has been delayed at times due to the unavailability of funding.
The 2001 earthquakes also severely damaged approximately 55 percent of the country's capacity to deliver health services. Although it has been over 10 years since the 2001 earthquakes and most medical services were restored by 2011, the current infrastructure and conditions in El Salvador severely complicate the country's ability to absorb the return of its nationals from the United States, approximately 212,000 of whom are TPS beneficiaries. Rebuilding efforts in the affected areas have been further complicated by more recent natural disasters, including Tropical Depression 12E that damaged 19 hospitals and 238 health facilities–more than two times the number reported damaged in 2001.
The National Water Institution estimated that in the aftermath of the 2001 earthquakes, 40 to 50 percent of the Salvadoran population lacked access to potable water due to damage to the water and electrical systems. There are no accurate statistics on how many water and sanitation systems have been repaired since, but some studies show that the water treatment in urban areas has improved with four-fifths of the population gaining access to clean water. However, reports also convey that rural areas still need major improvements. According to the WHO and UN Children's Fund Joint Monitoring Program for Water Supply and Sanitation, in 2010 6 percent of urban dwellers and 24 percent of rural dwellers lacked access to water sources and the majority of households lacked continuous access to water. In terms of sewerage, 38 percent of urban dwellers and 98 percent of rural dwellers lack adequate sewage treatment. Living conditions remain disrupted in the areas affected by the devastation caused by the 2001 earthquakes. Those areas continue to face serious economic and infrastructure challenges and public health concerns stemming from the 2001 earthquakes.
The IDB approved a $44 million USD, 5-year, rural water and sanitation improvement program (which began in 2010 and is set to be completed in 2014). This program aims to improve living conditions through better water and sanitation services by building 85 water systems benefiting 6,000 households, and to increase water coverage to 80 percent in El Salvador's 100 poorest towns.
The 2001 earthquakes damaged some of El Salvador's main highways and made smaller roads impassable. Although the roads damaged in the earthquakes were repaired, they are still vulnerable to damage from natural disasters. Following the devastation experienced from the 2001 earthquakes, more recent environmental disasters have caused substantial setbacks to road and infrastructure recovery and development. El Salvador's location on the so-called Ring of Fire (an arc of fault lines circling the Pacific Basin), makes it vulnerable to earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and flooding. A series of natural disasters have plagued El Salvador since 2001 that have compounded the initial devastation resulting from the 2001 earthquakes. Accordingly, many of the adverse conditions caused by the 2001 earthquakes continue to exist in the affected areas.
Although over a decade has passed, affected areas of El Salvador are still rebuilding from the devastating 2001 earthquakes. Reconstruction efforts have been further complicated by sluggish economic growth and by more recent natural disasters. This series of more recent natural disasters have compounded the initial devastation caused by the 2001 earthquakes, and El Salvador has endured severe, continuing, and sustained damage to its infrastructure. The UN Development Programme has classified El Salvador as among the most vulnerable countries in the world.
Based on this review and after consultation with appropriate Government agencies, the Secretary finds that:
• The conditions that prompted the March 9, 2001 designation of El Salvador for TPS continue to be met.
• There continues to be a substantial, but temporary, disruption in living conditions in affected areas of El Salvador as a result of an environmental disaster.
• El Salvador continues to be unable, temporarily, to handle adequately the return of its nationals (or aliens having no nationality who last habitually resided in El Salvador).
• The designation of El Salvador for TPS should be extended for an additional 18-month period from September 10, 2013 through March 9, 2015.
• There are approximately 212,000 current El Salvador TPS beneficiaries who are expected to be eligible to re-register for TPS under the extension.
By the authority vested in me as Secretary under section 244 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1254a, I have determined, after consultation with the appropriate Government agencies that the conditions that prompted the designation of El Salvador for TPS on March 9, 2001, continue to be met.
To register or re-register for TPS for El Salvador, an applicant must submit each of the following two applications:
1. Application for Temporary Protected Status (Form I–821).
• If you are filing an application for late initial registration, you must pay the fee for the Application for Temporary Protected Status (Form I–821).
• If you are filing an application for re-registration, you do not need to pay the fee for the Application for Temporary Protected Status (Form I–821).
2. Application for Employment Authorization (Form I–765).
• If you are applying for late initial registration and want an EAD, you must pay the fee for the Application for Employment Authorization (Form I–765) only if you are age 14 through 65. No fee for the Application for Employment Authorization (Form I–
• If you are applying for re-registration, you must pay the fee for the Application for Employment Authorization (Form I–765) only if you want an EAD.
• You do not pay the fee for the Application for Employment Authorization (Form I–765) if you are not requesting an EAD, regardless of whether you are applying for late initial registration or re-registration.
You must submit both completed application forms together. If you are unable to pay for the application and/or biometrics fee, you may apply for a fee waiver by completing a Request for Fee Waiver (Form I–912) or submitting a personal letter requesting a fee waiver, and by providing satisfactory supporting documentation. For more information on the application forms and fees for TPS, please visit the USCIS TPS Web page at
Biometrics (such as fingerprints) are required for all applicants 14 years of age or older. Those applicants must submit a biometric services fee. As previously stated, if you are unable to pay for the biometric services fee, you may apply for a fee waiver by completing a Request for Fee Waiver (Form I–912) or by submitting a personal letter requesting a fee waiver, and providing satisfactory supporting documentation. For more information on the biometric services fee, please visit the USCIS Web site at
USCIS urges all re-registering applicants to file as soon as possible within the 60-day re-registration period so that USCIS can process the applications and issue EADs promptly. Filing early will also allow those applicants who may receive denials of their fee waiver requests to have time to re-file their applications
Mail your application for TPS to the proper address in Table 1.
If you were granted TPS by an immigration judge (IJ) or the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), and you wish to request an EAD, or are re-registering for the first time following a grant of TPS by the IJ or BIA, please mail your application to the appropriate address in Table 1 above. Upon receiving a Receipt Notice from USCIS, please send an email to
If you are re-registering for TPS during the re-registration period and you do not need to submit any supporting documents or evidence, you are eligible to file your applications electronically. For more information on e-filing, please visit the USCIS E-Filing Reference Guide at the USCIS Web site at
No. USCIS will not issue interim EADs to TPS applicants and re-registrants at local offices.
Provided that you currently have TPS under the El Salvador designation, this notice automatically extends your EAD by 6 months if you:
• Are a national of El Salvador (or an alien having no nationality who last habitually resided in El Salvador);
• Received an EAD under the last extension or re-designation of TPS for El Salvador; and
• Have an EAD with a marked expiration date of September 9, 2013, bearing the notation “A–12” or “C–19” on the face of the card under “Category.”
Although your EAD is automatically extended through March 9, 2014 by this notice, you must re-register timely for TPS in accordance with the procedures described in this notice if you would like to maintain your TPS.
You can find a list of acceptable document choices on the “Lists of Acceptable Documents” for Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I–9). You can find additional detailed information on the USCIS I–9 Central Web page at
You may present any document from List A (reflecting both your identity and employment authorization), or one document from List B (reflecting identity) together with one document from List C (reflecting employment authorization). An EAD is an acceptable document under “List A.” Employers may not reject a document based upon a future expiration date.
If your EAD has an expiration date of September 9, 2013, and states “A–12” or “C–19” under “Category”, it has been extended automatically for 6 months by virtue of this
Even though EADs with an expiration date of September 9, 2013, that state “A–12” or “C–19” under “Category” have been automatically extended for 6 months by virtue of this
By March 9, 2014, the expiration date of the automatic extension, your employer must reverify your employment authorization. You must present any document from List A or any document from List C on Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I–9) to reverify employment authorization. Your employer is required to reverify on Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I–9) the employment authorization of current employees no later than the expiration of a TPS-related EAD. Your employer should use either Section 3 of the Form I–9 originally completed for the employee or, if this section has already been completed or if the version of Form I–9 is no longer valid, complete Section 3 of a new Form I–9 using the most current version. Note that your employer may not specify which List A or List C document employees must present.
No. When completing Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I–9), including reverifying employment authorization, employers must accept any documentation that appears on the “Lists of Acceptable Documents” for Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I–9) and that reasonably appears to be genuine and that relates to you. Employers may not request documentation that does not appear on the “Lists of Acceptable Documents.” Therefore, employers may not request proof of Salvadoran citizenship when completing Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I–9) for new hires or reverifying the employment authorization of current employees. If presented with EADs that are unexpired on their face or that have been automatically extended, employers should accept such EADs as valid List A documents so long as the EADs reasonably appear to be genuine and to relate to the employee. See below for important information about your rights if your employer rejects lawful documentation, requires additional documentation, or otherwise discriminates against you based on your citizenship or immigration status, or your national origin.
After March 9, 2014, employers may no longer accept the EADs that this
When using an automatically extended EAD to fill out the Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I–9) for a new job prior to March 9, 2014, you and your employer should do the following:
(1) For Section 1, you should:
a. Check “An alien authorized to work”;
b. Write your alien number (USCIS number or A-number) in the first space (your EAD or other document from DHS will have your USCIS number or A-number printed on it; the USCIS Number is the same as your A-number without the A prefix); and
c. Write the automatic extension date (March 9, 2014) in the second space.
(2) For Section 2, employers should record the:
a. Document title;
b. Document number; and
c. Automatically extended EAD expiration date (March 9, 2014).
No later than March 9, 2014, employers must reverify the employee's employment authorization in Section 3 of the Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I–9).
If you are an existing employee who presented a TPS-related EAD that was valid when you first started your job, but that EAD has now been automatically extended, you and your employer should correct your previously completed Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I–9) as follows:
(1) For Section 1, you should:
a. Draw a line through the expiration date in the second space;
b. Write “March 9, 2014” above the previous date;
c. Write “TPS Ext.” in the margin of Section 1; and
d. Initial and date the correction in the margin of Section 1.
(2) For Section 2, employers should:
a. Draw a line through the expiration date written in Section 2;
b. Write “March 9, 2014” above the previous date;
c. Write “TPS Ext.” in the margin of Section 2; and
d. Initial and date the correction in the margin of Section 2.
By March 9, 2014, when the automatic extension of EADs expires, employers must reverify the employee's employment authorization in Section 3.
If you are an employer who participates in E-Verify, you will receive a “Work Authorization Documents Expiring” case alert when a TPS beneficiary's EAD is about to expire. Usually, this message is an alert to complete Section 3 of the Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I–9) to reverify an employee's employment authorization. For existing employees with TPS-related EADs that have been automatically extended, employers should dismiss this alert by clicking the red “X” in the “dismiss alert” column and follow the instructions above explaining how to correct the Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I–9). By March 9, 2014, employment authorization must be reverified in Section 3. Employers should never use E-Verify for reverification.
Employers are reminded that the laws requiring proper employment eligibility verification and prohibiting unfair immigration-related employment practices remain in full force. This notice does not supersede or in any way limit applicable employment verification rules and policy guidance, including those rules setting forth reverification requirements. For general questions about the employment eligibility verification process, employers may call the USCIS Form I–9 Customer Support at 888–464–4218 (TDD for the hearing impaired is at 877–875–6028). For questions about avoiding discrimination during the employment eligibility verification process, employers may also call the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC) Employer Hotline at 800–255–8155 (TDD for the hearing impaired is at 800–237–2515), which offers language interpretation in numerous languages.
For general questions about the employment eligibility verification process, employees may call the USCIS National Customer Service Center at 800–375–5283 (TDD for the hearing impaired is at 800–767–1833); calls are accepted in English and Spanish. Employees or applicants may also call the OSC Worker Information Hotline at 800–255–7688 (TDD for the hearing impaired is at 800–237–2515) for information regarding employment discrimination based upon citizenship, immigration status, or national origin, or for information regarding discrimination related to Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I–9) and E-Verify. The OSC Worker Information Hotline provides language interpretation in numerous languages. To comply with the law, employers must accept any document or combination of documents acceptable for Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I–9) completion if the documentation reasonably appears to be genuine and to relate to the employee. Employers may not require extra or additional documentation beyond what is required for Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I–9) completion. Further, employers participating in E-Verify who receive an E-Verify initial mismatch (“tentative nonconfirmation” or “TNC”) on employees must promptly inform employees of the mismatch and give such employees an opportunity to challenge the mismatch. Employers are prohibited from taking adverse action against such employees based on the initial mismatch unless and until E-Verify returns a final nonconfirmation. For example, employers must allow employees challenging their mismatches to continue to work without any delay in start date or training and without any change in hours or pay, while the final E-Verify determination remains pending. Additional information about proper nondiscriminatory I–9 and E-Verify procedures is available on the OSC Web site at
While Federal government agencies must follow the guidelines laid out by the Federal government, state and local government agencies establish their own rules and guidelines when granting certain benefits. Each state may have different laws, requirements, and determinations about what documents you need to provide to prove eligibility for certain benefits. Whether you are applying for a Federal, state, or local government benefit, you may need to provide the government agency with documents that show you are a TPS beneficiary and/or show you are authorized to work based on TPS. Examples are:
(1) Your expired EAD that has been automatically extended, or your EAD that has not expired;
(2) A copy of this
(3) A copy of your Application for Temporary Protected Status Receipt Notice (Form I–797) for this re-registration;
(4) A copy of your past or current Application for Temporary Protected Status Approval Notice (Form I–797), if you received one from USCIS; and/or
(5) If there is an automatic extension of work authorization, a copy of the fact sheet from the USCIS TPS Web site that provides information on the automatic extension.
Check with the government agency regarding which document(s) the agency will accept. You may also provide the agency with a copy of this notice.
Some benefit-granting agencies use the USCIS Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements Program (SAVE) to verify the current immigration status of applicants for public benefits. If such an agency has denied your application based solely or in part on a SAVE response, the agency must offer you the opportunity to appeal the decision in accordance with the agency's procedures. If the agency has received and acted upon or will act upon a SAVE verification and you do not believe the response is correct, you may make an InfoPass appointment for an in-person interview at a local USCIS office. Detailed information on how to make corrections, make an appointment, or submit a written request can be found at the SAVE Web site at
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of final determination.
This document provides notice that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) has issued a final determination concerning the country of origin of certain monochrome laser printers. Based upon the facts presented, CBP has concluded in the final determination that the United States is the country of origin of the monochrome laser printers for purposes of U.S. Government procurement.
The final determination was issued on May 21, 2013. A copy of the final determination is attached. Any party-at-interest, as defined in 19 CFR 177.22(d), may seek judicial review of this final determination on or before July 1, 2013.
Suzanne Kane, Valuation and Special Programs Branch: (202) 325–0119.
Notice is hereby given that on May 21, 2013, pursuant to subpart B of part 177, Customs Regulations (19 CFR part 177, subpart B), CBP issued a final determination concerning the country of origin of certain monochrome laser printers which may be offered to the U.S. Government under an undesignated procurement contract. This final determination, in HQ H241146, was issued at the request of Ricoh Electronics, Inc. under procedures set forth at 19 CFR part 177, subpart B, which implements Title III of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2511–18). In the final determination, CBP concluded that, based upon the facts presented, the particular monochrome laser printers, assembled in the United States from parts made in China, Japan, and the Philippines, are substantially transformed in the United States, such that the United States is the country of origin of the finished article for purposes of U.S. Government procurement.
Section 177.29, Customs Regulations (19 CFR 177.29), provides that notice of final determinations shall be published in the
Dear Ms. Nara:
This is in response to your letter, dated March 11, 2013, requesting a final determination on behalf of your client, Ricoh Electronics, Inc. (Ricoh), pursuant to subpart B of Part 177, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Regulations (19 CFR § 177.21
The products at issue in this ruling are certain monochrome laser printers manufactured by Ricoh, consisting of the Ricoh Aficio SP 5200DNG and SP 5210DNG. Ricoh intends to import the components and subassemblies of the printers from China and the Philippines for manufacture in the U.S. and subsequent sale to U.S. government agencies.
Ricoh states that it developed the SP52000-series printers in Japan, and that the entire engineering, development, design and artwork
• Duplex Unit: enables double-sided copying and printing. It is assembled in China.
• Fusing Unit: contains a fusing roller and a pressure roller, which are both manufactured in Korea, and a heater manufactured in Japan. The main task of the Fusing unit is to permanently affix the toner on the paper by applying heat and pressure to the toner powder. The Fusing unit is assembled in China.
• Laser Unit: receives the image from the Scanning unit and copies the image onto the organic photo conductor (OPC) drum. The Laser unit is assembled in China. The two key components of the Laser unit, the laser diode unit and two lenses, are manufactured in Japan.
• All in One Unit (AIO): is assembled in China and contains the toner powder manufactured in Japan using a formula developed by Ricoh Company, Ltd.
• Engine Board (EGB): controls all printer engine functions both directly and through other control boards. It is assembled in China.
• Power Supply Unit (PSU): provides the DC power to the system and AC power to the fusing. It is assembled in China.
• Hard Disk Drive (HDD): is either a standard or optional item depending on the model type of printer. Ricoh purchases HDDs made in the Philippines from another company.
• Operation Panel: acts as the interface between the user and printer and is assembled in China.
The next stage of the production process is the Controller unit subassembly. Ricoh states that in a completed printer, the Controller unit functions as the electronic “brain” of the printer and controls its functions. Ricoh states that it has invested significant amounts for R&D in Japan to develop the Controller unit, as well as millions of dollars in Ricoh's factory in Tustin, California for the machinery to manufacture different types of Controller units. Ricoh considers the manufacturing of the Controller unit, including the printed circuit board (PCB) and programming of the firmware (the fixed internal programs that control electronic devices), to be extremely complex, and necessitating highly skilled labor to perform optical inspections, soldering, functional testing and circuit testing.
The Controller unit is manufactured in the United States in three stages. First, Ricoh manufactures the PCB in the United States, including the automatic board stuffing process using surface mount technology (SMT), automated optical inspection (AOI), and manual soldering. Ricoh states that approximately 1,243 components, including integrated circuits, diodes, capacitors, connectors, and other semiconductor devices are mounted on the PCB using both automated and manual soldering processes. Second, Ricoh programs the PCB with firmware that was developed in Japan. Once the installation of the firmware on the PCB is complete, the Controller unit becomes functional as the “brain” of the printer. Finally, after the assembly of the PCB and the installation of the firmware, the PCB undergoes testing to ensure the functionality and quality of the PCB.
The final assembly of the printers consists of incorporating the Controller unit and HDD into the incomplete, non-functional printer engines. A control board panel is then attached to the Controller unit and fixed. An HDD controller board is attached to a side of an HDD bracket. An HDD is then mounted on the other side of the HDD bracket and fixed. The assembled HDD is mounted on the controller unit and fixed with controller unit and the control board. An interface panel and a ground plate panel are put together. The assembled part is inserted into the control board panel. The assembled unit is inserted into the rear of the incomplete printer engine and screwed down. The operation panel is connected to the incomplete printer engine by a cable and then attached to the front of the printer engine. The AIO is then installed to the printer engine. The assembled printers will undergo inspection at Ricoh's Tustin, California factory, which is certified as an ISO 14001 factory to conduct the inspection procedure.
What is the country of origin of the Ricoh Aficio SP 5200DNG/SP 5210DNG monochrome laser printers for purposes of U.S. Government procurement?
Pursuant to Subpart B of Part 177, 19 C.F.R § 177.21 et seq., which implements Title III of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 2511
An article is a product of a country or instrumentality only if (i) it is wholly the growth, product, or manufacture of that country or instrumentality, or (ii) in the case of an article which consists in whole or in part of materials from another country or instrumentality, it has been substantially transformed into a new and different article of commerce with a name, character, or use distinct from that of the article or articles from which it was so transformed.
In rendering advisory rulings and final determinations for purposes of U.S. Government procurement, CBP applies the provisions of subpart B of part 177 consistent with the Federal Acquisition Regulations.
In order to determine whether a substantial transformation occurs when components of various origins are assembled into completed products, CBP considers the totality of the circumstances and makes such
In determining whether the combining of parts or materials constitutes a substantial transformation, the determinative issue is the extent of the operations performed and whether the parts lose their identity and become an integral part of the new article.
CBP has held in a number of cases involving similar merchandise that complex and meaningful operations involving a large number of components result in a substantial transformation. In support of its position, Ricoh cites HQ H018467 (Jan. 4, 2008). In HQ H018467, CBP considered the country of origin of multi-function printers in which manufacturing took place in two countries. In that case, the following eighteen units were manufactured in the Philippines from components produced in various countries: the automatic document feeder unit, scanner unit, operation panel unit, feed unit, manual paper feed unit, lift up motor unit, subassembly units, automatic document transferring unit, induction heating fuser unit, induction heating power supply unit, transcription unit, developing unit, laser scanning unit, main drive unit, motor drive board, high voltage power supply board, low voltage power supply board, and automatic duplex unit board. The units were sent to Japan where the system control board, engine control board, OPC drum unit, and the toner reservoir were manufactured and incorporated into the units. The control boards were then programmed in Japan with Japanese firmware that controlled the user interface, imaging, memories, and the mechanics of the machines. The machines were then inspected and adjusted as necessary. CBP found that the manufacturing operations in Japan substantially transformed the Philippine units such that Japan was the country of origin of the multifunctional machines. In making our determination we took into consideration the fact that the system control board, the engine control board, and the firmware, which were very important to the functionality of the machines, were manufactured in Japan. We also found that the operations performed in Japan were meaningful and complex and resulted in an article of commerce with a new name, character and use.
Ricoh also cites HQ H185775 (Dec. 21, 2011). In HQ H185775, CBP considered the country of origin of a multifunction office machine. In that case, the incomplete print engine was produced in Vietnam and consisted of a metal frame, plastic skins, motors, controller board with supplier-provided firmware, a laser scanning system, paper trays, cabling paper transport rollers, and miscellaneous sensing and imaging systems. The incomplete print engine was shipped to Mexico, where the following assemblies were added: the formatter board, scanner/automatic document feeder, control panel, fax card, hard disk drive/solid state drive, firmware (which was developed and written in the U.S.), along with other minor components and accessories. The finished products were also tested and prepared for shipping to their ultimate destinations. CBP determined that Mexico was the country of origin because a substantial transformation of the various components occurred in Mexico, and the assembly of the materials from various countries resulted in the final multifunctional office machine product.
In this case, substantial manufacturing operations are performed in both China and Japan. Chinese subassemblies are imported into the United States, where they are combined with U.S.-origin PCBs, and programmed with Japanese-origin firmware. The Controller unit is stated to control the functions and mechanics of the printers along with the Japanese firmware. As the printers are comprised of subassemblies and components from various countries, but are also comprised of a Controller unit assembled in the United States (with U.S.-origin PCBs), which is important to the function of the printers, and the assembly in the United States completes the printers, we find that the last substantial transformation occurs in the United States.
The imported components that are used to manufacture the Ricoh Aficio SP 5200DNG/SP 5210DNG monochrome laser printers are substantially transformed as a result of the assembly and firmware installation operations performed in the United States. Therefore, we find that the country of origin of the Ricoh Aficio SP 5200DNG/
Notice of this final determination will be given in the
Sincerely,
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of final determination.
This document provides notice that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) has issued a final determination concerning the country of origin of certain multifunctional digital imaging systems. Based upon the facts presented, CBP has concluded in the final determination that the United States is the country of origin of the multifunctional digital imaging systems for purposes of U.S. Government procurement.
The final determination was issued on May 21, 2013. A copy of the final determination is attached. Any party-at-interest, as defined in 19 CFR 177.22(d), may seek judicial review of this final determination on or before July 1, 2013.
Suzanne Kane, Valuation and Special Programs Branch: (202) 325–0119.
Notice is hereby given that on May 21, 2013, pursuant to subpart B of part 177, Customs Regulations (19 CFR part 177, subpart B), CBP issued a final determination concerning the country of origin of certain multifunctional digital imaging systems which may be offered to the U.S. Government under an undesignated procurement contract. This final determination, in HQ H240213, was issued at the request of Ricoh Electronics, Inc. under procedures set forth at 19 CFR part 177, subpart B, which implements Title III of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2511–18). In the final determination, CBP concluded that, based upon the facts presented, the particular multifunctional digital imaging systems, assembled in the United States from parts made in China, Japan, and the Philippines, are substantially transformed in the United States, such that the United States is the country of origin of the finished article for purposes of U.S. Government procurement.
Section 177.29, Customs Regulations (19 CFR 177.29), provides that notice of final determinations shall be published in the
Dear Ms. Nara:
This is in response to your letter, dated March 11, 2013, requesting a final determination on behalf of your client, Ricoh Electronics, Inc. (Ricoh), pursuant to subpart B of Part 177, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Regulations (19 CFR § 177.21
The products at issue in this ruling are certain MFPs manufactured by Ricoh, consisting of the Ricoh Aficio SP 5200SG (base model), the SP 5210SFG (incorporating a fax machine), and the SP 5210SRG (incorporating a finisher unit for stacking and stapling). All three MFP models have monochrome copying, printing, and scanning functions, and one model, the SP 5210SFG, has an additional facsimile function. Ricoh intends to import the components and subassemblies of the MFPs from China and the Philippines for manufacture in the U.S. and subsequent sale to U.S. government agencies.
Ricoh states that it developed the SP5200-series MFPs in Japan, and that the entire engineering, development, design and artwork processes for the MFPs took place in Japan. The project team consisted of approximately 50 engineers, who were all based in Japan and worked for Ricoh's parent company, Ricoh Company, Ltd. At the initial stage of the MFP production process, individual parts are assembled into various assemblages of parts called subassemblies. The manufacture of subassemblies takes place in multiple countries, including the United States, China, and the Philippines. The subassembly units incorporated in Ricoh's SP5200-series include the following:
• Automatic Reverse Document Feeder Unit (ARDF unit): the ARDF unit has a 50 sheet capacity, and its main task is to feed paper, sheet by sheet, to the next scanning process. The ARDF unit is assembled in China.
• Scanning Unit: performs the task of converting the original images into digital signals. It is assembled in China.
• Duplex Unit: enables double-sided copying and printing. It is assembled in China.
• Fusing Unit: contains a fusing roller and a pressure roller, which are both manufactured in Korea, and a heater manufactured in Japan. The main task of the Fusing unit is to permanently affix the toner on the paper by applying heat and pressure to the toner powder. The Fusing unit is assembled in China.
• Laser Unit: receives the image from the Scanning unit and copies the image onto the organic photo conductor (OPC) drum. The Laser unit is assembled in China. The two key components of the Laser unit, the laser diode unit and two lenses, are manufactured in Japan.
• All in One Unit (AIO): is assembled in China and contains the toner powder manufactured in Japan using a formula developed by Ricoh Company, Ltd.
• Base Engine and Image Control unit (BICU): controls the mechanical function of the MFP and is, in turn, controlled by the Controller unit. It is assembled in China.
• Power Supply Unit (PSU): provides the DC power to the system and AC power to the fusing. It is assembled in China.
• Fax Unit: is either a standard or optional item depending on the model type of the SP5200-series MFP. It is assembled in China.
• Hard Disk Drive (HDD): is either a standard or optional item depending on the model type of the SP5200-series MFP. Ricoh purchases HDDs made in the Philippines from another company.
• Operation Panel: acts as the interface between the user and MFP and is assembled in China.
The next stage of the production process is the Controller unit subassembly. Ricoh states that in a completed MFP, the Controller unit functions as the electronic “brain” of the MFP and controls its functions. Ricoh states that it has invested significant amounts for R&D in Japan to develop the Controller unit, as well as millions of dollars in Ricoh's factory in Tustin, California for the machinery to manufacture different types of Controller units. Ricoh considers the manufacturing of the Controller unit, including the printed circuit board (PCB) and programming of the firmware (the fixed internal programs that control electronic devices), to be extremely complex, and necessitating highly skilled labor to perform optical inspections, soldering, functional testing and circuit testing.
The Controller unit is manufactured in the United States in three stages. First, Ricoh manufactures the PCB in the United States, including the automatic board stuffing process using surface mount technology (SMT), automated optical inspection (AOI), and manual soldering. Ricoh states that approximately 1,335 components, including integrated circuits, diodes, capacitors, connectors, and other semiconductor devices are mounted on the PCB using both automated and manual soldering processes. Second, Ricoh programs the PCB with firmware that was developed in Japan. Once the installation of the firmware on the PCB is complete, the Controller unit becomes functional as the “brain” of the MFP. Finally, after the assembly of the PCB and the installation of the firmware, the PCB undergoes testing to ensure the functionality and quality of the PCB.
The final assembly of the MFPs consists of incorporating the Controller unit and HDD into the incomplete, non-functional printer engines. The HDD is mounted on the Controller unit, and the HDD control board is inserted into the socket of the controller unit. The assembled unit is inserted to the rear of the incomplete printer engine. The operation panel is connected to the incomplete printer engine by several cables, and then attached to the front of the printer engine. An AIO is installed to the printer engine, and finally the fax unit is installed to the printer engine. The final MFPs will undergo inspection at Ricoh's Tustin, California factory.
What is the country of origin of the Ricoh Aficio SP5200SG/5210SFG/5210SRG MFPs for purposes of U.S. Government procurement?
Pursuant to Subpart B of Part 177, 19 C.F.R § 177.21 et seq., which implements Title III of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 2511
An article is a product of a country or instrumentality only if (i) it is wholly the growth, product, or manufacture of that country or instrumentality, or (ii) in the case of an article which consists in whole or in part of materials from another country or instrumentality, it has been substantially transformed into a new and different article of commerce with a name, character, or use distinct from that of the article or articles from which it was so transformed.
In rendering advisory rulings and final determinations for purposes of U.S. Government procurement, CBP applies the provisions of subpart B of part 177 consistent with the Federal Acquisition Regulations.
48 C.F.R. § 25.003.
In order to determine whether a substantial transformation occurs when components of various origins are assembled into completed products, CBP considers the totality of the circumstances and makes such determinations on a case-by-case basis. The country of origin of the item's components, extent of the processing that occurs within a country, and whether such processing renders a product with a new name, character, and use are primary considerations in such cases. Additionally, factors such as the resources expended on product design and development, the extent and nature of post-assembly inspection and testing procedures, and worker skill required during the actual manufacturing process will be considered when determining whether a substantial transformation has occurred. No one factor is determinative.
In determining whether the combining of parts or materials constitutes a substantial transformation, the determinative issue is the extent of the operations performed and whether the parts lose their identity and become an integral part of the new article.
CBP has held in a number of cases involving similar merchandise that complex and meaningful operations involving a large number of components result in a substantial transformation. In support of its position, Ricoh cites HQ H018467 (Jan. 4, 2008). In HQ H018467, CBP considered the country of origin of multi-function printers in which manufacturing took place in two countries. In that case, the following eighteen units were manufactured in the Philippines from components produced in various countries: the automatic document feeder unit, scanner unit, operation panel unit, feed unit, manual paper feed unit, lift up motor unit, subassembly units, automatic document transferring unit, induction heating fuser unit, induction heating power supply unit, transcription unit, developing unit, laser scanning unit, main drive unit, motor drive board, high voltage power supply board, low voltage power supply board, and automatic duplex unit board. The units were sent to Japan where the system control board, engine control board, OPC drum unit, and the toner reservoir were manufactured and incorporated into the units. The control boards were then programmed in Japan with Japanese firmware that controlled the user interface, imaging, memories, and the mechanics of the machines. The machines were then inspected and adjusted as
Ricoh also cites HQ H185775 (Dec. 21, 2011). In HQ H185775, CBP considered the country of origin of a multifunction office machine. In that case, the incomplete print engine was produced in Vietnam and consisted of a metal frame, plastic skins, motors, controller board with supplier-provided firmware, a laser scanning system, paper trays, cabling paper transport rollers, and miscellaneous sensing and imaging systems. The incomplete print engine was shipped to Mexico, where the following assemblies were added: the formatter board, scanner/automatic document feeder, control panel, fax card, hard disk drive/solid state drive, firmware (which was developed and written in the U.S.), along with other minor components and accessories. The finished products were also tested and prepared for shipping to their ultimate destinations. CBP determined that Mexico was the country of origin because a substantial transformation of the various components occurred in Mexico, and the assembly of the materials from various countries resulted in the final multifunctional office machine product.
In this case, substantial manufacturing operations are performed in both China and Japan. Chinese subassemblies are imported into the United States, where they are combined with U.S.-origin Controller units containing U.S.-origin PCBs, and programmed with Japanese-origin firmware. The Controller unit is stated to control the functions and mechanics of the MFPs along with the Japanese firmware. The HDD, which is manufactured in a third country, is also installed into the MFPs in the United States. As the MFPs are comprised of subassemblies and components from various countries, but are also comprised of a Controller unit assembled in the United States (with U.S.-origin PCBs), which is important to the function of the MFPs, and the assembly in the United States completes the MFPs, we find that the last substantial transformation occurs in the United States.
The imported components that are used to manufacture the Ricoh Aficio SP5200SG/5210SFG/5210SRG MFPs are substantially transformed as a result of the assembly and firmware installation operations performed in the United States. Therefore, we find that the country of origin of the Ricoh Aficio SP5200SG/5210SFG/5210SRG MFPs for government procurement purposes is the United States.
Notice of this final determination will be given in the
Sincerely,
30-Day notice of information collection for review; File No. 70–009, 287(g) Candidate Questionnaire; OMB Control No. 1653–0047.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (USICE), will submit the following information collection request for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. The information collection was previously published in the
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies regarding items contained in this notice and especially with regard to the estimated public burden and associated response time should be directed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the OMB Desk Officer for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security, and sent via electronic mail to
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for thirty days until July 1, 2013. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
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.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB approval Number (2577–0274) 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.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 35, as amended.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
The proposed information collection requirement described below has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. 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 approval Number (2577–0267) and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202–395–5806. Email:
Colette Pollard., Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at
This notice informs the public that the Department of Housing and Urban Development has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the Information collection described below. This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affecting agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 35, as amended.
Office of the General Counsel, HUD.
Notice.
Section 106 of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (the HUD Reform Act) requires HUD to publish quarterly
For general information about this notice, contact Camille E. Acevedo, Associate General Counsel for Legislation and Regulations, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10282, Washington, DC 20410–0500, telephone 202–708–1793 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing- or speech-impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800–877–8339.
For information concerning a particular waiver that was granted and for which public notice is provided in this document, contact the person whose name and address follow the description of the waiver granted in the accompanying list of waivers that have been granted in the first quarter of calendar year 2013.
Section 106 of the HUD Reform Act added a new section 7(q) to the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act (42 U.S.C. 3535(q)), which provides that:
1. Any waiver of a regulation must be in writing and must specify the grounds for approving the waiver;
2. Authority to approve a waiver of a regulation may be delegated by the Secretary only to an individual of Assistant Secretary or equivalent rank, and the person to whom authority to waive is delegated must also have authority to issue the particular regulation to be waived;
3. Not less than quarterly, the Secretary must notify the public of all waivers of regulations that HUD has approved, by publishing a notice in the
a. Identify the project, activity, or undertaking involved;
b. Describe the nature of the provision waived and the designation of the provision;
c. Indicate the name and title of the person who granted the waiver request;
d. Describe briefly the grounds for approval of the request; and
e. State how additional information about a particular waiver may be obtained.
Section 106 of the HUD Reform Act also contains requirements applicable to waivers of HUD handbook provisions that are not relevant to the purpose of this notice.
This notice follows procedures provided in HUD's Statement of Policy on Waiver of Regulations and Directives issued on April 22, 1991 (56 FR 16337). In accordance with those procedures and with the requirements of section 106 of the HUD Reform Act, waivers of regulations are granted by the Assistant Secretary with jurisdiction over the regulations for which a waiver was requested. In those cases in which a General Deputy Assistant Secretary granted the waiver, the General Deputy Assistant Secretary was serving in the absence of the Assistant Secretary in accordance with the office's Order of Succession.
This notice covers waivers of regulations granted by HUD from January 1, 2013 through March 31, 2013. For ease of reference, the waivers granted by HUD are listed by HUD program office (for example, the Office of Community Planning and Development, the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, the Office of Housing, and the Office of Public and Indian Housing, etc.). Within each program office grouping, the waivers are listed sequentially by the regulatory section of title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) that is being waived. For example, a waiver of a provision in 24 CFR part 58 would be listed before a waiver of a provision in 24 CFR part 570.
Where more than one regulatory provision is involved in the grant of a particular waiver request, the action is listed under the section number of the first regulatory requirement that appears in 24 CFR and that is being waived. For example, a waiver of both § 58.73 and § 58.74 would appear sequentially in the listing under § 58.73.
Waiver of regulations that involve the same initial regulatory citation are in time sequence beginning with the earliest-dated regulatory waiver.
Should HUD receive additional information about waivers granted during the period covered by this report (the first quarter of calendar year 2013) before the next report is published (the second quarter of calendar year 2013), HUD will include any additional waivers granted for the first quarter in the next report.
Accordingly, information about approved waiver requests pertaining to HUD regulations is provided in the Appendix that follows this notice.
More information about the granting of these waivers, including a copy of the waiver request and approval, may be obtained by contacting the person whose name is listed as the contact person directly after each set of regulatory waivers granted.
The regulatory waivers granted appear in the following order:
I. Regulatory waivers granted by the Office of Community Planning and Development.
II. Regulatory waivers granted by the Office of Housing.
III. Regulatory waivers granted by the Office of Public and Indian Housing.
For further information about the following regulatory waivers, please see the name of the contact person that immediately follows the description of the waiver granted.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
For further information about the following regulatory waivers, please see the name of the contact person that immediately follows the description of the waiver granted.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
For further information about the following regulatory waivers, please see the name of the contact person that immediately follows the description of the waiver granted.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of Filing of Plats of Survey; Colorado
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado State Office is publishing this notice to inform the public of the intent to officially file the survey plats listed below and afford a proper period of time to protest this action prior to the plat filing. During this time, the plats will be available for review in the BLM Colorado State Office.
Unless there are protests of this action, the filing of the plats described in this notice will happen on July 1, 2013.
BLM Colorado State Office, Cadastral Survey, 2850 Youngfield Street, Lakewood, CO 80215–7093.
Randy Bloom, Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Colorado, (303) 239–3856.
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 plat and field notes of the dependent resurvey and subdivision of certain sections in Township 47 North, Range 3 West, New Mexico Principal Meridian, Colorado, were accepted April 9, 2013.
The plat and field notes of the dependent resurvey and subdivision of sections 24 and 36 in Township 47 North, Range 4 West, New Mexico Principal Meridian, Colorado, were accepted on April 9, 2013.
The plat and field notes of the dependent resurvey and metes-and-bounds survey of Tract 37 in unsurveyed Township 4 North, Range 79 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Colorado, were accepted on April 19, 2013.
The plat and field notes of the dependent resurvey of Mineral Survey No. 588, Malter Place, in Township 43 North, Range 4 West, New Mexico Principal Meridian, were accepted on May 7, 2013.
The plat and field notes of the dependent resurvey of Mineral Survey No. 622, Red Cloud Lode, in Township 43 North, Range 4 West, New Mexico Principal Meridian, were accepted on May 7, 2013.
The plat and field notes of the dependent resurvey and survey in Township 13 South, Range 92 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Colorado, were accepted on May 16, 2013.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of filing of plats of survey.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will file the plat of survey of the lands described below in the BLM Montana State Office, Billings, Montana, on July 1, 2013.
Protests of the survey must be filed before July 1, 2013 to be considered.
Protests of the survey should be sent to the Branch of Cadastral Survey, Bureau of Land Management, 5001 Southgate Drive, Billings, Montana 59101–4669.
Marvin Montoya, Cadastral Surveyor, Branch of Cadastral Survey, Bureau of Land Management, 5001 Southgate Drive, Billings, Montana 59101–4669, telephone (406) 896–5124 or (406) 896–5009,
This survey was executed at the request of the Bureau of Land Management, Butte Field Office, and was necessary to determine federal interest lands. The lands we surveyed are:
The plat, in one sheet, representing the dependent resurvey of portions of Mineral Survey Nos. 631, 870, and 1089 B, and the survey of a certain lot within section 36, Township 12 North, Range 6 West, Principal Meridian, Montana, was accepted May 16, 2013.
We will place a copy of the plat, in one sheet, and related field notes we described in the open files. They will be available to the public as a matter of information. If the BLM receives a protest against this survey, as shown on this plat, in one sheet, prior to the date of the official filing, we will stay the filing pending our consideration of the protest. We will not officially file this plat, in one sheet, until the day after we have accepted or dismissed all protests and they have become final, including decisions or appeals.
43 U.S.C. Chap. 3.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of public meetings.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Twin Falls District Resource Advisory Council (RAC) will meet as indicated below.
On June 20, 2013, the Twin Falls District RAC members will meet at the Burley Field Office, 15 East, 200 South, Burley, Idaho. The meeting will begin at 9:00 a.m. and end no later than 6:00 p.m. The public comment period for the RAC meeting will take place 9:10 a.m. to 9:40 a.m. Following a short meeting, RAC members will take a field tour of projects within the Burley Field Office
Heather Tiel-Nelson, Twin Falls District, Idaho, 2536 Kimberly Road, Twin Falls, Idaho, 83301, (208) 736–2352.
The 15-member RAC advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Land Management, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in Idaho. During the field tour, RAC members will visit the Milner Historic Recreation Area to learn more about the proposed improvements to the property, and areas of the South Hills that were rehabilitated following the Cave Canyon Fire of 2012. Additional topics may be added and will be included in local media announcements. More information is available at
National Park Service, Department of the Interior.
Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Grand Ditch Breach Restoration, Rocky Mountain National Park.
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 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Grand Ditch Breach Restoration, Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado.
The National Park Service will execute a Record of Decision (ROD) no sooner than 30 days following publication by the Environmental Protection Agency of the Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement.
Information will be available for public inspection online at
Public Information Office, Rocky Mountain National Park, 1000 US Highway 36, Estes Park, Colorado 80517–8397, (970) 586–1206.
The document describes five management alternatives including a no-action alternative and the National Park Service preferred alternative. The anticipated environmental impacts of those alternatives are analyzed. The final document also includes responses to substantive comments from the public, cooperating agencies, and government agencies. The no-action alternative, alternative A, would extend existing conditions and management trends into the future. This alternative serves as a basis of comparison for evaluating the action alternatives. Minimal restoration, alternative B, would emphasize less intensive management activity to restore portions of the impacted area. This alternative would focus actions on areas that are unstable and present a high potential of continued degradation of ecosystem resources and services. High restoration, alternative C, would involve more intensive management actions over large portions of the impacted area. This alternative would focus actions on unstable areas that present a high to moderate potential of continued degradation of existing ecosystem resources and services. The preferred alternative, alternative D, would emphasize the removal of large debris deposits in the alluvial fan area and in the Lulu City wetland. Actions would be conducted to stabilize limited areas of unstable slopes and banks throughout the upper portions of the restoration area. Hydrology through the Lulu City wetland would be restored in the historical central channel through removal of large deposits of debris, relying on the historical channel to transport river flow. Small-scale motorized equipment would be employed for stabilization and revegetation activities, while larger equipment would be employed for excavation of large debris deposits and reconfiguration of the Colorado River through the Lulu City wetland. This alternative would include stabilization of zone 1A under the preferred option, option 1. Maximum restoration, alternative E, would involve extensive management activity and use of motorized equipment over large portions of the impacted area to restore the damage.
Nominations for the following properties being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register were received by the National Park Service before May 4, 2013. Pursuant to section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60, written comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation. Comments may be forwarded by United States Postal Service, to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St. NW., MS 2280, Washington, DC 20240; by all other carriers, National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1201 Eye St. NW., 8th floor, Washington, DC 20005; or by fax, 202–371–6447. Written or faxed comments should be submitted by June 14, 2013. 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.
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 (NPS) announces the availability of the Record of Decision (ROD) for the General Management Plan (GMP) for Blue Ridge Parkway (parkway). On April 13, 2013, the Regional Director, Southeast Region, approved the ROD for the project.
Superintendent Phil Francis, Blue Ridge Parkway, 199 Hemphill Knob Road, Asheville, NC 28803; telephone (828) 271–4779.
The NPS evaluated three alternatives for managing use and development of the parkway in the GMP/FEIS, Alternative A—no action Alternative, and two action Alternatives. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) from the FEIS/GMP is the alternative selected for implementation. Alternative B emphasizes the original parkway design and traditional driving experience, while enhancing outdoor recreation opportunities and regional natural resource connectivity, and providing modest improvements to visitor services. To support that experience, many of the parkway's recreation areas will provide enhanced opportunities for dispersed outdoor recreation activities. This action will proactively blend newer law and policy requirements and operational constraints with the traditional parkway concept developed from 1935 to 1955. As a result, the selected action will provide a better balance between traditional parkway experiences and modern-day management realities. Under Alternative C, parkway management would be more integrated with the region's resources and economy, while enhancing parkway visitor services.
The selected action will provide a comprehensive parkway-wide approach to resource and visitor use management. Specific management zones detailing acceptable resource conditions, visitor experience, use levels, appropriate activities and development will be applied to parkway lands (parkway segments and recreation areas) consistent with this concept. The selected action will also seek to enhance resource protection, regional natural resource connectivity, and build stronger connections with adjacent communities. The GMP will guide the management of the parkway over the next 20+ years.
The responsible official for this FEIS/GMP is the Regional Director, NPS Southeast Region, 100 Alabama Street SW., 1924 Building, Atlanta, Georgia 30303.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review the presiding administrative law
Panyin A. Hughes, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205–3042. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at
Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205–1810.
The Commission instituted Inv. No. 337–TA–861 on November 16, 2012, based on a complaint filed by Speculative Product Design, LLC of Mountain View, California (“Speck”). 77 FR 68828 (Nov. 16, 2012). The complaint alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain cases for portable electronic devices by reason of infringement of various claims of United States Patent No. 8,204,561 (“the '561 patent”). The complaint named several respondents.
The Commission instituted Inv. No. 337–TA–867 on January 31, 2013, based on a complaint filed by Speck. 78 FR 6834 (Jan. 31, 2013). That complaint also alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain cases for portable electronic devices by reason of infringement of various claims of the '561 patent. The complaint named several respondents. On January 31, 2013, the Commission consolidated the two investigations.
On April 4, 2013, Speck moved for leave to amend the complaint and notice of investigation to remove respondent Jie Sheng Taiwan from the investigation and add as respondent Jie Sheng Technology of Shenzhen City, China. On April 15, 2013, the Commission investigative attorney filed a response in support of the motion. No other responses to the motion were filed.
On April 30, 2013, the ALJ issued the subject ID, granting the motion in part as to removing respondent Jie Sheng Taiwan from the investigation. The ALJ found that, pursuant to Commission Rule 210.14(b) (19 CFR 210.14(b)), good cause exists to amend the complaint and notice of investigation. None of the parties petitioned for review of the ID.
The Commission has determined not to review the ID.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in section 210.42 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.42).
By order of the Commission.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(b)–(h), that a proposed Final Judgment, Hold Separate Stipulation and Order and Competitive Impact Statement have been filed with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in
Copies of the Complaint, proposed Final Judgment, Hold Separate Stipulation and Order and Competitive Impact Statement are available for inspection at the Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, Antitrust Documents Group, 450 Fifth Street NW., Suite 1010, Washington, DC 20530 (telephone: 202–514–2481), on the Department of Justice's Web site at
Public comment is invited within 60 days of the date of this notice. Such comments and responses thereto will be filed with the Court and posted on the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division's Web site, and, under certain circumstances published in the
The United States of America, acting under the direction of the Attorney General of the United States, and the State of Texas, acting through its Attorney General, bring this civil antitrust action to prevent the proposed acquisition by Cinemark Holdings, Inc. (“Cinemark”) of thirty-two movie theatres owned and operated by Rave Holdings, LLC (“Rave Cinemas”).
Cinemark is a significant competitor to Rave Cinemas in the exhibition of first-run, commercial movies in the area in and around Voorhees and Somerdale
1. This action is filed by the United States pursuant to Section 15 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 25, to obtain equitable relief and to prevent a violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 18. The State of Texas brings this action under Section 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 26, to prevent the defendants from violating Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 18.
2. The distribution and theatrical exhibition of first-run, commercial films is a commercial activity that substantially affects, and is in the flow of, interstate trade and commerce. Defendants' activities in purchasing equipment, services, and supplies as well as licensing films for exhibition substantially affect interstate commerce. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action and jurisdiction over the parties pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 22, 25, and 26, and 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1337(a), and 1345.
3. Venue in this District is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1391(c). Defendants have consented to venue and personal jurisdiction in this judicial district.
4. Defendant Rave Holdings, Inc. (“Rave Cinemas”) is a Delaware limited liability company with its headquarters in Dallas, Texas. Rave Cinemas owns and operates 35 movie theatres with 518 screens in a dozen states. Rave Cinemas is the seventh-largest movie theatre exhibitor in the United States based on box office revenues.
5. Defendant Cinemark Holdings, Inc. (“Cinemark”) is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in Plano, Texas. Cinemark owns and operates 298 movie theatres with a total of 3,916 screens in thirty-nine states. Cinemark is the third-largest movie theatre exhibitor in the United States based on box office revenues. Lee Roy Mitchell is the founder, a significant shareholder, and Chairman of the Board of Directors of Cinemark.
6. Defendant Alder Wood Partners, L.P. (“Alder Wood Partners”) is a Texas limited partnership with its headquarters in Dallas, Texas. Alder Wood Partners owns 100% of the voting shares of Movie Tavern, Inc. (“Movie Tavern”). Mr. Lee Roy Mitchell and his wife own 99% of Alder Wood Partners. Through Alder Wood Partners, they control Movie Tavern and receive approximately 92% of its profits. The other approximately 8% of Movie Tavern's profits are reserved for the benefit of its management. Movie Tavern is a Texas corporation with its headquarters in Dallas, Texas. In addition to serving as Cinemark's Chairman, Mr. Mitchell serves as a Director of Movie Tavern. Movie Tavern owns and operates 16 movie theatres, with a total of 130 screens in seven states.
7. Cinemark and Movie Tavern are not independent competitors. Mr. Mitchell, as Cinemark's founder and Chairman of the Board, has influence over Cinemark's pricing and other strategic decisions, as well as access to competitively-sensitive information. He also has a significant holding of Cinemark shares. At the same time, Mr. Mitchell, as a Director of Movie Tavern who together with his wife owns nearly all of the voting shares and profits of Movie Tavern, has influence over Movie Tavern's pricing and other strategic decisions. Thus, Mr. Mitchell has an ability and financial incentive to encourage, facilitate, and enforce coordination between the companies. Because of Mr. Mitchell's substantial influence over pricing and strategic decisions at the two companies, Cinemark and Movie Tavern are unlikely to compete aggressively with each other. For example, were Cinemark to determine that it is in its unilateral interest to build a new theatre close to a Movie Tavern, Mr. Mitchell would be in a position to undermine that effort. Similarly, were Movie Tavern to consider an aggressive price cut to the detriment of Cinemark, Mr. Mitchell would be in a position to undermine that effort.
8. On November 16, 2012, Cinemark and Rave Cinemas executed a purchase and sale agreement. The acquisition is structured as an asset purchase for approximately $220 million. Cinemark will acquire thirty-two of Rave Cinemas' thirty-five movie theatres and will manage the three theatres it is not acquiring until Rave Cinemas has sold them.
9. Viewing movies in the theatre is a popular pastime. Over one billion movie tickets were sold in the United States in 2012, with total box office revenue reaching approximately $9.7 billion.
10. Companies that operate movie theatres are called “exhibitors.” Some exhibitors own a single theatre, whereas others own a circuit of theatres within one or more regions of the United States. Cinemark, Rave Cinemas, and Movie Tavern are exhibitors in the United States, as are Regal Entertainment Group (“Regal”) and AMC Entertainment, Inc. (“AMC”).
11. Exhibitors set ticket prices for a theatre based on a number of factors, including the age and condition of the theatre, the number and type of amenities the theatre offers (such as the range of snacks, food and beverages offered, the size of its screens and quality of its sound systems, and stadium and/or reserved seating), the competitive situation facing the theatre (such as the price of tickets at nearby theatres, the age and condition of those theatres, and the number and type of amenities they offer), and the population demographics and density surrounding the theatre.
12. Movies are a unique form of entertainment. The experience of viewing a movie in a theatre is an inherently different experience from live entertainment (
13. Reflecting the significant differences of viewing a movie in a theatre, ticket prices for movies are generally very different from prices for other forms of entertainment. For example, live entertainment is typically significantly more expensive than a movie ticket, whereas home viewing through streaming video, DVD rental, or pay-per-view is usually significantly less expensive than viewing a movie in a theatre.
14. Viewing a movie at home typically lacks several characteristics of viewing
15. Movies are considered to be in their “first-run” during the four to five weeks following initial release in a given locality. If successful, a movie may be exhibited at other theatres after the first-run as part of a second or subsequent run (often called a “sub-run” or “second-run”). Moviegoers generally do not regard sub-run movies as an adequate substitute for first-run movies. Reflecting the significant difference between viewing a newly-released, first-run movie and an older sub-run movie, tickets at theatres exhibiting first-run movies usually cost significantly more than tickets at sub-run theatres.
16. Art movies and foreign language movies are also not adequate substitutes for commercial, first-run movies. Art movies, which include documentaries, are sometimes referred to as independent films. Although art and foreign language movies appeal to some viewers of commercial movies, the potential audience for art movies is quite distinct as art movies tend to have more narrow appeal and typically attract an older audience. Exhibitors consider art theatre operations as distinct from the operations of theatres that exhibit commercial movies. Similarly, foreign-language movies do not widely appeal to U.S. audiences. As a result, most moviegoers do not regard art movies or foreign-language movies as adequate substitutes for first-run, commercial movies.
17. The relevant product market within which to assess the competitive effects of this acquisition is the exhibition of first-run, commercial movies. A hypothetical monopolist controlling the exhibition of all first-run, commercial movies would profitably impose at least a small but significant and non-transitory increase in ticket prices.
18. Moviegoers typically are not willing to travel very far from their home to attend a movie. As a result, geographic markets for the exhibition of first-run, commercial movies are relatively local.
19. Cinemark and Rave Cinemas account for the majority of the first-run, commercial movie tickets sold in and around Voorhees Township, New Jersey and the close-by town of Somerdale, New Jersey (“Voorhees-Somerdale”), an area which encompasses Rave Cinemas' Ritz Center 16 and the Cinemark 16. These two theatres are located less than 3 miles apart. Two non-party theatres in this area also show first-run, commercial movies.
20. Moviegoers who reside in Voorhees-Somerdale are unlikely to travel significant distances out of that area to attend a first-run, commercial movie except in unusual circumstances. A small but significant post-acquisition increase in the price of first-run, commercial movie tickets in Voorhees-Somerdale would likely not cause a sufficient number of moviegoers to travel out of that area to make the increase unprofitable. Voorhees-Somerdale constitutes a relevant geographic market in which to assess the competitive effects of this acquisition.
21. Rave Cinemas and Cinemark account for the vast majority of the first-run, commercial movie tickets sold in the eastern portion of Louisville, Kentucky (“East Louisville”), an area which encompasses Rave Cinemas' Stonybrook 20 + IMAX, Cinemark's Tinseltown USA and XD with 19 screens, and the future Cinemark Mall of St. Matthews 10, which will exhibit first-run, commercial movies and is projected to open in July 2013. One non-party theatre in this area shows a mix of first-run, commercial movies and foreign-language and art/independent films.
22. Moviegoers who reside in East Louisville are unlikely to travel significant distances out of that area to attend a first-run, commercial movie except in unusual circumstances. A small but significant post-acquisition increase in the price of first-run, commercial movie tickets in East Louisville would likely not cause a sufficient number of moviegoers to travel out of that area to make the increase unprofitable. East Louisville constitutes a relevant geographic market in which to assess the competitive effects of this acquisition.
23. Rave Cinemas and Movie Tavern account for the majority of the first-run, commercial movie tickets sold in the western portion of Fort Worth, Texas (“Western Fort Worth”), an area which encompasses Rave Cinemas' Ridgmar 13 + Xtreme and three Movie Tavern theatres: the Ridgmar with six screens, the West 7th Street with seven screens, and the Hulen with 13 screens. Three non-party theatres in this area show first-run, commercial movies.
24. Moviegoers who reside in Western Fort Worth are unlikely to travel significant distances out of that area to attend a first-run, commercial movie except in unusual circumstances. A small but significant post-acquisition increase in the price of first-run, commercial movie tickets in Western Fort Worth would likely not cause a sufficient number of moviegoers to travel out of that area to make the increase unprofitable. Western Fort Worth constitutes a relevant geographic market in which to assess the competitive effects of this acquisition.
25. Cinemark, Movie Tavern, and Rave Cinemas account for the majority of the first-run, commercial movie tickets sold in the area in and around Denton, Texas (“Greater Denton”), an area which encompasses the Cinemark 14 in Denton, the Denton Movie Tavern with 4 screens, and the Rave Cinemas' Hickory Creek 16 in nearby Hickory Creek, Texas. One non-party theatre in this area shows first-run, commercial movies.
26. Moviegoers who reside in Greater Denton are unlikely to travel significant distances out of that area to attend a first-run, commercial movie except in unusual circumstances. A small but significant post-acquisition increase in the price of first-run, commercial movie tickets in Greater Denton would likely not cause a sufficient number of moviegoers to travel out of that area to make the increase unprofitable. Greater Denton constitutes a relevant geographic market in which to assess the competitive effects of this acquisition.
27. Exhibitors compete to attract moviegoers to their theatres over the theatres of their rivals. They do that by competing on price, knowing that if they charge too much (or do not offer sufficient discounted tickets for matinees, seniors, children, etc.) moviegoers will begin to frequent their rivals. Exhibitors also seek to license the first-run movies that are likely to attract the largest numbers of moviegoers. In addition, they compete over the quality of the viewing experience by offering moviegoers the most sophisticated sound systems, largest screens, best picture clarity, best seating (including stadium and reserved seating), and the broadest range and highest quality snacks, food, and drinks at concession
28. Cinemark and/or Movie Tavern currently compete with Rave Cinemas for moviegoers in the relevant markets at issue. These markets are concentrated, and in each market, Cinemark and/or Movie Tavern and Rave Cinemas are the other's most significant competitor, given their close proximity to one another. Their rivalry spurs each to improve the quality of their theatres and keeps ticket prices in check. For various reasons, the other theatres in the relevant geographic markets offer less attractive options for the moviegoers that are served by the Cinemark and/or Movie Tavern and Rave theatres. For example, they are located farther away from these moviegoers, or they are a relatively smaller size or have fewer screens.
29. In the relevant markets at issue, the acquisition of Rave Cinemas likely will result in a substantial lessening of competition. In the Voorhees-Somerdale, East Louisville, and Greater Denton markets, the transaction will lead to significant increases in concentration and eliminate existing competition between Cinemark and Rave Cinemas. In the Western Fort Worth and Greater Denton markets, where Rave currently competes closely with Movie Tavern, Cinemark's acquisition of the Rave Cinemas theatres likely will also reduce competition because Cinemark will not have the same incentive that Rave Cinemas has to compete aggressively against Movie Tavern. In those markets, Mr. Mitchell, as both the Chairman of Cinemark and a Director of Movie Tavern, and, together with his wife, majority owner of Movie Tavern, will have both the incentive and ability to dampen competition after Rave Cinemas is acquired by Cinemark.
30. In Voorhees-Somerdale, the proposed acquisition would give Cinemark control of two of the four first-run, commercial movie theatres in that area, with 32 out of 48 total screens and an approximately 71% share of 2012 box office revenues, which totaled about $14.7 million. Using a measure of market concentration called the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (“HHI”),
31. In East Louisville, after the completion of Cinemark's Mall of St. Matthews 10 in July 2013, the proposed acquisition would give Cinemark control of three of the four theatres showing first-run, commercial movies, with 49 out of 53 total screens. As measured by total screens only (since Cinemark's Mall of St. Matthews 10 does not yet have box office revenues), the acquisition would result in Cinemark having a market share of approximately 93% in East Louisville. The acquisition would yield a post-acquisition HHI of 8,604, representing an increase of roughly 4,130 points.
32. In Western Fort Worth, the proposed acquisition would give Cinemark/Movie Tavern control of four of the seven first-run, commercial movie theatres in that area, with 39 out of 71 total screens and approximately 60% of 2012 box office revenues, which totaled almost $17 million. The acquisition would yield a post-acquisition HHI of approximately 4,828 representing an increase of roughly 1,736 points.
33. In Greater Denton, the proposed acquisition would give Cinemark/Movie Tavern control of three of the four first-run, commercial movie theatres, with 34 out of 46 total screens and approximately 62% of 2012 box office revenues, which totaled about $11 million. The acquisition would yield a post-acquisition HHI of approximately 5,265, representing an increase of roughly 1,640 points.
34. Today, were one of Defendants' theatres to unilaterally increase ticket prices in a relevant market, the exhibitor that increased price would likely suffer financially as a substantial number of its patrons would patronize the other exhibitor. The acquisition would eliminate this pricing constraint. After the acquisition, Cinemark and/or Movie Tavern would re-capture a significant proportion of such losses, making price increases more profitable than they would be pre-acquisition. Thus, the acquisition is likely to lead to higher ticket prices for moviegoers, which could take the form of a higher adult evening ticket price or reduced discounting,
35. The proposed acquisition likely would also reduce competition between Cinemark and/or Movie Tavern and Rave Cinemas over the quality of the viewing experience in the relevant markets at issue. If no longer motivated to compete, Cinemark and/or Movie Tavern and Rave Cinemas would have reduced incentives to maintain, upgrade, and renovate their theatres in the relevant markets, to improve those theatres' amenities and services, and to license the most popular movies, thus reducing the quality of the viewing experience for a moviegoer.
36. Sufficient, timely entry that would deter or counteract the anticompetitive effects alleged above is unlikely. Exhibitors are reluctant to locate new first-run, commercial theatres near existing first-run, commercial theatres or near those already under construction unless the population density, demographics, or the quality of existing theatres makes new entry viable. Over the next two years, demand by moviegoers to see first-run, commercial movies in the geographic markets at issue will likely not be sufficient to support entry of new first-run, commercial movie theatres that are not already under construction.
37. Plaintiffs hereby reincorporate paragraphs 1 through 36.
38. The likely effect of the proposed transaction would be to lessen competition substantially in the relevant product and geographic markets in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18.
39. The transaction would likely have the following effects, among others: (a) The prices of tickets at first-run, commercial movie theatres in the relevant markets would likely increase to levels above those that would prevail absent the acquisition; and (b) the quality of first-run, commercial theatres and the viewing experience at those theatres would likely decrease in the relevant markets below levels that would prevail absent the acquisition.
40. Plaintiffs request: (a) Adjudication that the proposed acquisition would violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act; (b) permanent injunctive relief to prevent the consummation of the proposed acquisition; (c) an award to each plaintiff of its costs in this action; and (d) such other relief as is proper.
FOR PLAINTIFF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
FOR PLAINTIFF STATE OF TEXAS:
Plaintiff, United States of America, pursuant to Section 2(b) of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act (“APPA” or “Tunney Act”), 15 U.S.C. 16(b)–(h), files this Competitive Impact Statement relating to the proposed Final Judgment submitted for entry in this civil antitrust proceeding.
On November 16, 2012, Defendant Cinemark Holdings, Inc. (“Cinemark”) agreed to acquire most of the assets of Rave Holdings, LLC (“Rave Cinemas”). Cinemark is a significant competitor with Rave Cinemas in the exhibition of first-run, commercial movies in parts of New Jersey, Kentucky, and Texas. Another movie theatre company, Movie Tavern, Inc. (“Movie Tavern”), which is controlled by Cinemark's founder and Chairman of the Board and majority owned by Defendant Alder Wood Partners, L.P. (“Alder Wood Partners”), is a significant competitor with Rave Cinemas in the exhibition of first-run, commercial movies in parts of Texas. Plaintiffs filed a civil antitrust complaint on May 20, 2013, seeking to enjoin the proposed acquisition and to obtain equitable relief. The Complaint alleges that the acquisition, if permitted to proceed, would either give Cinemark direct control of its most significant competitor or leave theatres controlled by Cinemark's Chairman as the most significant competitor to the Cinemark-acquired theatre. The likely effect of this acquisition would be to substantially lessen competition in the exhibition of first-run, commercial movies in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18.
At the same time the Complaint was filed, the Plaintiffs also filed a Hold Separate Stipulation and Order (“Hold Separate”) and a proposed Final Judgment, which are designed to eliminate the anticompetitive effects of the acquisition. Under the proposed Final Judgment, which is explained more fully below, Cinemark and Rave Cinemas are required to divest three theatres located in New Jersey, Kentucky, and Texas to acquirer(s) acceptable to the United States, which will consult with the State of Texas on the purchaser of the Texas theatre. In addition, under the proposed Final Judgment, Alder Wood Partners is required to divest the entire business of Movie Tavern, which includes theatres located in parts of Fort Worth and Denton, Texas, to acquirer(s) acceptable to the United States, which will consult with the State of Texas as appropriate.
Under the terms of the Hold Separate, Defendants will take all steps necessary to ensure that the three theatres to be divested and the whole of the Movie Tavern business are operated as competitively independent, economically viable, and ongoing business concerns, and that competition is maintained and not diminished during the pendency of the ordered divestitures.
The Plaintiffs and Defendants have stipulated that the proposed Final Judgment may be entered after compliance with the APPA. Entry of the proposed Final Judgment would terminate this action, except that the Court would retain jurisdiction to construe, modify, or enforce the provisions of the proposed Final Judgment and to punish violations thereof.
Rave Cinemas is a Delaware limited liability company with its headquarters in Dallas, Texas. Rave Cinemas owns and operates 35 movie theatres containing 518 screens in a dozen states throughout the United States. Rave Cinemas is the seventh-largest theatre exhibitor in the United States and earned domestic box office revenue of approximately $169 million in 2012.
Cinemark is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in Plano, Texas. It owns and operates 298 theatres with 3,916 screens in various states. Cinemark is the third-largest theatre exhibitor in the United States and earned domestic box office revenues of approximately $1 billion in 2012. Lee Roy Mitchell is a founder, a significant shareholder, and Chairman of the Board of Directors of Cinemark.
Defendant Alder Wood Partners, L.P. (“Alder Wood Partners”) is a Texas limited partnership with its headquarters in Dallas, Texas. Alder Wood Partners owns 100% of the voting shares of Movie Tavern. Mr. Lee Roy Mitchell and his wife own 99% of Alder Wood Partners. Through Alder Wood Partners, they control Movie Tavern and receive approximately 92% of its profits. The other approximately 8% of Movie Tavern's profits is reserved for the benefit of its management. Movie Tavern is a Texas corporation with its headquarters in Dallas, Texas. In addition to serving as Cinemark's Chairman, Mr. Mitchell serves as a Director of Movie Tavern. Movie Tavern owns and operates 16 movie theatres, with a total of 130 screens in seven states and earned box office revenues of approximately $31 million in 2012.
On November 16, 2012, Cinemark and Rave Cinemas executed a purchase and sale agreement under which Cinemark will acquire, for approximately $220 million, thirty-two of Rave Cinemas' thirty-five movie theatres and will manage the three theatres it is not acquiring until Rave Cinemas has sold them.
The proposed transaction, as initially agreed to by Cinemark and Rave Cinemas on November 16, 2012, would lessen competition substantially as a result of Cinemark's acquisition of Rave Cinemas. This acquisition is the subject of the Complaint and proposed Final Judgment filed by the Plaintiffs on May 20, 2013.
The exhibition of first-run, commercial movies in parts of New Jersey, Kentucky, and Texas constitute lines of commerce and relevant markets for antitrust purposes.
The exhibition of first-run, commercial movies is a relevant product market under Section 7 of the Clayton Act. The experience of viewing a film in a theatre is an inherently different experience from live entertainment (
Reflecting the significant differences between viewing a movie in a theatre and other forms of entertainment, ticket prices for movies are generally very different from prices for other forms of entertainment. Live entertainment is typically significantly more expensive than a movie ticket, whereas renting a DVD or ordering a pay-per view movie for home viewing is usually significantly cheaper than viewing a movie in a theatre.
Moviegoers generally do not regard theatres showing “sub-run” movies, art movies, or foreign language movies as adequate substitutes for commercial, first-run movies.
The transaction substantially lessens competition in four relevant geographic markets: one in part of New Jersey, one in part of Kentucky, and two in Texas. Each geographic market contains a number of theatres—the majority of which are owned by the Defendants—at which consumers can view first-run, commercial movies. These relevant geographic markets are, specifically, as follows: the area in and around Voorhees and Somerdale in southern New Jersey (“Voorhees-Somerdale”), the eastern portion of Louisville, Kentucky (“East Louisville”), the western portion of Fort Worth, Texas (“Western Forth Worth”), and the area in and around Denton, Texas (“Greater Denton”).
Rave Cinemas' Ritz Center 16 is located in Voorhees Township, New Jersey, and the Cinemark 16 operates in Somerdale, New Jersey. These theatres are located less than 3 miles apart. Two non-party theatres show first-run, commercial movies in the area around these towns.
The eastern portion of Louisville, Kentucky encompasses Rave Cinemas' Stonybrook 20 + IMAX, Cinemark's Tinseltown USA and XD with 19 screens, and the future Cinemark Mall of St. Matthews 10, which will exhibit first-run, commercial movies and is projected to open in July 2013. In this area, one non-party theatre shows a mix of first-run commercial movies, and foreign-language and art/independent films.
The western portion of Fort Worth, Texas, encompasses Rave Cinemas' Ridgmar 13 + Xtreme and three Movie Tavern theatres: the Ridgmar with six screens, the West 7th Street with seven screens, and the Hulen with 13 screens. Three non-party theatres in the area show first-run, commercial movies.
The area of Greater Denton, Texas, encompasses the Cinemark 14 in Denton, the Denton Movie Tavern with 4 screens, and Rave Cinemas' Hickory Creek 16 in nearby Hickory Creek, Texas. One non-party theatre in this area shows first-run, commercial movies.
The relevant markets in which to assess the competitive effects of this transaction are the first-run, commercial theatres in the above-mentioned geographic areas: Voorhees-Somerdale, East Louisville, Western Fort Worth, and Greater Denton. A hypothetical monopolist controlling the exhibition of all first-run, commercial movies in each of these areas would profitably impose at least a small but significant and non-transitory increase in ticket prices.
Exhibitors that operate first-run, commercial theatres compete on multiple dimensions. Exhibitors compete on price, knowing that if they charge too much (or do not offer sufficient discounted tickets for matinees, seniors, children, etc.), moviegoers will begin to frequent their rivals. Exhibitors also seek to license the first-run movies that are likely to attract the largest numbers of moviegoers. In addition, they compete over the quality of the viewing experience. They compete to offer the most sophisticated sound systems, largest screens, best picture clarity, best seating (including stadium and reserved seating), and the broadest range and highest quality snacks, food, and drinks at concession stands or cafes in the lobby or served to moviegoers at their seats.
Cinemark and/or Movie Tavern currently compete with Rave Cinemas for moviegoers in the relevant markets at issue. Each of these markets is concentrated, and Cinemark and/or Movie Tavern and Rave Cinemas are each other's most significant competitor, given their close proximity to one another. Their rivalry spurs each to improve the quality of their theatres and keeps ticket prices in check. For various reasons, the other theatres in these markets offer less attractive options for the moviegoers that are served by the Cinemark and/or Movie Tavern and Rave theatres. For example, they are located farther away from these moviegoers, or they are a relatively smaller size or have fewer screens.
In these relevant markets, the acquisition of Rave Cinemas likely will result in a substantial lessening of competition. In the Voorhees-Somerdale, East Louisville, and Greater Denton markets, the transaction will lead to significant increases in concentration and eliminate existing competition between Cinemark and Rave Cinemas. In the Western Fort Worth and Greater Denton markets, where Rave currently competes closely with Movie Tavern, Cinemark's acquisition of the Rave Cinemas theatres likely will also reduce competition because Cinemark will not have the same incentive that Rave Cinemas has to compete aggressively against Movie Tavern. In those markets, Mr. Mitchell will have both the incentive and ability to dampen competition after Rave Cinemas is acquired by Cinemark. He is the Chairman and a significant shareholder of Cinemark and a Director of Movie Tavern, and, together with his wife, majority owner of Movie Tavern, and has access to competitively-sensitive information at both companies.
In Voorhees-Somerdale, the proposed acquisition would give the newly-merged entity control of two of the four first-run, commercial theatres, with 32 out of 48 total screens and a 71% share of 2012 box office revenues, which totaled approximately $14.7 million. Using a measure of market concentration called the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (“HHI”),
In East Louisville, after the completion of Cinemark's Mall of St. Matthews 10 in July 2013, the proposed acquisition would give the newly merged entity control of three of the four first-run, commercial theatres, with 49 of 53 total screens. As measured by total screens only (since Cinemark's Mall of St. Matthews 10 does not yet have box office revenues), the acquisition would result in Cinemark having a market share of approximately 93% in East Louisville. The acquisition would yield a post-acquisition HHI of 8,604, representing an increase of roughly 4,130 points.
In Western Fort Worth, the proposed acquisition would give Cinemark/Movie Tavern control of four of the seven first-run, commercial movie theatres in that area, with 39 out of 71 total screens and approximately 60% of 2012 box office revenues, which totaled almost $17 million. The acquisition would yield a post-acquisition HHI of approximately 4,828, representing an increase of roughly 1,736 points.
In Greater Denton, the proposed acquisition would give Cinemark/Movie Tavern control of three of the four first-run, commercial movie theatres, with 34 out of 46 total screens and an approximately 62% of 2012 box office revenues, which totaled approximately $11 million. The acquisition would yield a post-acquisition HHI of approximately 5,265, representing an increase of roughly 1,640 points.
In the four relevant markets today, were one of Defendants' theatres to increase ticket prices unilaterally, the exhibitor that increased price would likely suffer financially as a substantial number of its customers would patronize the other exhibitor's theatre. The other theatres are smaller and/or more distant than the parties' theatres and unlikely to offer enough of a competitive constraint to prevent such a price increase. After the acquisition, Cinemark or Movie Tavern would recapture such losses, making price increases more profitable than they would have been pre-acquisition. The acquisition is, therefore, likely to lead to higher ticket prices for moviegoers, which could take the form of a higher adult evening ticket price or reduced discounting,
Likewise, the proposed transaction would eliminate competition between Cinemark and/or Movie Tavern and Rave Cinemas over the quality of the viewing experience at their theatres in each of the geographic markets at issue. If no longer required to compete, Cinemark and/or Movie Tavern and Rave Cinemas would have a reduced incentive to maintain, upgrade, and renovate their theatres in the relevant markets, to improve those theatres' amenities and services, and to license the most popular movies, thus reducing the quality of the viewing experience for a moviegoer.
The entry of a first-run, commercial theatre sufficient to deter or counteract an increase in movie ticket prices or a decline in theatre quality is unlikely in all of the relevant markets. Exhibitors are reluctant to locate new first-run, commercial theatres near existing first-run, commercial theatres or near those already under construction, unless the population density, demographics, or the quality of existing theatres makes new entry viable. Over the next two years, demand by moviegoers to see first-run, commercial movies in the geographic markets at issue will likely not be sufficient to support entry of any new first-run, commercial movie theatres that are not already under construction.
For all of these reasons, the proposed transaction would lessen competition substantially in the exhibition of first-run, commercial movies in the Voorhees-Somerdale, East Louisville, Western Fort Worth, and Greater Denton geographic markets, eliminate actual and potential competition between Cinemark and/or Movie Tavern and Rave Cinemas, and likely result in increased ticket prices and lower quality theatres in those markets. The proposed transaction therefore violates Section 7 of the Clayton Act.
The divestiture requirement of the proposed Final Judgment will eliminate the anticompetitive effects of the acquisitions in each relevant geographic market, establishing new, independent, and economically-viable competitors. The proposed Final Judgment requires Cinemark within ninety (90) calendar days after the filing of the Complaint, or five (5) days after the notice of the entry of the Final Judgment by the Court, whichever is later, to divest as viable, ongoing businesses three theatres in the Voorhees-Somerdale, East Louisville, and Greater Denton geographic markets: the Rave Stonybrook 20 + IMAX (East Louisville), the Rave Ritz Center 16 (Voorhees-Somerdale), and either the Rave Hickory Creek 16 (Greater Denton) or the Cinemark 14 (Greater Denton).
The assets must be divested in such a way as to satisfy the Plaintiffs that the theatres can and will be operated by the purchaser as viable, ongoing businesses that can compete effectively in the relevant markets as first-run, commercial theatres. To that end, the proposed Final Judgment provides the acquirer(s) of the theatres with an option to enter into a transitional supply agreement with Cinemark of up to 120 days in length, with the possibility of one or more extensions not to exceed six months in total, for the supply of any goods, services, support, including software service and support, and reasonable use of the name Cinemark, the name Rave, and any registered service marks of Cinemark, for use in operating those theatres during the period of transition. This ensures the acquirer(s) of the theatres can operate without interruption while long-term supply agreements are arranged and the theatres rebranded. Without the option to enter into a transitional supply agreement, the acquirer(s) might find itself temporarily without provisions, including concessions, necessary to operate the theatres.
The proposed Final Judgment also requires Alder Wood Partners within ninety (90) calendar days after the filing of the Complaint, or five (5) days after the notice of the entry of the Final Judgment by the Court, whichever is later, to divest the entire business of Movie Tavern, including the Movie Tavern theatres in the Western Fort Worth and the Greater Denton geographic markets. The assets must be divested in such a way as to satisfy the Plaintiffs that the sale will remedy the competitive harm alleged in the Complaint.
Until the divestitures take place, Cinemark, Alder Wood Partners, and Rave Cinemas must maintain the sales and marketing of the theatres, and maintain the theatres in operable condition at current capacity configurations. In addition, Cinemark, Alder Wood Partners, and Rave Cinemas must not transfer or reassign to other areas within the company their employees with primary responsibility for the operation of the theatres, except for transfer bids initiated by employees pursuant to Defendants' regular, established job posting policies. In the event that Cinemark and/or Alder Wood Partners do not accomplish the divestitures within the periods prescribed in the proposed Final
If Cinemark is unable to effect any of the divestitures required herein due to its inability to obtain the consent of the landlord from whom a theatre is leased, Section VI.A of the proposed Final Judgment requires it to divest alternative theatre assets that compete effectively with the theatres for which the landlord consent was not obtained. If Alder Wood Partners is unable to effect the divestitures of any of the three Movie Tavern theatres, defined as the Western Fort Worth, Texas Movie Tavern Theatres in the proposed Final Judgment, due to the inability to obtain the landlords' consent, Section VI.B of the proposed Final Judgment requires Cinemark to divest the Ridgmar 13 + Xtreme theatre assets located at 2300 Green Oaks Road, Fort Worth, Texas that it will be acquiring from Rave Cinemas. These provisions will insure that any failure by Cinemark and/or Alder Wood Partners to obtain landlord consent does not thwart the relief obtained in the proposed Final Judgment. In addition, pursuant to Section V.G of the proposed Final Judgment, if a trustee has been appointed to effect the divestiture of the Movie Tavern Divestiture Assets and that trustee is unable for any reason to accomplish the divestiture of the portion of those assets that includes any of the Western Fort Worth, Texas Movie Tavern Theatres, the trustee will then divest the Ridgmar 13 + Xtreme theatre assets.
The proposed Final Judgment also prohibits Cinemark, without providing at least thirty (30) days notice to the United States Department of Justice, from acquiring any other theatres in the following counties: Tarrant County, Texas; Denton County, Texas; Camden County, New Jersey; and Jefferson County, Kentucky. These counties correspond to the relevant geographic markets in this case. The proposed Final Judgment also prohibits Alder Wood Partners, without providing at least thirty (30) days notice to the United States Department of Justice, from acquiring any theatres in any county in which Cinemark owns or operates a theatre exhibiting first-run, commercial movies in any state; however this requirement will terminate in the event that no one serving as a limited partner of Alder Wood Partners as of May 13, 2013 serves as an officer or director of Cinemark. Such acquisitions could raise competitive concerns but might be too small to be reported under the Hart-Scott-Rodino (“HSR”) premerger notification statute. However, neither company is required to provide advance notification when making an acquisition of not more than two percent of the outstanding voting securities of a publicly-traded company, or comparable non-corporate interest in an unincorporated entity, with theatres exhibiting first-run, commercial movies where such investment is made solely for the purpose of investment.
The divestiture provisions of the proposed Final Judgment will eliminate the anticompetitive effects of Cinemark's acquisition of Rave Cinemas.
Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 15, provides that any person who has been injured as a result of conduct prohibited by the antitrust laws may bring suit in federal court to recover three times the damages the person has suffered, as well as costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. Entry of the proposed Final Judgment will neither impair nor assist the bringing of any private antitrust damage action. Under the provisions of Section 5(a) of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(a), the proposed Final Judgment has no prima facie effect in any subsequent private lawsuit that may be brought against Defendants.
The Plaintiffs and Defendants have stipulated that the proposed Final Judgment may be entered by the Court after compliance with the provisions of the APPA, provided that the United States has not withdrawn its consent. The APPA conditions entry upon the Court's determination that the proposed Final Judgment is in the public interest.
The APPA provides a period of at least sixty (60) days preceding the effective date of the proposed Final Judgment within which any person may submit to the United States written comments regarding the proposed Final Judgment. Any person who wishes to comment should do so within sixty (60) days of the date of publication of this Competitive Impact Statement in the
Written comments should be submitted to: John R. Read, Chief, Litigation III, Antitrust Division, United States Department of Justice, 450 5th Street NW., Suite 4000, Washington, DC 20530.
The Plaintiffs considered, as an alternative to the proposed Final Judgment, a full trial on the merits against Defendants. The Plaintiffs could have continued the litigation and sought preliminary and permanent injunctions against Cinemark's acquisition of Rave Cinemas. The Plaintiffs are satisfied, however, that the divestiture of assets described in the proposed Final Judgment will preserve competition for the provision of exhibition of first-run, commercial movies in the relevant markets identified by the United States. Thus, the proposed Final Judgment would achieve all or substantially all of the relief the Plaintiffs would have obtained through litigation, but avoids the time, expense, and uncertainty of a full trial on the merits of the Complaint.
The Clayton Act, as amended by the APPA, requires that proposed consent judgments in antitrust cases brought by the United States be subject to a sixty-day comment period, after which the court shall determine whether entry of the proposed Final Judgment “is in the public interest.” 15 U.S.C. 16(e)(1). In making that determination, the court, in accordance with the statute as amended in 2004, is required to consider:
(A) the competitive impact of such judgment, including termination of alleged violations, provisions for enforcement and modification, duration of relief sought, anticipated effects of alternative remedies actually considered, whether its terms are ambiguous, and any other competitive considerations bearing upon the adequacy of such judgment that the court deems necessary to a determination of whether the consent judgment is in the public interest; and
(B) the impact of entry of such judgment upon competition in the relevant market or markets, upon the public generally and individuals alleging specific injury from the violations set forth in the complaint including consideration of the public benefit, if any, to be derived from a determination of the issues at trial.
As the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has held, under the APPA a court considers, among other things, the relationship between the remedy secured and the specific allegations set forth in the government's complaint, whether the decree is sufficiently clear, whether enforcement mechanisms are sufficient, and whether the decree may positively harm third parties.
Courts have greater flexibility in approving proposed consent decrees than in crafting their own decrees following a finding of liability in a litigated matter. “[A] proposed decree must be approved even if it falls short of the remedy the court would impose on its own, as long as it falls within the range of acceptability or is `within the reaches of public interest.'”
Moreover, the court's role under the APPA is limited to reviewing the remedy in relationship to the violations that the United States has alleged in its Complaint, and does not authorize the court to “construct [its] own hypothetical case and then evaluate the decree against that case.”
In its 2004 amendments, Congress made clear its intent to preserve the practical benefits of utilizing consent decrees in antitrust enforcement, adding the unambiguous instruction that “[n]othing in this section shall be construed to require the court to conduct an evidentiary hearing or to require the court to permit anyone to intervene.” 15 U.S.C. 16(e)(2). The language wrote into the statute what Congress intended when it enacted the Tunney Act in 1974, as Senator Tunney explained: “[t]he court is nowhere compelled to go to trial or to engage in extended proceedings which might have the effect of vitiating the benefits of prompt and less costly settlement through the consent decree process.” 119 Cong. Rec. 24,598 (1973) (statement of Senator Tunney). Rather, the procedure for the public interest determination is left to the discretion of the court, with the recognition that the court's “scope of review remains sharply proscribed by precedent and the nature of Tunney Act proceedings.”
There are no determinative materials or documents within the meaning of the APPA that were considered by the United States in formulating the proposed Final Judgment.
This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of and each of the parties to this action. The Complaint states a claim upon which relief may be granted against Defendants under Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 18).
As used in this Final Judgment:
A. “Acquirer” or “Acquirers” means the entity or entities to which Cinemark divests the Cinemark Divestiture Assets, and the entity or entities to which Alder Wood Partners divests the Movie Tavern Divestiture Assets.
B. “Cinemark” means Defendant Cinemark Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in Plano, Texas, its successors and assigns, and its subsidiaries, divisions, groups, affiliates, partnerships and joint ventures, and their directors, officers, managers, agents, and employees.
C. “Rave Cinemas” means Defendant Rave Holdings, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company with its headquarters in Dallas, Texas, its successors and assigns, and its subsidiaries, divisions, groups, affiliates, partnerships and joint ventures, and their directors, officers, managers, agents, and employees.
D. “Alder Wood Partners” means Defendant Alder Wood Partners, L.P., a Texas limited partnership with its headquarters in Dallas, Texas, its partners, its successors and assigns, and its subsidiaries, divisions, groups, affiliates, partnerships and joint ventures, and their directors, officers, managers, agents, and employees.
E. Movie Tavern, Inc. means (“Movie Tavern”), a Texas corporation with its headquarters in Dallas, Texas and 16 movie theatres in seven states, and that is majority-owned by Alder Wood Partners.
F. “Divestiture Assets” means the Cinemark Divestiture Assets and the Movie Tavern Divestiture Assets.
G. “Landlord Consent” means any contractual approval or consent that the landlord or owner of one or more of the Divestiture Assets, or of the property on which one or more of the Divestiture Assets is situated, must grant prior to the transfer of one of the Divestiture Assets to an Acquirer.
H. “Cinemark Divestiture Assets” means the following theatre assets:
The term “Cinemark Divestiture Assets” also includes:
1. All tangible assets that comprise the business of operating theatres that exhibit first-run, commercial movies, including, but not limited to real property and improvements, research and development activities, all equipment, fixed assets, and fixtures, personal property, inventory, office furniture, materials, supplies, and other tangible property and all assets used in connection with the Cinemark Divestiture Assets; all licenses, permits, and authorizations issued by any governmental organization relating to the Cinemark Divestiture Assets; all contracts (including management contracts), teaming arrangements, agreements, leases, commitments, certifications, and understandings relating primarily to the Cinemark Divestiture Assets, including supply agreements, (provided however, that supply agreements that apply to all
2. All intangible assets relating to the operation of the Cinemark Divestiture Assets, including, but not limited to all patents, licenses and sublicenses, intellectual property, copyrights, trademarks, trade names, service marks, service names, (provided however, that the name Cinemark, the name Rave, and any registered service marks of Cinemark may be excluded from the Cinemark Divestiture Assets, subject to the transitional agreement provisions specified in Section IV (F)), technical information, computer software and related documentation (provided however, that Cinemark's proprietary software may be excluded from the Cinemark Divestiture Assets, subject to the transitional agreement provisions specified in Section IV (F)), know-how and trade secrets relating primarily to the Cinemark Divestiture Assets, drawings, blueprints, designs, design protocols, specifications for materials, specifications for parts and devices, safety procedures for the handling of materials and substances, all research data concerning historic and current research and development relating to the Cinemark Divestiture Assets, quality assurance and control procedures, design tools and simulation capability, all manuals and technical information Cinemark and/or Rave Cinemas provide to their own employees, customers, suppliers, agents, or licensees (except for the employee manuals that Cinemark provides to all its employees), and all research data concerning historic and current research and development efforts relating to the Cinemark Divestiture Assets.
I. “Movie Tavern Divestiture Assets” means the entire business of Movie Tavern, Inc., including, but not limited to, the 16 theatres it currently operates as well as the theatres it has plans to open. The term “Movie Tavern Divestiture Assets” also includes:
1. All tangible assets that comprise the business of operating theatres that exhibit first-run, commercial movies, including, but not limited to real property and improvements, research and development activities, all equipment, fixed assets, and fixtures, personal property, inventory, office furniture, materials, supplies, and other tangible property and all assets used in connection with the Movie Tavern Divestiture Assets; all licenses, permits, and authorizations issued by any governmental organization relating to the Movie Tavern Divestiture Assets; all contracts (including management contracts), teaming arrangements, agreements, leases, commitments, certifications, and understandings relating to the Movie Tavern Divestiture Assets, including supply agreements; all customer lists (including loyalty club data at the option of the Acquirer(s)), contracts, accounts, and credit records; all repair and performance records and all other records relating to the Movie Tavern Divestiture Assets;
2. All intangible assets used in the development, production, servicing, and sale of the Movie Tavern Divestiture Assets, including, but not limited to all patents, licenses and sublicenses, intellectual property, copyrights, trademarks, trade names, service marks, service names, technical information, computer software and related documentation, know-how, trade secrets, drawings, blueprints, designs, design protocols, specifications for materials, specifications for parts and devices, safety procedures for the handling of materials and substances, all research data concerning historic and current research and development relating to the Movie Tavern Divestiture Assets, quality assurance and control procedures, design tools and simulation capability, all manuals and technical information Movie Tavern provides to its employees, customers, suppliers, agents, or licensees, and all research data concerning historic and current research and development efforts relating to the Movie Tavern Divestiture Assets.
J. “Western Fort Worth, Texas Movie Tavern Theatres” means the Ridgmar Movie Tavern, the West 7th Street Movie Tavern, and the Hulen Movie Tavern, which are three of the 16 currently operating Movie Tavern theatres included among the Movie Tavern Divestiture Assets.
A. This Final Judgment applies to Cinemark, Rave Cinemas, and Alder Wood Partners, as defined above, and all other persons in active concert or participation with any of them who receive actual notice of this Final Judgment by personal service or otherwise.
B. If, prior to complying with Sections IV and V of this Final Judgment, Defendants sell or otherwise dispose of all or substantially all of their assets or of lesser business units that include the Divestiture Assets, they shall require the purchaser to be bound by the provisions of this Final Judgment. Defendants need not obtain such an agreement from the Acquirer(s) of the assets divested pursuant to this Final Judgment.
A. Cinemark is ordered and directed, within ninety (90) calendar days after the filing of the Complaint in this matter, or five (5) calendar days after notice of the entry of this Final Judgment by the Court, whichever is later, to divest the Cinemark Divestiture Assets in a manner consistent with this Final Judgment to one or more Acquirer(s) acceptable to the United States in its sole discretion (after consultation with the State of Texas, as appropriate). The United States, in its sole discretion, may agree to one or more extensions of this time period, not to exceed sixty (60) calendar days in total, and shall notify the Court in such circumstances. Cinemark agrees to use its best efforts to divest the Cinemark Divestiture Assets as expeditiously as possible.
B. Alder Wood Partners is ordered and directed, within ninety (90) calendar days after the filing of the Complaint in this matter, or five (5) calendar days after notice of the entry of this Final Judgment by the Court, whichever is later, to divest the Movie Tavern Divestiture Assets in a manner consistent with this Final Judgment to one or more Acquirer(s) acceptable to the United States in its sole discretion (after consultation with the State of Texas, as appropriate). The United States, in its sole discretion, may agree to one or more extensions of this time period not to exceed ninety (90) calendar days in total, and shall notify the Court in such circumstances. Alder Wood Partners agrees to use its best efforts to divest the Movie Tavern Divestiture Assets as expeditiously as possible.
C. In accomplishing the divestitures ordered by this Final Judgment, Defendants Cinemark and Alder Wood Partners shall each promptly make known, by usual and customary means, the availability of their respective Divestiture Assets. (For Cinemark, its respective Divesture Assets are the Cinemark Divestiture Assets; and for Alder Wood Partners, its respective Divestiture Assets are the Movie Tavern Divestiture Assets.) Defendants shall each inform any person making an inquiry regarding a possible purchase of their respective Divestiture Assets that they are being divested pursuant to this
D. Defendants Cinemark and Alder Wood Partners shall provide the Acquirer(s) and the United States information relating to the personnel involved in the operation of their respective Divestiture Assets to enable the Acquirer(s) to make offers of employment. Defendants will not interfere with any negotiations by the Acquirer(s) to employ any Defendant employee with primary responsibility for the operation of their respective Divestiture Assets.
E. Defendants shall permit prospective Acquirer(s) of their respective Divestiture Assets to have reasonable access to personnel and to make inspections of the physical facilities of their respective Divestiture Assets; access to any and all environmental, zoning, and other permit documents and information; and access to any and all financial, operational, or other documents and information customarily provided as part of a due diligence process.
F. In connection with the divestiture of the Cinemark Divestiture Assets pursuant to Section IV, or by a trustee appointed pursuant to Section V, of this Final Judgment, at the option of the Acquirer(s), Cinemark shall enter into a commercially reasonable transitional supply, service, support, and use agreement (“transitional agreement”), up to 120 days in length, for the supply of any goods, services, support, including software service and support, and reasonable use of the name Cinemark, the name Rave, and any registered service marks of Cinemark, that the Acquirer(s) request for the operation of the Cinemark Divestiture Assets during the period covered by the transitional agreement. At the request of the Acquirer(s), the United States in its sole discretion (after consultation with the State of Texas, as appropriate), may agree to one or more extensions of this time period not to exceed six (6) months in total. The terms and conditions of the transitional agreement must be acceptable to the United States in its sole discretion (after consultation with the State of Texas, as appropriate). The transitional agreement shall be deemed incorporated into this Final Judgment and a failure by Cinemark to comply with any of the terms or conditions of the transitional agreement shall constitute a failure to comply with this Final Judgment.
G. Cinemark shall warrant to the Acquirer(s) of the Cinemark Divestiture Assets that each asset will be operational on the date of sale. Alder Wood Partners shall warrant to the Acquirer(s) of the Movie Tavern Divestiture Assets that each asset will be operational on the date of sale.
H. Defendants shall not take any action that will impede in any way the permitting, operation, or divestitures of their respective Divestiture Assets.
I. Defendants shall warrant to the Acquirer(s) that there are no material defects in the environmental, zoning, or other permits pertaining to the operation of their respective Divestiture Assets. Following the sale of the Divestiture Assets, Defendants will not undertake, directly or indirectly, any challenges to the environmental, zoning, or other permits relating to the operation of the Divestiture Assets.
J. Unless the United States otherwise consents in writing, the divestitures made pursuant to Section IV, and/or by a trustee appointed pursuant to Section V of this Final Judgment, shall include all Divestiture Assets, and shall be accomplished in such a way as to satisfy the United States, in its sole discretion (after consultation with the State of Texas, as appropriate) that the Divestiture Assets can and will be used by the Acquirer(s) as part of a viable, ongoing business of operating theatres that exhibit first-run, commercial movies. Divestitures of the Divestiture Assets may be made to one or more Acquirers, provided that in each instance it is demonstrated to the sole satisfaction of the United States (after consultation with the State of Texas, as appropriate) that the Divestiture Assets will remain viable and the divestitures of such assets will remedy the competitive harm alleged in the Complaint. The divestitures, whether pursuant to Section IV or Section V of this Final Judgment,
(1) shall be made to Acquirers that, in the United States' sole judgment (after consultation with the State of Texas, as appropriate) have the intent and capability (including the necessary managerial, operational, technical, and financial capability) of competing effectively in the business of theatres exhibiting first-run, commercial movies; and
(2) shall be accomplished so as to satisfy the United States, in its sole discretion (after consultation with the State of Texas, as appropriate) that none of the terms of any agreement between Acquirers and Defendants give the ability unreasonably to raise the Acquirers' costs, to lower the Acquirers' efficiency, or otherwise to interfere in the ability of the Acquirers to compete effectively.
A. If Cinemark has not divested the Cinemark Divestiture Assets within the time period specified in Section IV(A), Cinemark shall notify the United States of that fact in writing. If Alder Wood Partners has not divested the Movie Tavern Divestiture Assets within the time period specified in Section IV(B), Alder Wood Partners shall notify the United States of that fact in writing. Upon application of the United States, the Court shall appoint a trustee selected by the United States and approved by the Court to effect the divestitures of the Cinemark Divestiture Assets and/or the Movie Tavern Divestiture Assets.
B. After the appointment of a trustee becomes effective, only the trustee shall have the right to sell the Cinemark Divestiture Assets and/or the Movie Tavern Divestiture Assets, as the case may be. The trustee shall have the power and authority to accomplish the divestitures to Acquirer(s) acceptable to the United States (after consultation with the State of Texas, as appropriate) at such price and on such terms as are then obtainable upon reasonable effort by the trustee, subject to the provisions of Sections IV, V, VI, and VII of this Final Judgment, and shall have such other powers as this Court deems appropriate. Subject to Section V(D) of this Final Judgment, the trustee may hire at the cost and expense of Cinemark and/or Alder Wood Partners, as the case may be, any investment bankers, attorneys, or other agents, who shall be solely accountable to the trustee and reasonably necessary in the trustee's judgment to assist in the divestiture(s).
C. Defendants shall not object to a sale by the trustee on any ground other than the trustee's malfeasance. Any such objections by Defendants must be conveyed in writing to the United States and the trustee within ten (10) calendar days after the trustee has provided the notice required under Section VII.
D. The trustee shall serve at the cost and expense of Cinemark and/or Alder Wood Partners, depending on which Divestiture Assets the trustee is selling, pursuant to a written agreement or agreements with the applicable
E. The applicable Defendant(s) shall use their best efforts to assist the trustee in accomplishing the divestiture of their respective Divesture Assets. The trustee and any consultants, accountants, attorneys, and other persons retained by the trustee shall have full and complete access to the personnel, books, records, and facilities of the assets and business to be divested, and the applicable Defendant(s) shall develop financial and other information relevant to such assets and business as the trustee may reasonably request, subject to reasonable protection for trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information. The applicable Defendant(s) shall take no action to interfere with or to impede the trustee's accomplishment of the divestitures.
F. After its appointment, the trustee shall file monthly reports with the parties and the Court setting forth the trustee's efforts to accomplish the divestitures ordered under this Final Judgment. To the extent such reports contain information that the trustee deems confidential, such reports shall not be filed in the public docket of the Court. Such reports shall include the name, address, and telephone number of each person who, during the preceding month, made an offer to acquire, expressed an interest in acquiring, entered into negotiations to acquire, or was contacted or made an inquiry about acquiring, any interest in the Divestiture Assets, and shall describe in detail each contact with any such person. The trustee shall maintain full records of all efforts made to divest the Cinemark Divestiture Assets and/or Movie Tavern Divestiture Assets, as the case may be.
G. If the trustee is responsible for effecting divestiture of all or any part of the Movie Tavern Divestiture Assets, it shall notify the United States and Alder Wood Partners within five (5) business days following a determination that it is unable for any reason to accomplish the divestiture. If the Movie Tavern Divestiture Assets that the trustee is unable to divest include any of the Western Fort Worth, Texas Movie Tavern Theatres, the trustee shall then divest the Ridgmar 13 + Xtreme theatre assets located at 2300 Green Oaks Road, Fort Worth, Texas.
H. If the trustee has not accomplished the divestitures ordered under this Final Judgment within six (6) months after its appointment, the trustee shall promptly file with the Court a report setting forth (1) the trustee's efforts to accomplish the required divestitures, (2) the reasons, in the trustee's judgment, why the required divestitures have not been accomplished, and (3) the trustee's recommendations. To the extent such reports contain information that the trustee deems confidential, such reports shall not be filed in the public docket of the Court. The trustee shall at the same time furnish such report to the United States, which shall have the right to make additional recommendations consistent with the purpose of the trust. The Court thereafter shall enter such orders as it shall deem appropriate to carry out the purpose of the Final Judgment, which may, if necessary, include extending the trust and the term of the trustee's appointment by a period requested by the United States.
A. If Cinemark is unable to effect any of the divestitures required herein due to the inability to obtain the Landlord Consent for any of the Cinemark Divestiture Assets, Cinemark shall divest alternative theatre assets that compete effectively with the theatre or theatres for which the Landlord Consent was not obtained. The United States shall, in its sole discretion (after consultation with the State of Texas, as appropriate) determine whether such theatre assets compete effectively with the theatres for which Landlord Consent was not obtained.
B. If Alder Wood Partners is unable to effect divestiture of any of the Western Fort Worth, Texas Movie Tavern Theatres due to the inability to obtain the Landlord Consent, Cinemark shall then divest the Ridgmar 13 + Xtreme theatre assets located at 2300 Green Oaks Road, Fort Worth, Texas, and such assets shall be deemed to be part of the Cinemark Divestiture Assets.
C. Within five (5) business days following a determination that Landlord Consent cannot be obtained for any of the Divestiture Assets, Cinemark and/or Alder Wood Partners, as applicable, shall notify the United States, and Cinemark shall propose an alternative divestiture pursuant to Section VI (A). The United States (after consultation with the State of Texas, as appropriate) shall have then ten (10) business days in which to determine whether such theatre assets are a suitable alternative pursuant to Section VI (A). If Cinemark's selection is deemed not to be a suitable alternative, the United States shall in its sole discretion select alternative theatre assets to be divested (after consultation with the State of Texas, as appropriate) from among those theatre(s) that the United States has determined, in its sole discretion, to compete effectively with the theatre(s) for which Landlord Consent was not obtained.
D. If the trustee is responsible for effecting divestiture of the Cinemark Divestiture Assets, it shall notify the United States and Cinemark within five (5) business days following a determination that Landlord Consent cannot be obtained for one or more of the Cinemark Divestiture Assets. Cinemark shall thereafter have five (5) business days to propose an alternative divestiture pursuant to Section VI (A). The United States (after consultation with the State of Texas, as appropriate) shall then have ten (10) business days to determine whether the proposed theatre assets are a suitable competitive alternative pursuant to Section VI (A). If Cinemark's selection is deemed not to be a suitable competitive alternative, the United States shall in its sole discretion select alternative theatre assets to be divested (after consultation with the State of Texas, as appropriate) from among those theatre(s) that the United States has determined, in its sole discretion, to compete effectively with the theatre(s) for which Landlord Consent was not obtained.
A. Within two (2) business days following execution of a definitive divestiture agreement, Cinemark and/or Alder Wood Partners or the trustee, whichever is then responsible for effecting the divestitures required herein, shall notify the United States (and, as appropriate, the State of Texas), of any proposed divestitures required by Sections IV or V of this Final Judgment. If the trustee is responsible, it shall similarly notify Defendants. The notice shall set forth the details of the proposed divestitures and list the name, address, and telephone number of each person not previously identified who
B. Within fifteen (15) calendar days of receipt by the United States of such notice, the United States, in its sole discretion, after consultation with the State of Texas, as appropriate, may request from Defendants, the proposed Acquirer(s), any other third party, or the trustee, if applicable, additional information concerning the proposed divestitures, the proposed Acquirer(s), and any other potential Acquirer(s). Defendants and the trustee shall furnish any additional information requested to the United States within fifteen (15) calendar days of receipt of the request, unless the parties otherwise agree.
C. Within thirty (30) calendar days after receipt of the notice or within twenty (20) calendar days after the United States has been provided the additional information requested from Defendants, the proposed Acquirer(s), any third party, and the trustee, whichever is later, the United States shall provide written notice to Cinemark and/or Alder Wood Partners, as applicable, and the trustee, if there is one, stating whether it objects to the proposed divestitures. If the United States provides written notice that it does not object, the divestitures may be consummated, subject only to the applicable Defendant(s)' limited right to object to the sale under Section V(C) of this Final Judgment. Absent written notice that the United States does not object to the proposed Acquirer(s) or upon objection by the United States, a divestiture proposed under Section IV or Section V shall not be consummated. Upon objection by Defendants under Section V(C), a divestiture proposed under Section V shall not be consummated unless approved by the Court.
Defendants shall not finance all or any part of any purchase made pursuant to Section IV or V of this Final Judgment.
Until the divestitures required by this Final Judgment have been accomplished, Defendants shall take all steps necessary to comply with the Hold Separate Stipulation and Order entered by this Court. Defendants shall take no action that would jeopardize the divestitures ordered by this Court.
A. Within twenty (20) calendar days of the filing of the Complaint in this matter, and every thirty (30) calendar days thereafter until the divestitures have been completed under Sections IV or V, Cinemark and Alder Wood Partners shall each deliver to the United States an affidavit as to the fact and manner of its compliance with Sections IV or V of this Final Judgment. Each such affidavit shall include the name, address, and telephone number of each person who, during the preceding thirty (30) calendar days, made an offer to acquire, expressed an interest in acquiring, entered into negotiations to acquire, or was contacted or made an inquiry about acquiring, any interest in the Cinemark Divestiture Assets or the Movie Tavern Divestiture Assets, and shall describe in detail each contact with any such person during that period. Each such affidavit shall also include a description of the efforts Cinemark and Alder Wood Partners has each taken to solicit buyers for their respective Divestiture Assets, and to provide required information to prospective purchasers, including the limitations, if any, on such information. Assuming the information set forth in the affidavit is true and complete, any objection by the United States to information provided by Cinemark or by Alder Wood Partners, including limitation on information, shall be made within fourteen (14) calendar days of receipt of each such affidavit.
B. Within twenty (20) calendar days of the filing of the Complaint in this matter, Cinemark and Alder Wood Partners shall each deliver to the United States an affidavit that describes in reasonable detail all actions it has taken and all steps it has implemented on an ongoing basis to comply with Section IX of this Final Judgment. Cinemark and Alder Wood Partners shall each deliver to the United States an affidavit describing any changes to the efforts and actions outlined in their earlier affidavits filed pursuant to this section within fifteen (15) calendar days after the change is implemented.
C. Defendants shall keep all records of all efforts made to preserve and divest their respective Divestiture Assets until one year after such divestitures have been completed.
A. For the purposes of determining or securing compliance with this Final Judgment, or of determining whether the Final Judgment should be modified or vacated, and subject to any legally recognized privilege, from time to time duly authorized representatives of the United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division (“DOJ”), including consultants and other persons retained by the United States, shall, upon written request of an authorized representative of the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division, and on reasonable notice to Defendants, be permitted:
(1) access during Defendants' office hours to inspect and copy, or at plaintiffs' option, to require Defendants to provide hard copy or electronic copies of, all books, ledgers, accounts, records, data, and documents in the possession, custody, or control of Defendants, relating to any matters contained in this Final Judgment; and
(2) to interview, either informally or on the record, Defendants' officers, employees, or agents, who may have their individual counsel present, regarding such matters. The interviews shall be subject to the reasonable convenience of the interviewee and without restraint or interference by Defendants.
B. Upon the written request of an authorized representative of the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division, Defendants shall submit written reports or response to written interrogatories, under oath if requested, relating to any of the matters contained in this Final Judgment as may be requested.
C. No information or documents obtained by the means provided in this section shall be divulged by the United States to any person other than an authorized representative of the executive branch of the United States, except in the course of legal proceedings to which the United States is a party (including grand jury proceedings), or for the purpose of securing compliance with this Final Judgment, or as otherwise required by law.
D. If at the time information or documents are furnished by Defendants to the United States, Defendants represent and identify in writing the material to which a claim of protection may be asserted under Rule 26(c)(1)(G) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Defendants mark each pertinent page of such material, “Subject to claim of protection under Rule 26(c)(1)(G) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,” then the Plaintiffs shall give Defendants ten (10) calendar days notice prior to divulging such material in any legal proceeding (other than a grand jury proceeding).
Unless such transaction is otherwise subject to the reporting and waiting period requirements of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 18a (the “HSR Act”), Cinemark, without providing advance notification to the DOJ, shall not directly or indirectly acquire any assets of or any interest,
Unless such transaction is otherwise subject to the reporting and waiting period requirements of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 18a (the “HSR Act”), Alder Wood Partners, without providing advance notification to the DOJ, shall not directly or indirectly acquire any assets of or any interest, including any financial, security, loan, equity or management interest, in a business exhibiting first-run, commercial movies in any county which Cinemark owns or operates a theatre exhibiting first-run, commercial movies in any state during the earlier of (a) the ten years following the filing of the Complaint in this action, or (b) the date on which any person who is a limited partner of Alder Wood Partners as of May 13, 2013, no longer serves as an officer or director of Cinemark. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, in no event shall Alder Wood Partners be required to provide advance notification under this provision when making an acquisition of (1) not more than two percent of the outstanding “voting securities” (as that term is defined in 16 CFR 801.1) of a publicly-traded company with theatres exhibiting first-run, commercial movies where such acquisition is made “solely for the purpose of investment” (as that term is defined in 16 CFR 801.1), or (2) not more than two percent of “non-corporate interest” (as that term is defined in 16 CFR 801.1) in any unincorporated entity that holds any interest in a business with theatres exhibiting first-run, commercial movies where such acquisition is made “solely for the purpose of investment” (as that term is defined in 16 CFR 801.1).
Such notification by Cinemark and/or Alder Wood Partners shall be provided to the DOJ in the same format as, and per the instructions relating to, the Notification and Report Form set forth in the Appendix to Part 803 of Title 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations as amended, except that the information requested in Items 5 through 9 of the instructions must be provided only about theatres that exhibit first-run, commercial movies. Notification shall be provided at least thirty (30) calendar days prior to acquiring any such interest, and shall include, beyond what may be required by the applicable instructions, the names of the principal representatives of the parties to the agreement who negotiated the agreement, and any management or strategic plans discussing the proposed transaction. If within the 30-day period after notification, representatives of the DOJ make a written request for additional information, Defendants shall not consummate the proposed transaction or agreement until thirty (30) days after submitting all such additional information. Early termination of the waiting periods in this paragraph may be requested and, where appropriate, granted in the same manner as is applicable under the requirements and provisions of the HSR Act and rules promulgated thereunder. This Section shall be broadly construed and any ambiguity or uncertainty regarding the filing of notice under this Section shall be resolved in favor of filing notice.
Neither Cinemark nor Alder Wood Partners may acquire or reacquire any part of the Cinemark Divestiture Assets or Movie Tavern Divestiture Assets divested under this Final Judgment during the term of this Final Judgment.
This Court retains jurisdiction to enable any party to this Final Judgment to apply to this Court at any time for further orders and directions as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out or construe this Final Judgment, to modify any of its provisions, to enforce compliance, and to punish violations of its provisions.
Unless this Court grants an extension, this Final Judgment shall expire ten (10) years from the date of its entry.
Entry of this Final Judgment is in the public interest. The parties have complied with the requirements of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16, including making copies available to the public of this Final Judgment, the Competitive Impact Statement, and any comments thereon and the United States' responses to comments. Based upon the record before the Court, which includes the Competitive Impact Statement and any comments and response to comments filed with the Court, entry of this Final Judgment is in the public interest.
Court approval subject to procedures of Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. § 16
Pursuant to Title 21 Code of Federal Regulations 1301.34 (a), this is notice that on March 11, 2013, United States Pharmacopeial Convention, 12601 Twinbrook Parkway, Rockville, Maryland 20852, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as an importer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to import reference standards for sale to researchers and analytical labs.
The company plans to import the listed controlled substances in bulk powder form from foreign sources for the manufacture of analytical reference standards for sale to their customers.
Any bulk manufacturer who is presently, or is applying to be, registered with DEA to manufacture such basic classes of controlled substances listed in schedules I and II, which fall under the authority of section 1002(a)(2)(B) of the Act (21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2)(B)) may, in the circumstances set forth in 21 U.S.C. 958(i), file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration and may, at the same time, file a written request for a hearing on such application pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43 and in such form as prescribed by 21 CFR 1316.47.
Any such written comments or objections should be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control, Federal Register Representative (ODL), 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and must be filed no later than July 1, 2013.
This procedure is to be conducted simultaneously with, and independent of, the procedures described in 21 CFR 1301.34(b), (c), (d), (e), and (f). As noted in a previous notice published in the
By Notice dated March 12, 2013, and published in the
The company plans to import the listed controlled substances in bulk powder form from foreign sources for the manufacture of analytical reference standards for sale to their customers.
No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and 952(a) and determined that the registration of United States Pharmacopeial Convention to import the basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. DEA has investigated United States Pharmacopeial Convention to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history.
Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and 958(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, the above named company is granted registration as an importer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed.
Pursuant to § 1301.33(a), Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on April 18, 2013, Siegfried USA, LLC., 33 Industrial Park Road, Pennsville, New Jersey 08070, made application by letter to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of Opium Tincture (9630), a basic class of controlled substance listed in schedule II.
The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substance for distribution to its customers.
Any other such applicant, and any person who is presently registered with DEA to manufacture such substance, may file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration pursuant to 21 CFR § 1301.33(a).
Any such written comments or objections should be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control,
By Notice dated February 8, 2013, and published in the
The company plans to manufacture reference standards.
No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Sigma Aldrich Research Biochemicals, Inc., to manufacture the listed basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated Sigma Aldrich Research Biochemicals, Inc., to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history.
Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed.
By Notice dated February 8, 2013, and published in the
The firm plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances for internal use and for sale to other companies.
No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Mallinckrodt, LLC., to manufacture the listed basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated Mallinckrodt, LLC., to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history.
Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed.
Notice.
On May 31, 2013, the Department of Labor (DOL) will submit the Employment and Training (ETA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) revision titled, “Reporting and Performance Standards for Workforce Investment Act Indian and Native American Programs,” to the Office of Management and Budget
Submit comments on or before July 1, 2013.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov Web site at
Submit comments about this request to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL–ETA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Fax: 202–395–6881 (this is not a toll-free number), email:
Contact Michel Smyth by telephone at 202–693–4129 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email at
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR covers the recordkeeping and reporting system for the Indian and Native Americans funded grants and has three constituent information collections: (1) A quarterly Comprehensive Services Program report (Form ETA–9084), (2) a Standardized Participant Information Record, and (3) a quarterly Supplemental Youth Services Program Report (Form ETA–9085). These three information collections are the basis of the performance standards system for Workforce Investment Act section 166 grantees.
The ETA is revising this ICR in the following manner. Form ETA 9084 will now capture the number of eligible veterans and spouses served (with the addition of two data fields). The DOL notes that Form ETA–9085 has already been recording this information and will not be changed. In addition, Form ETA–9085 information will now be collected on the number of eligible youth between the ages of 14–21 years, rather than ages 14–24, which was allowed under the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009 (ARRA). Form ETA–9085 adds a credential attainment measure. Finally, Form-ETA 9085 data will revert to being collected quarterly, rather than monthly, as was the case prior to ARRA requirements. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the ADDRESSES section by July 1, 2013. In order to help ensure appropriate consideration, comments should mention OMB Control Number 1205–0422. The OMB is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
Employment and Training Administration (ETA), Labor.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (Department), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the 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 [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. This program helps 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, ETA is soliciting comments concerning the collection of data about ETA Form 232,
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the
Submit written comments to William L. Carlson, Ph.D., Administrator, Office of Foreign Labor Certification, Room C–4312, Employment & Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210. Telephone number: 202–693–3010 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with hearing or speech impairments may access the telephone number above via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at 1–877–889–5627 (TTY/TDD). Fax: 202–693–2768. Email:
The information collection is required by the Wagner-Peyser Act, codified at 20 CFR part 653, which covers the requirements for the acceptance and handling of intrastate and interstate job clearance orders seeking workers to perform agricultural or food processing work on a less than year-round basis. Section 653.501 states, in pertinent part, that employers must assure that the “wages and working conditions are not less than the prevailing wages and working conditions among similarly employed agricultural workers in the area of intended employment or the applicable Federal or State minimum wage, whichever is higher.”
The collection is also required by regulations for the temporary employment of alien agricultural workers in the United States (20 CFR, part 655, subpart B) promulgated under section 218 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) as amended, which require employers to pay the workers at least the adverse effect wage rate in effect at the time the work is performed, the prevailing hourly wage rate, the agreed upon collective bargaining wage or the legal federal or State minimum wage rate, whichever is highest unless special procedures apply to the occupation.
The vehicle for establishing the prevailing wage rate is ETA Form 232,
In addition, the State Workforce Agencies (SWAs) collect information from agricultural employers to determine prevailing, normal, accepted or common employment practices for a specific occupational classification. The burden information for these prevailing practice determinations is currently accounted for in OMB Control Number 1205–0457, in which the SWAs report their overall activities to ETA for grant making purposes. However, ETA believes that the work required to determine the prevailing practice in an area of employment most logically correlates to the process used to determine the prevailing wages in an area of employment. Therefore, the Department is proposing to move that burden from OMB Control Number 1205–0457 to OMB Control Number 1205–0017 and has accounted for the burden in this collection.
The Department 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.
In order to meet its statutory responsibilities under the INA, the Department needs to extend an existing collection of information pertaining to wage rates for various crop activities.
Comments submitted in response to this comment request will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of the ICR; they will also become a matter of public record.
On January 15, 2013, the Department of Labor issued an Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the workers and former workers of Verizon Services Corporation, Customer Service Clerk, General Clerk, Clarksburg, West Virginia (subject firm). The Department's Notice was published in the
Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c), reconsideration may be granted under the following circumstances:
(1) If it appears on the basis of facts not previously considered that the determination complained of was erroneous;
(2) If it appears that the determination complained of was based on a mistake in the determination of facts not previously considered; or
(3) If in the opinion of the Certifying Officer, a mis-interpretation of facts or of the law justified reconsideration of the decision.
Verizon Services Corporation is engaged in the supply of telecommunication and wireless support services.
Workers of Verizon Services Corporation's Customer Service Clerk, General Clerk business unit at Clarksburg, West Virginia (subject worker group) are engaged in employment related to the supply of
The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination based on the Departments' findings of no shift in the supply of customer service and support services, or like or directly competitive services, to a foreign country; no increased imports of customer service and support services (or like or directly competitive services) during the relevant period; that the subject firm is neither a Supplier or a Downstream Producer; and that the subject firm was not named by the International Trade Commission as required by Section 222(e) of the Trade Act, as amended.
In the request for reconsideration, the petitioning worker alleged that work performed by the subject worker group was outsourced to not only Mexico but also the Philippines and India; that the worker group at Clarksburg, West Virginia are similarly situated as workers who are eligible to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) under TA–W–81,968; that the workers “performed all aspects of customer service in telecommunications” such as order management; that “inter-company numbers were changed to Spanish”; and that “When calling within the company for internet issues, we spoke with Verizon workers in India.”
During the reconsideration investigation, the Department carefully reviewed the petition and its attachments, previously-submitted information from the subject firm, the certification of TA–W–81,968 and new information obtained from the subject firm regarding the allegations set forth in the request for reconsideration.
During the reconsideration investigation, the Department confirmed that the subject firm did not shift to a foreign country the supply of services like or directly competitive with the customer service or support services supplied by the subject workers and that, during the relevant period, the subject firm did not import services like or directly competitive with the customer service or support services supplied by the subject workers. The subject firm also affirmed that the petitioning workers voluntarily left employment from the subject firm, as permitted by the collective bargaining agreement applicable to the worker group at the Clarksburg, West Virginia facility.
Further, the workers and former workers eligible to apply for TAA under TA–W–81,968 (Verizon Business Networks Services, Inc., Senior Analysts-Sales Implementation, Birmingham, Alabama) are not similarly-situated as workers covered by TA–W–82,095 because the services supplied by the two worker groups differ and the petitioning workers belong to a different business unit. Further, Verizon Business Networks Services, Inc. is not the same company as Verizon Services Corporation.
Therefore, after careful review of the petition and its attachments, previously-submitted information, the request for reconsideration, the certification of TA–W–81,968 and information obtained during the reconsideration investigation, the Department determines that 29 CFR 90.18(c) has not been met.
After careful review, I determine that the requirements of Section 222 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272, have not been met and, therefore, deny the petition for group eligibility of Verizon Services Corporation, Customer Service Clerk, General Clerk, Clarksburg, West Virginia, to apply for adjustment assistance, in accordance with Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2273.
The initial investigation, instituted on February 8, 2012, on behalf of workers and former workers of Wyatt Virgin Islands (V.I.), Inc., a division of Wyatt Field Service Company, working on-site at HOVENSA, LLC Oil Refinery, Christiansted, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands (subject facility) resulted in a negative determination, issued on April 6, 2012. The Department's Notice of negative determination was published in the
Workers of Wyatt V.I., Inc. (subject firm) provided turnaround (intermittent and “as needed”) maintenance services on-site at the subject facility. The workers of the subject firm working on-site at HOVENSA, LLC Oil Refinery, Christiansted, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands (subject worker group) worked only at the subject facility.
The petition states, “HOVENSA = Hess Oil is a joint venture with Venezuela. Impact of the closure of this plant & refinery will affect thousands of people displacing workers workforce. Losses at the HOVENSA refinery have totaled $1.3 billion in the past three years, and are projected to continue.”
The petitioning worker group eligibility requirements for workers (and former workers) of a Firm under Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a), can be satisfied if the following criteria are met:
(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; and
(2)(A)(i) the sales or production, or both, of such firm have decreased absolutely;
(ii)(I) imports of articles or services like or directly competitive with articles produced or services supplied by such firm have increased;
(II) imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles—
(aa) into which one or more component parts produced by such firm are directly incorporated, or
(bb) which are produced directly using services supplied by such firm, have increased; or
(III) 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; and
(iii) the increase in imports described in clause (ii) contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation and to the decline in the sales or production of such firm; or
(B)(i)(I) there has been a shift by such workers' firm to a foreign country in the production of articles or the supply of services like or directly competitive with articles which are produced or services which are supplied by such firm; or
(II) such workers' firm has acquired from a foreign country articles or services that are like or directly competitive with articles which are produced or services which are supplied by such firm; and
(ii) the shift described in clause (i)(I) or the acquisition of articles or services described in clause (i)(II) contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation.
The initial investigation began when three workers filed a petition for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA), dated February 6, 2012, on behalf of workers and former workers of Wyatt V.I., Inc. (subject firm). Although workers of the
The initial determination was based on the findings that, although a significant proportion of the subject worker group had become separated, imports of services like or directly competitive with the maintenance services supplied by the subject firm had not increased; the subject firm had not shifted the supply of services like or directly competitive with maintenance services to a foreign country or acquired like or directly competitive services from a foreign country; the subject firm was not a supplier or downstream producer to a firm that employed a group of workers who received a certification to apply for adjustment assistance; and the subject firm was not publicly identified by name by the International Trade Commission as a member of a domestic industry in an investigation resulting in an affirmative finding of serious injury, market disruption, or material injury, or threat thereof.
By application dated May 18, 2012, a State workforce office agent requested, on behalf of a worker, administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative determination regarding the eligibility of the subject worker group to apply for adjustment assistance. In the application, the worker stated that the initial negative determination was inaccurate because “International Global Trade & its initial impact contributed to the losses & closure of HOVENSA oil refinery, which displaced & dislocated thousands of workers, not to mention that those jobs will not return.”
On June 26, 2012, the Department issued a Notice of Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration in order to conduct further investigation to determine worker eligibility. The Department's Notice was published in the
In the course of the reconsideration investigation, the Department reviewed the Trade Act, as amended, applicable regulations, previously-submitted information, information provided by the worker on whose behalf the request for reconsideration was filed, and new information provided by the subject firm.
During the reconsideration investigation, the Department clarified the identity of the subject worker group. The Department confirmed that HOVENSA was the only customer of Wyatt V.I., Inc. during the relevant time period, that Wyatt V.I., Inc. was created exclusively for the contract with HOVENSA, and that the subject worker group was established to exclusively work at the HOVENSA refinery plant in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Specifically, the subject workers were temporary workers who were hired by Wyatt V.I., Inc. to perform maintenance services. As such, the Department determines that the subject worker group is limited to workers of Wyatt V.I., Inc., a division of Wyatt Field Service Company, working on-site at HOVENSA, LLC Oil Refinery, Christiansted, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Section 222(a)(1) and Section 222(a)(2)(A)(i) have been met because a significant number or proportion of workers of Wyatt V.I., Inc., working on-site at HOVENSA, LLC Oil Refinery, Christiansted, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, have become totally separated and because the supply of maintenance services supplied by the subject worker group have decreased absolutely.
Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) has not been met because neither increased imports of services like or directly competitive with the maintenance services supplied by the subject worker groups nor increased imports of refined petroleum products (the article which was produced directly using the maintenance services supplied by the subject worker group) could not have contributed importantly to worker separations at the subject firm.
Section 247(7) of the Trade Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 2319) defines “state” to mean the fifty States compromising the United States of America (U.S.), the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Further, the regulation addressing benefits available under the Trade Program defines “State” to mean the fifty States compromising the U.S., the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. 20 C.F.R. 617.3(hh)
29 CFR 90.2 states that “Increased imports means that imports have increased either absolutely or relative to domestic production compared to a representative base period.”
Because the subject worker group provided services on-site at a facility within the U.S. Virgin Islands, shipments of refined petroleum products, or like or directly competitive articles, into the U.S. Virgin Islands could not be considered imports into the United States, for purposes of the Trade Act, as amended. Consequently, there were no imports during the relevant period, for purposes of the Trade Act, as amended.
Section 222(a)(2)(B)(i) has not been met because the subject firm did not shift to a foreign country, or acquire from a foreign country, the supply of services like or directly competitive with the maintenance services supplied by the subject worker group. Rather, the supply of maintenance services at HOVENSA ceased when the contract between the subject firm and HOVENSA (its only client) was terminated. Further, any shift in the supply of services from the U.S. Virgin Islands would not constitute a shift from the United States to a foreign country as the U.S. Virgin Islands is not considered a state, for purposes of the Trade Act, as amended.
After careful review of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, applicable regulation, and information obtained during the initial and reconsideration investigations, I determine that workers and former workers of Wyatt Virgin Islands (V.I.), Inc., a division of Wyatt Field Service Company, working on-site at HOVENSA, LLC Oil Refinery, Christiansted, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, are ineligible to apply for adjustment assistance.
By application dated May 6, 2013, a petitioner requested administrative reconsideration of the negative determination regarding workers'
The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination based on the findings that imports of articles like or directly competitive with the articles produced by the workers did not increase during the relevant period; neither the subject firm nor its major customers increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with the articles produced by the subject workers; the subject firm did not shift production of like or directly competitive articles to a foreign country, and did not acquire production of like or directly competitive articles from a foreign country; the subject firm is neither a Supplier nor Downstream Producer to a firm (or subdivision, whichever is applicable) that employed a group of workers who received a certification of eligibility under Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a); and the subject firm has not been publically identified by name by the International Trade Commission as a member of a domestic industry in an investigation resulting in an affirmative finding of serious injury, market disruption, or material injury, or threat thereof.
The request for reconsideration included new information regarding the articles produced by the petitioning worker group.
The Department has carefully reviewed the request for reconsideration and the existing record, and will conduct further investigation to determine if workers have met the eligibility requirements of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the U.S. Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, granted.
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (“Act”), 19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on February 25, 2013, applicable to workers of Amantea Nonwovens, L.L.C. including on-site leased workers from Express Employment Professionals and The Job Store, Cincinnati, Ohio. The workers are engaged in activities related to the production of nonwoven diaper components. The notice was published in the
At the request of a company official, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. New information from the company shows that workers leased from Staffmark were employed on-site at the Cincinnati, Ohio location of Amantea Nonwovens, L.L.C. The Department has determined that these workers were sufficiently under the control of Amantea Nonwovens, L.L.C. to be considered leased workers.
The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers of the subject firm who were adversely affected by a shift in the production of nonwoven diaper components to China.
Based on these findings, the Department is amending this certification to include workers leased from Staffmark working on-site at the Cincinnati, Ohio location of the subject firm.
The amended notice applicable to TA–W–82,471 is hereby issued as follows:
All workers from Amantea Nonwovens, L.L.C. including on-site leased workers from Express Employment Professionals, The Job Store and Staffmark, Cincinnati, Ohio, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after February 18, 2012, through March February 25, 2015, 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
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
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 222(a)(2)(A) (increased imports) of the Trade Act have been met.
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.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(c) (supplier to a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA) 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 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 in cases where these petitions were not filed in accordance with the requirements of 29 CFR 90.11. Every petition filed by workers must be signed by at least three individuals of the petitioning worker group. Petitioners separated more than one year prior to the date of the petition cannot be covered under a certification of a petition under Section 223(b), and therefore, may not be part of a petitioning worker group. For one or more of these reasons, these petitions were deemed invalid.
The following determinations terminating investigations were issued because the petitions are the subject of ongoing investigations under petitions filed earlier covering the same petitioners.
I hereby certify that the aforementioned determinations were issued during the period of
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
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 222(a)(2)(A) (increased imports) of the Trade Act have been met.
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 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
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 Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, has instituted investigations pursuant to Section 221 (a) of the Act.
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 June 10, 2013.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments regarding the subject matter of the investigations to the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment
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.
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 Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, has instituted investigations pursuant to Section 221 (a) of the Act.
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 June 10, 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 June 10, 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.
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 Notice of Revised Determination on Reconsideration on May 6, 2011, applicable to workers of Severstal Wheeling, Inc., a subsidiary of Severstal North America, Inc., Martins Ferry, Ohio; Severstal Wheeling, Inc., a subsidiary of Severstal North America, Inc., Yorkville, Ohio (TA–W–71,572A); Severstal Wheeling, Inc., a subsidiary of Severstal North America, Inc., Mingo Junction, Ohio (TA–W–71,572B); and Severstal Wheeling, Inc., a subsidiary of Severstal North America, Inc., Steubenville, Ohio (TA–W–71,572C). The workers produce a variety of steel coils. The Revised Determination was published in the
At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. New information shows that as of January, 2013, workers separated from employment at the Martins Ferry, Ohio, Yorkville, Ohio, Mingo Junction, Ohio and Steubenville, Ohio locations of Severstal Wheeling, Inc., a subsidiary of Severstal North America, Inc., currently known as RG Steel Wheeling, LLC had their wages reported through a separate unemployment insurance (UI) tax account under the name Ohio Cold Rolling Company.
Accordingly, the Department is amending this certification to include workers of the subject firm whose unemployment insurance (UI) wages are reported through Ohio Cold Rolling Company.
The intent of the Department's Revised Determination on Reconsideration is to include all workers of the subject firm who were adversely affected by increased imports of steel coils.
The amended notice applicable to TA–W–71,572, TA–W–71,572A, TA–W–71,572B, and TA–W–71,572C are hereby issued as follows:
“All workers of Severstal Wheeling, Inc., a subsidiary of Severstal North America, Inc., currently known as RG Steel Wheeling, LLC, including workers whose unemployment insurance (UI) wages are reported through Ohio Cold Rolling Company, Martins Ferry, Ohio (TA–W–71,572); Severstal Wheeling, Inc., a subsidiary of Severstal North America, Inc., currently known as RG Steel Wheeling, LLC, including workers whose unemployment insurance (UI) wages are reported through Ohio Cold Rolling Company, Yorkville, Ohio (TA–W–71,572A); Severstal Wheeling, Inc., a subsidiary of Severstal North America, Inc., currently known as RG Steel Wheeling, LLC, including workers whose unemployment insurance (UI) wages are reported through Ohio Cold Rolling Company, Steubenville, Ohio (TA–W–71,572C) who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after June 17, 2008 through May 6, 2013 and all workers in the group threatened with total or partial separation from employment on the 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
“All workers of Severstal Wheeling, Inc., a subsidiary of Severstal North America, Inc., currently known as RG Steel Wheeling, LLC, including workers whose unemployment insurance (UI) wages are reported through Ohio Cold Rolling Company, Mingo Junction, Ohio (TA–W–71,572B), who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after July 13, 2009, through May 6, 2013, and
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice.
In this notice, OSHA announces the application of Intertek Testing Services NA, Inc. for expansion of its recognition as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory and presents the Agency's preliminary finding to grant the application and request. Intertek Testing Services NA, Inc. requests the addition of two new sites and for OSHA to remove a special condition of its recognition that involves testing hazardous-location equipment. This preliminary finding does not constitute an interim or temporary approval of the application and request.
Submit comments, information, and documents in response to this notice, or requests for an extension of time to make a submission on or before July 1, 2013.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
Information regarding this notice is available from the following sources:
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is providing notice that Intertek Testing Services NA, Inc. (ITSNA) is applying for expansion of its current recognition as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL). ITSNA also is requesting to remove a special condition for testing and evaluating hazardous-location equipment.
OSHA recognition of an NRTL signifies that the organization meets the requirements specified in Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 1910.7 (29 CFR 1910.7). Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within its scope of recognition, and is not a delegation or grant of government authority. Recognition enables employers to use products approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require product testing and certification.
The Agency processes applications by an NRTL for initial recognition and for an expansion or renewal of this recognition, following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the Agency publish two notices in the
Each NRTL's scope of recognition has three elements: (1) The type of products the NRTL may test, with each type specified by its applicable test standard; (2) the recognized site(s) that has/have
ITSNA currently has 14 facilities (sites) recognized by OSHA for product testing and certification, with its headquarters located at: Intertek Testing Services NA, Inc., 3933 U.S. Route 11, Cortland, New York 13045. A complete list of ITSNA sites recognized by OSHA is available at
ITSNA submitted an application, dated June 8, 2007 (Ex. 1: ITSNA Application), to expand its recognition to include three additional facilities (sites) located at: 545 East Algonquin Road, Suite F, Arlington Heights, IL 60005 (ITSNA Chicago); 420 North Dorothy Drive, Richardson, TX 75081 (ITSNA Dallas); and 2307 East Aurora Road, Suite B7, Twinsburg, OH 44087 (ITSNA Cleveland). ITSNA later amended its application to remove the ITSNA Cleveland site from the application, and to change the address for the ITSNA Dallas site to 1809 10th Street, Suite A, Plano, TX 75074 (Ex. 2: ITSNA Amended Applications dated 7/22/2009 and 10/20/2009).
On November 6, 2009, ITSNA submitted a letter seeking to relax or remove a special condition of its recognition which states: “All safety test reports for hazardous location products must undergo a documented review and approval at the Cortland testing facility by a test engineer qualified in hazardous location safety testing, prior to ITSNA's initial or continued authorization of the certifications covered by these reports. The above limitations apply solely to ITSNA's operations as an NRTL” (Ex. 3: ITSNA Hazardous Location Letter).
In connection with these requests, NRTL Program staff performed on-site reviews of ITSNA's testing facilities in January 2010 (ITSNA Chicago) and February 2010 (ITSNA Dallas), and recommended expansion of ITSNA's recognition to include these two sites (Ex. 4: ITSNA On-site Review Reports). Additionally, audits of these and other ITSNA NRTL sites determined that ITSNA has the appropriate training programs and controls in place to remove the special condition for testing hazardous-location equipment (Ex. 5: Memorandum Regarding Removal of Hazardous Location Restriction). As a result, the Agency preliminarily determined that it should (1) expand ITSNA's scope of recognition to include the ITSNA Chicago and ITSNA Dallas sites, and (2) remove the special condition stated above from ITSNA's scope of recognition.
ITSNA submitted an acceptable application for expansion of its scope of recognition. OSHA's review of the application file, and the results of the Agency's on-site reviews and other audits, indicate that ITSNA can meet the requirements prescribed by 29 CFR 1910.7 for expanding its recognition to use the facilities at the ITSNA Chicago and ITSNA Dallas sites for NRTL testing and certification. The on-site reviews and audits also indicate that the special condition of ITSNA's recognition is no longer necessary. This preliminary finding does not constitute an interim or temporary approval of ITSNA's application and request. ITSNA corrected the discrepancies noted by OSHA during the on-site reviews, and the on-site review reports describes these corrections (Ex. 4: ITSNA On-site Review Reports).
OSHA welcomes public comment as to whether ITSNA meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of its recognition as an NRTL and removal of the special condition of recognition. Comments should consist of pertinent written documents and exhibits. Commenters needing more time to comment must submit a request in writing, stating the reasons for the request. Commenters must submit the written request for an extension by the due date for comments. OSHA will limit any extension to 10 days unless the requester justifies a longer period. OSHA may deny a request for an extension if it is not adequately justified. To obtain or review copies of the publicly available information in ITSNA's application and request, including pertinent documents (e.g., exhibits) and all submitted comments, contact the Docket Office, Room N–2625, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, at the above address; these materials also are available online at
The NRTL Program staff will review all comments to the docket submitted in a timely manner and, after addressing the issues raised by these comments, will recommend to the Assistant Secretary whether to grant ITSNA's application for expansion and its request to remove the special condition of recognition. The Assistant Secretary will make the final decision on granting the application and request. In making this decision, the Assistant Secretary may undertake other proceedings prescribed in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. OSHA will publish a public notice of this final decision in the
David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the Agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1–2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012), and 29 CFR 1910.7.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice.
In this notice, OSHA is issuing a determination deleting a test standard from the scope of recognition of a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL), Southwest Research Institute, based on that NRTL's voluntary request that OSHA reduce its scope of recognition.
This modification of scope is effective on May 30, 2013.
Information regarding this notice is available from the following sources:
Southwest Research Institute (SWRI) requested OSHA to delete a test standard, UL 60950—Information Technology Equipment (see Exhibit OSHA–2006–0041–003), from its scope of recognition. Subsection II.D of Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7 provides that OSHA must inform the public of such a reduction in scope. Accordingly, OSHA hereby notifies the public that it is deleting UL 60950 from SWRI's scope of recognition as of May 30, 2013. As of May 30, 2013, OSHA will no longer accept certifications by SWRI that products conform to UL 60950, and OSHA will delete UL 60950 from SWRI's scope of recognition on the OSHA Web page.
SWRI must notify those NRTL clients for which SWRI certified that products conformed to UL 60950 that SWRI's scope of recognition no longer includes UL 60950. SWRI's notification to each affected client also must inform the client that it must now obtain its product certification services, with respect to UL 60950, from an NRTL with a scope of recognition that continues to include UL 60950. SWRI's notification to each affected client must be in writing and received by the client within two weeks of the date of this Notice.
David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the Agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2)), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1–2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012), and 29 CFR 1910.7.
Legal Services Corporation.
Request for Comments: LSC Appropriations Request for FY 2015.
The Legal Services Corporation (LSC) is developing its FY 2015 appropriations request to Congress and is seeking public comment and testimony on what the amount of its request should be.
Written comments must be received no later than 12 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time (EDT), on June 10, 2013. Please note that written comments mailed as of this time and date will not be considered. Requests to testify at the Finance Committee meeting on June 11, 2013 should be sent to David Richardson, by email at
Written comments may be submitted by mail, fax or email to David L. Richardson, Treasurer, Legal Services Corporation, 3333 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20007; 202–337–6834 (fax); or
David L. Richardson, Treasurer, Legal Services Corporation, 3333 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20007; 202–337–6834 (fax); 202–295–1510 (phone); or
The mission of LSC is to provide funding for high-quality civil legal assistance to low-income persons and to promote equal access to justice in our Nation. LSC submits an annual budget request directly to Congress and receives an annual direct appropriation to carry out its mission. For the current fiscal year, FY 2013, LSC received an appropriation (after sequestration and two rescissions) of $339,926,165, of which $316,144,749 is for basic field programs and required independent audits; $3,901,639 is for the Office of Inspector General; $15,792,345 is for management and grants oversight; $3,158,470 is for technology initiative grants; and $928,962 is for loan repayment assistance. Public Law 113–006, 127 Stat. 267 (March 26, 2013).
The White House FY 2014 budget request to Congress included $430 million for LSC; the LSC Board submitted a FY 2014 appropriations request of $486 million.
As part of its annual budget process, LSC notifies the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in September of its appropriations request for the fiscal year beginning October 1 of the following calendar year. The Finance Committee of the LSC Board of Directors will meet at 12 p.m., EDT, on June 11, 2013, to hear testimony from interested parties and commence deliberations on the Board's FY 2015 appropriations request. Anyone interested in providing testimony during the meeting should notify David Richardson, by email at
LSC invites public comment on what its FY 2015 appropriations request should be. LSC must receive all written comments no later than 12 p.m., EDT, on June 10, 2013. Please note that written comments mailed as of this time and date will not be considered. More information about LSC may be found at
National Science Foundation.
Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) has submitted the following information collection requirement to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. This is the second notice for public comment; the first was published in the
Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling 703–292–7556.
NSF may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
“To promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense. . . .”
The Act authorized and directed NSF to initiate and support:
• Basic scientific research and research fundamental to the engineering process;
• Programs to strengthen scientific and engineering research potential;
• Science and engineering education programs at all levels and in all the various fields of science and engineering;
• Programs that provide a source of information for policy formulation; and
• Other activities to promote these ends.
Over the years, NSF's statutory authority has been modified in a number of significant ways. In 1968, authority to support applied research was added to the Organic Act. In 1980, The Science and Engineering Equal Opportunities Act gave NSF standing authority to support activities to improve the participation of women and minorities in science and engineering.
Another major change occurred in 1986, when engineering was accorded equal status with science in the Organic Act. NSF has always dedicated itself to providing the leadership and vision needed to keep the words and ideas embedded in its mission statement fresh and up-to-date. Even in today's rapidly changing environment, NSF's core purpose resonates clearly in everything it does: promoting achievement and progress in science and engineering and enhancing the potential for research and education to contribute to the Nation. While NSF's vision of the future and the mechanisms it uses to carry out its charges have evolved significantly over the last four decades, its ultimate mission remains the same.
Use of the Information: The regular submission of proposals to the Foundation is part of the collection of information and is used to help NSF fulfill this responsibility by initiating and supporting merit-selected research and education projects in all the scientific and engineering disciplines. NSF receives more than 51,000 proposals annually for new projects, and makes approximately 10,500 new awards.
Support is made primarily through grants, contracts, and other agreements awarded to more than 2,000 colleges, universities, academic consortia, nonprofit institutions, and small businesses. The awards are based mainly on evaluations of proposal merit submitted to the Foundation.
The Foundation has a continuing commitment to monitor the operations of its information collection to identify and address excessive reporting burdens as well as to identify any real or apparent inequities based on gender, race, ethnicity, or disability of the proposed principal investigator(s)/project director(s) or the co-principal investigator(s)/co-project director(s).
In accordance with the 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, please contact Victoria Fung (
Telephone Numbers: (703) 292–5151/703–292–8040
Agenda:
The ACRS Subcommittee on Digital I&C will hold a meeting on June 4, 2013, Room T–2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
The entire meeting will be open to public attendance with the exception of a portion that may be closed to protect unclassified safeguards information pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3).
The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
The Subcommittee will review and discuss all cyber security-related initiatives at the NRC. The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with the NRC staff and other interested persons regarding this matter. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the Full Committee.
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official (DFO), Christina Antonescu (Telephone 301–415–6792 or Email:
Detailed meeting agendas and meeting transcripts are available on the NRC Web site at
If attending this meeting, please enter through the One White Flint North building, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD. After registering with security, please contact Mr. Theron Brown (Telephone 240–888–9835) to be escorted to the meeting room.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of Availability.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is announcing the availability of Technical Specifications (TSs) Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF–426, Revision 5, “Revise or Add Actions to Preclude Entry into LCO [Limiting Condition for Operation] 3.0.3—RITSTF [Risk-Informed TSTF] Initiatives 6B & 6C,” for plant-specific adoption using the Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process (CLIIP). Additionally, the NRC staff finds the proposed TS (Volume 1) and TS Bases (Volume 2) changes in Traveler TSTF–426 acceptable for inclusion in the following Standard Technical Specification (STS): NUREG–1432, “Standard Technical Specifications Combustion Engineering Plants.”
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2013–0007 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 is publicly available, using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Mrs. Michelle C. Honcharik, Senior Project Manager, telephone: 301–415–1774, email:
TSTF–426, Revision 5, is applicable to all Combustion Engineering-designed nuclear power plants. The change revises various TSs to add a Condition for loss of redundant features representing a loss of safety function for a system or component included within the scope of the plant TSs. It would replace Required Actions requiring either a default shutdown or explicit LCO 3.0.3 entry with a Required Action based on the risk significance for the system's degraded condition. This STS improvement is part of the CLIIP.
The NRC staff has reviewed the model application for TSTF–426 and has found it acceptable for use by licensees. Licensees opting to apply for this TS change are responsible for reviewing the NRC's staff SE and the applicable technical bases, providing any necessary plant-specific information, and assessing the completeness and accuracy of their license amendment request (LAR). The NRC will process each amendment application responding to the Notice of Availability according to applicable NRC rules and procedures.
The proposed changes do not prevent licensees from requesting an alternate approach or proposing changes other than those proposed in TSTF–426, Revision 5. However, significant deviations from the approach recommended in this notice or the inclusion of additional changes to the license require additional NRC staff review. This may increase the time and resources needed for the review or result in NRC staff rejection of the LAR. Licensees desiring significant deviations or additional changes should instead submit an LAR that does not claim to adopt TSTF–426, Revision 5.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 17a–7 requires a non-resident broker-dealer (generally, a broker-dealer with its principal place of business in a place not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States) registered or applying for registration pursuant to Section 15 of the Exchange Act to maintain—in the United States—complete and current copies of books and records required to be maintained under any rule adopted under the Exchange Act and furnish to the Commission a written notice specifying the address where the copies are located. Alternatively, Rule 17a–7 provides that non-resident broker-dealers may file with the Commission a written undertaking to furnish the requisite books and records to the Commission upon demand within 14 days of the demand.
There are approximately 51 non-resident brokers and dealers. Based on the Commission's experience, the Commission estimates that the average amount of time necessary to comply with Rule 17a–7 is one hour per year. Accordingly, the total burden is approximately 51 hours per year. Assuming an average cost per hour of approximately $269 for a compliance manager, the total internal cost of compliance for the respondents is approximately $13,719 per year.
Written 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 Commission'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; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Please direct your written comments to: Thomas Bayer, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, Virginia 22312, or send an email to:
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice of application under section 7(d) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”).
Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090. Applicant, c/o Deborah Djeu, 400 S. El Camino Real, Suite 710, San Mateo, CA 94402.
Deepak T. Pai, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551–6876, or Daniele Marchesani, Branch Chief, at (202) 551–6747 (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. ASA is an internally-managed closed-end management investment company organized in 1958 in South Africa and currently organized in Bermuda. ASA is registered under the Act.
2. Applicant requests an order that would: (a) permit ASA to appoint a primary custodian (“Primary Custodian”) or otherwise amend its agreement with the Primary Custodian without prior Commission approval; (b) permit ASA to settle purchases and sales of portfolio securities outside of the U.S. on an additional “established securities exchange,” the HKSE;
1. Section 7(d) of the Act prohibits an investment company organized outside the U.S. (“foreign fund”) from making a
2. ASA believes that it would be legally and practically feasible effectively to enforce the provisions of the Act against it and that the issuance of the requested order would be consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors. In particular, Applicant states that (i) applicable law provides substantial certainty that appropriate U.S. courts would exercise personal jurisdiction over ASA; (ii) a U.S. Federal court would possess subject matter jurisdiction in a case brought by the Commission because such a case would be based upon alleged violations of the federal securities laws; and (iii) the doctrine of
3. Under the terms and conditions of the Existing Order, ASA agreed that JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“Chase”) will serve as ASA's Primary Custodian and will continue to meet the qualifications of a custodian under Section 17(f) of the Act.
4. Under the terms and conditions of the Existing Order, ASA is required to settle its purchases and sales of portfolio securities, other than purchases and sales on an “established securities exchange,” in the U.S.
5. Under the terms and conditions of the Existing Order, ASA is required to keep at least 20% of its assets in the U.S. in the custody of a U.S. bank. ASA's remaining assets are also required to be kept in the custody of such U.S. custodian, except that, subject to the 20% Requirement, ASA may keep, through its custodian or South African subcustodian, in the central securities depository for equity securities in South Africa (“CSD”) up to 100% of its securities eligible for deposit at the CSD.
6. ASA requests an order to permit its Primary Custodian to change the eligible foreign custodian or eligible securities depository in whose custody it maintains ASA's assets, and to amend the custodian agreement with ASA to reflect the change, without prior Commission approval. Applicant contends that requiring it to seek Commission approval before its Primary Custodian changes the eligible foreign custodian or eligible securities depository in whose custody it maintains ASA's assets imposes on ASA and its Primary Custodian an unfair burden that is not imposed upon U.S. Funds. ASA also asserts that changing the eligible foreign custodian or eligible securities depository in whose custody ASA's Primary Custodian maintains ASA's assets does not raise any jurisdictional concerns different from than those discussed above. Finally, ASA asserts that requiring it to seek Commission approval diminishes ASA's (and its Primary Custodian's) ability to deal effectively and efficiently with business issues regarding ASA's custody arrangements.
7. ASA also seeks relief to exercise in South Africa, Hong Kong, the United Kingdom, Canada, or Australia the rights issued to it as a shareholder in other companies for the purchase of securities. Under the terms and conditions of the Existing Order, ASA is required to settle its purchases and sales of portfolio securities, other than purchases on established exchanges, in the U.S.
8. Under the terms and conditions of the Existing Order, ASA and each of its Non-Resident Persons must designate Chase, ASA's Primary Custodian, as U.S. Service Agent in any Proceeding before the Commission or any appropriate court relating to their activities as directors, officers or investment advisers of ASA. ASA requests that ASA and its Non-Resident Persons be required to designate CT Corp, instead of ASA's Primary Custodian, as U.S. Service Agent.
ASA agrees that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the following conditions:
1. A U.S. bank, as defined in section 2(a)(5) of the Act and having the qualification described in section 26(a)(1) of the Act, will serve as ASA's Primary Custodian. In addition, ASA's
2. ASA will seek an order of the Commission prior to any amendment of its agreement with its Primary Custodian if the amendment conflicts with any of the representations or conditions applicable to the Existing Order, as amended by the requested order.
3. The Board will serve as foreign custody manager and will not delegate such functions to ASA's Primary Custodian or any other person.
4. ASA will comply with Rule 17f–5 and Rule 17f–7 under the Act as if ASA were a registered management investment company organized or incorporated in the United States. Each eligible foreign custodian that ASA uses will be contractually obligated to follow the Primary Custodian's instructions with respect to assets the eligible foreign custodian holds on behalf of ASA. In each applicable jurisdiction, the Board will consider the relationship between an eligible foreign custodian and an eligible securities depository (including whether the eligible foreign custodian is liable for the eligible securities depository's misdeeds to the same extent as if such securities were maintained by the eligible foreign custodian) and will determine that maintaining assets in the eligible securities depository through the eligible foreign custodian is in the best interest of ASA and its shareholders.
5. ASA will cause each present and future officer, director, investment adviser, and principal underwriter of ASA to enter into an agreement (“Agreement”) (to be filed by ASA with the Commission when that person assumes office), which will provide that each person agrees: (a) to comply with ASA's charter and bylaws, the Act and the rules of the Commission under the Act, and the undertakings and agreements contained in the application as applicable to each person and as each may be amended from time to time, as applicable to each person; (b) to do nothing inconsistent with the undertakings and agreements contained in the application, the provisions of the Act, or the rules under the Act; (c) that the undertakings described in (a) and (b) above constitute representations and inducements to the Commission to issue the requested order; and (d) each Agreement constitutes a contract between the person and ASA and the shareholders of ASA with the intent that ASA's shareholders will be beneficiaries of and will have the status of parties to the Agreement so as to enable them to maintain actions at law or in equity within the United States or Bermuda. In addition, each Agreement of each officer and director of ASA will contain provisions similar to those contained in condition 21 below.
6. So long as ASA is registered under the Act, ASA's charter and bylaws, together, will contain in substance the provisions required by Rule 7d–1(b)(8) under the Act, and neither the charter nor the bylaws will be changed or amended in any manner inconsistent with Rule 7d–1(b)(8) under the Act and the rules and regulations under the Act, unless authorized by the Commission.
7. ASA's Primary Custodian will not transfer any assets of ASA unless the instructions it receives from ASA include the written approval of ASA's Chief Compliance Officer. ASA will submit instructions relating to any transfer of assets to its Chief Compliance Officer, who will review them prior to the submission of any approved instructions to ASA's Primary Custodian. ASA's Chief Compliance Officer will not approve a transfer of assets if an agent, broker-dealer, or counterparty is an affiliated person of ASA or an affiliated person of any director, officer, or investment adviser of ASA, unless the transaction is of a type permitted by the Act or any regulation under the Act or specifically permitted by order of exemption issued under the Act. In addition to providing any other information relevant to the Chief Compliance Officer's review, ASA will require each of its officers, directors, and investment advisers to transmit quarterly a list of affiliated persons or a statement that there has been no change since the last list so transmitted to ASA's Chief Compliance Officer. No person will qualify to serve as a director or officer of ASA until he or she has transmitted to ASA a list of his or her affiliated persons, as that term is defined in Section 2(a)(3) of the Act.
8. ASA will furnish to the Commission revisions, if any, to the list of persons affiliated with ASA that previously was furnished to the Commission concurrently with the filing of periodic reports required to be filed under the Act. Such revised lists will include persons affiliated with any future investment adviser or principal underwriter of ASA.
9. The Chief Executive Officer of ASA, a majority of the directors of ASA, a majority of the officers, and the Chief Compliance Officer of ASA will be both citizens and residents of the United States. ASA will maintain its principal executive office in the United States.
10. ASA will hold all of its shareholder meetings in the United States.
11. ASA will maintain in the United States a transfer agent for transfer of its shares, and a registrar for the registration of its shares.
12. ASA will file, and will cause each of its present or future directors, officers, or investment advisers who is not a resident of the United States to file with the Commission irrevocable designation of CT Corp as an agent in the United States to accept service of process in any suit, action, or proceeding before the Commission or any appropriate court to enforce the provisions of the laws administered by the Commission, or to enforce any right or liability based upon ASA's charter or bylaws, contracts, or the respective undertakings and agreements of any of these persons required by the terms and conditions of the requested order, or which alleges a liability on the part of any of these persons arising out of their services, acts, or transactions relating to ASA. Further, ASA will designate CT Corp as U.S. Service Agent in the same city in which ASA's Primary Custodian is located.
13. After receipt of the requested order, ASA will file with the Commission (a) a copy of each subcustodian agreement, if that subcustodian agreement irrevocably designates CT Corp as an agent in the United States to accept service of process in any Proceeding before the Commission or any appropriate court to enforce the provisions of the laws administered by the Commission in connection with the subcustodian agreement, or to enforce any right or liability (“Liability”) based on the subcustodian agreement or which alleges a liability on the part of the subcustodian arising out of its services, acts, or transactions under the subcustodian agreement relating to ASA's assets; and (b) a copy of each subcustodian agreement that does not contain one or more provisions described in clause (a), along with a written explanation as to why ASA determined that it was nonetheless appropriate to use that subcustodian notwithstanding the lack of that provision or those provisions. This
14. ASA will perform every action and thing necessary to cause and assist the custodian of its assets to distribute the same, or the proceeds, if the Commission or a court of competent jurisdiction will have so directed by final order.
15. ASA stipulates that personal jurisdiction exists in any Commission action brought against ASA in the United States and agrees to waive any defense of
16. ASA will take all steps necessary to ensure that it will be listed on the NYSE, including the publishing of financial statements and other information required by the NYSE for the benefit of holders of the shares listed on the NYSE and the performance of all the covenants contained in its listing agreement.
17. The Commission, in its discretion, may revoke its order permitting registration of ASA and the public offering of its securities if the Commission finds, after notice and opportunity for hearing, that there has been a violation of the requested order or the Act and may determine whether distribution of ASA's assets is necessary or appropriate in the interests of investors and may so direct.
18. ASA waives any counsel fees to which it may be entitled and waives security for costs in any action brought against it in Bermuda by any shareholder based on its charter or bylaws or any of the undertakings and agreements contained in the application. ASA will cause each of its present or future directors who is a non-resident of the United States to make similar waivers.
19. ASA will promptly notify the Commission in the event that there is any change in Bermudian law that will be contrary to any provision of the Act or detrimental to or inconsistent with the protection afforded by the undertakings and agreements contained in the application.
20. Any shareholder of ASA or the Commission, on its own motion or on request of any of ASA's shareholders, will have the right to initiate a proceeding: (a) before the Commission for the revocation of the order permitting registration of ASA; or (b) before a court of competent jurisdiction for the liquidation of ASA and a distribution of its assets to its shareholders and creditors. The court may enter the order in the event that it finds, after notice and opportunity for hearing, that ASA, its officers, directors, investment adviser, or principal underwriter has violated any provision of the Act or the requested order.
21. Any shareholder of ASA will have the right to bring suit at law or equity, in any court of the United States or Bermuda having jurisdiction over ASA, its assets, or any of its officers or directors to enforce compliance by ASA, its officers and directors with any provision of ASA's charter or bylaws, the Act, the rules under the Act, or the undertakings and agreements required by the conditions of the requested order, insofar as applicable to these persons. The court may appoint a trustee or receiver of ASA with all powers necessary to implement the purposes of the suit, including the administration of the estate, the collection of corporate property including choses-in-action, and distribution of ASA's assets to its creditors and shareholders. ASA and its officers and directors waive any objection they may be entitled to raise and any right they may have to object to the power and right of any shareholder of ASA to bring such suit, reserving, however, their right to maintain that they have complied with these provisions, undertakings and agreements, and otherwise to dispute the suit on its merits. ASA and its officers and directors also agree that any final judgment or decree of any U.S. court may be granted full faith and credit by a court of competent jurisdiction of Bermuda and consent that the Bermudian court may enter judgment or decree on ASA at the request of any shareholder, receiver, or trustee of ASA.
22. ASA will settle its purchases and sales of portfolio securities in the United States by use of the mails or means of interstate commerce, except for: (a) purchases and sales on an “established securities exchange” (defined as a national securities exchange as defined in Section 2(a)(26) of the Act, the JSE, the HKSE, the LSE, the Tokyo Stock Exchange, the TSE, the ASX, and the SIX Swiss Exchange (collectively the “Established Exchanges”)) and (b) purchases and sales, through its custodian or its custodian's agent, in South Africa of South African Treasury Bills from or to the South African Treasury or South African Reserve Bank securities, or CSD-eligible securities. Assets purchased on the JSE, the HKSE, the LSE, the TSE, and the ASX will be maintained as provided for in condition 25 below. Assets purchased on the Tokyo Stock Exchange and the SIX Swiss Exchange will be maintained in the United States with ASA's custodian, unless prohibited by law or regulation or financially impracticable as provided in condition 26 below.
23. Notwithstanding condition 22, ASA may, through its custodian or its custodian's agent, exercise in South Africa, Hong Kong, the United Kingdom, Canada, or Australia the rights issued to it as a shareholder of other companies for the purchase of securities, provided that, in the case of each such exercise, (i) the rights so exercised are offered to ASA as a shareholder in another company on the same basis as all other holders of the class or classes of shares of such other company to whom such rights are offered, (ii) the rights so exercised do not exceed 10% of the total amount of such rights so offered, and (iii) the securities purchased pursuant to such exercise, or securities of the same class, are listed on the JSE, the HKSE, the LSE, the TSE, or the ASX, or application has been made to such exchange for the listing thereon of such securities, or it
24. Contracts of ASA, other than those executed on an Established Exchange which do not involve affiliated persons, will provide that: (a) the contracts, irrespective of the place of their execution or performance, will be performed in accordance with the requirements of the Act, the Securities Act of 1933, and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, each as amended, if the subject matter of the contracts is within the purview of these Acts; and (b) in effecting the purchase or sale of assets, the parties to the contracts will utilize the U.S. mails or means of interstate commerce.
25. ASA will keep at least 20% of its assets in the United States in the custody of a U.S. bank. ASA's remaining assets will be kept in the custody of (a) an eligible foreign custodian, as defined in rule 17f–5 under the Act, in South Africa, Hong Kong, the United Kingdom, Canada, or Australia; or (b) an eligible securities depository, as defined in rule 17f–7 under the Act, in South Africa, Hong Kong, the United Kingdom, Canada, or Australia.
26. If removal of securities purchased on the Tokyo Stock Exchange and the SIX Swiss Exchange becomes either prohibited by law or regulation or financially impracticable, up to 5% of ASA's assets may be held by an eligible foreign custodian or overseas branch of ASA's custodian in each of Japan and Switzerland.
27. ASA will withdraw its assets from the care of a subcustodian as soon as practicable, and in any event within 180 days of the date when a majority of the Board makes the determination that a particular subcustodian may no longer be considered eligible under rule 17f–5 under the Act or that continuance of the subcustodian arrangement would not be consistent with the best interests of ASA and its shareholders.
28. ASA will cause its custodian to enter into an agreement (to be filed by ASA with the Commission when the custodian commences service to ASA), which will provide that the custodian agrees: (a) To comply with the Act and the rules of the Commission under the Act and the undertakings and agreements contained in the application as applicable to the custodian and as each may be amended from time to time, as applicable to the custodian; (b) to do nothing inconsistent with the undertakings and agreements contained in the application, the provisions of the Act, or the rules under the Act; and (c) that the undertakings described in (a) and (b) above constitute representations and inducements to the Commission to issue the requested order.
29. So long as ASA is registered under the Act, ASA's custody contract with its custodian will provide that the custodian will: (a) Consummate all purchases and sales of securities by ASA through the delivery of securities and receipt of cash, or vice versa as the case may be, within the United States, except for (i) purchases and sales on the Established Exchanges, and (ii) purchases and sales, through ASA's custodian or custodian's agent, in South Africa of South African Treasury Bills from or to the South African Treasury, South African Reserve Bank securities, or CSD-eligible securities; and (b) distribute ASA's assets, or the proceeds thereof, to ASA's creditors and shareholders, upon service upon the custodian of an order of the Commission or court directing such distribution as provided in conditions 17, 20, and 30.
30. With respect to an alleged violation of the Act or the requested order by ASA's custodian, eligible foreign custodian, or eligible securities depository, the Commission, on its own motion, will have the right to initiate a proceeding: (a) Before the Commission for the revocation of the order permitting registration of ASA; or (b) before a court of competent jurisdiction for the liquidation of ASA and a distribution of its assets to its shareholders and creditors. The court may enter the order in the event that it finds, after notice and opportunity for hearing, that ASA's custodian has violated any provision of the Act or the requested order.
31. The Chief Compliance Officer, as defined in Rule 38a–l(a)(4) under the Act, shall prepare a report, as part of the annual report to the Board, that evaluates ASA's compliance with the terms and conditions of the Application and the procedures established to achieve such compliance. The Chief Compliance Officer will also annually file a certification pursuant to item 77Q3 of Form N–SAR as such Form may be revised, amended or superseded from time to time, that certifies that ASA and the Board have established procedures reasonably designed to achieve compliance with Conditions 22, 25 and 26 regarding location of ASA's assets. Additionally, ASA's independent public accountants, in connection with their audit examination of ASA, will review the operations and procedures pertaining to the location of ASA's assets and custody arrangements for compliance with the conditions of the Application, and their review will form the basis, in part, of the auditor's report on internal accounting controls in Form N–SAR.
By the Commission.
On February 11, 2013, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (“MSRB”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act” or “Act”)
As stated in the Notice, the proposed rule change would amend MSRB Rule G–39, on telemarketing, to include provisions substantially similar to those contained in the FTC rules that prohibit deceptive and other abusive telemarketing acts or practices.
In 1997, the SEC determined that telemarketing rules promulgated and expected to be promulgated by the SROs, together with the other rules of the SROs, the federal securities laws, and the SEC's rules thereunder, satisfied the requirements of the Prevention Act because, at the time, the applicable provisions of those laws and rules were substantially similar to the Telemarketing Sales Rule.
In May 2011, Commission staff directed the MSRB (along with all other SROs) to conduct a review of its telemarketing rule and propose rule amendments that provide protections that are at least as strong as those provided by the FTC's telemarketing rules.
The proposed rule amendments, as directed by the Commission staff, would amend and adopt provisions in Rule G–39 that would be substantially similar to the FTC's current rules that prohibit deceptive and other abusive telemarketing acts or practices as described below.
Proposed Rule G–39(a)(iv) would remind dealers that engage in telemarketing that they are also subject to the requirements of relevant state and federal laws and rules, including the Prevention Act, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
Proposed Rule G–39(d)(vi) would maintain the requirement in Rule G–39 that a dealer making telemarketing calls must maintain a record of a caller's request not to receive further calls. The amendment, however, would delete the requirement that a dealer honor a firm-specific do-not-call request for five years from the time the request is made. This amendment makes this provision consistent with the FTC's Telemarketing Sales Rule because the time for which the firm-specific opt-out must be honored under the FTC's Telemarketing Sales Rule
MSRB Rule G–39(f) would continue to state that, if a dealer uses another entity to perform telemarketing services on its behalf, the dealer remains responsible for ensuring compliance with all provisions of the rule. The proposed amendments would clarify that dealers must consider whether the entity or person that a dealer uses for outsourcing, is appropriately registered or licensed, where required.
Proposed Rule G–39(g) would provide that dealers engaging in telemarketing must transmit caller identification information
Proposed Rule G–39(h) would prohibit a dealer from disclosing or receiving, for consideration, unencrypted consumer account numbers for use in telemarketing. The MSRB believes that this proposed provision would be substantially similar to the FTC's provision regarding unencrypted consumer account numbers.
Proposed Rule G–39(i) would provide that, for any telemarketing transaction, a dealer must obtain the express informed consent of the person to be charged and to be charged using the identified account. If the telemarketing transaction involves preacquired account information
Proposed Rule G–39(j) would prohibit a dealer from abandoning
Proposed Rule G–39(k) would prohibit a broker, dealer, or municipal securities dealer from initiating any outbound telephone call that delivers a prerecorded message without a person's express written agreement
Except as expressly permitted by the applicable credit card system, proposed Rule G–39(l) would prohibit a dealer from: (1) Presenting to or depositing into, the credit card system
Proposed Rule G–39(m) would exempt business-to-business calls from most of the provisions of the amended rule. Specifically, the exemption would provide that outbound telephone calls from a dealer to a business entity, government, or political subdivision, agency, or instrumentality of a government are exempt from the rule, other than sections (a)(ii) and (d)(i)–(iii), (v) and (vi). The sections of the proposed rule that would still apply to business-to-business calls relate to the firm-specific do-not-call list and procedures related to (i) maintaining a do-not-call list, (ii) training personnel on the existence and use of the do-not-call list, (iii) the recording and honoring of do-not-call requests, (iv) application to affiliated persons or entities, and (v) maintenance of do-not-call lists. FINRA's telemarketing rule, Rule 3230, does not include an express exemption for business-to-business calls.
When initially adopting the exception for business-to-business calls, the FTC indicated that it believed Congress did not intend that every business use of the telephone be covered by the FTC's Telemarketing Sales Rule.
The MSRB believes that exempting business-to-business calls pertaining to municipal securities from Rule G–39 would be consistent with the FTC's general approach to exempting business-to-business calls because, unlike sellers of nondurable office or cleaning supplies, dealers are subject to an entire regulatory regime, which includes the federal securities laws, the fair practice rules of the MSRB, and examinations and enforcement by FINRA, banking regulators and the SEC. Nevertheless, the provisions of proposed Rule G–39 pertaining to the firm-specific do-not-call list and related procedures would apply to business-to-business calls. Dealers are already required to maintain a firm-specific do-not-call list for requests that are not related to business-to-business calls; therefore, the MSRB believes that requiring such a list with respect to business-to-business calls should not create an undue burden. Moreover, the MSRB believes that it would be reasonable to require dealers to honor the wishes of businesses that do not wish to be solicited by telephone by requiring dealers to maintain a list of such do-not-call requests. The MSRB believes that this approach also would be consistent with FINRA's telemarketing rule and related guidance.
Proposed Rule G–39(n) would include the following definitions, which the MSRB believes would be substantially similar to the corresponding definitions in the FTC's Telemarketing Sales Rule:
Proposed Rule G–39(n) also would include definitions of “person” and “telemarketing” that differ substantively from the FTC's and FINRA's definitions of these terms but that reflect MSRB's jurisdictional scope. While the definition of “person” in proposed MSRB Rule G–39(n)(xvii) tracks the definition in the FTC and FINRA rules to include any individual, group, unincorporated association, limited or general partnership, corporation, or other business entity, it further defines a “person” to include a government, or political subdivision, agency, or instrumentality of a government. These entities are included in the proposed definition because dealers often solicit these types of entities. While the MSRB believes that the proposed definition of “telemarketing” would be substantially similar to the FTC and FINRA rules, its scope would be limited in MSRB Rule G–39(n)(xxi) to calls “pertaining to municipal securities or municipal financial products” since the MSRB only promulgates rules pertaining to the municipal securities activities of dealers. The MSRB intends the
The proposed revisions to MSRB Rule G–39 would make a number of technical and conforming changes. First, the proposed revisions would amend Rule G–39 to delete the phrase “or person associated with a broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer” throughout the rule since associated persons are included in the definition of “broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer” in the MSRB rules.
The MSRB requested an effective date for the proposed rule change of 90 days following the date of SEC approval.
As previously noted, the Commission received no comments on the proposed rule change.
The Commission has carefully reviewed the proposed rule change, and, based on its review of the record, finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the MSRB.
More specifically, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act because it should protect investors and the public interest by preventing dealers from engaging in fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, particularly deceptive and other abusive telemarketing acts or practices. The Commission also finds that the proposed rule is consistent with the FTC's and FINRA's telemarketing rules, which include provisions similar to those described above. Accordingly, the proposed rule change should foster cooperation and coordination with FINRA members and other persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in municipal securities and municipal financial products, and remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market in municipal securities and municipal financial products.
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder. As requested by the MSRB, the proposed rule change will become effective 90 days following the date of SEC approval.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to list and trade the shares of the following under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600 (“Managed Fund Shares”): PowerShares China A-Share Portfolio. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below.
The Exchange proposes to list and trade the shares (“Shares”) of the PowerShares China A-Share Portfolio (“Fund”) under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600, which governs the listing and trading of Managed Fund Shares
The investment adviser to the Fund will be Invesco PowerShares Capital Management LLC (the “Adviser”). Invesco Distributors, Inc. (the “Distributor”) will serve as the distributor of the Fund Shares. The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation (the “Administrator,” “Transfer Agent” or “Custodian”) will serve as administrator, custodian and transfer agent for the Fund.
Commentary .06 to Rule 8.600 provides that, if the investment adviser to the investment company issuing Managed Fund Shares is affiliated with a broker-dealer, such investment adviser shall erect a “fire wall” between the investment adviser and the broker-dealer with respect to access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to such investment company portfolio. In addition, Commentary .06 further requires that personnel who make decisions on the open-end fund's portfolio composition must be subject to procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material nonpublic information regarding the open-end fund's portfolio.
According to the Registration Statement, the Fund's investment objective will be to seek to provide long term capital appreciation. The Fund will seek to achieve its investment objective by using a quantitative, rules-based strategy designed to provide returns that correspond to the performance of the FTSE China A50 Index (the “Benchmark”). The Benchmark is designed for investors who seek exposure to China's domestic market through “A-Shares,” which are securities of companies that are incorporated in mainland China and that trade on the Shanghai Stock Exchange or the Shenzhen Stock Exchange. The Benchmark is comprised of the securities of the largest 50 A-Share companies, as determined by full market capitalization, listed on the Shanghai and Shenzhen Stock Exchanges.
Under normal circumstances,
According to the Registration Statement, “A-Shares” are shares of stock that are issued by companies incorporated in mainland China and that are traded in Renminbi on the Shanghai Stock Exchange or the Shenzhen Stock Exchange. Due to strict controls imposed by the Chinese government, the Fund currently cannot invest directly in A-Shares, which are available only to domestic Chinese investors and a limited pool of foreign investors, including foreign investors who have been approved as a Qualified Foreign Institutional Investor (“QFII”) by the China Securities Regulatory Commission (“CSRC”) and have obtained a QFII license. After obtaining a QFII license, a QFII applies to China's State Administration of Foreign Exchange for a specific aggregate dollar amount investment quota of A-Shares (the “A-Share Quota”) in which the QFII can invest. In order for the Fund to invest directly in A-Shares, the Adviser would need to apply for a QFII license and obtain an A-Share Quota.
If the Adviser obtains a QFII license, the Fund may invest directly in A-Shares through the QFII license. There are no assurances that such a QFII license would be granted, or that such a license, if granted, would permit the Fund to purchase A-Shares in an amount necessary to provide the Fund with sufficient A-Shares exposure.
Because it currently cannot invest in A-Shares directly, the Fund will invest primarily in futures contracts on the Benchmark that provide exposure to the China A-Shares market. These futures contracts are listed on the Singapore Exchange (“SGX”).
The Fund also may invest in Underlying ETFs listed on U.S. securities exchanges or on the HKSE that provide exposure to China A-Shares.
The Fund will invest in futures contracts on the Benchmark—specifically, in SGX-listed futures contracts—as a significant part of its investment strategy. Generally, futures contracts are a type of derivative whose value depends upon, or is derived from, the value of an underlying asset, reference rate or index. The Fund's use of futures contracts will be underpinned by investments in short-term, high quality U.S. Treasury Securities, money market instruments, cash and cash equivalent securities, as described below.
According to the Registration Statement, the Fund may seek to gain exposure to the A-Shares market through investments in a subsidiary organized in the Cayman Islands (the “Subsidiary”), that in turn would make investments in futures contracts that provide exposure to China A-Shares. If utilized, the Subsidiary would be wholly-owned and controlled by the Fund, and its investments would be consolidated into the Fund's financial statements. Should the Fund invest in the Subsidiary, that investment may not exceed 25% of the Fund's total assets at each quarter end of the Fund's fiscal year. Further, should the Fund invest in the Subsidiary, it would be expected to provide the Fund with exposure to A-Share returns within the limits of the federal tax requirements applicable to investment companies, such as the Fund.
According to the Registration Statement, the Subsidiary would be able to invest in futures contracts that would provide exposure to A-Shares, as well in other investments that would serve as margin or collateral or otherwise support the Subsidiary's futures positions. The Subsidiary, accordingly, would be subject to the same general investment policies and restrictions as the Fund, except that unlike the Fund, which must invest in futures contracts in compliance with the requirements of Subchapter M of the Internal Revenue Code,
According to the Registration Statement, the Fund may utilize the Subsidiary, but is not required to do so. If it is utilized, the Subsidiary will not be registered under the 1940 Act. As an investor in the Subsidiary, the Fund, as the Subsidiary's sole shareholder, would not have the protections offered to investors in registered investment companies. However, because the Fund
According to the Registration Statement, the Fund, under normal circumstances, may invest no more than 20% of its net assets in other investments such as money market instruments (including repurchase agreements, as described below), cash and cash equivalents to provide liquidity or to collateralize its investments in futures contracts. The instruments in which the Fund may invest include: (i) Short-term obligations issued by the U.S. Government
The Fund may invest in the securities of other investment companies (including money market funds) beyond the limits permitted under the 1940 Act, subject to certain terms and conditions set forth in a Commission exemptive order issued pursuant to Section 12(d)(1)(J) of the 1940 Act.
According to the Registration Statement, the Fund may enter into repurchase agreements, which are agreements pursuant to which securities are acquired by the Fund from a third party with the understanding that they will be repurchased by the seller at a fixed price on an agreed date. These agreements may be made with respect to any of the portfolio securities in which the Fund is authorized to invest. Repurchase agreements may be characterized as loans secured by the underlying securities. The Fund may enter into repurchase agreements with (i) member banks of the Federal Reserve System having total assets in excess of $500 million and (ii) securities dealers (“Qualified Institutions”). The Adviser will monitor the continued creditworthiness of Qualified Institutions.
According to the Registration Statement, the Fund may enter into reverse repurchase agreements, which involve the sale of securities with an agreement to repurchase the securities at an agreed-upon price, date and interest payment and have the characteristics of borrowing. The securities purchased with the funds obtained from the agreement and securities collateralizing the agreement will have maturity dates no later than the repayment date.
The Fund's investments will be consistent with the Fund's investment objective and will not be used to enhance leverage.
According to the Registration Statement, the Fund may hold up to an aggregate amount of 15% of its net assets in illiquid securities (calculated at the time of investment).
The Fund will not use futures for speculative purposes.
According to the Registration Statement, the Fund may not concentrate its investments (
According to the Registration Statement, the Fund intends to qualify for and to elect to be treated as a separate regulated investment company (a “RIC”) under Subchapter M of the Internal Revenue Code.
The Fund will not invest in any non-U.S. equity securities (other than shares of the Subsidiary and Underlying ETFs listed on HKSE), to the extent that the Fund may not invest directly in China A-Shares through the QFII license, as described above. The Fund will not invest in options or swaps.
According to the Registration Statement, the Administrator will calculate the Fund's net asset value (“NAV”) per Share at the close of regular trading (normally 4:00 p.m., Eastern time) every day the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) is open. NAV per Share will be calculated by deducting all of the Fund's liabilities from the total value of its assets and dividing the result by the number of Shares outstanding, rounding to the nearest cent (although creations and redemptions will be processed using a
According to the Registration Statement, in determining NAV, expenses will be accrued and applied daily and securities and other assets for which market quotations are readily available will be valued at market value. Securities and futures listed or traded on an exchange generally will be valued at the last sales price or official closing price that day as of the close of the exchange where the security primarily is traded. The NAV for the Fund will be calculated and disseminated daily. If a security's or futures' market price is not readily available, the security or futures will be valued using pricing provided from independent pricing services or by another method that the Adviser, in its judgment, believes will better reflect the security's or futures' fair value in accordance with the Trust's valuation policies and procedures approved by the Trust's Board and with the 1940 Act.
The Fund will issue and redeem Shares at NAV only with authorized participants (“APs”) and only in large blocks of 50,000 Shares (each, a “Creation Unit”) or multiples thereof.
The Trust will issue Shares of the Fund only in Creation Units on a continuous basis through the Distributor, without a sales load, at the NAV next determined after receipt, on any business day, of an order in proper form.
Creation Units of the Fund will generally be issued principally for cash, calculated based on the NAV per Share, multiplied by the number of Shares representing a Creation Unit (“Deposit Cash”), plus a fixed and variable transaction fee. However, the Fund also reserves the right to permit or require Creation Units to be issued in exchange for a designated portfolio of securities (“Deposit Securities”), as discussed below, together with the deposit of an amount of cash (the “Cash Component”) computed as discussed in the Registration Statement.
To the extent that the Fund permits Creation Units to be issued in-kind, the Custodian, through the National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”), will make available on each business day, prior to the opening of business on the Exchange (currently 9:30 a.m., Eastern time), the list of the names and the required number of shares of each Deposit Security to be included in the current Fund Deposit (based on information at the end of the previous business day) for the Fund. Such Fund Deposit is applicable, subject to any adjustments as described in the Registration Statement, to effect creations of Creation Units of the Fund until such time as the next announced composition of the Deposit Securities is made available.
When applicable, during times that the Fund permits in-kind creations, the identity and number of shares of the Deposit Securities required for a Fund Deposit will change as rebalancing adjustments and corporate action events occur. In addition, the Trust reserves the right to permit or require the substitution of an amount of cash—
In addition to the list of names and numbers of securities constituting the current Deposit Securities of the Fund Deposit, the Custodian, through the NSCC, also will make available on each business day, the estimated Cash Component, effective through and including the previous business day, per Creation Unit of the Fund.
The Distributor must receive all orders to create Creation Units no later than the closing time of the regular trading session on the NYSE (ordinarily 4:00 p.m., Eastern time) in each case on the date such order is placed in order for creation of Creation Units to be effected based on the NAV of Shares of the Fund as next determined on such date after receipt of the order in proper form.
Creation Units of the Fund will be redeemed principally for cash. Shares may be redeemed only in Creation Units at their NAV next determined after receipt of a redemption request in proper form by the Fund through the Custodian and only on a business day.
If the Fund permits Creation Units to be redeemed in-kind, the Custodian, through the NSCC, will make available prior to the opening of business on the Exchange (currently 9:30 a.m., Eastern time) on each business day, the identity of the “Fund Securities” that will be applicable (subject to possible amendment or correction) to redemption requests received in proper form (as described below) on that day. Fund Securities received on redemption may not be identical to Deposit Securities that will be applicable to creations of Creation Units. The Fund will not redeem Shares in amounts less than Creation Unit size.
For redemptions in-kind, the redemption proceeds for a Creation Unit generally will consist of Fund Securities plus or minus cash in an amount equal to the difference between the NAV of the Shares being redeemed, as next determined after a receipt of a request in proper form, and the value of the Fund Securities, less a redemption transaction fee as noted below. In the event that the Fund Securities have a value greater than the NAV of the Shares, a compensating cash payment equal to the difference is required to be made by or through an AP by the redeeming shareholder.
A redemption transaction fee may be imposed to offset transfer and other transaction costs that may be incurred by the Fund.
An order to redeem Creation Units must be made in proper form and received by the Fund by 4:00 p.m., Eastern time. Orders received after 4:00 p.m., Eastern time will be deemed received on the next business day and will be effected at the NAV next determined on such next business day. The requisite Fund Securities and cash amount will be transferred by the third NSCC business day following the date on which such request for redemption is deemed received.
The Shares will conform to the initial and continued listing criteria under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600. The Exchange represents that, for initial and/or continued listing, the Fund will be in compliance with Rule 10A–3
The Fund's Web site (
On a daily basis, the Fund will disclose for each portfolio security, futures contract and other financial instrument of the Fund and the Subsidiary the following information on the Fund's Web site: ticker symbol (if applicable), name of security, futures contract and financial instrument, number of shares, if applicable, and dollar value of each security, futures contract and financial instrument held in the portfolio, and percentage weighting of the security, futures contract and financial instrument in the portfolio. The Web site information will be publicly available at no charge. Information on the value and the constituents of the Benchmark may be found on the Web site of FTSE, the Benchmark's provider, at
In addition, for in-kind creations, a basket composition file, which will include the security names and share quantities to deliver in exchange for Shares, together with estimates and actual cash components, will be publicly disseminated daily prior to the opening of the Exchange via the NSCC. The basket will represent one Creation Unit of the Fund.
Investors can also obtain the Trust's Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”), the Fund's Shareholder Reports, and the Trust's Form N–CSR and Form N–SAR, filed twice a year. The Trust's SAI and Shareholder Reports will be available free upon request from the Trust, and those documents and the Form N–CSR and Form N–SAR may be viewed on-screen or downloaded from the Commission's Web site at
Additional information regarding the Trust and the Shares, including investment strategies, risks, creation and redemption procedures, fees, portfolio holdings disclosure policies, distributions and taxes is included in the Registration Statement. All terms relating to the Fund that are referred to, but not defined in, this proposed rule change are defined in the Registration Statement.
With respect to trading halts, the Exchange may consider all relevant factors in exercising its discretion to halt or suspend trading in the Shares of the Fund.
The Exchange deems the Shares to be equity securities, thus rendering trading in the Shares subject to the Exchange's existing rules governing the trading of equity securities. Shares will trade on the NYSE Arca Marketplace from 4:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Eastern time in accordance with NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.34 (Opening, Core, and Late Trading Sessions). The Exchange has appropriate rules to facilitate transactions in the Shares during all trading sessions. As provided in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.6, Commentary .03, the minimum price variation (“MPV”) for quoting and entry of orders in equity securities traded on the NYSE Arca Marketplace is $0.01, with the exception of securities that are priced less than $1.00 for which the MPV for order entry is $0.0001.
The Exchange represents that trading in the Shares will be subject to the existing trading surveillances, administered by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) on behalf of the Exchange, which are
The surveillances referred to above generally focus on detecting securities trading outside their normal patterns, which could be indicative of manipulative or other violative activity. When such situations are detected, surveillance analysis follows and investigations are opened, where appropriate, to review the behavior of all relevant parties for all relevant trading violations. FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares with other markets that are members of the ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement.
The Fund will invest solely in SGX-listed futures contracts on the Benchmark. It is possible that the futures contracts on the Benchmark may become listed on other exchanges that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement, at which time the Fund may invest in those futures contracts listed on such exchanges. To the extent that the Fund or the Subsidiary were to invest in futures contracts on the Benchmark that were traded on exchanges other than SGX, not more than 10% of the weight of such futures contracts held by the Fund or the Subsidiary in the aggregate would consist of components whose principal trading market is not a member of ISG or is a market with which the Exchange does not have a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. Furthermore, to the extent that the Fund invests directly in China A-Shares, not more than 10% of the weight of the Fund's portfolio in the aggregate shall consist of such China A-Shares whose principal trading market is not a member of ISG or is a market with which the Exchange does not have a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement.
In addition, the Exchange also has a general policy prohibiting the distribution of material, non-public information by its employees.
Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its Equity Trading Permit (“ETP”) Holders in an Information Bulletin (“Bulletin”) of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Specifically, the Bulletin will discuss the following: (1) The procedures for purchases and redemptions of Shares in Creation Unit aggregations (and that Shares are not individually redeemable); (2) NYSE Arca Equities Rule 9.2(a), which imposes a duty of due diligence on its ETP Holders to learn the essential facts relating to every customer prior to trading the Shares; (3) the risks involved in trading the Shares during the Opening and Late Trading Sessions when an updated Portfolio Indicative Value will not be calculated or publicly disseminated; (4) how information regarding the Portfolio Indicative Value will be disseminated; (5) the requirement that ETP Holders deliver a prospectus to investors purchasing newly issued Shares prior to or concurrently with the confirmation of a transaction; and (6) trading information.
In addition, the Bulletin will reference that the Fund is subject to various fees and expenses described in the Registration Statement. The Bulletin will discuss any exemptive, no-action, and interpretive relief granted by the Commission from any rules under the Act. The Bulletin will also disclose that the NAV for the Shares will be calculated after 4:00 p.m. Eastern time each trading day.
The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the requirement under Section 6(b)(5)
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices in that the Shares will be listed and traded on the Exchange pursuant to the initial and continued listing criteria in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600. The Exchange has in place surveillance procedures that are adequate to properly monitor trading in the Shares in all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws. The Adviser is affiliated with a broker-dealer, and has implemented a fire wall with respect to its broker-dealer affiliate regarding access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to the portfolio. The Exchange may obtain information via ISG from other exchanges that are members of ISG, including Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited and SGX, or with which the Exchange has entered into a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. The holdings of the Fund will be comprised primarily of SGX-listed futures contracts on the Benchmark, as well as Underlying ETFs that provide exposure to the China A-Shares market. The Fund also will invest directly in A-Shares to the extent permissible under Chinese law. The Fund expects to invest its remaining assets in U.S. government securities, money market instruments, cash and cash equivalent securities (
As stated above, the Fund will invest solely in futures contracts on the Benchmark that are listed on the SGX. If futures contracts on the Benchmark become listed on other exchanges that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement, the
The proposed rule change is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade and to protect investors and the public interest in that the Exchange will obtain a representation from the issuer of the Shares that the NAV per Share will be calculated daily, and that the NAV and the Disclosed Portfolio will be made available to all market participants at the same time. In addition, a large amount of information will be publicly available regarding the Fund and the Shares, thereby promoting market transparency. Moreover, the Portfolio Indicative Value will be widely disseminated through the facilities of the CTA or by one or more major market data vendors at least every 15 seconds during the Exchange's Core Trading Session. On each business day, before commencement of trading in Shares in the Core Trading Session on the Exchange, the Fund will disclose on its Web site the Disclosed Portfolio that will form the basis for the Fund's calculation of NAV at the end of the business day. Information regarding market price and trading volume of the Shares will be continually available on a real-time basis throughout the day on brokers' computer screens and other electronic services, and quotation and last sale information will be available via the CTA high-speed line. The Web site for the Fund will include a form of the prospectus for the Fund and additional data relating to NAV and other applicable quantitative information. Moreover, prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its ETP Holders in an Information Bulletin of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Trading in Shares of the Fund will be halted if the circuit breaker parameters in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.12 have been reached or because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the Shares inadvisable, and trading in the Shares will be subject to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600(d)(2)(D), which sets forth circumstances under which trading in Shares of the Fund may be halted. In addition, as noted above, investors will have ready access to information regarding the Fund's holdings, the Portfolio Indicative Value, the Disclosed Portfolio, and quotation and last sale information for the Shares.
The proposed rule change is designed to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest in that it will facilitate the listing and trading of an additional type of actively-managed exchange-traded product that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace. As noted above, the Exchange has in place surveillance procedures relating to trading in the Shares and may obtain information via ISG from other exchanges that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has entered into a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. In addition, as noted above, investors will have ready access to information regarding the Fund's holdings, the Portfolio Indicative Value, the Disclosed Portfolio, and quotation and last sale information for the Shares.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Act. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change will facilitate the listing and trading of an additional type of actively-managed exchange-traded product that has an index of Chinese stocks as its Benchmark and that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an 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”),
NASDAQ proposes to adopt a new routing option, MOPB, under Rule 4758(a)(1)(A). NASDAQ plans to offer the proposed routing option on June 3, 2013. Proposed deletions are in brackets; new language is in italics.
(1) The Order Routing Process shall be available to Participants from 4:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time, and shall route orders as described below. All routing of orders shall comply with Rule 611 of Regulation NMS under the Exchange Act.
(A) The System provides a variety of routing options. Routing options may be combined with all available order types and times-in-force, with the exception of order types and times-in-force whose terms are inconsistent with the terms of a particular routing option. The System will consider the quotations only of accessible markets. The term “System routing table” refers to the proprietary process for determining the specific trading venues to which the System routes orders and the order in which it routes them. Nasdaq reserves the right to maintain a different System routing table for different routing options and to modify the System routing table at any time without notice. The System routing options are:
(i)–(xiii) No change.
Orders that do not check the System for available shares prior to routing may not be sent to a facility of an exchange that is an affiliate of Nasdaq, except for orders that are sent to the NASDAQ OMX BX Equities Market or to the NASDAQ OMX PSX facility of NASDAQ OMX PHLX.
(B) No change.
(b)–(d) No change.
In its filing with the Commission, NASDAQ 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.
NASDAQ is amending Rule 4758, which describes its order routing processes, to add the new MOPB routing option. The proposed MOPB routing option is very similar to the MOPP routing option, in that both order types require the member firm to enter the size and limit price of the order, which then routes only to protected quotations (“Protected Quotes”),
Member firms often use the MOPP routing option to sweep all Protected Quotes, and then print an internalized crossed execution to the FINRA/NASDAQ Trade Reporting Facility, which occurs subsequent to the execution of the MOPP order and that would otherwise, but for the execution of the MOPP order, violate Rule 611 of Regulation NMS. Such member firms will enter the size of the MOPP order based on their perception of what the current size of the protected quote is on each of the markets. In some cases member firms may have incorrect information, which would result in an order that is not of sufficient size to sweep all Protected Quotes and would lead to a trade through violation
NASDAQ notes that the proposed MOPB routing option is very similar to the SWPB routing option of the EDGX Exchange, Inc.
The statutory basis for the proposed rule change is Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed change is designed to provide a new routing option that will serve as an additional safeguard to prevent the execution of an internally-crossed order that would violate Rule 611 of Regulation NMS. As such, NASDAQ does not believe the proposed change will have any impact whatsoever on competition, but does believe that it is entirely appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (
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 Rule 6.42. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Rule 6.42—Minimum Increments for Bids and Offers—regarding minimum increments of bids and offers for complex orders. Currently, Rule 6.42(4) states that bids and offers on complex orders may be expressed in any increment regardless of the minimum increments otherwise appropriate to the individual legs of the order. This language allows for complex order bids and offers to be expressed in any increment whatsoever. The Exchange believes that setting a minimum increment for bids and offers on complex orders of $0.01 will ensure that there is a reasonable lowest minimum increment for bids and offers that makes it simple to monitor and participate for all market participants. As such, in order to limit this potential, the Exchange hereby proposes to state that bids and offers on complex orders, as defined in Interpretation and Policy .01 to Rule 6.42, may be expressed in any net price increment that may not be less than $0.01 (as determined by the Exchange on a class-by-class basis and announced to the Trading Permit Holders via Regulatory Circular) regardless of the minimum increments otherwise appropriate to the individual legs of the order. The addition of the “(as determined by the Exchange on a class-by-class basis and announced to the Trading Permit Holders via Regulatory Circular)” language will allow the Exchange to establish such minimum increments on a class-by-class basis in order to ensure uniformity of minimum bid and offer increments within a class (as the Exchange may already do for bids and offers on complex orders in options on the S&P 500 Index (“SPX”), p.m.-settled S&P 500 Index (“SPXPM”) or on the S&P 100 Index (“OEX” and “XEO”)) as well as ensure that Trading Permit Holders are notified of such minimum increments via Regulatory Circular.
For example, the Exchange could release out a Regulatory Circular stating that the minimum increments for complex order bids and offers within a certain class would be $0.01. Or the Exchange could release a Regulatory Circular stating that the minimum increments for complex order bids and offers within a certain class would be $0.025, or even that $0.01 and $0.025 increments could be used for complex order bids and offers within a certain class (if, for example, such a class is accustomed to trading on both penny increments and also 2.5-cent increments). The Exchange could not, however, release a Regulatory Circular stating that the minimum increments for complex order bids and offers would be $0.005, or anything lower than $0.01.
The Exchange also proposes to make a similar change regarding complex orders in SPX, SPXPM, OEX and XEO (the “Specific Options”). Currently, Rule 6.42(4) states that bids and offers on complex orders in the Specific Options, except for box/roll spreads, shall be expressed in decimal increments no smaller than $0.05 or in any increment, as determined by the Exchange on a class-by-class basis and announced to the Trading Permit Holders via Regulatory Circular.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
A. By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
B. institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an 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 is filing with the Commission a proposal to amend Rule 1012 (Series of Options Open for Trading) and Rule 1101A (Terms of Option Contracts) to give the Exchange the ability to initiate strike prices in more granular intervals for Short Term Options (“STOs”) in the same manner as on other options exchanges;
The Exchange requests that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay period contained in Exchange Act Rule 19b–4(f)(6)(iii).
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of this proposed rule change is to amend Rules 1012 and 1101A to amend the strike price interval setting parameters for STOs; while permitting, during the expiration week of Related non-Short Term Option series, for such options to have the same strike price interval setting parameters as STOs.
The Commission recently approved the Exchange's proposal regarding $0.50 and $1 strike price intervals for certain STOs.
The ISE and Phlx filings both made changes to the strike price interval setting parameter rules for their respective Short Term Option Programs. Weekly options are not listed to expire during the same week as Related non-Short Term Options. As a result, both the Exchange and ISE in their respective filings amended their rules to permit Related non-Short Term Options on classes that participate in the Short Term Options Program to have the same strike price interval setting parameters as STOs during the week that Related non-Short Term Options expire. However, other revisions to Exchange and ISE Short Term Options Programs differ. Specifically, ISE permits $0.50 strike price intervals for STOs for option classes that trade in one dollar increments and are in the Short Term Option Program. Phlx permits $0.50 strike price intervals when the strike price is below $75, and $1 strike price intervals when the strike price is between $75 and $150. Phlx also provides that Related non-Short Term Option series may be opened during the week prior to expiration week pursuant to the same strike price interval parameters that exist for STOs. Thus, a Related non-Short Term Option series may be opened in STO strike price intervals on a Thursday or a Friday that is a business day before the Related non-Short Term Option expiration week.
The Exchange is proposing to adopt both the strike price interval setting parameters that are currently in effect for the Exchange as well as for ISE in order to remain competitive. The Exchange notes that while it believes that there is substantial overlap between the two strike price interval setting parameters, the Exchange believes there are gaps that would enable the Exchange to initiate a series that ISE would not be able to initiate and vice versa.
The proposed rule language would state, in relevant part, that notwithstanding any other provision regarding strike prices in the rules: “non-Short Term Options that are on a class [or index class] that has been selected to participate in the Short Term Option Series Program (referred to as a “Related non-Short Term Option series”) shall be opened during the week prior to the week that such Related non-Short Term Option series expire in the same manner as permitted [in the Short Term Option Program rules].”
The proposed rule language would also state, in relevant part, that intervals on Short Term Option Series may be: “(i) $0.50 or greater where the strike price is less than $75, and $1 or greater where the strike price is between $75 and $150 for all classes [or index classes] that participate in the Short Term Options Series Program; or (ii) $0.50 for classes [or index classes] that trade in one dollar increments in Related non-Short Term Options and that participate in the Short Term Option Series Program. Related non-Short Term Option series shall be opened during the week prior to the week that such Related non-Short Term Option series expire in the same manner as permitted [in the Short Term Option Program rules].”
In support of this proposal, the Exchange states that the principal reason for the proposed expansion is in response to market and customer demand to list actively traded products in more granular strike price intervals and to provide Exchange members and their customers increased trading opportunities in the Short Term Option Program, which is one of the most popular and quickly-expanding options expiration programs.
The Exchange notes that the Short Term Option Series Program has been well-received by market participants, in particular by retail investors. The Exchange believes that the current proposed revisions to the Short Term Options Series Program will permit the Exchange to meet increased customer demand for more granular strike prices and the harmonization of strike prices between STOs and Related non-Short Term Options on the same classes.
With regard to the impact of this proposal on system capacity, the Exchange has analyzed its capacity and represents that it and the Options Price Reporting Authority (“OPRA”) have the necessary systems capacity to handle any potential additional traffic associated with this current amendment to the Short Term Option Series Program. The Exchange believes that its members will not have a capacity issue as a result of this proposal. The Exchange represents that it will monitor the trading volume associated with the additional options series listed as a result of this proposal and the effect (if any) of these additional series on market fragmentation and on the capacity of the Exchange's automated systems.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder, including the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
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. To the contrary, the Exchange believes the proposal is pro-competitive. The rule change is proposed as a competitive response to a recently approved ISE, and a CBOE, filing. The Exchange believes this proposed rule change is necessary to permit fair competition among the options exchanges regarding more granular strike price intervals for STOs.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest, does not impose any significant burden on competition, and, by its terms, does not become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. The Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day operative delay will allow Phlx to initiate strikes prices in more granular intervals for STOs in the same manner as ISE and CBOE, and permit, during the expiration week of a Related non-Short Term option, a Related non-Short Term Option on a class that is selected to participate in the Short Term Options Series Program to have the strike price interval setting parameters as STOs. In sum, the proposed rule change presents no novel issues, and waiver will allow the Exchange to remain competitive with other exchanges. Therefore, the Commission designates the proposal operative upon filing.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to adopt a rule governing cancellation of orders in the event of an issuer corporate action related to a dividend, payment or distribution, and to make related clarifications to rule text.
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.
Phlx is proposing to adopt Rule 3311 to address the treatment of quotes/orders in securities that are the subject of issuer corporate actions related to a dividend, payment or distribution (a “corporate action”). The rule will apply to any trading interest that is carried on the PSX book overnight.
In addition, Phlx is proposing to amend Rule 3306(b) to make it clear that quotes do not necessarily remain open overnight. Specifically, Phlx is modifying a description of open quotes, the original intent of which is unclear and that accordingly may result in confusion.
It should be noted that although Phlx rules now permit members to register and trade as PSX Market Makers or Equities ECNs, no member has yet currently registered with such a status. Accordingly, the following discussion regarding the use and processing of quotes should be understood as not having a direct impact on any current Phlx market participants. Rather, the proposed rule change is intended to ensure that the rules that would govern such matters are clear.
Phlx believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
Phlx does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. Specifically, Phlx believes that the rule change does not affect the availability or pricing of goods or services offered by the Exchange, and therefore does not impact competition between the Exchange and others. Rather, the change is designed to adopt and clarify rules to better describe the operation of the Exchange's trading systems, but in a manner that does not restrict the ability of members to enter and update trading interest in PSX.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
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 (“Exchange Act” or “Act”)
The Exchange proposes to list and trade shares of the following under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600 (“Managed Fund Shares”): First Trust Morningstar Futures Strategy Fund. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to list and trade the shares (“Shares”) of the following under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600, which governs the listing and trading of Managed Fund Shares on the Exchange:
Commentary .06 to Rule 8.600 provides that, if the investment adviser to the investment company issuing Managed Fund Shares is affiliated with a broker-dealer, such investment adviser shall erect a “fire wall” between the investment adviser and the broker-dealer with respect to access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to such investment company portfolio. In addition, Commentary .06 further requires that personnel who make decisions on the open-end fund's portfolio composition must be subject to procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material nonpublic information regarding the open-end fund's portfolio.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) has recently adopted substantial amendments to CFTC Rule 4.5 relating to the permissible exemptions and conditions for reliance on exemptions from registration as a commodity pool operator. As a result of the instruments that will be held by the Fund, the Adviser has registered as a Commodity Pool Operator (“CPO”) and is also a member of the National Futures Association (“NFA”). The Fund and the Subsidiary (as defined herein) will be subject to regulation by the CFTC and NFA and additional disclosure, reporting and recordkeeping rules imposed upon commodity pools.
According to the Registration Statement, the Fund will be an actively managed exchange-traded fund that will seek to provide investors with positive returns.
According to the Registration Statement, the Fund will seek to provide investors with positive returns. The Fund will seek to achieve positive total returns that are not directly correlated to broad market equity or fixed income returns. The Fund will seek to track the performance of the Morningstar
Under normal market conditions,
The Fund will not invest directly in Futures Instruments. The Fund expects to exclusively gain exposure to these investments by investing in the Subsidiary. The Subsidiary will be advised by the Adviser.
According to the Registration Statement, the Fund will invest a substantial portion of its assets in fixed income securities that include U.S. government and agency securities, money market instruments,
The Benchmark and the Subsidiary's holdings in futures contracts will consist of futures contracts providing long, short and flat exposure, which include, but are not limited to, commodities, equity indexes and currencies (Euro, Japanese Yen, British Pound, Canadian Dollar, Australian Dollar and Swiss Franc). The Subsidiary's exposure will generally be weighted 50% in commodity futures, 25% in equity futures and 25% in currency futures. The base weights typically will be rebalanced quarterly to maintain the 50%/25%/25% allocation.
The Subsidiary's commodity- and currency-linked investments generally will be limited to investments in listed futures contracts that provide exposure to commodity and non-U.S. currency returns. The Subsidiary will also invest in exchange-listed equity index futures. The Fund and the Subsidiary also may enter into repurchase agreements with counterparties that are deemed to present acceptable credit risks. A repurchase agreement is a transaction in which the Fund and the Subsidiary purchase securities or other obligations from a bank or securities dealer and simultaneously commit to resell them to a counterparty at an agreed-upon date or upon demand and at a price reflecting a market rate of interest unrelated to the coupon rate or maturity of the purchased obligations.
The following table describes each of the commodities, currencies and equity indexes underlying the futures contracts included in the Benchmark as of April 30, 2013. This table is subject to change and the Subsidiary will not in all cases invest in the futures contracts included in the Benchmark. The table also provides each instrument's trading hours (Eastern time (“E.T.”), exchange and ticker symbol.
According to the Registration Statement, the Fund, through the Subsidiary, will attempt to capture the economic benefit derived from rising and declining trends based on the “moving average” price changes of commodity futures, currency futures and equity index futures. In an attempt to capture these trends, the Fund's investments, through the Subsidiary, will generally be positioned as either “long,” “short” or “flat.” To be “long” means to hold or be exposed to a security or instrument with the expectation that its value will increase over time. To be “short” means to sell or be exposed to a security or instrument with the expectation that it will fall in value. To be “flat” means to move a position to cash if a short signal is triggered in a security or instrument. The Fund, through the Subsidiary, will benefit if it has a long position in a security or instrument that increases in value or a short position in a security or instrument that decreases in value. Conversely, the Fund, through the Subsidiary, will be adversely impacted if it holds a long position in a security or instrument that declines in value and a short position in a security or instrument that increases in value. Although the Fund will seek returns
The Subsidiary's shares will be offered only to the Fund and the Fund will not sell shares of the Subsidiary to other investors. The Fund will not invest in any non-U.S. equity securities (other than shares of the Subsidiary), and the Subsidiary will not invest in any non-U.S. equity securities.
The Fund's investment in the Subsidiary will be designed to help the Fund achieve exposure to commodity returns in a manner consistent with the federal tax requirements applicable to the Fund and other regulated investment companies.
According to the Registration Statement, the Fund may from time to time purchase securities on a “when-issued” or other delayed-delivery basis. The price of securities purchased in such transactions is fixed at the time the commitment to purchase is made, but delivery and payment for the securities take place at a later date.
The Fund may invest in certificates of deposit issued against funds deposited in a bank or savings and loan association. In addition, the Fund may invest in bankers' acceptances, which are short-term credit instruments used to finance commercial transactions.
The Fund may invest in bank time deposits, which are monies kept on deposit with banks or savings and loan associations for a stated period of time at a fixed rate of interest. In addition, the Fund may invest in commercial paper, which are short-term unsecured promissory notes, including variable rate master demand notes issued by corporations to finance their current operations. Master demand notes are direct lending arrangements between the Fund and a corporation. The Fund may invest in commercial paper only if it has received the highest rating from at least one nationally recognized statistical rating organization or, if unrated, judged by First Trust to be of comparable quality.
The Fund may also invest a portion of its assets in exchange-traded pooled investment vehicles (“Underlying ETPs”) other than registered investment companies that invest principally in commodities.
The Fund or the Subsidiary will not invest in options on commodity futures, structured notes, equity-linked derivatives, forwards or swaps contracts.
While the Fund will be permitted to borrow as permitted under the 1940 Act, the Fund's investments will not be used to seek performance that is the multiple or inverse multiple (i.e., 2X and 3X) of the Fund's Benchmark.
According to the Registration Statement, the Fund may not invest more than 25% of the value of its total assets in securities of issuers in any one industry or group of industries.
The Fund will not purchase securities of open-end or closed-end investment companies except in compliance with the 1940 Act.
The Fund may hold up to an aggregate amount of 15% of its net assets in illiquid securities (calculated at the time of investment), including Rule 144A securities and master demand notes. The Fund will monitor its portfolio liquidity on an ongoing basis to determine whether, in light of current circumstances, an adequate level of liquidity is being maintained, and will consider taking appropriate steps in order to maintain adequate liquidity if, through a change in values, net assets, or other circumstances, more than 15% of the Fund's net assets are held in illiquid securities. Illiquid securities include securities subject to contractual or other restrictions on resale and other instruments that lack readily available markets as determined in accordance with Commission staff guidance.
The Fund intends to qualify for and to elect to be treated as a separate regulated investment company (a “RIC”) under Subchapter M of the Internal Revenue Code.
The Shares will conform to the initial listing criteria under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600. The Exchange represents that, for initial and/or continued listing, the Fund will be in compliance with Rule 10A–3
The Fund's investments will be consistent with the Fund's investment objective and will not be used to enhance leverage.
According to the Registration Statement, the Fund's NAV will be determined as of the close of trading (normally 4:00 p.m., E.T.) on each day the New York Stock Exchange is open for business. NAV will be calculated for the Fund by taking the market price of the Fund's total assets, including interest or dividends accrued but not yet collected, less all liabilities, and dividing such amount by the total number of Shares outstanding. The result, rounded to the nearest cent, will be the NAV per Share. All valuations will be subject to review by the Fund's Board or its delegate.
The Fund's and the Subsidiary's investments will be valued at market value or, in the absence of market value with respect to any portfolio securities, at fair value in accordance with valuation procedures adopted by the Trust's Board and in accordance with the 1940 Act. Portfolio securities traded on more than one securities exchange will be valued at the last sale price or official closing price, as applicable, on the business day as of which such value is being determined at the close of the exchange representing the principal market for such securities. Portfolio
Certain securities may not be able to be priced by pre-established pricing methods. Such securities may be valued by the Board or its delegate at fair value. The use of fair value pricing by the Fund will be governed by valuation procedures adopted by the Board and in accordance with the provisions of the 1940 Act.
Creation and redemption of Shares will occur in large specified blocks of Shares, referred to as “Creation Units.” A Creation Unit of the Fund currently will be comprised of 50,000 Shares of the Fund. The number of Shares comprising a Creation Unit may change over time. According to the Registration Statement, to purchase or redeem Creation Units directly from the Fund, an investor must be an Authorized Participant, or an investor must purchase the Shares through a financial institution that is an Authorized Participant. An “Authorized Participant” is a participant in the Continuous Net Settlement System of the National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”) or the Depository Trust Company that has executed a participant agreement with the Distributor that has been accepted by the Trust's Custodian. Authorized Participants may purchase Creation Units of a Fund and sell individual Shares on the NYSE Arca. Similarly, Shares can only be redeemed in Creation Units. The process at which creations and redemptions occur will be based on the next calculation of the NAV after an order in proper form is received by the Distributor on any day that the Fund is open for business. Generally, a Creation Unit will be purchased or redeemed from the Fund for a designated portfolio of securities along with cash payment (“Deposit Securities,” in the case of purchases, and “Redemption Securities,” in the case of redemption). Generally, the Deposit Securities and the Redemption Securities will correspond pro rata to the portfolio of securities of the Fund. Purchases and redemptions of Creation Units may be made in whole or in part on a cash basis, rather than in-kind, under circumstances set forth in the Registration Statement.
Additional information regarding the Trust and the Shares, including investment strategies, risks, creation and redemption procedures, fees, portfolio holdings, disclosure policies, distributions, and taxes is included in the Registration Statement. All terms relating to the Fund that are referred to, but not defined in, this proposed rule change are defined in the Registration Statement.
The Fund's Web site (
On a daily basis, the Fund will disclose for each portfolio security and other financial instrument of the Fund and of the holdings of the Subsidiary the following information on the Fund's Web site: ticker symbol (if applicable), name of security, futures contract, and/or financial instrument, number of shares, if applicable, and dollar value of each security, futures contract, and/or financial instrument held, and percentage weighting of each security, futures contract, and/or financial instrument held. The Web site information will be publicly available at no charge.
In addition, for in-kind creations, a basket composition file, which includes the security names to deliver in exchange for Shares, together with estimates and actual cash components, will be publicly disseminated daily prior to the opening of the Exchange via the NSCC. The basket will represent one Creation Unit of the Fund.
Investors can also obtain the Trust's Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”), the Fund's Shareholder Reports, and the Trust's Form N–CSR and Form N–SAR, filed twice a year. The Trust's SAI and Shareholder Reports will be available free upon request from the Trust, and those documents and the Form N–CSR and Form N–SAR may be viewed on-screen or downloaded from the Commission's Web site at
Additional information regarding the Trust and the Shares, including investment strategies, risks, creation and redemption procedures, fees, portfolio
With respect to trading halts, the Exchange may consider all relevant factors in exercising its discretion to halt or suspend trading in the Shares of the Fund.
The Exchange deems the Shares to be equity securities, thus rendering trading in the Shares subject to the Exchange's existing rules governing the trading of equity securities. Shares will trade on the NYSE Arca Marketplace from 4:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. E.T. in accordance with NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.34 (Opening, Core, and Late Trading Sessions). The Exchange has appropriate rules to facilitate transactions in the Shares during all trading sessions. As provided in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.6, Commentary .03, the minimum price variation (“MPV”) for quoting and entry of orders in equity securities traded on the NYSE Arca Marketplace is $0.01, with the exception of securities that are priced less than $1.00 for which the MPV for order entry is $0.0001.
The Exchange represents that trading in the Shares will be subject to the existing trading surveillances, administered by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) on behalf of the Exchange, which are designed to detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws.
The surveillances referred to above generally focus on detecting securities trading outside their normal patterns, which could be indicative of manipulative or other violative activity. When such situations are detected, surveillance analysis follows and investigations are opened, where appropriate, to review the behavior of all relevant parties for all relevant trading violations. FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares with other markets that are members of the Intermarket Surveillance Group (“ISG”), or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement.
In addition, with respect to futures contracts in which the Subsidiary invests, not more than 10% of the weight of such futures contracts in the aggregate shall consist of futures contracts whose principal trading market (a) is not a member of ISG or (b) is a market with which the Exchange does not have a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement, provided that, so long as the Exchange may obtain market surveillance information with respect to transactions occurring on the COMEX pursuant to the ISG memberships of CME and NYMEX, futures contracts whose principal trading market is COMEX shall not be subject to the prohibition in (a), above.
In addition, the Exchange also has a general policy prohibiting the distribution of material, non-public information by its employees.
Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its Equity Trading Permit Holders in an Information Bulletin (“Bulletin”) of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Specifically, the Bulletin will discuss the following: (1) The procedures for purchases and redemptions of Shares in Creation Units (and that Shares are not individually redeemable); (2) NYSE Arca Equities Rule 9.2(a), which imposes a duty of due diligence on its Equity Trading Permit Holders to learn the essential facts relating to every customer prior to trading the Shares; (3) the risks involved in trading the Shares during the Opening and Late Trading Sessions when an updated Portfolio Indicative Value will not be calculated or publicly disseminated; (4) how information regarding the Portfolio Indicative Value will be disseminated; (5) the requirement that Equity Trading Permit Holders deliver a prospectus to investors purchasing newly issued Shares prior to or concurrently with the confirmation of a transaction; and (6) trading information.
In addition, the Bulletin will reference that the Fund is subject to various fees and expenses described in the Registration Statement. The Bulletin will discuss any exemptive, no-action, and interpretive relief granted by the Commission from any rules under the Act. The Bulletin will also disclose that the NAV for the Shares will be calculated after 4:00 p.m. E.T. each trading day.
The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the requirement under Section 6(b)(5)
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices in that the Shares will be listed and traded on the Exchange pursuant to the initial and continued listing criteria in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600. The Exchange has in place
The proposed rule change is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade and to protect investors and the public interest in that the Exchange will obtain a representation from the issuer of the Shares that the NAV per Share will be calculated daily, and that the NAV and the Disclosed Portfolio will be made available to all market participants at the same time. In addition, a large amount of information will be publicly available regarding the Fund and the Shares, thereby promoting market transparency. Moreover, the Portfolio Indicative Value will be widely disseminated through the facilities of the CTA or by one or more major market data vendors at least every 15 seconds during the Exchange's Core Trading Session. On each business day, before commencement of trading in Shares in the Core Trading Session on the Exchange, the Fund will disclose on its Web site the Disclosed Portfolio that will form the basis for the Fund's calculation of NAV at the end of the business day. Information regarding market price and trading volume of the Shares will be continually available on a real-time basis throughout the day on brokers' computer screens and other electronic services, and quotation and last sale information will be available via the CTA high-speed line. The Web site for the Fund will include a form of the prospectus for the Fund and additional data relating to NAV and other applicable quantitative information. Moreover, prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its Equity Trading Permit Holders in a Bulletin of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Trading in Shares of the Fund will be halted if the circuit breaker parameters in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.12 have been reached or because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the Shares inadvisable, and trading in the Shares will be subject to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600(d)(2)(D), which sets forth circumstances under which trading in Shares of the Fund may be halted. In addition, as noted above, investors will have ready access to information regarding the Fund's holdings, the Portfolio Indicative Value, the Disclosed Portfolio, and quotation and last sale information for the Shares. The intra-day, closing and settlement prices of the portfolio investments (
The proposed rule change is designed to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest in that it will facilitate the listing and trading of an additional type of actively-managed exchange-traded product that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace. As noted above, the Exchange has in place surveillance procedures relating to trading in the Shares and may obtain information via ISG from other exchanges that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has entered into a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. In addition, as noted above, investors will have ready access to information regarding the Fund's holdings, the Portfolio Indicative Value, the Disclosed Portfolio, and quotation and last sale information for the Shares.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Act. The proposed rule change will facilitate the listing and trading of an additional type of actively-managed exchange-traded product that invests in exchange-listed futures contracts and that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On February 1, 2013, New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
This order institutes proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act to determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule change.
NYSE member organizations that hold securities for beneficial owners in street
Currently, the Supplementary Material to NYSE Rules 451 and 465 establish the fee structure for which a NYSE member organization may be reimbursed for expenses incurred in connection with distributing proxy materials to beneficial owners.
The vast majority of nominees that distribute issuer proxy material to beneficial owners are entitled to reimbursement at the NYSE fee schedule rates because most of the brokerage firms are NYSE members or members of other exchanges that have rules similar to the NYSE's rules.
The NYSE's current proxy fee structure is the product of a multi-year, multi-task force effort that began in 1995 and culminated in 2002 with the Commission's approval of an NYSE program that significantly revised the then-current NYSE reimbursement guidelines.
The proposed rule change represents the most recent effort to revise the NYSE proxy fee structure. In September 2010, the Exchange formed a Proxy Fee Advisory Committee (“PFAC”) to review the existing NYSE fee structure and make recommendations for change as the PFAC deemed appropriate.
In the proposal, the Exchange has proposed to amend the Supplementary Material to NYSE Rules 451 and 465, and Section 402.10 of the NYSE Listed Company Manual.
Currently, the reimbursement rates set by the Exchange for the distribution of an issuer's proxy materials include:
• A base mailing or basic processing fee of $0.40 for each beneficial owner account of an issuer that is entitled to receive proxy materials when there is not an opposing proxy. When there is an opposing proxy, the base mailing or processing unit fee is $1.00 for each beneficial owner account of the issuer. While NYSE Rule 451.90(1) currently refers to this fee as being for each set of proxy material when mailed as a unit, this fee, in practice, applies regardless of whether the materials have been mailed or the mailing has been suppressed or eliminated.
• As supplemental fees for intermediaries or proxy service providers that coordinate proxy distributions for multiple nominees, a fee of $20 per nominee plus an additional fee of $0.05 per beneficial owner account for issuers whose securities are held in 200,000 or more beneficial owner accounts and $0.10 per beneficial owner account for issuers whose securities are held in fewer than 200,000 beneficial owner accounts.
• An incentive fee of $0.25 per beneficial owner account for issuers whose securities are held in 200,000 or more beneficial owner accounts and $0.50 per beneficial owner account for issuers whose securities are held in fewer than 200,000 beneficial owner accounts. This fee, which is in addition to the basic processing fee and supplemental intermediary fees, applies when the need to mail materials in paper format has been eliminated, for instance, by eliminating duplicative mailings to multiple accounts at the same address
As an initial, technical matter, the Exchange has proposed to eliminate some of the duplication and obsolete language in the NYSE rules in which the fee schedule is set forth.
Substantively, the Exchange has proposed to revise certain aspects of the existing fee schedule and add new fees.
As set forth above, there is currently a fee of $0.40 for each beneficial owner account of an issuer that is entitled to receive proxy materials when there is not an opposing proxy.
• $0.50 for each account up to 10,000 accounts;
• $0.47 for each account above 10,000 accounts, up to 100,000 accounts;
• $0.39 for each account above 100,000 accounts, up to 300,000 accounts;
• $0.34 for each account above 300,000 accounts, up to 500,000 accounts;
• $0.32 for each account above 500,000 accounts.
Under this tiered schedule, every issuer would pay the first tier rate—$0.50—for the first 10,000 accounts, or portion thereof, with decreasing rates applicable only to the incremental additional accounts in the additional tiers.
In addition, the Exchange has proposed to clarify that references in proposed Rule 451 to the “number of accounts” have a different meaning for a nominee that distributes proxy materials without the services of an intermediary as compared to a nominee that is served by an intermediary. For a nominee that distributes proxy materials without the services of an intermediary, references to number of accounts in proposed Rule 451 mean the number of accounts holding securities of the issuer at the nominee.
The Exchange has also proposed to specify that, in the case of a meeting for which an opposition proxy has been furnished to security holders, the proposed Processing Unit Fee shall be $1.00 per account, in lieu of the tiered fee schedule set forth above.
As stated above, the Exchange's fee schedule currently provides for supplemental fees for intermediaries or proxy service providers that coordinate proxy distributions for multiple nominees of $20 per nominee, plus an additional fee of $0.05 per beneficial owner account for issuers whose securities are held in 200,000 or more beneficial owner accounts and $0.10 per beneficial owner account for issuers whose securities are held in fewer than 200,000 beneficial owner accounts.
• $0.14 for each account up to 10,000 accounts;
• $0.13 for each account above 10,000 accounts, up to 100,000 accounts;
• $0.11 for each account above 100,000 accounts, up to 300,000 accounts;
• $0.09 for each account above 300,000 accounts, up to 500,000 accounts;
• $0.07 for each account above 500,000 accounts.
Additionally, the Exchange has proposed the following tiered fee schedule for special meetings that would apply in lieu of the schedule set forth immediately above:
• $0.19 for each account up to 10,000 accounts;
• $0.18 for each account above 10,000 accounts, up to 100,000 accounts;
• $0.16 for each account above 100,000 accounts, up to 300,000 accounts;
• $0.14 for each account above 300,000 accounts, up to 500,000 accounts;
• $0.12 for each account above 500,000 accounts.
The Exchange has also proposed that, in the case of a meeting for which an opposition proxy has been furnished to security holders, the proposed Intermediary Unit Fee shall be $0.25 per account, with a minimum fee of $5,000.00 per soliciting entity, in lieu of the tiered fee schedules set forth in proposed Rules 451.90(1)(c)(ii) and (iii).
The Exchange estimates that the proposed tiered fee structures discussed above—for the Intermediary Unit Fee as well as the proposed Processing Unit Fee—entail fee increases that are estimated to add approximately $9–10 million to overall proxy distribution fees.
As stated above, the Exchange's fee schedule currently provides for an
The Preference Management Fee would apply not only in the year when paper delivery is first eliminated, but also in each year thereafter.
For purposes of proposed Rule 451.90, the Exchange has proposed to define the term “Managed Account” as:
[A]n account at a nominee which is invested in a portfolio of securities selected by a professional advisor, and for which the account holder is charged a separate asset-based fee for a range of services which may include ongoing advice, custody and execution services. The advisor can be either employed by or affiliated with the nominee, or a separate investment advisor contracted for the purpose of selecting investment portfolios for the managed account. Requiring that investments or changes to the account be approved by the client would not preclude an account from being a “managed account” for this purpose, nor would the fact that commissions or transaction-based charges are imposed in addition to the asset-based fee.
As noted above, the Exchange has proposed that the Preference Management Fee applied to Managed Accounts be half that applied to non-managed accounts.
Additionally, in recognition of what the Exchange notes is a proliferation of Managed Accounts containing a very small number of an issuer's shares, the Exchange, as noted above, has proposed not to impose any proxy processing fees, including the Preference Management Fee, on an issuer for a Managed Account holding five or fewer shares or units of the issuer's securities.
Lastly, the Exchange states that no fee distinction would be based on whether or not a Managed Account is referred to as a “wrap account.”
The Commission has adopted a notice and access model that permits issuers to send shareholders what is called a “Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials” in lieu of the traditional paper mailing of proxy materials.
Specifically, for issuers that elect to utilize the notice and access method of proxy distribution, the Exchange has proposed an incremental fee based on all nominee accounts through which the issuer's securities are beneficially owned, as follows:
• $0.25 for each account up to 10,000 accounts;
• $0.20 for each account over 10,000 accounts, up to 100,000 accounts;
• $0.15 for each account over 100,000 accounts, up to 200,000 accounts;
• $0.10 for each account over 200,000 accounts, up to 500,000 accounts;
• $0.05 for each account over 500,000 accounts.
In the Proxy Concept Release, the Commission solicited views on whether retail investors might be encouraged to vote if they received notices of upcoming corporate votes, and had the ability to access proxy materials and vote, through their own broker's Web site—a service that the Commission referred to as enhanced brokers' internet platforms (“EBIP”).
Accordingly, the Exchange has proposed, for a five-year test period, a one-time, supplemental fee of $0.99 for each new account that elects, and each full package recipient among a brokerage firm's accounts that converts to, electronic delivery while having access to an EBIP.
The Exchange has proposed to require NYSE member organizations with a qualifying EBIP to provide notice thereof to the Exchange, including the date such EBIP became operational, and any limitations on the availability of the EBIP to its customers.
The Exchange states that the EBIP fee would be available to firms that already
The Exchange represents that a study of the impact of the program would be conducted after three years.
As noted by the Exchange, since 1986 NYSE rules have provided for fees which issuers must pay to brokers and their intermediaries for obtaining a list of the non-objecting beneficial owners holding the issuer's stock.
The Exchange also notes that it has been customary for brokers, through their intermediary, to require that issuers desiring a NOBO list take (and pay for) a list of all shareholders who are NOBOs, even in circumstances where an issuer would consider it more cost-effective to limit its communication to NOBOs having more than a certain number of shares, or to those that have not yet voted on a solicitation.
As noted above, the Commission received 28 comment letters concerning the Exchange's proposal.
Other commenters raised concerns regarding the proposal. Generally, ten commenters expressed concern about the lack of an independent third-party review of actual costs in the proxy distribution process;
Two commenters that expressed general support for the proposal commented on the issue of whether an
However, several commenters stated that the NYSE should engage an independent third party to evaluate the structure and level of fees being paid for proxy distribution, as recommended by the NYSE Proxy Working Group in 2006.
In response, the Exchange stated that the PFAC determined that an independent review of proxy costs was unnecessary.
Several commenters stated that the NYSE failed to undertake an analysis of the costs and benefits of the fee proposal, using the same degree of rigor applicable to SEC rule changes.
The Exchange responded by noting that no such cost-benefit analysis is required by the relevant statute or SEC rules.
Several commenters stated that the proposed processing and intermediary fees do not allocate fees equitably between large and small issuers.
Five commenters believed that the proposal would improve transparency of the proxy fee structure so that it is clearer to issuers what services they are paying for and that the fees are consistent with the type and amount of work involved.
However, several commenters raised concerns about the possibility that issuers may be paying more than would constitute “reasonable” reimbursement for actual costs.
Below is a more detailed summary of the comments regarding the significant fees on the NYSE schedule, as proposed in the rule filing.
Several commenters raised concerns regarding the change of the paper and postage elimination fee into a preference management fee, which is assessed for all accounts for which a mailing is suppressed.
In its response letter, the Exchange referred to its discussion in its rule filing of the appropriateness of charging the preference management fee every year, and noted that, following the SEC's review of the proxy fees put in place in 1997, the every-year approach was maintained by an independent proxy review committee.
One commenter believed that the Exchange has taken a fair and reasonable approach with respect to charges for managed accounts by cutting the preference management fee in half for positions in managed accounts and eliminating the fee altogether for any position under five shares.
In its response letter, the Exchange referred to the discussion in its rule filing of the issue of the appropriateness of applying the preference management fee to managed accounts.
One commenter stated that the proposed increase in the nominee coordination fee would be 10%, from $20 to $22 for each nominee holding at least one share of an issuer's stock.
Two commenters stated that there needs to be an independent review of the actual costs incurred for notice and access fees to reflect a rate of reasonable reimbursement.
In its response letter, the Exchange referred to the discussion in its rule filing of notice and access fees, but emphasized that the PFAC members were satisfied with the overall level of notice and access costs.
One commenter stated that the current NOBO list fees far exceed what should be considered reasonable and deserves further scrutiny.
Several commenters stated that the structure and level of the proposed NYSE proxy fees place a burden on competition.
In its response letter, the Exchange referred to the discussion in its rule filing and the PFAC report of the payments made by Broadridge to certain of its broker-dealer clients pursuant to their contractual arrangements, but reiterated that “the existence of these cost recovery payments is a completely rational result of the fact that the fees are `one size' but have to `fit all', so that the firms with large volumes can be served at a lower unit cost, while those with smaller volumes have a higher unit cost to Broadridge.”
Ten commenters expressed general support for the proposed EBIP incentive fee, stating that issuers should expect new cost savings from the success fee for enhancements to EBIPs.
Six commenters believed that the incentive structure for developing EBIPs could be further improved.
With respect to EBIPs, the Exchange stated in its response letter that it proposed the EBIP incentive fee because the PFAC and issuer representatives supported the fee.
Six commenters supported the stratification of NOBO lists.
However, four commenters believed that the stratified NOBO lists should be made available outside of a record date.
The Exchange stated in its response letter that it believes that there is a rational basis to distinguish between record date lists and other lists, and that the Exchange is concerned about the unknown impact of the proposed NOBO list fee change on overall proxy fee revenues available to reimburse brokers for their costs.
One commenter, who stated that it has been adversely affected by fees attributable to managed accounts that hold fractional shares of its own stock, expressed full support for the proposal.
However, three commenters raised concerns regarding the five-share limit for fees for processing shares held through managed accounts.
Two commenters stated that there should be further analysis of the impact the proposed rule change would have on proxy distribution fees paid by mutual funds and, in particular, the open-end funds that hold special meetings each year.
In its response letter, the Exchange criticized these two commenters as premising their comments on a misunderstanding of what constitutes a “special meeting.”
One commenter recommended that the new rules become effective on January 1, 2014.
The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B),
As discussed above, the Exchange has proposed to amend its rules that provide a schedule of “fair and reasonable” rates of reimbursement by issuers to NYSE member organizations for expenses in connection with the processing of proxy materials and other issuer communications provided to investors holding securities in street name. According to the Exchange, over 80% of publicly held securities are in street name today, and NYSE member organizations have contracted with Broadridge, a third-party service provider, to handle almost all proxy processing in the U.S. The Exchange's proposal relies substantially on the recommendations of the PFAC, an advisory committee composed of representatives of issuers, broker-dealers and investors, which in turn relied substantially on information provided by Broadridge.
The PFAC's recommendations, according to the Exchange, were intended to serve several goals, including supporting the current proxy distribution system; encouraging and facilitating retail investor voting; improving the transparency of the fee structure; and ensuring that the fees are as fair as possible.
The Exchange estimates that issuers spend approximately $200 million in aggregate on fees for proxy distribution to street name shareholders each year. While the PFAC, according to the Exchange, “did what it could” to review the costs associated with proxy processing, such as reviewing publicly available financial information on Broadridge, which does not separately report information about its proxy distribution business as a standalone segment, as well as reviewing analyst reports that discuss Broadridge's business segments, it does not appear that the PFAC looked beyond this general information to obtain a clearer understanding of the costs of proxy processing or of how they may have changed in recent years, for example, in light of notice and access.
The Exchange's rules currently set forth rates of reimbursement for processing and distribution expenses that are broken down into several specific categories. As discussed above, these include a “basic processing fee” of $0.40 for each account through which the issuer's securities are beneficially owned, as well as a “supplemental fee” of either $0.05 or $0.10 per beneficial owner account for issuers with securities held in 200,000 or more accounts, or less than 200,000 accounts, respectively. In addition, for accounts where paper mailings have been eliminated (
With respect to the basic processing fee, the PFAC recommended and the Exchange proposed a rate structure consisting of five tiers, ranging from $0.32 to $0.50 per beneficial owner account depending on the number of issuer accounts. Similarly, with respect to the supplemental fee, the PFAC recommended and the Exchange proposed a rate structure consisting of five tiers, ranging from $0.07 to $0.14 per beneficial owner account depending on the number of issuer accounts. The net effect of these changes is estimated to increase overall proxy distribution fees by approximately $9–10 million. According to the Exchange, the PFAC recommended these changes, among other things, to better reflect the economies of scale in processing issuers with a larger number of accounts, and to reflect the impact of inflation since the fees were last adjusted. The Exchange, however, has not clearly explained why the particular five tiers were chosen, or provided the rationale for the specific differential charges for those tiers. It also offers no evidence that either the Exchange or the PFAC conducted a meaningful review of the economies of scale present in the proxy processing business, or the overall costs associated therewith.
With respect to the incentive fee, the PFAC recommended and the Exchange proposed to change its name to the “preference management” fee, and set the rate at $0.32 per beneficial owner account, without regard to the number of issuer accounts. For managed accounts, however, the preference management fee would be $0.16 per account, except that no fee would be charged for accounts with five or fewer shares. The net effect of these changes is estimated to decrease overall proxy distribution fees by approximately $15 million.
In contrast to the approach taken with the basic processing and supplemental fees, the Exchange explains that, for the preference management fee, the PFAC recommended eliminating a rate structure tiered by the number of issuer accounts in order to avoid “unnecessary complexity,” and because it believed the processing involved in managing preferences was less susceptible to economies of scale by issuer size “because it is, of necessity, an account by account task.”
The Exchange acknowledges the concerns raised in the Commission's Proxy Concept Release about the continuing nature of the incentive fees after the election to discontinue paper mailings is made. According to the Exchange, however, the PFAC was persuaded, following discussions with broker-dealers and Broadridge, that there was significant processing work involved in keeping track of a shareholder's election, even though few shareholders actually change their elections. The Exchange explains that “data processing has to look at each position relative to each meeting or distribution event to determine how the `switch' should be set,” and that “[d]ata management requires ongoing technology support, services and maintenance, and is a significant part of the total cost of eliminating paper proxy materials.”
With respect to managed accounts, where voting typically is delegated to a broker or investment manager, the Exchange takes the position that the maintenance of the beneficial owner's preference is as necessary as it is with non-managed accounts. In the Exchange's view, however, managed accounts are different because, unlike non-managed accounts, the elimination of paper mailings benefits the broker as well as the issuer. Although the Exchange does not clearly explain how the broker benefits with managed accounts in this context, it represents that “[i]t is this unique attribute of the managed account that suggested to the Committee that it would be most fair, and most reasonable, for issuers and brokers to share the cost of the admittedly real processing work that is done to track and maintain the voting and distribution elections made by the beneficial owners of the stock positions in the managed account.”
For notice and access fees, which for the first time would be addressed in the Exchange's rules, the Exchange essentially has proposed to codify Broadridge's existing fee schedule.
The Exchange also addressed the concern, reflected in the Proxy Concept Release, that Broadridge rebates a portion of the fees paid by issuers for proxy processing to its larger broker-dealer clients. According to the Exchange, the PFAC “was persuaded that the existence of these payments is not any indicator of unfairness or impropriety.”
The Commission also notes that commenters expressed varying views on the Exchange's proposed EBIP fee, including suggestions about the type of EBIP service that should qualify for the fee.
As discussed above, while a number of commenters expressed general support for the proposed rule change, others expressed a variety of concerns with the proposed fees.
In articulating the statutory basis for its proposal, the Exchange expresses the belief that its proposed fee schedule is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, which among other things requires the “equitable” allocation of “reasonable” fees, because the PFAC—which included representatives of broker-dealers and issuers—“agreed unanimously that the proposed fees were reasonable in light of the information the Committee had gathered about the costs incurred by brokers.”
With respect to Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, which among other things prohibits rules designed to permit unfair discrimination, the Exchange takes the position that the statutory standard is met because “all issuers are subject to the same fee schedule” and the PFAC “thoroughly examined the impact of the current fee structure on different categories of issuers.”
The Commission therefore believes that questions remain as to whether the Exchange's proposal is consistent with the requirements of: (1) Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, including whether it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable fees among its members, issuers and other persons using its facilities; (2) Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, including whether it is not designed to permit unfair discrimination, or would promote just and equitable principles of trade, or protect investors and the public interest; and (3) Section 6(b)(8) of the Act, including whether it would not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Commission requests that interested persons provide written submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the concerns identified above, as well as any others they may have with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of interested persons concerning whether the proposed rule change is inconsistent with Sections 6(b)(4), 6(b)(5), 6(b)(8) or any other provision of the Act, or the rules and regulation thereunder. The Commission also invites comment on the views expressed by the Exchange in its letter responding to the comments on its proposal. Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval which would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b–4, any request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments regarding whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved by June 20, 2013. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by July 5, 2013.
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 its rules regarding the trading of XSP options. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its rules regarding the trading of XSP options (which have 1/10 the value of the S&P 500 Index options). First, the Exchange proposes to amend Interpretation and Policy .14 to Rule 24.9 to state that the Exchange may list options on XSP whose exercise settlement value is derived from closing prices on the last trading day prior to expiration (“P.M.-settled”). The Exchange currently offers the SPXPM options class, which are P.M.-settled options on the S&P 500 Index. SPXPM trades on a pilot basis, which pilot period is to end 12 months from the approval date (which was February 8, 2013). The Exchange proposes to add P.M.-settled XSP options to the SPXPM pilot program (and to insert the date February 8, 2014 in place of “[insert date 12 months from approval]” to designate the end date of the pilot period). CBOE proposes to abide by the same reporting requirements for the trading of P.M.-settled XSP under this pilot program as the Exchange does for the trading of SPXPM.
The Exchange proposes to make a number of corresponding amendments to its rules in conjunction with the proposed trading of XSP options on a P.M.-settled basis.
First, Interpretation and Policy .04 to Rule 24.6 states that on the last trading day, transactions in expiring PM-settled S&P 500 Index options (SPXPM) may be effected on the Exchange between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. (as opposed to the normal trading hours for non-expiring SPXPM options, which are from 8:30 a.m. until 3:15 p.m.).
XSP options (which are based on the S&P 500 Index) are typically priced in the market based on corresponding futures values. The primary listing markets for the component securities that comprise the S&P 500 close trading in those securities at 3:00 p.m. The primary listing exchanges for the component securities disseminate closing prices of the component securities, which are used to calculate the exercise settlement value of the S&P 500. CBOE believes that, under normal trading circumstances, the primary listing markets have sufficient bandwidth to prevent any data queuing that would cause any trades that are executed prior to the closing time from being reported after 3:00 p.m. Despite the fact that the exercise settlement value will be fixed at or soon after 3:00 p.m., if the Exchange did not close trading in expiring P.M.-settled XSP options at 3:00 p.m. on their last trading day, trading in expiring P.M.-settled XSP options would continue for an additional fifteen minutes until 3:15 p.m. and would not be priced on corresponding futures values, but rather the known cash value. At the same time, the prices of non-expiring P.M.-settled XSP options series would continue to move and be priced in response to changes in corresponding futures prices.
A potential pricing divergence could occur between 3:00 p.m. and 3:15 p.m. on the final trading day in expiring P.M.-settled XSP options (e.g., switch from pricing off of futures to cash). Further, the switch from pricing off of futures to cash can be a difficult and risky switchover for liquidity providers. As a result, without closing expiring contracts at 3:00 p.m., it is foreseeable that Market-Makers would react by widening spreads in order to compensate for the additional risk. Therefore, the Exchange believes that, in order to mitigate potential investor confusion and the potential for increased costs to investors, it is appropriate to cease trading in the expiring P.M.-settled contracts of SPXPM and XSP with P.M.-settlement, as they are based on the S&P 500 Index, at 3:00 p.m. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed change will impact volatility on the underlying cash market at the close on third Fridays. Further, the Exchange already closes trading on the last trading day for transactions in expiring SPXPM options at 3:00 p.m.
The Exchange also proposes to amend Interpretation and Policy .03 to Rule 6.42 regarding minimum increments for bids and offers for XSP options. Currently, the minimum increments for bids and offers for XSP options are $0.01 for all option series quoted below $3 (including LEAPS) and $0.05 for all option series $3 and above (including LEAPS).
The Exchange also proposes to amend its rules regarding strike price intervals for XSP options. Currently, Interpretation and Policy .11 to Rule 24.9 states that [n]otwithstanding Interpretation and Policy .01(a) to Rule 24.9, the interval between strike prices of series of XSP options will be $1 or greater, subject to a number of somewhat-involved conditions.
(a) The Exchange may list series at $1 or greater strike price intervals on Mini-SPX options with strike prices that are no more than 20% away from one-tenth of the current value of the Standard & Poor's 500 Stock Index (“S&P 500 Index”). FOR EXAMPLE, if the current value of the S&P 500 Index is at 1,200.00, the Exchange may only list new series at $1 strike price intervals in Mini-SPX options that are between $96 and $144 strike prices.
(b) The Exchange may list series at $3 or greater strike price intervals on Mini-SPX options with strike prices that are no more than 25% away from one-tenth of the current value of the S&P 500 Index.
(c) The Exchange may list series at $5 or greater strike price intervals on Mini-SPX options that are more than 25% away from one-tenth of the current value of the S&P 500 Index.
(d) The Exchange shall not list LEAPS or reduced-value LEAPS on Mini-SPX options at intervals less than $5.
Aside from the proposed changes outlined above, trading in P.M.-settled XSP options will operate in the same manner as trading currently operates in A.M.-settled XSP options. The trading symbol will remain XSP, and XSP will continue to trade on the Exchange's Hybrid Trading System (“Hybrid”). XSP options will still have a $100 multiplier and European-style exercise. Expiration processing would occur on Saturday following the third Friday of the month. No position or exercise limits will be in effect for XSP options, and the same position reporting and margin requirements will apply.
Finally, in preparing this proposed rule change, the Exchange noticed an erroneous reference in Interpretation and Policy .10 to Rule 5.5, which states that the intervals between strike prices of XSP series shall be determined in accordance with Interpretation and Policy .14 to Rule 24.9. However, it is Interpretation and Policy .11, not Interpretation and Policy .14, to Rule 24.9 that discusses strike price intervals for XSP options. As such, the Exchange proposes to correct this reference in Interpretation and Policy .10 to Rule 5.5 to refer to Interpretation and Policy .11 to Rule 24.9.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The proposal to end trading at 3:00 p.m. on the last trading day for transactions in expiring P.M.-settled XSP options will prevent continued trading on a product after the exercise settlement value has been fixed. This eliminates potential confusion and thereby protects investors and the public interest. The Exchange believes that the proposal to match up the rules regarding minimum increments for bids and offers for XSP options with those for SPY options perfects the mechanism for a free and open market and a national market system because both products are based, in some manner, on
CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe the proposed changes will impose any unnecessary or inappropriate burden on intramarket competition because they will apply
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
A. By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
B. institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
The Social Security Administration (SSA) publishes a list of information collection packages requiring clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with Public Law 104–13, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, effective October 1, 1995. This notice includes revisions and one extension of OMB-approved information collections.
SSA is soliciting comments on the accuracy of the agency's burden estimate; the need for the information; its practical utility; ways to enhance its quality, utility, and clarity; and ways to minimize burden on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Mail, email, or fax your comments and recommendations on the information collection(s) to the OMB Desk Officer and SSA Reports Clearance Officer at the following addresses or fax numbers.
Office of Management and Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for SSA, Fax: 202–395–6974, Email address:
Social Security Administration, DCRDP, Attn: Reports Clearance Director, 107 Altmeyer Building, 6401 Security Blvd., Baltimore, MD 21235, Fax: 410–966–2830, Email address:
I. The information collections below are pending at SSA. SSA will submit them to OMB within 60 days from the date of this notice. To be sure we consider your comments, we must receive them no later than July 29, 2013. Individuals can obtain copies of the collection instruments by writing to the above email address.
1.
2.
II. SSA submitted the information collections below to OMB for clearance. Your comments regarding the information collections would be most useful if OMB and SSA receive them 30 days from the date of this publication. To be sure we consider your comments, we must receive them no later than July 1, 2013. Individuals can obtain copies of the OMB clearance packages by writing to
1.
2.
The adjudicative team (disability examiners and medical or psychological consultants) of State disability determination services offices collect the information on the appropriate version of this form (in conjunction with medical and other evidence) to form a complete picture of the children's ability to function and their impairment-related limitations. The adjudicative team uses the completed profile to determine whether each child's impairment(s) results in marked and severe functional limitations and whether each child is disabled. The respondents are parents and guardians of child applicants for SSI.
3.
By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of State, including Section 1081 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Pub. L. 112–81) (the NDAA) and Section 1 of the State Department Basic Authorities Act, as amended (22 U.S.C. 2651a), and delegated to me by the Secretary of State in Delegation of Authority 245–1, dated February 13, 2009, I hereby delegate to the Assistant Secretary of Political-Military Affairs, to the extent authorized by law, the authority to concur with a Secretary of Defense assignment of civilian personnel to the Ministry of Defense (or security agency serving a similar defense function) of a foreign country that is made pursuant to subsection 1081(a) of the NDAA.
Notwithstanding this delegation of authority, any function or authority delegated by this Delegation may be exercised by the Secretary, the Deputy Secretary, the Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources, or the Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security. Any reference in this delegation of authority to any statute or delegation of authority shall be deemed to be a reference to such statute or delegation of authority as amended from time to time.
This delegation of authority shall be published in the
Notice of meetings of the United States-Peru Environmental Affairs Council and Environmental Cooperation Commission, and request for comments.
The Department of State and the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) are providing notice that the United States and Peru intend to hold the fourth meeting of the Environmental Affairs Council (the “Council”) and the third meeting of the Environmental Cooperation Commission (the “Commission”) on June 4th and June 5th, 2013. The public sessions of the Council and Commission meetings will be held on June 5th, starting at 2:00 p.m. at the George C. Marshall Conference Center, U.S. Department of State, 21st Street between Virginia Avenue and C Street NW., Washington, DC. The purpose of the meetings is to review implementation of: Chapter 18 (Environment) of the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement (PTPA) and the United States-Peru Environmental Cooperation Agreement (ECA). The Department of State and USTR invite interested organizations and members of the public to attend the public session and comment on any items that should be included on the meeting agendas. If you would like to attend the public session, please notify Tiffany Prather and Sarah Stewart at the email addresses listed below under the heading
• Chapter 18 of the PTPA,
• The Final Environmental Review of the PTPA,
• The ECA, and
• The 2011–2014 Work Program.
These documents are available at:
The public sessions of the Council and Commission meetings will be held on June 5, 2013, beginning at 2:00 p.m., at the George C. Marshall Conference Center, U.S. Department of State, 21st Street between Virginia Avenue and C Street NW., Washington, DC. Comments and suggestions are requested in writing no later than May 31, 2013.
Written comments and suggestions should be submitted to both:
(1) Tiffany Prather, Office of Environmental Quality and Transboundary Issues, U.S. Department of State, by electronic mail at
(2) Sarah Stewart, Office of Environment and Natural Resources, Office of the United States Trade Representative, by electronic mail at
Tiffany Prather, Telephone (202) 647– 4548 or Sarah Stewart, Telephone (202) 395–3858.
The PTPA entered into force on February 1, 2009. Article 18.6 of the PTPA establishes an Environmental Affairs Council to discuss the implementation of, and progress under, Chapter 18. The ECA entered into force on August 23, 2009. Article III of the ECA establishes an Environmental Cooperation Commission and makes the Commission responsible for developing a Work Program. Chapter 18 of the PTPA and Article VI of the ECA require that meetings of the Council and Commission respectively include a public session, unless the Parties otherwise agree.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of Limitations on Claims for Judicial Review of Action by FHWA and Other Federal Agencies.
This notice announces actions taken by FHWA and other Federal agencies that are final within the meaning of 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1). The action relates to the Northwest (I–75/I–575) Corridor (from Akers Mill Road to Hickory Grove Road on Interstate 75 (I–75) and from I–75 to Sixes Road on I–575) located in Cobb and Cherokee Counties, Georgia. The approximate length of is approximately 29.7 miles. Those actions grant licenses, permits and approvals for the project.
By this notice, the FHWA is advising the public of the final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1). A claim seeking judicial review of the Federal agency action on the highway project will be barred unless the claim is filed on or before October 21, 2013. If the Federal law that authorizes judicial review of a claim provides a time period of less than 150 days for filing such claim, then that shorter time period still applies.
Mr. Rodney Barry, Division Administrator, Georgia Division, Federal Highway Administration, 61 Forsyth Street, Suite 17T100; Atlanta, Georgia 30303; 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (eastern time) Monday through Friday, 404–562–3630; email:
Notice is hereby given that the FHWA and other Federal agencies have taken final action actions by issuing licenses, permits and approvals for the following highway project in the State of Georgia: The Northwest Corridor (from Akers Mill Road to Hickory Grove Road on Interstate 75 (I–75) and from I–75 to Sixes Road on I–575) located in metropolitan Atlanta, Georgia. The Selected Alternative will extend the two-I–75 managed lanes that currently terminate Akers Mill Road south of the I–75/I–285 interchange. Two managed lanes would extend north to the I–75/I–575 interchange. A single managed lane would continue north on I–75 from the I–75/I–575 interchange to just beyond Hickory Grove Road. A single managed lane would continue north on I–575 from the I–75/I–575 interchange to the Sixes Road interchange. The facility will include improvements of approximately 16.8 miles on I–75, 11.3 miles on I–575 and 1.6 miles on I–285. The facility will be tolled by electronic toll lane (ETL). The purpose of the project is listed below:
• Improve the transportation effectiveness of I–75 and I–575 to accommodate additional travel and to contribute to the improved performance of the regional highway system;
• Provide additional transportation choices or options that increase the capacity of I–75 and I–575;
• Improve the quality of life by improving mobility and minimizing effects to both natural resources and the built environment;
• Improve transportation equity by providing an equitable distribution of benefits and impacts to all populations; and
• Provide cost-effective and affordable transportation improvements.
The actions by the Federal agencies and the laws under which such actions were taken are described in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and the reevaluation of the FEIS for the Northwest Corridor Project, approved on October 12, 2011 and March 18, 2013 respectively, in FHWA Record of Decision (ROD) issued on May 23, 2013, and in other documents in the FHWA project records. The FEIS, reevaluated FEIS, ROD and other project records are available by contacting FHWA or the Georgia Department of Transportation at the addresses listed above. The FHWA FEIS, reevaluated FEIS and ROD can be reviewed and downloaded from the project Web site at
A final decision regarding Section 404 permit for this project has not yet been made. This notice, therefore, does not apply to the Section 404 permitting process for this project. This notice
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
23 U.S.C. 139(
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.
Grant of Petition.
The Ford Motor Company (Ford), has determined that certain model year 2010 Ford Taurus passenger cars and certain model year 2010 Lincoln MKT multi-purpose vehicles do not fully comply with the requirements of paragraph S6.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205,
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and the rule implementing those provisions at 49 CFR part 556, Ford has petitioned for an exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Notice of receipt of Ford's petition was published, with a 30 day public comment period, on June 4, 2010, in the
Ford states the basis for why they believe this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety as:
(1) This condition does not present a risk to motor vehicle safety because the windshield fully meets the performance and physical requirements of FMVSS [No.] 205.
(2) Repair service will be unaffected because the selection of replacement windshields is typically done utilizing a distributor, a catalog, or NAGS [National Auto Glass Specification] number.
(3) Furthermore, repairers will be able to determine the appropriate glazing because the upper portions of the windshield are properly labeled with the “AS1,” designation, the glazing is clearly marked as “Laminated,” and all other markings required by FMVSS [No.] 205 are properly labeled.
(4) No other Ford vehicles are affected by this condition and Ford is not aware of any field or owner complaints related to this condition.
Additionally, Ford stated that Zeledyne discovered the noncompliance during its trademark content project study in which its laboratory personnel noticed that the “AS1” symbol was missing from the designated trademark location on the lower corner of the windshields for the affected vehicles.
Ford also has informed NHTSA that it has corrected the problem that caused these errors so that they will not be repeated in future production.
Supported by the above stated reasons, Ford believes that the described FMVSS No. 205 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that its petition, to exempt it from providing recall notification of noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the recall noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
§ 6.2 A prime glazing manufacturer certifies its glazing by adding to the marks required by section 7 of ANSI/SAE Z26.1–1996, in letters and numerals of the same size, the symbol “DOT” and a manufacturer's code mark that NHTSA assigns to the manufacturer. . . .
According to the petition, the nature of the noncompliance is the improper placement of the glazing number on the windshield. NHTSA believes that the placement of the glazing number, separated from the other required labeling, is inconsequential to vehicle safety. The glazing number has been placed at a different location from the rest of the required markings, but all information required in FMVSS No. 205 appears on the windshield. The windshields meet all performance requirements and Ford has taken the steps to correct the problem.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has determined that Ford has met its burden of persuasion and that the subject FMVSS No. 205 glazing noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Ford's petition is hereby granted, and Ford is exempted from the obligation of providing notification of, and a remedy for, the subject noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively, to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance and to remedy the defect or noncompliance.
49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection requests to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13, on or after the date of publication of this notice.
Comments should be received on or before July 1, 2013 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestion for reducing the burden, to (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Treasury, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or email at
Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 927–5331, email at
Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Fiscal Service, Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Fiscal Service, 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. By this notice, the Fiscal Service solicits comments concerning the “Final Rule—Management of Federal Agency Disbursements.”
Written comments should be received on or before July 29, 2013.
Direct all written comments to Fiscal Service, Records and Information Management Branch, Room 135, 3700 East West Highway, Hyattsville, Maryland 20782.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form(s) and instructions should be directed to Walt Henderson, Director, EFT Strategy Division, Room 303, Liberty Center Building, 401 14th Street SW., Washington, DC, 20227, (202) 874–6624.
Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), the Bureau of Fiscal Service solicits comments on the collection of information described below:
Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Fiscal Service, Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Fiscal Service, 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. By this notice, the Bureau of Fiscal Service solicits comments concerning the Forms 1199A “Direct Deposit Sign-Up Form”, Form 1200 “Go Direct Sign-Up Form for Direct Deposit of Federal Benefit Payments”, Form 1200VADE “Direct Express Sign-Up Form for Direct Deposit for Veterans Affairs Benefits”, Form 1201L “Direct Express Sign-Up Form for Direct Deposit of Labor”, and Form 1201S “Social Security and Supplemental Security Federal Benefits”
Written comments should be received on or before July 29, 2013.
Direct all written comments to Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Records and Information Management Branch, Room 135, 3700 East-West Highway, Hyattsville, Maryland 20782.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form(s) and instructions should be directed to Walt Henderson, Director, EFT Strategy Division, Room 303, 401 14th Street SW., Washington, DC 20227, (202) 874–6624.
Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), the Bureau of the Fiscal Service solicits comments on the collection of information described below:
United States Sentencing Commission.
Notice of proposed priorities. Request for public comment.
As part of its statutory authority and responsibility to analyze sentencing issues, including operation of the federal sentencing guidelines, and in accordance with Rule 5.2 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure, the United States Sentencing Commission is seeking comment on possible priority policy issues for the amendment cycle ending May 1, 2014.
Public comment should be received on or before July 15, 2013.
Send comments to: United States Sentencing Commission, One Columbus Circle NE., Suite 2–500, South Lobby, Washington, DC 20002–8002, Attention: Public Affairs—Priorities Comment.
Jeanne Doherty, Public Affairs Officer, 202–502–4502.
The United States Sentencing Commission is an independent agency in the judicial branch of the United States Government. The Commission promulgates sentencing guidelines and policy statements for federal sentencing courts pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(a). The Commission also periodically reviews and revises previously promulgated guidelines pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(o) and submits guideline amendments to the Congress not later than the first day of May each year pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(p).
The Commission provides this notice to identify tentative priorities for the amendment cycle ending May 1, 2014. The Commission recognizes, however, that other factors, such as the enactment of any legislation requiring Commission action, may affect the Commission's ability to complete work on any or all of its identified priorities by the statutory deadline of May 1, 2014. Accordingly, it may be necessary to continue work on any or all of these issues beyond the amendment cycle ending on May 1, 2014.
As so prefaced, the Commission has identified the following tentative priorities:
(1) Continuation of its work with Congress and other interested parties on statutory mandatory minimum penalties to implement the recommendations set forth in the Commission's 2011 report to Congress, titled
(2) Review, and possible amendment, of guidelines applicable to drug offenses, including possible consideration of amending the Drug Quantity Table in § 2D1.1 (Unlawful Manufacturing, Importing, Exporting, or Trafficking (Including Possession with Intent to Commit These Offenses); Attempt or Conspiracy) across drug types.
(3) Continuation of its work with the congressional, executive, and judicial branches of government, and other interested parties, to implement the recommendations set forth in the Commission's December 2012 report to Congress, titled
(4) Continuation of its work on economic crimes, including (A) a comprehensive, multi-year study of § 2B1.1 (Theft, Property Destruction, and Fraud) and related guidelines, including examination of the loss table and the definition of loss, and (B) consideration of any amendments to such guidelines that may be appropriate in light of the information obtained from such study.
(5) Continuation of its multi-year study of the statutory and guideline definitions of “crime of violence”, “aggravated felony”, “violent felony”, and “drug trafficking offense”, possibly including recommendations to Congress on any statutory changes that may be appropriate and development of guideline amendments that may be appropriate.
(6) Continuation of its comprehensive, multi-year study of recidivism, including (A) examination of circumstances that correlate with increased or reduced recidivism; (B) possible development of recommendations for using information obtained from such study to reduce costs of incarceration and overcapacity of prisons; and (C) consideration of any amendments to the
(7) Undertaking a multi-year review of federal sentencing practices pertaining to violations of conditions of probation and supervised release, including possible consideration of amending the policy statements in Chapter Seven of the
(8) Possible consideration of amending the policy statement pertaining to “compassionate release,” § 1B1.13 (Reduction in Term of Imprisonment as a Result of Motion by Director of Bureau of Prisons).
(9) Review, and possible amendment, of guidelines applicable to firearms offenses.
(10) Implementation of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013, Public Law 113–4, and any other crime legislation enacted during the 112th or 113th Congress warranting a Commission response.
(11) Resolution of circuit conflicts, pursuant to the Commission's continuing authority and responsibility, under 28 U.S.C. 991(b)(1)(B) and
(12) Continuation of its work with Congress and other interested parties on child pornography offenses to implement the recommendations set forth in the Commission's December 2012 report to Congress, titled
(13) Consideration of any miscellaneous guideline application issues coming to the Commission's attention from case law and other sources.
The Commission hereby gives notice that it is seeking comment on these tentative priorities and on any other issues that interested persons believe the Commission should address during the amendment cycle ending May 1, 2014. To the extent practicable, public comment should include the following: (1) A statement of the issue, including, where appropriate, the scope and manner of study, particular problem areas and possible solutions, and any other matters relevant to a proposed priority; (2) citations to applicable sentencing guidelines, statutes, case law, and constitutional provisions; and (3) a direct and concise statement of why the Commission should make the issue a priority.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(g), the Commission also invites public comment that addresses the issue of reducing costs of incarceration and overcapacity of prisons, to the extent it is relevant to a proposed priority.
28 U.S.C. 994(a), (o); USSC Rules of Practice and Procedure 5.2.