Federal Crop Insurance Corporation
Food and Nutrition Service
Forest Service
Economic Development Administration
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Fish and Wildlife Service
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office
Employment and Training Administration
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission
Fiscal Service
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Transit Administration
Maritime Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund
Fiscal Service
Foreign Assets Control Office
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this page for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Food and Nutrition Service, USDA.
Final rule.
This rulemaking establishes requirements to simplify and improve the administration of and expand access to the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations and the Food Distribution Program for Indian Households in Oklahoma, both of which are referred to as “FDPIR” in this rulemaking. The rulemaking amends FDPIR regulations to promote conformity with the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). First, the final rule revises FDPIR regulations to eliminate household resources from consideration when determining FDPIR eligibility. Second, the final rule will expand the current FDPIR income deduction for Medicare Part B Medical Insurance and Part D Prescription Drug Coverage premiums to include other monthly medical expenses in excess of $35 for households with elderly and/or disabled members. Third, the final rule will establish an income deduction for shelter and utility expenses. Finally, the final rule will provide new verification requirements related to the new income deductions, and provide revisions to the household reporting requirements that will more closely align FDPIR and SNAP regulations.
This rule is effective September 26, 2013.
Dana Rasmussen, Chief, Policy Branch, Food Distribution Division, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 506, Alexandria, Virginia 22302, or by telephone (703) 305–2662.
The Department issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on January 11, 2012, at 77 FR 1642. In the NPRM, the Department proposed to amend regulations at 7 CFR Part 253 to simplify, improve and expand access to FDPIR, while promoting conformity with SNAP. The final rule will achieve these objectives by amending the regulations at 7 CFR Part 253 to:
• Eliminate the household resource eligibility criterion.
• Expand the current deductions for medical expenses.
• Establish a deduction for shelter and utility expenses.
• Add household verification requirements relating to the proposed medical and shelter/utility expense deductions.
• Revise household reporting requirements.
The comment period on the proposed rule ended on April 10, 2012. These comments are discussed below and are available for review at
The Department received 98 written comments from seven elected Tribal leaders, seven FDPIR program administrators, three Tribal Associations, 68 Tribal members, nine non-profit and community-based organizations, two academics/students, and two comments from private citizens regarding the proposed provisions.
Ninety-seven commenters supported the provisions in the proposed rule. Of the comments received, 89 commenters supported the provisions to align FDPIR with SNAP policy; 91 commenters specifically supported eliminating household resources from consideration when determining FDPIR eligibility; 89 commenters supported expanding income deductions for medical expenses; and 88 commenters supported the new income deductions for shelter and utility expenses. Six supporting commenters cited the provisions as a positive change for current and prospective FDPIR participants, while four commenters cited the provisions as a positive change for the elderly and disabled population specifically. One commenter cited the provisions in the proposed rule as well explained and easily understood. Finally, two commenters cited the provisions as a positive response to Resolution 2009–01 passed by the membership of the National Association of Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (NAFDPIR) in 2009.
One commenter objected to the proposal to eliminate household resources from consideration when determining FDPIR eligibility. The commenter stated that removal of the resource test may allow non-needy participants to receive benefits. Regarding the commenter's objection, the Department will continue to require the income test to certify program eligibility among all participants and ensure services are targeted to the neediest in accordance with Program statutory and regulatory requirements. The Department also estimates that eliminating the household resource test would increase FDPIR participation by less than one percent. Removal of the resource test will streamline the certification process for new applicants and currently participating households. In addition, this action will simplify program administration, reducing the burden on State agency certification staff while improving program access to those individuals in need of nutrition assistance. The vast majority of commenters (97) specifically cited support for eliminating the household resource test to determine FDPIR eligibility. Thus, the proposed removal of the resource test is retained without change.
However, FNS will continue to pay close attention to the issue as well as to similar concerns expressed by Congress regarding the ability for individuals in receipt of substantial windfalls to be
Two commenters expressed concern with regard to the proposed provision which would require households to report changes in income exceeding $100. Both commenters cited this provision as creating additional paperwork burdens for staff while diverging from SNAP policy. The current provision at 7 CFR 253.7(c)(1) requires households to report changes in income that would necessitate a change in the eligibility determination. The Department believes this methodology is impractical because households cannot be expected to know when their income eligibility changes based on a net monthly income calculation. Furthermore, the proposed provision conforms with SNAP regulations at 7 CFR 273.12(a)(1)(i)(C)(
Two commenters expressed concern regarding the proposed provision which would require an applicant household to show proof of at least one allowable shelter/utility expense to receive the FDPIR standard deduction. Both commenters observed that an applicant's statement is acceptable as proof to receive the standard deduction under SNAP. SNAP allows for self-declaration of shelter/utility expenses at or below the applicable standard. However in SNAP, all expenses a household wishes to claim or which are questionable and which are beyond that applicable standard must be verified. The Department believes the FDPIR provision, as proposed, is simple and easy to understand, without creating an undue burden on FDPIR certification staff and applicants. Thus, the proposed provision is retained without change in this final rule.
As proposed, FNS would set region-specific standard income deductions for monthly shelter and utility expenses. An explanation regarding the Department's methodology for setting the Regional shelter/utility deduction amounts may be found in the preamble of the proposed rule. If implemented in Fiscal Year (FY) 2013, the Department does not anticipate significant changes to the Regional amounts set in the proposed rule, with the exception to the amount proposed for the Northeast/Midwest region, which was projected to be $350 for FY 2013 in the proposed rule. This amount is revised to $400 in this final rule to reflect the most recent data available. The Regional amounts are listed below:
In the following discussion and regulatory text, the term “State agency,” as defined at 7 CFR 253.2, is used to include Indian Tribal Organizations (ITOs) authorized to operate FDPIR and Food Distribution Program for Indian Households in Oklahoma (FDPIHO) in accordance with 7 CFR Parts 253 and 254. This final rulemaking amends the regulations for FDPIR at 7 CFR 253.6 and 253.7 as follows:
In the proposed rule, to eliminate the resource standard from current regulations, the Department proposed to remove the regulatory provisions at 7 CFR 253.6(d). Removal of the resource test would streamline the certification process for new and currently participating households and simplify program administration, reducing the burden on State agency certification staff and improving service to those in need of nutrition assistance. Based on the comments discussed, which reflect vast majority support for eliminating the eligibility criterion based on household resources, the proposed removal of 7 CFR 253.6(d) is included without change in this final rule.
This final rule makes conforming amendments to 7 CFR 253.6(c) on categorical eligibility and removes reference to resource eligibility. This final rule also removes 7 CFR 253.7(f)(2)(i), which currently references resources of disqualified household members, and redesignates the current paragraphs at 7 CFR 253.7(f)(2)(ii) and (iii) as paragraphs (f)(2)(i) and (ii), respectively.
The Department also proposed to redesignate 7 CFR 253.6(e)(3)(viii) as 7 CFR 253.6(d)(3)(viii), and remove the provision which currently counts non-recurring lump sum payments as resources in the month received. The Department proposed similar treatment of periodic per capita payments that are derived from the profits of Tribal enterprises and distributed to Tribal members less frequently than monthly. Therefore, non-recurring lump sum payments and non-monthly per capita payments will not be considered in determining the eligibility of households for FDPIR. No comments were received on these proposed changes. Thus, the proposed changes are retained in this final rule. Furthermore, this final rule redesignates 7 CFR 253.6(e)(2)(ii) as 7 CFR 253.6(d)(2)(ii), and clarifies that per capita payments received monthly are considered unearned income in the month received. This is consistent with current program policy. No comments were received on this proposed provision. Thus, the proposed change is retained in this final rule.
In the proposed rule, the Department proposed to redesignate 7 CFR
In the proposed rule, the Department also proposed to adopt SNAP position codified at 7 CFR 273.9(d)(3) in regards to allowable medical costs. A vast majority of comments received support aligning FDPIR with SNAP policy. Thus, the proposed changes are retained in this final rule.
In the proposed rule, the Department proposed to redesignate 7 CFR 253.6(f) as 7 CFR 253.6(e), and establish region-specific standard income deductions for monthly shelter and utility expenses, with all States within each designated region receiving the same deduction amount. All comments received regarding this provision were in support of establishing regional shelter and utility expense deductions, as proposed. Thus, the proposed changes are retained in this final rule.
In the proposed rule, the Department also proposed to adopt SNAP policy under 7 CFR 273.9(d)(6)(ii) for allowable shelter and utility expenses. A vast majority of comments received support aligning FDPIR with SNAP policy. Thus, the proposed changes are retained in this final rule.
In the proposed rule, the Department proposed to amend 7 CFR 253.7(a)(6)(i) to revise the current verification requirements for Medicare Part B and Part D premiums to reflect the expanded medical expense deduction. No comments were received specific to this provision for expanded medical expenses. The Department also proposed to amend 7 CFR 253.7(a)(6)(i) to add a verification requirement for shelter and utility expenses. Although two commenters expressed concern with this verification requirement, the vast majority of commenters were generally in support of the proposed provisions. As discussed in Section I.B. of the preamble, the Department believes that requiring minimal verification of shelter/utility expenses is important to ensure Program integrity. The proposed verification requirements are included without change in 7 CFR 253.7(a)(6)(i) of this final rule.
In the proposed rule, the Department proposed to amend the reporting requirements at 7 CFR 253.7(c)(1) and require a household to report a change in residence; changes in shelter/utility expenses when the household no longer incurs shelter/utility costs; changes in the legal obligation to pay child support; and changes in income that result in an increase of more than $100 in gross monthly income. The Department believes these provisions, as proposed, will provide for better comprehension, and improve the administration of FDPIR. Although two commenters expressed concern with the requirement to report a change in income exceeding $100 in gross monthly income, the vast majority of commenters were generally in support of the proposed reporting requirements. As discussed in Section I.B. of the preamble, the Department believes this reporting requirement provides a more effective guideline for households to determine when changes in income must be reported. The proposed reporting requirements are included without change in 7 CFR 253.7(c)(1) of this final rule.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. Therefore, it was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This final rule has been reviewed with regard to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612). It has been certified that this action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. While program participants and ITOs and State agencies that administer FDPIR will be affected by this rulemaking, the economic effect will not be significant.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104–4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Under Section 202 of the UMRA, the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with Federal mandates that may result in expenditures to State, local, or Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. When such a statement is needed for a rule, Section 205 of the UMRA generally requires FNS to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, more cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule.
This final rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, and Tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year. This final rule is, therefore, not subject to the requirements of Sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
The program addressed in this action is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.567. For the reasons set forth in the final rule in 7 CFR Part 3015, Subpart V and related Notice published at 48 FR 29115 on June 24, 1983, the donation of foods in such programs is included in the scope of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials.
Executive Order 13132 requires Federal agencies to consider the impact of their regulatory actions on State and local governments. Where such actions have federalism implications, agencies are directed to provide a statement for inclusion in the preamble to the regulations describing the agency's considerations in terms of the three categories called for under Section (6)(b)(2)(B) of Executive Order 13132.
The Programs affected by the provisions in this final rule are all Tribal or State-administered federally funded programs. FNS' national and regional offices have formal and informal discussions with State agency officials and representatives on an ongoing basis regarding program issues relating to FDPIR. FNS meets annually with the NAFDPIR membership, a national group of Tribal and State-appointed FDPIR Program Directors, to discuss issues relating to FDPIR. FNS also meets with the NAFDPIR Board on a more frequent basis.
The changes in this final rulemaking related to the deduction for shelter and utility expenses are based on a resolution passed by the NAFDPIR membership in June 2009, and were discussed with the NAFDPIR Board and its membership. This rulemaking was also the subject of formal consultation sessions with Tribal officials held in seven locations in October 2010 through January 2011, as well as an additional consultation session held on February 29, 2012. Section J below, provides additional information on FNS' consultation efforts as it relates specifically to this rule.
Eligible low-income households living in areas served by FDPIR may choose to participate in either FDPIR or SNAP. SNAP regulations offer an income deduction for excess shelter expenses and an income deduction for allowable monthly medical expenses in excess of $35 for households with elderly and/or disabled members. This final rulemaking responds to a resolution passed by the membership of the NAFDPIR in June 2009 that requested income deductions for home heating expenses and utilities, prescription medications, and other out-of-pocket medical expenses. The NAFDPIR resolution read that the FDPIR income eligibility criterion unfairly penalizes households whose net monthly income is determined to be over the income standard by as little as one dollar, while many of these households have monthly shelter, utility and/or medical expenses. NAFDPIR believes that some low-income households are forced to choose between paying for food and paying for heat and/or medicine.
FNS also received numerous public comments in response to separate proposed rulemaking supporting elimination of the FDPIR resource test or alignment of FDPIR and SNAP policies. This final rulemaking responds to the concerns raised by commenters.
The Department has considered the impact of this final rule on Indian Tribal Organizations and State agencies that administer FDPIR. The Department does not expect the provisions of this final rule to conflict with any State or local law, regulations, or policies. The overall effect of this final rule is to ensure that low-income households living on or near Indian reservations receive nutrition assistance.
This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform.” Although the provisions of this rule are not expected to conflict with any State or local law, regulations, or policies, the rule is intended to have preemptive effect with respect to any State or local laws, regulations, or policies that conflict with its provisions or that would otherwise impede its full implementation. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect. Prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of this rule or the applications of its provisions, all applicable administrative procedures must be exhausted.
The Department has reviewed this final rule in accordance with the Department Regulation 4300–4, “Civil Rights Impact Analysis,” to identify and address any major civil rights impacts the rule might have on minorities, women, and persons with disabilities. Consistent with current SNAP regulations, the provision to expand the current income deduction for Medicare Part B Medical Insurance and Part D Prescription Drug Coverage premiums to include other allowable monthly medical expenses in excess of $35 would apply only to households with elderly and/or disabled members, as defined at 7 CFR 253.2. However, after a careful review of the rule's intent and provisions, the Department has determined that this final rule will not in any way limit or reduce the ability of participants to receive the benefits of donated foods in food distribution programs on the basis of an individual's or group's race, color, national origin, sex, age, political beliefs, religious creed, or disability. The Department found no factors that would negatively affect any group of individuals.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35; see 5 CFR part 1320) requires that OMB approve all collections of information by a Federal agency from the public before they can be implemented. Information collections related to the provisions in this final rule are approved under OMB No. 0584–0293 (Expiration date: December 31, 2014).
This final rule would impact the reporting and recordkeeping burden for Indian Tribal Organizations and State agencies under OMB No. 0584–0293 due to an expected change in number of households participating in FDPIR as a result of this rule and related changes to verification and household reporting requirements. Documentation supporting the eligibility of all participating households must be maintained by the Indian Tribal Organizations and State agencies.
The approved information collection estimates under OMB No. 0584–0293 are as follows:
Changes resulting from this final rule would result in the following changes to OMB No. 0584–0293:
These information collection requirements will not become effective until approved by OMB. Once they have been approved, FNS will publish a separate action in the
The Department is committed to complying with the E-Government Act 2002 to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with Tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have Tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that
In late 2010 and early 2011, USDA engaged in a series of consultative sessions to obtain input by Tribal officials or their designees concerning the effect of this and other rules on Tribes or Indian Tribal governments, or whether this rule may preempt Tribal law. The Department provided an additional consultation session on February 29, 2012, as part of its quarterly consultation meetings for FY 2012 and discussed the proposed provisions of this rule with Tribal officials, their designees, and Tribal members. Reports from the consultative sessions will be made part of the USDA annual reporting on Tribal Consultation and Collaboration. USDA will offer future opportunities, such as webinars and teleconferences, for collaborative conversations with Tribal leaders and their representatives concerning ways to improve rules with regard to their affect on Indian country.
We are unaware of any current Tribal laws that could be in conflict with the final rule.
Administrative practice and procedure, Food assistance programs, Grant programs, Social programs, Indians, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surplus agricultural commodities.
Accordingly, 7 CFR Part 253 is amended as follows:
91 Stat. 958 (7 U.S.C. 2011–2036).
The revision and additions read as follows:
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) * * *
(F) Per capita payments that are derived from the profits of Tribal enterprises and distributed to Tribal members on a monthly basis.
(3) * * *
(xii) Per capita payments that are derived from the profits of Tribal enterprises and distributed to Tribal members less frequently than monthly (e.g., quarterly, semiannually or annually) are excluded from consideration as income.
(e) * * *
(4) Households must receive a medical deduction for that portion of medical expenses in excess of $35 per month, excluding special diets, incurred by any household member who is elderly or disabled as defined in § 253.2 of this chapter. Spouses or other persons receiving benefits as a dependent of a Supplemental Security Income (SSI), or disability and blindness recipient are not eligible to receive this deduction; however, persons receiving emergency SSI benefits based on presumptive eligibility are eligible for this deduction. The allowable medical costs are those permitted at 7 CFR 273.9(d)(3) for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
(5) Households that incur monthly shelter and utility expenses will receive a shelter/utility standard deduction, subject to the provisions below.
(i) The household must incur, on a monthly basis, at least one allowable shelter/utility expense. The allowable shelter/utility expenses are those permitted at 7 CFR 273.9(d)(6)(ii) for SNAP.
(ii) The shelter/utility standard deduction amounts are set by FNS on a regional basis. The standard deductions are adjusted annually to reflect changes to SNAP Quality Control data. FNS will advise the State agencies of the updates prior to October 1 of each year.
(iii) If eligible to receive a shelter/utility standard deduction, the applicant household may opt to receive the appropriate deduction amount for the State in which the household resides or the State in which the State agency's central administrative office is located.
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(a) * * *
(6) * * *
(i) * * *
(C)
(D)
(c) * * *
(1) The State agency must develop procedures for how changes in household circumstances are reported. Changes reported over the telephone or in person must be acted on in the same manner as those reported in writing. Participating households are required to report the following changes within 10 calendar days after the change becomes known to the household:
(i) A change in household composition;
(ii) An increase in gross monthly income of more than $100;
(iii) A change in residence;
(iv) When the household no longer incurs a shelter and utility expense; or
(v) A change in the legal obligation to pay child support.
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, USDA.
Final rule.
The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) finalizes the Catastrophic Risk Protection Endorsement. The intended effect of this action is to clarify existing policy provisions and to incorporate changes that are consistent with those made in the Common Crop Insurance Policy Basic Provisions and to incorporate provisions regarding catastrophic risk protection coverage for area yield plans from the Area Risk Protection Insurance (ARPI) Basic Provisions. The changes will be effective for the 2014 and succeeding crop years for all crops with a contract change date on or after the effective date of this rule, and for the 2015 and succeeding crop years for all crops with a contract change date prior to the effective date of this rule.
This rule is effective September 26, 2013.
Tim Hoffmann, Director, Product Administration and Standards Division, Risk Management Agency, United States Department of Agriculture, Beacon Facility, Stop 0812, Room 421, P.O. Box 419205, Kansas City, MO 64141–6205, telephone (816) 926–7730.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this rule is not-significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, it has not been reviewed by OMB.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the collections of information in this rule have been approved by OMB under control number 0563–0053.
FCIC is committed to complying with the E-Government Act of 2002, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of title II of the UMRA) for State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.
It has been determined under section 1(a) of Executive Order 13132, Federalism, that this rule does not have sufficient implications to warrant consultation with the States. The provisions contained in this rule will not have a substantial direct effect on States, or on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. The review reveals that this regulation will not have substantial and direct effects on Tribal governments and will not have significant Tribal implications.
FCIC certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Program requirements for the Federal crop insurance program are the same for all producers regardless of the size of their farming operation. For instance, all producers are required to submit an application and acreage report to establish their insurance guarantees and compute premium amounts, and all producers are required to submit a notice of loss and production information to determine the amount of an indemnity payment in the event of an insured cause of crop loss. Whether a producer has 10 acres or 1000 acres, there is no difference in the kind of information collected. To ensure crop insurance is available to small entities, the Federal Crop Insurance Act authorizes FCIC to waive collection of administrative fees from limited resource farmers. FCIC believes this waiver helps to ensure that small entities are given the same opportunities as large entities to manage their risks through the use of crop insurance. A Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has not been prepared since this regulation does not have an impact on small entities, and, therefore, this regulation is exempt from the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605).
This program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.450.
This program is not subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which require intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. See the Notice related to 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V, published at 48 FR 29115, June 24, 1983.
This final rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12988 on civil justice reform. The provisions of this rule will not have a retroactive effect. The provisions of this rule will preempt State and local laws to the extent such State and local laws are inconsistent herewith. With respect to any direct action taken by FCIC or to require the insurance provider to take specific action under the terms of the crop insurance policy, the administrative appeal provisions published at 7 CFR part 11 must be exhausted before any action against FCIC for judicial review may be brought.
This action is not expected to have a significant economic impact on the quality of the human environment, health, or safety. Therefore, neither an Environmental Assessment nor an Environmental Impact Statement is needed.
This rule finalizes changes to the Catastrophic Risk Protection Endorsement that were published by FCIC on August 17, 2011, as a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
A total of 35 comments were received from five commenters. The commenters were insurance providers, an insurance service organization, a University, and an interested party. The public comments received regarding the proposed rule and FCIC's responses to the comments are as follows:
“(a) This section is not applicable if you are insured under the Group Risk Plan. . .”
“(b) This section is in lieu of the unit provisions specified in the applicable crop policy. For catastrophic risk protection coverage, a unit will be . . .”
Crop insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, as set forth in the preamble, the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation amends 7 CFR part 402 as follows:
7 U.S.C. 1506(l), 1506(o).
The revised text reads as follows:
If a conflict exists among the policy, the order of priority is: (1) This Endorsement; (2) Special Provisions; (3) actuarial documents; (4) the Commodity Exchange Price Provisions, if applicable; and (5) any of the policies specified in section 2, with (1) controlling (2), etc.
(a) You must have one of the following policies in force to elect this Endorsement:
(1) The Common Crop Insurance Policy Basic Provisions (7 CFR 457.8) and applicable Crop Provisions (catastrophic risk protection coverage is not available under individual revenue plans of insurance such as Revenue Protection and Revenue Protection with Harvest Price Exclusion);
(2) The Area Risk Protection Insurance Basic Provisions (7 CFR 407.9) and applicable Crop Provisions (catastrophic risk protection coverage is not available under area revenue plans of insurance such as Area Revenue Protection or Area Revenue Protection with the Harvest Price Exclusion); or
(3) Other crop policies only if catastrophic risk protection coverage is provided in the applicable crop policy.
(a) This section is not applicable if you are insured under the Area Risk Protection Insurance Basic Provisions (7 CFR 407.9) and applicable Crop Provisions.
(b) This section is in lieu of the unit provisions specified in the applicable crop policy. For catastrophic risk protection coverage, a unit will be all insurable acreage of the insured crop in the county on the date coverage begins for the crop year:
(1) In which you have one hundred percent (100%) crop share; or
(2) Which is owned by one person and operated by another person on a share basis.
(Example: If, in addition to the land you own, you rent land from five landlords, three on a crop share basis and two on a cash basis, you would be entitled to four units; one for each crop share lease and one that combines the two cash leases and the land you own.)
(a) Unless otherwise specified in the Special Provisions, catastrophic risk protection coverage will offer protection equal to:
(1) Fifty percent (50%) of your approved yield indemnified at fifty-five percent (55%) of the price election or projected price, as applicable, if you are insured under the Common Crop Insurance Policy Basic Provisions (7 CFR 457.8) and applicable Crop Provisions;
(2) Sixty-five percent (65%) of the expected county yield indemnified at forty-five percent (45%) of the maximum protection per acre if you are insured under the Area Risk Protection Insurance Basic Provisions (7 CFR 407.9) and applicable Crop Provisions; or
(3) A comparable coverage as established by FCIC for other crop policies only if catastrophic risk protection coverage is provided in the applicable crop policy.
(c) The administrative fee provisions of paragraph (b) of this section do not apply if you meet the definition of a limited resource farmer specified in the applicable crop policy. The administrative fee will be waived if you request it and you meet the requirements contained in the annual premium provisions of the applicable crop policy.
The crop insured is specified in the applicable crop policy; however, for policies other than those insured under the Area Risk Protection Insurance Basic Provisions, notwithstanding any other policy provision requiring the same insurance coverage on all insurable acreage of the crop in the county, if you purchase additional coverage for a crop, you may separately insure acreage designated as “high-risk” land by FCIC under catastrophic risk protection coverage, provided that you execute a High-Risk Land Exclusion Option and obtain a catastrophic risk protection coverage policy with the same insurance provider on or before the applicable sales closing date. You will be required to pay a separate administrative fee for both the additional coverage policy and the catastrophic risk protection coverage policy.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The Boeing Company Model 757 airplanes. This AD was prompted by two in-service occurrences on Model 737–400 airplanes of total loss of boost pump pressure of the fuel feed system, followed by loss of fuel system suction feed capability on one engine, and in-flight shutdown of the engine. This AD requires repetitive operational tests of the engine fuel suction feed of the fuel system, and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct loss of the engine fuel suction feed capability of the fuel system, which, in the event of total loss of the fuel boost pumps, could result in dual engine flameout, inability to restart the engines, and consequent forced landing of the airplane.
This AD is effective October 1, 2013.
The Director of the
For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, Seattle, WA 98124–2207; telephone 206–544–5000, extension 1; fax 206–766–5680; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Sue Lucier, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM–140S, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057–3356; phone: 425–917–6438; fax: 425–917–6590; 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. The SNPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the SNPRM (77 FR 65642, October 30, 2012) and the FAA's response to each comment.
One commenter, Mara Essick, submitted support for the actions specified in the SNPRM (77 FR 65642, October 30, 2012).
American Airlines (AA) asked that we give credit for operators that accomplished the specified actions before issuance of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–28A0131, dated May 4, 2012. AA stated that it accomplished the operational tests proposed in the original NPRM (73 FR 32256, June 6, 2008) in 2008, using the Boeing task cards or airplane maintenance manual (AMM). AA added that it continues to do the repetitive operational tests at intervals not to exceed 7,500 flight hours.
We do not agree with the commenter's request. Although we normally support granting credit for accomplishing actions prior to the effective date of the AD, the credit is generally given using a previous issue of the required service bulletin, not for an AMM or task cards. Under the provisions of paragraph (h) of this final rule, however, we may consider individual requests for credit for accomplishing actions prior to the effective date of the AD if data are submitted to substantiate that it provides an acceptable level of safety. We have made no change to the AD in this regard.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed.
We estimate that this AD affects 673 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide a cost estimate 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.
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 October 1, 2013.
None.
This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 757–200, –200PF, –200CB, and –300 series airplanes, certificated in any category.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 2800, Aircraft Fuel System.
This AD was prompted by reports of two in-service occurrences on Model 737–400 airplanes of total loss of boost pump pressure of the fuel feed system, followed by loss of fuel system suction feed capability on one engine, and in-flight shutdown of the engine. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct loss of the engine fuel suction feed capability of the fuel system, which in the event of total loss of the fuel boost pumps could result in dual engine flameout, inability to restart the engines, and consequent forced landing of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 7,500 flight hours or 36 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first: Perform an operational test of the engine fuel suction feed of the fuel system, and do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–28A0131, dated May 4, 2012. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the operational test thereafter at intervals not to exceed 7,500 flight hours or 36 months, whichever occurs first. Thereafter, except as provided in paragraph
(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in the Related Information section of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
For more information about this AD, contact Sue Lucier, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM–140S, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057–3356; phone: 425–917–6438; fax: 425–917–6590; 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) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–28A0131, dated May 4, 2012.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, Seattle, WA 98124–2207; telephone 206–544–5000, extension 1; fax 206–766–5680; Internet
(4) You may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. 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 The Boeing Company Model 737–600, –700, –700C, –800, –900, and –900ER series airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report of an in-service occurrence of total loss of boost pump pressure of the fuel feed system, followed by loss of fuel system suction feed capability on one engine, and in-flight shutdown of the engine. This AD requires repetitive operational tests of the engine fuel suction feed of the fuel system, and other related testing and corrective action if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct loss of the engine fuel suction feed capability of the fuel system, which in the event of total loss of the fuel boost pumps could result in dual engine flameout, inability to restart the engines, and consequent forced landing of the airplane.
This AD is effective October 1, 2013.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of October 1, 2013.
For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, Seattle, WA 98124–2207; telephone 206–544–5000, extension 1; fax 206–766–5680; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Sue Lucier, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM–140S, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057–3356; phone: 425–917–6438; fax: 425–917–6590; 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. The SNPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal (77 FR 37831, June 25, 2012) and the FAA's response to each comment.
Boeing asked that we change the next to last sentence in paragraph (g) of the SNPRM (77 FR 37831, June 25, 2012), which specifies “. . . using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (h) of this AD” to read “If the test is not considered successful, as specified in AWL No. 28–AWL–101, before further flight, perform all related testing and corrective actions, and repeat the operational test specified in AWL No. 28–AWL–101.” Boeing noted that paragraph (h) of the SNPRM (paragraph (i) of this final rule) does not provide testing and corrective actions for a failed test, and FAA approval of action taken
Delta Airlines (DAL) requested that we include an existing fault isolation manual (FIM) procedure as an approved method for resolving unsuccessful testing.
American Airlines (AAL) stated that paragraph (g) of the SNPRM (77 FR 37831, June 25, 2012) specifies that the corrective action for findings from the operational test is to perform all related testing and corrective actions in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (h) of the SNPRM (paragraph (i) of this final rule). AAL added that paragraph (h) of the SNPRM provides information on obtaining AMOCs, and asked for clarification on that approval.
We agree to revise the requirements and methods of compliance specified in paragraph (g) of this AD. In paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this final rule, we have retained the requirement for performing all related testing and corrective actions using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (i) of this AD. As requested by Boeing, we have added new paragraph (g)(1)(ii) to this final rule to perform all related testing and corrective actions, and to repeat the operational test specified in AWL No. 28–AWL–101. The actions specified in paragraph (g)(1)(ii) do not require submitting requests to the FAA for approval of a method of compliance. Therefore, including an existing FIM procedure in the AD as an approved method becomes unnecessary for resolving unsuccessful testing since operators may use any method of compliance to resolve unsuccessful testing, provided the operational test is repeated.
In addition, we have reviewed Boeing 737–600/700/700C/800/900/900ER Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D626A001–CMR, Revision August 2012, which includes AWL No. 28–AWL–101. As an option for the repetitive operational tests (specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD), we have specified incorporating AWL No. 28–AWL–101 into the maintenance program (paragraph (g)(2) of this AD). Compliance with these actions is required by section 91.403(c) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 91.403(c)). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by these inspections, the operator may not be able to accomplish the inspections described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an AMOC according to the procedures specified in paragraph (i) of this AD. The request should include a description of changes to the required actions that will ensure the continued operational safety of the airplane.
DAL suggested that the SNPRM (77 FR 37831, June 25, 2012) include compliance with the engine fuel suction feed test using Boeing 737–600/700/800 Task Card 28–050–00–01 as an AMOC. DAL stated that this task card complies with the requirements of AWL No. 28–AWL–101, which is specified in paragraph (g) of the SNPRM. AAL asked for clarification that Boeing AMM Task 28–22–00–710–802, Engine Fuel Suction Feed—Operational Test, can be used as an AMOC.
Although we agree that the task card contains adequate instructions to perform the test, we do not agree with identifying the task card information within the instructions for the mandated action. For clarification, general maintenance instructions are identified within the AWL for guidance, which means that if the operator already has an accepted alternative procedure, that procedure may be used. The maintenance program with the task cards incorporated is an acceptable alternative procedure. We have made no change to the AD in this regard.
AAL asked that we increase the repetitive operational test interval in the SNPRM (77 FR 37831, June 25, 2012) from 7,500 to 10,000 flight hours. AAL provided a risk-based assessment for extending the intervals based on its experience. AAL stated within its assessment that the loss of suction feed capability would remain remote with the extended testing interval.
We do not agree with the request to increase the repetitive operational test interval. The service data of transport category airplanes indicates that multi-engine flameouts generally result from a common cause such as fuel mismanagement, crew action that inadvertently shuts off the fuel supply to the engines, exposure to common environmental conditions, or engine deterioration occurring on all engines of the same type—not solely the failure of multiple fuel boost pumps. This risk assessment is based on the results of maintenance findings of one operator's fleet, and does not support increasing the repetitive interval. The current interval is based on an overall fleet assessment by the original equipment manufacturer. However, affected operators may request approval of an AMOC for an increase of the repetitive operational test interval under the provisions of paragraph (i) of this AD by submitting data substantiating that the change would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have made no change to the AD in this regard.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously. We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.
We estimate that this AD affects 1,080 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide a cost estimate for the on-condition actions or the optional terminating action 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.
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 October 1, 2013.
None.
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737–600, –700, –700C, –800, –900, and –900ER series airplanes, certificated in any category, with a date of issuance of the original airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness before March 22, 2011.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 2800, Aircraft Fuel System.
This AD was prompted by a report of an in-service occurrence of total loss of boost pump pressure of the fuel feed system, followed by loss of fuel system suction feed capability on one engine, and in-flight shutdown of the engine. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct loss of the engine fuel suction feed capability of the fuel system, which in the event of total loss of the fuel boost pumps could result in dual engine flameout, inability to restart the engines, and consequent forced landing of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Do the requirements of paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD.
(1) Within 7,500 flight hours or 36 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first: Do the initial operational test identified in Airworthiness Limitation (AWL) No. 28–AWL–101, Engine Fuel Suction Feed Operational Test, of Section E., AWL—Fuel Systems of Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D626A001–CMR, Revision August 2011 or August 2012, of the Boeing 737–600/700/700C/800/900/900ER Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document. Repeat the test thereafter at intervals not to exceed 7,500 flight hours or 36 months, whichever is earlier. Thereafter, except as provided in paragraph (i) of this AD, no alternative procedure or repetitive test intervals will be allowed. If any test is not considered successful, as specified in AWL No. 28–AWL–101, before further flight, do either paragraph (g)(1)(i) or (g)(1)(ii) of this AD.
(i) Perform all related testing and corrective actions, using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.
(ii) Perform all related testing and corrective actions; and repeat the operational test specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.
(2) Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD: Revise the maintenance program to incorporate the limitations specified in AWL No. 28–AWL–101, Engine Fuel Suction Feed Operational Test, of Section E., AWL—Fuel Systems of Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D626A001–CMR, Revision August 2012, of the Boeing 737–600/700/700C/800/900/900ER MPD Document. The initial compliance time for the task is within 7,500 flight hours or 36 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.
After accomplishing the revision provided by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD, no alternative actions or repetitive test intervals may be used unless the actions or intervals are approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.
(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in the Related Information section of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
For more information about this AD, contact Sue Lucier, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM–140S, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057–3356; phone: 425–917–6438; fax: 425–917–6590; 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) Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D626A001–CMR, Revision August 2011, of the Boeing 737–600/700/700C/800/900/900ER Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document.
(ii) Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, Seattle, WA 98124–2207; telephone 206–544–5000, extension 1; fax 206–766–5680; Internet
(4) You may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. 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 superseding an airworthiness directive (AD) for all Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Model L–1011 series airplanes. AD 2005–15–01 required repetitive inspections to detect corrosion or fatigue cracking of certain structural elements of the airplane, corrective actions if necessary, and incorporation of certain structural modifications. This new AD reduces certain compliance times for the initial inspection and the repetitive inspection interval for certain airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of small cracks in additional areas outside those addressed in AD 2005–15–01, prior to the inspection threshold required by the AD 2005–15–01. We are issuing this AD to prevent corrosion or fatigue cracking of certain structural elements, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
This AD is effective October 1, 2013.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of October 1, 2013.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain other publications listed in this AD as of August 26, 2005 (70 FR 42262, July 22, 2005).
For service information identified in this AD, contact Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, L–1011 Technical Support Center, Dept. 6A4M, Zone 0579, 86 South Cobb Drive, Marietta, GA 30063–0579; telephone 770–494–5444; fax 770–494–5445; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Carl Gray, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ACE–117A, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337; phone: 404–474–5554; fax: 404–474–5605; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2005–15–01, Amendment 39–14190 (70 FR 42262, July 22, 2005). AD 2005–15–01 applied to the specified products. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal (77 FR 63275, October 16, 2012) and the FAA's response to each comment.
Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company requested that we revise the NPRM (77 FR 63275, October 16, 2012) to update its address information.
We agree to update the address information in this final rule. We have included this updated information in the
We have revised paragraph (g)(10) of this AD (in table 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD) to include paragraph identifiers for paragraphs (g)(10)(i) and (g)(10)(ii) of this AD. This change is for formatting purposes only.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the change described previously—and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 63275, October 16, 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 63275, October 16, 2012).
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD.
We estimate that this AD affects 26 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the retained 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 have 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 DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective October 1, 2013.
This AD supersedes AD 2005–15–01, Amendment 39–14190 (70 FR 42262, July 22, 2005).
This AD applies to all Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Model L–1011–385–1, L–1011–385–1–14, L–1011–385–1–15, and L–1011–385–3 airplanes, certificated in any category.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 51, Standard practices/structures; 52, Doors; 53, Fuselage; 57, Wings.
This AD was prompted by reports of small cracks in additional areas outside those addressed in AD 2005–15–01, Amendment 39–14190 (70 FR 42262, July 22, 2005), prior to the inspection threshold required by AD 2005–15–01. We are issuing this AD to prevent corrosion or fatigue cracking of certain structural elements, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the inspections required by paragraph (a) of AD 2005–15–01, Amendment 39–14190 (70 FR 42262, July 22, 2005), with revised service information and reduced compliance times for paragraph (g)(16) of this AD. At the time specified in the “Initial Compliance Time” column of table 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD, perform structural inspections to detect corrosion or fatigue cracking of certain structural elements of the airplane, in accordance with the applicable service bulletins listed under “Service Bulletin Number, Revision, and Date” in tables I and II of Lockheed Tristar L–1011 Service Bulletin 093–51–041, Revision 1, dated March 3, 2000; or Revision 2, dated March 30, 2010 (The applicable service bulletins are also identified in Table 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD.) As of the effective date of this AD, only Lockheed Tristar L–1011 Service Bulletin 093–51–041, Revision 2, dated March 30, 2010, may be used for the actions required by this paragraph. Thereafter, repeat the inspections at intervals specified in the “Repetitive Intervals” column of table 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD.
This paragraph restates the corrective action required by paragraph (b) of AD 2005–15–01, Amendment 39–14190 (70 FR 42262, July 22, 2005), with a certain compliance method removed and revised service information. If any cracking or corrosion is detected during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, prior to further flight, accomplish the actions specified in paragraph (h)(1), (h)(2), or (h)(3) of this AD.
(1) Repair in accordance with the applicable service bulletin referenced in table I or II of Lockheed Tristar L–1011 Service Bulletin 093–51–041, Revision 1, dated March 3, 2000; or Revision 2, dated March 30, 2010.
(2) Accomplish the terminating modification in accordance with the applicable service bulletin referenced in table I or II of Lockheed Tristar L–1011 Service Bulletin 093–51–041, Revision 1, dated March 3, 2000; or Revision 2, dated March 30, 2010.
(3) Repair in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA. Information on additional methods of compliance can be obtained from the Manager, Atlanta ACO.
This paragraph restates the terminating action required by paragraph (c) of AD 2005–15–01, Amendment 39–14190 (70 FR 42262, July 22, 2005). Within 5 years or 5,000 flight cycles after August 26, 2005 (the effective date of AD 2005–15–01), whichever occurs first, install the terminating modification referenced in the applicable service bulletin listed in table 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD, in accordance with the applicable service bulletin listed in table 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD. Such installation constitutes terminating action for the applicable structural inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
For airplanes identified in Lockheed TriStar L–1011 Service Bulletin 093–57–195, Revision 4, dated March 17, 2010: Do the initial inspection required by paragraph (g)(16) of this AD at the applicable time specified in paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2) of this AD.
(1) For airplanes having serial numbers (S/Ns) 1002 through 1109 inclusive: At the earlier of the times specified in paragraphs (j)(1)(i) and (j)(1)(ii) of this AD.
(i) Before the accumulation of 20,000 total flight cycles, or within 2,200 flight cycles after August 26, 2005 (the effective date of AD 2005–15–01, Amendment 39–14190 (70 FR 42262, July 22, 2005)), whichever occurs later.
(ii) Before the accumulation of 15,000 total flight cycles, or within 2,200 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(2) For airplanes having S/Ns 1110 through 1250 inclusive: At the earlier of the times specified in paragraphs (j)(2)(i) and (j)(2)(ii) of this AD.
(i) Before the accumulation of 30,000 total flight cycles, or within 2,200 flight cycles after August 26, 2005 (the effective date of AD 2005–15–01, Amendment 39–14190 (70 FR 42262, July 22, 2005)), whichever occurs later.
(ii) Before the accumulation of 15,000 total flight cycles, or within 2,200 flight cycles
For airplanes identified in paragraph (j) of this AD, repeat the inspection required by paragraph (j) of this AD thereafter at the applicable times specified in paragraph (k)(1) or (k)(2) of this AD.
(1) For airplanes having S/Ns 1002 through 1156 inclusive: Repeat the inspection at intervals not to exceed 2,200 flight cycles.
(2) For airplanes having S/Ns 1157 through 1250 inclusive: Repeat the inspection one time within 2,200 flight cycles after the most recent inspection, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,750 flight cycles.
(1) The Manager, Atlanta 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 Carl Gray, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ACE–117A, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337; phone: 404–474–5554; fax: 404–474–5605; 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.
(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on October 1, 2013.
(i) Lockheed TriStar L–1011 Service Bulletin 093–57–195, Revision 4, dated March 17, 2010.
(ii) Lockheed Tristar L–1011 Service Bulletin 093–51–041, Revision 2, dated March 30, 2010.
(iii) Lockheed TriStar L–1011 Service Bulletin 093–53–269, Revision 1, dated October 28, 1997.
(iv) Lockheed TriStar L–1011 Service Bulletin 093–53–274, dated May 28, 1997.
(v) Lockheed TriStar L–1011 Service Bulletin 093–53–275, dated December 10, 1996.
(vi) Lockheed TriStar L–1011 Service Bulletin 093–53–276, dated June 17, 1996.
(vii) Lockheed TriStar L–1011 Service Bulletin 093–57–208, Revision 1, dated October 28, 1997.
(viii) Lockheed TriStar L–1011 Service Bulletin 093–52–210, dated July 19, 1991, including Lockheed LCC–7622–248, Corrosion Removal and Refurbishment of C1–A Cargo Door Cam Latches, Latch Bellcranks and Matched Latch Support Assemblies, dated February 27, 1990. Pages 1 and 3–8 of this document are dated February 27, 1990. Page 2 is dated February 19, 1990. Page 9 is dated January 4, 1990. Pages 10 and 11 are dated January 5, 1990.
(ix) Lockheed TriStar L–1011 Service Bulletin 093–53–054, Revision 1, dated August 12, 1975.
(x) Lockheed TriStar L–1011 Service Bulletin 093–53–085, Revision 3, dated December 15, 1989. Pages 3, 4, 7–14, and 16–23 are dated February 8, 1988. Pages 1, 2, 5, 6, and 15 are dated December 15, 1989.
(xi) Lockheed TriStar L–1011 Service Bulletin Change Notification 093–53–260, CN4, dated May 8, 1998.
(xii) Lockheed TriStar L–1011 Service Bulletin Change Notification 093–53–266, CN1, dated July 10, 1992.
(xiii) Lockheed TriStar L–1011 Service Bulletin Change Notification 093–57–058, R5–CN1, dated May 3, 1993.
(xiv) Lockheed TriStar L–1011 Service Bulletin Change Notification 093–57–195, R3–CN1, dated August 22, 1995.
(xv) Lockheed TriStar L–1011 Service Bulletin Change Notification 093–57–213, CN1, dated February 20, 1996.
(xvi) Lockheed TriStar L–1011 Service Bulletin 093–57–195, Revision 2, dated July 27, 1990.
(xvii) Lockheed TriStar L–1011 Service Bulletin 093–57–195, Revision 3, dated June 30, 1992. Pages 1–6, 23–28, 33, 34, 41, 42, and 45–52 of this document are identified as Revision 3, dated June 30, 1992; Pages 7–22, 29–32, 35–40, 43, and 44 are identified as Revision 2, dated July 27, 1990.
(xviii) Lockheed TriStar L–1011 Service Bulletin 093–57–213, dated December 9, 1994.
(4) The following service information was approved for IBR on August 26, 2005 (70 FR 42262, July 22, 2005).
(i) Lockheed TriStar L–1011 Service Bulletin 093–51–041, Revision 1, dated March 3, 2000.
(ii) Lockheed TriStar L–1011 Service Bulletin 093–53–070, Basic Issue, dated September 26, 1974.
(iii) Lockheed TriStar L–1011 Service Bulletin 093–53–070, Revision 1, dated January 23, 1975. Pages 1, 4–7, and 13–17 of this document are identified as Revision 1, dated January 23, 1975. Pages 2, 3, and 8–12 of this document are identified as Basic Issue, dated September 26, 1974.
(iv) Lockheed TriStar L–1011 Service Bulletin 093–53–070, Revision 2, dated July 7, 1975. Pages 1, 2, 7, and 9–14 of this document are identified as Revision 2, dated July 7, 1975. Pages 3 and 8 of this document are identified as Basic Issue, dated September 26, 1974. Pages 4–6 and 15–17 of this document are identified as Revision 1, dated January 23, 1975.
(v) Lockheed TriStar L–1011 Service Bulletin 093–53–070, Revision 3, dated September 19, 1989. Pages 1–6 and 8–10 of this document are identified as Revision 3, dated September 19, 1989. Page 7 of this document is identified as Basic Issue, dated September 26, 1974.
(vi) Lockheed TriStar L–1011 Service Bulletin 093–53–085, Basic Issue, dated September 29, 1975.
(vii) Lockheed TriStar L–1011 Service Bulletin 093–53–085, Revision 1, dated September 3, 1976. Pages 1–3, 6, 9–11, and 15 of this document are identified as Revision 1, dated September 3, 1976. Pages 4, 5, 7, 8, 12–14, and 16 of this document are identified as Basic Issue, dated September 29, 1975.
(viii) Lockheed TriStar L–1011 Service Bulletin 093–53–085, Revision 2, dated February 8, 1988.
(ix) Lockheed TriStar L–1011 Service Bulletin 093–53–086, Basic Issue, dated September 26, 1975.
(x) Lockheed TriStar L–1011 Service Bulletin 093–53–086, Revision 1, dated November 12, 1975. Pages 1, 2, 11, and 15 of this document are identified as Revision 1, dated November 12, 1975. Pages 3–10, 12–14, and 16 of this document are identified as Basic Issue, dated September 26, 1975.
(xi) Lockheed TriStar L–1011 Service Bulletin 093–53–086, Revision 2, dated December 12, 1976. Pages 1, 2, 7, 15, and 16 of this document are identified as Revision 2, dated December 12, 1976. Pages 3–6, 8–10, and 12–14 of this document are identified as Basic Issue, dated September 26, 1975. Page 11 of this document is identified as Revision 1, dated November 12, 1975.
(xii) Lockheed TriStar L–1011 Service Bulletin 093–53–086, Revision 3, dated July 19, 1977. Pages 1, 2, 4, 7, 10, 11, and 15 of this document are identified as Revision 3, dated July 19, 1977. Pages 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 12–14 of this document are identified as Basic Issue, dated September 26, 1975. Page 16 of this document is identified as Revision 2, dated December 12, 1976.
(xiii) Lockheed TriStar L–1011 Service Bulletin 093–53–086, Revision 4, dated July 8, 1985. Pages 1–4, 15, and 16 of this document are identified as Revision 4, dated July 8, 1985. Pages 5, 6, 8, 9, and 12–14 of this document are identified as Basic Issue, dated September 26, 1975. Pages 7, 10, and 11 of this document are identified as Revision 3, dated July 19, 1977.
(xiv) Lockheed TriStar L–1011 Service Bulletin 093–53–086, Revision 5, dated April 12, 1990. Pages 1–9 and 13 of this document are identified as Revision 5, dated April 12, 1990. Pages 10–12 of this document are identified as Basic Issue, dated September 26, 1975. Page 14 of this document is identified as Revision 4, dated July 8, 1985.
(xv) Lockheed TriStar L–1011 Service Bulletin 093–53–110, Basic Issue, dated August 19, 1991.
(xvi) Lockheed TriStar L–1011 Service Bulletin 093–53–110, Revision 1, dated May 7, 1993. Pages 1–7 and 9–12 of this document are identified as Revision 1, dated May 7, 1993. Page 8 of this document is identified as Basic Issue, dated August 19, 1991.
(xvii) Lockheed TriStar L–1011 Service Bulletin 093–53–260, Basic Issue, dated May 15, 1991.
(xviii) Lockheed TriStar L–1011 Service Bulletin 093–53–266, Basic Issue, dated March 2, 1992.
(xix) Lockheed TriStar L–1011 Service Bulletin 093–57–058, Basic Issue, dated September 16, 1975.
(xx) Lockheed TriStar L–1011 Service Bulletin 093–57–058, Revision 1, dated December 1, 1976. Pages 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 11, and 15–19 of this document are identified as Revision 1, dated December 1, 1976. Pages 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, and 12–14 of this document are identified as Basic Issue, dated September 16, 1975.
(xxi) Lockheed TriStar L–1011 Service Bulletin 093–57–058, Revision 2, dated June 30, 1978. Pages 1–4, 7, 8, 11, and 15–19 of this document are identified as Revision 2, dated June 30, 1978. Pages 5, 6, 9, 10, and 12–14 of this document are identified as Basic issue, dated September 16, 1975.
(xxii) Lockheed TriStar L–1011 Service Bulletin 093–57–058, Revision 3, dated October 19, 1978. Pages 1–3, 7, 8, 11, and 15–19 of this document are identified as Revision 3, dated October 19, 1978. Page 4 of this document is identified as Revision 2, dated June 30, 1978. Pages 5, 6, 9, 10, and 12–14 of this document are identified as Basic Issue, dated September 16, 1975.
(xxiii) Lockheed TriStar L–1011 Service Bulletin 093–57–058, Revision 4, dated July 6, 1981. Pages 1–3 and 19 of this document are identified as Revision 4, dated July 6, 1981. Pages 4 and 15 of this document are identified as Revision 2, dated June 30, 1978. Pages 5, 6, 9, 10, and 12–14 of this document are identified as Basic Issue, dated September 16, 1975. Pages 7, 8, 11, and 16–18 of this document are identified as Revision 3, dated October 19, 1978.
(xxiv) Lockheed TriStar L–1011 Service Bulletin 093–57–058, Revision 5, dated June 9, 1983. Pages 1, 3, 4, and 7 of this document are identified as Revision 5, dated June 9, 1983. Page 2 of this document is identified as Revision 4, dated July 6, 1981. Pages 5, 6, 9, 10, and 12–14 of this document are identified as Basic Issue, dated September 16, 1975. Pages 8, 11, and 16–19 of this document are identified as Revision 3, dated October 19, 1978. Page 15 of this document is identified as Revision 2, dated June 30, 1978.
(xxv) Lockheed TriStar L–1011 Service Bulletin 093–57–085, Basic Issue, dated May 7, 1993. This document was incorrectly identified as “Revision 1” in the “Service bulletin” column of Table 2—Material Incorporated by Reference in AD 2005–15–01, Amendment 39–14190 (70 FR 42262, July 22, 2005).
(xxvi) Lockheed TriStar L–1011 Service Bulletin 093–57–085, Revision 1, dated December 1, 1997. Pages 1–7, 9, and 10 of this document are identified as Revision 1, dated December 1, 1997. Pages 8 and 11–17 are identified as Basic issue, dated May 7, 1993.
(5) For Lockheed service information identified in this AD, contact Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, L1011 Technical Support Center, Dept. 6A4M, Zone 0579, 86 South Cobb Drive, Marietta, GA 30063–0579; telephone 770–494–5444; fax 770–494–5445; email
(6) You may view this service information at FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221.
(7) 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 amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 relating to airspace designations to reflect the approval by the Director of the Federal Register of the incorporation by reference of FAA Order 7400.9X, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points. This action also explains the procedures the FAA will use to amend the listings of Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas; air traffic service routes; and reporting points incorporated by reference.
These regulations are effective September 15, 2013, through September 15, 2014. The incorporation by reference of FAA Order 7400.9X is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of September 15, 2013, through September 15, 2014.
Sarah A. Combs, Airspace Policy and ATC Procedures Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267–8783.
FAA Order 7400.9W, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, effective September 15, 2012, listed Class A, B, C, D and E airspace areas; air traffic service routes; and reporting points. Due to the length of these descriptions, the FAA requested approval from the Office of the Federal Register to incorporate the material by reference in the Federal Aviation Regulations section 71.1, effective September 15, 2012, through September 15, 2013. During the incorporation by reference period, the FAA processed all proposed changes of the airspace listings in FAA Order 7400.9W in full text as proposed rule documents in the
This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to reflect the approval by the Director of the Federal Register of the incorporation by reference of FAA Order 7400.9X, effective September 15, 2013, through September 15, 2014. During the incorporation by reference period, the FAA will continue to process all proposed changes of the airspace listings in FAA Order 7400.9X in full text as proposed rule documents in the
The FAA has determined that this action: (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
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.
A listing for Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas; air traffic service routes; and reporting points can be found in FAA Order 7400.9X, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 7, 2013. This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. The approval to incorporate by reference FAA Order 7400.9X is effective September 15, 2013, through September 15, 2014. During the incorporation by reference period, proposed changes to the listings of Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas; air traffic service routes; and reporting points will be published in full text as proposed rule documents in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of availability; final policy and disposition of comments.
This notice announces the availability of a new policy statement regarding the regulation of some occupational safety and health conditions affecting cabin crewmembers on aircraft by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. This policy statement will enhance occupational safety and health in the aircraft cabin by establishing the extent to which the Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements may apply to the working conditions of aircraft cabin crew while they are onboard aircraft in operation.
This action becomes effective September 26, 2013.
For technical questions concerning this policy statement, contact Gene Kirkendall, Part 121 Air Carrier Operations Branch (AFS–220), Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267–8166; email
The FAA Policy Statement, Occupational Safety and Health Standards for Aircraft Cabin Crewmembers, is available at regulations.gov. (See docket number FAA–2012–0953.)
On December 7, 2012, the FAA published a draft policy statement in the
This document summarizes those comments and provides FAA and OSHA's responses.
Avjet Corporation (Avjet) commented that the policy statement does not adequately address what type of flight operations will be affected by this policy change. The FAA disagrees. The policy does not limit the applicability to a specific type of operation. This policy applies to the working conditions of aircraft cabin crewmembers while they are onboard aircraft in operation. This includes all aircraft operations that utilize at least one aircraft cabin crewmember.
Avjet and the National Air Transportation Association (NATA) commented that the policy statement does not address the definition of an aircraft cabin crewmember. The FAA agrees with this comment and has added the following clarification to the policy statement: For the purposes of this policy, an aircraft cabin crewmember means a person assigned to perform duty in an aircraft cabin when the aircraft is in operation (other than flightcrew members).
The International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT) questioned why OSHA standards should not apply to flight deck crew (e.g. flightcrew members). The Allied Pilots Association (APA) argued that, since Section 829 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 addresses “crewmembers while in an aircraft” without limitation, all crewmembers should receive the same protections. On the other hand, the Air Line Pilots Association International (ALPA) urged us—without involving OSHA—to address flight deck crew safety and health issues, such as fatigue, heat, chemical exposure, laser strikes, cosmic radiation, ozone exposure, contagious diseases, contamination of oxygen masks, and noise on the flight deck. However, the issue of flightcrew member safety and health issues are outside the scope of this policy change.
The National Business Aviation Association (NBAA), Avjet, and NATA also asked whether OSHA coverage would extend to flight deck crew when they perform cabin passenger safety functions. In response, flightcrew members are not aircraft cabin crewmembers. Therefore, this policy change does not apply to them.
NATA asked for clarification of how the policy would affect personnel who work in the aircraft cabin and are not flight attendants (specifically referring to cargo handlers, medical personnel, supernumeraries, and evacuation crewmembers). Any person assigned to perform duty in an aircraft cabin when the aircraft is in operation (other than flightcrew members) would be covered by this policy.
A few commenters asked whether the new policy will apply to part 135 air charter operations and part 91 corporate flight operators operating business jets, as well as to commercial aircraft operations. This policy applies to all aircraft operations that utilize at least one aircraft cabin crewmember.
Aviation trade groups, including Airlines for America (A4A), the Regional Airline Association (RAA), the National Air Carrier Association (NACA), NATA, and NBAA opposed the draft policy statement. They believed that the draft FAA policy statement should be subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking because it calls for a significant, substantive change in the regulatory regime affecting air carriers. The FAA disagrees and is not promulgating new regulations. However, because this has been a long-standing policy, FAA published the draft policy statement for public notice and comment.
Aviation trade groups asserted that the congressional directive was not met in the draft policy statement and asserted that the legislation does not demand the regulatory action proposed in the draft policy statement. The FAA disagrees with this assertion. The congressional directive was met by initiating development of a policy statement that sets forth the circumstances in which requirements of OSHA may be applied to crewmembers while working in an aircraft cabin and by publishing the draft policy statement for public notice and comment. The FAA is not proposing a regulatory action.
Aviation trade groups also asserted that an alternative approach should be used because of important, unresolved, and outstanding issues, concerning such an assumption of regulatory authority. The FAA also disagrees with this assertion. OSHA regulations and standards are in place now in aviation work environments other than the aircraft cabin. Applying the proposed OSHA regulations and standards to the aircraft cabin will have minimal implementation impact and will not compromise aviation safety.
Aviation trade groups further believed that a voluntary, data-based system or a Safety Management System (SMS)-based approach should be implemented instead. US Airways, Inc., did not oppose the application of the specific OSHA requirements expressly identified in the draft policy statement, but suggested that the goals reflected in the draft policy statement could also be achieved through reliance instead on the presence of robust, SMS-based airline voluntary safety programs. They also encouraged the expansion of the current OSHA industry alliance effort to include appropriate participation from flight attendant unions. The FAA disagrees. Voluntary programs are valuable for some initiatives. In this case, standardized application of OSHA standards throughout the aviation industry is good public policy.
Southwest Airlines opposed the draft policy statement and agreed with all of Airlines for America's comments, adding that OSHA enforcement authority should be specifically limited to only those standards expressly defined in the final policy and Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The FAA agrees with the proposed recommendation. OSHA remains preempted from enforcing its standards on aircraft in operation, other than the standards specifically addressed in the new FAA policy statement.
Southwest Airlines also requested a statement within the MOU, specifically stating that the general duty clause shall not be applied to the cabin environment. The FAA will add such language in the new MOU. In addition, as noted above, the new policy only includes the three listed standards. If the agencies later decide to add any additional hazards, including any hazards covered by the General Duty Clause, they will use a transparent process including notice and comment to adopt such changes.
Southwest Airlines further requested that FAA/OSHA provide clarification regarding enforcement onboard the aircraft. The FAA agrees with the proposed recommendation. Specific procedures for addressing OSHA enforcement protocols can be developed through interagency collaboration.
ALPA agreed with the Airlines for America comments, adding that it has
ALPA also wanted FAA to regulate pilots' safety and a host of health issues, such as: Fatigue, heat and humidity of the work environment, contamination by rain repellant and other chemicals, laser strikes, cosmic radiation, ozone, aircraft disinsection, contagious disease, contamination of cockpit oxygen masks, smoke-protection masks in the cockpit, and ambient flight deck noise. The regulation of pilots' safety and health issues are beyond the scope of this policy statement.
In addition, ALPA requested that the FAA establish an office or focal point to adequately address the safety and health of flightcrew members. The FAA acknowledges this request but does not believe that a new office is required at this time.
NBAA stated that aviation is an industry designed to cross state and national boundaries. As applied to aviation, the proposed notice would have created a host of uncertainties regarding the application of either State or national OSHA standards. NATA was also concerned that the shared jurisdiction policy described by the FAA is ripe for confusion and contradiction among FAA, OSHA, and OSHA-approved State programs. Essentially, NATA was concerned that the draft policy explains only that OSHA is also able to initiate a process to ensure that airlines will not be subject to multiple, different sets of rules as they fly into and out of different states. The FAA agrees with these comments. OSHA has assured the FAA that it has already consulted with their State Plan Partners, and they have agreed that Federal OSHA will cover these working conditions in State Plan States. The FAA will continue to work with OSHA to develop that process.
NATA raised a second jurisdictional issue relating to how any applicable OSHA standards might apply to international flight operations. OSHA jurisdiction is limited to the boundaries of the United States and its territories and possessions). Therefore, the proposed OSHA standards would not be applicable on U. S. aircraft operations conducted outside the United States.
The Transportation Trades Department, the Association of Flight Attendants, the Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM), the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT) and the Transport Workers Union of America generally support the new policy statement. The IAM added that flight attendants have not been required to wear protective gloves, and stated that some airlines have prohibited Flight Attendants from wearing gloves. IAM also stated that other hazards of great concern that should be regulated include, hazards related to lifting and moving luggage, exposure to extremes of heat and cold as a result of cabin temperature, hazards related to opening and closing aircraft doors. IAM also stated that cabin air quality is also an essential issue to flight attendant occupational health as flight attendants have no choice, but to breathe recirculated, pressurized air while at work. IAM further stated that in-flight coffee maker hazards should be addressed. The FAA acknowledges these recommendations. The FAA will consider when FAA and OSHA establish procedures to identify any additional working conditions where OSHA requirements may apply.
IAM stated that more extensive sanitation standards could be applied to enhance the working conditions of flight attendants without compromising aviation safety. The IBT supported incorporation of the OSHA sanitation standard into the policy memo and forthcoming MOU. The FAA disagrees. Existing FAA regulations address sanitation standards, so OSHA sanitation standards are not being considered.
The IBT also urged the FAA to reconsider OSHA's role in worksite inspections pertaining to the applicable OSHA standards mentioned in the policy memo and forthcoming MOU. The FAA and OSHA will explore the feasibility of developing interagency procedures to address and coordinate workplace inspections if and when they may be required.
The IBT further urged the FAA to stress the importance of properly reporting safety and health issues and encourage employers to utilize the OSHA 300/300A injury and illness reports as a means of identifying and targeting areas of concern. The IBT also stressed the importance of education of both employers and employees on the protections afforded by the OSHA Anti-Discrimination Act found in 29 CFR part 1977 (i.e., Whistleblower Act 11(c)). The IBT stated that including proper signage aboard aircraft will not implicate a concern for aviation safety. In response, the FAA will consider these comments when establishing interagency procedures.
The IBT finally urged FAA and OSHA to reconsider inclusion of flight deck crewmembers in the discussion on the application of OSHA's requirements to employees on aircraft in operation. The FAA is not considering including flightcrew members in this policy statement.
Individual flight attendants support the draft policy statement and commented on the need for additional regulation of exposure to noise, bloodborne pathogens, chemicals, pesticides, and de-icing fluids; sanitation; duty/rest requirements; exposure to radiation; cabin air quality issues; food/beverage carts; and ergonomics. OSHA's noise, bloodborne pathogens, and hazard communication standards are included in the policy statement. Existing FAA regulations address sanitation standards, so OSHA sanitation standards are not being considered. Duty and rest requirements are aviation safety requirements regulated by the FAA. Effects of cosmic, galactic and solar ionizing radiation exposure, cabin air quality, food and beverage cart and ergonomic issues are not being considered at this time.
Individual comments believe that pilots should be included. However, the FAA is not considering including flightcrew members at this time.
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health supported the draft policy but believes more research is needed. The FAA will consider this recommendation if further research is needed on any additional or future regulations.
The selection of the three OSHA standards to apply in aircraft cabins—hazard communications, bloodborne pathogens and noise—was also questioned. The RAA asserted that the FAA did not identify the most critical occupational safety and health concerns and then only transfer oversight if such concerns could best be solved, regulated and monitored by OSHA. A4A claimed there are no specific or immediate safety concerns that require urgent action, asserting that the proposed policy resulted from political action and not an underlying safety issue that was identified by the FAA.
Some commenters also questioned the need to apply these standards to aircraft cabins and expressed uncertainty about whether additional OSHA requirements would apply, as well. For example,
In contrast, other commenters argued that OSHA should have authority to protect crewmembers from additional hazards. For example, the IBT commented that OSHA should enforce its general duty clause to protect employees from cosmic radiation, contaminated bleed air ventilation systems, heat stress, ergonomic hazards, hazardous agents, pinch points, and slip and fall hazards.
There were also comments from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health that cited several studies it conducted for FAA on reproductive issues for flight attendants, cosmic radiation, circadian rhythm disruption, cabin air quality, and infectious diseases.
The Aerospace Medical Association (AsMA) said it assumed that new regulations will be drafted to comply with the aircraft environment and that those should include aerospace medicine assessment and opinion. The new FAA policy statement only applies to OSHA standards for noise, bloodborne pathogens, and hazard communication. These standards were selected because they were identified in the agencies' 2000 MOU. The agencies examined the potential application of these three standards to aircraft cabin crewmembers in detail in the year 2000. The joint FAA/OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Team determined that application of these OSHA standards to aircraft cabin crewmembers should not compromise aviation safety. These standards also address the hazards of greatest concern to aircraft cabin crewmembers.
A number of commenters suggested that a full rulemaking process should be utilized before applying any OSHA standards to cabin crewmembers. According to NATA, for example, the change creates new compliance obligations because OSHA promulgated rules after the FAA's 1975 Policy Statement with the understanding that those rules would not apply to aircraft cabins. NATA also claimed that OSHA and FAA need to engage in a cost-benefit analysis, a regulatory flexibility determination, and a small business impact assessment.
A few other commenters also asserted that the agencies had not adequately considered the effect of the policy change on small and medium-sized businesses, citing the Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 12866. Avjet, for example, noted that part 121 airlines have resources to implement the changes while these changes will be extremely onerous to small-business part 135 air charter operators of business jets. And according to NATA, operators will have to test interior noise levels of every aircraft in its fleet since some identical aircraft types may exhibit different cabin noise levels. NATA also asserted that operators who are not required to have a flight attendant onboard but elect to place a cabin attendant in the aircraft for added service and safety, may no longer employ these workers. NATA urged for rulemaking to determine how OSHA rules can be adapted for environments not previously considered.
We do not agree with these comments. In any event, we have provided the public and regulated community with notice and an opportunity to be heard on this policy change and plan to continue to do so should any further policy changes be considered. We have also met with most groups affected by this policy. After years of consideration of the application of these OSHA standards, FAA has decided that these standards should not compromise aviation safety. FAA and OSHA agree with the suggestions of some commenters that, to ease implementation of the policy, OSHA has expanded its existing industry alliances to develop training and job-aids for the safety of aircraft cabin crewmembers, as well as aviation personnel and vendors in ground-support activities, such as fueling, catering and cargo/baggage handling.
Several comments expressed concerns about how the policy change would be implemented in practice. For example, AsMA suggested that OSHA and FAA form a coordination group to review the operation of regulations and oversee responsibility.
ALPA also expressed concern about coordination between the two agencies. It favors an FAA preemption of OSHA requirements if those requirements interfere with aviation safety.
NATA questioned how the FAA and OSHA will determine which OSHA standards have safety implications and whether these determinations will include industry representatives. NATA asserted that the FAA should apply OSHA standards onboard rather than having OSHA consult with FAA on aviation safety implications.
Others questioned how OSHA will inspect aircraft in operation to ensure compliance and how it will respond to complaints. Southwest and RAA asked how OSHA would investigate complaints, so as not to interfere with flight duties and delay flight operations, consequences which could have a substantial economic impact on carriers. Southwest also asked about coordination among FAA, OSHA, and the Transportation Security Administration to provide access to secure areas, and what resources would be required of the carriers (e.g., escorts/seating).
Although some commenters (IBT, IAM, and APA) recommended that OSHA conduct worksite inspections just as FAA inspectors do, others (e.g., NATA and RAA) are concerned that OSHA is not precluded from conducting inspections of aircraft in operation. APA stated that the FAA should require manufacturers and operators to sample the environment on aircraft for known hazards. As stated in the draft and final policy statements, the FAA and OSHA do not anticipate that OSHA will have to conduct inspections onboard aircraft to ensure compliance with the three OSHA standards. All three standards require employers to develop and implement their own programs. OSHA can examine the programs and verify compliance without being onboard aircraft. If there is a specific instance in the future where it is determined that compliance with one of the standards will have an adverse effect on aviation safety, both agencies understand that FAA will take precedence.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.
Final rule; correction.
This document contains corrections to the final rule (RM12–17–000) which was published in the
Effective September 30, 2013.
On July 18, 2013, the Commission issued a “Final Rule, Order No. 781” in the above-captioned proceeding.
This document serves to correct the table in Paragraph 82. Specifically, the last figure in the “total Annual Burden Hours” column is changed from “854” to “852”.
Accordingly, in rule FR Doc. No. 2013–17822 published in the July 30, 2013 (78 FR 45850), on page 45861, in the table in paragraph 82, the entry in the “Total annual burden hours (a × b)” column for the entry “FERC–549 Total,” the figure “854” is corrected to read “852”.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final rule; technical amendment.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect approval actions for new animal drug applications (NADAs) and abbreviated new animal drug applications (ANADAs) during June 2013. FDA is also informing the public of the availability of summaries of the basis of approval and of environmental review documents, where applicable.
This rule is effective August 27, 2013.
George K. Haibel, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV–6), Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240–276–9019,
FDA is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect approval actions for NADAs and ANADAs during June 2013, as listed in table 1. In addition, FDA is informing the public of the availability, where applicable, of documentation of environmental review required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and, for actions requiring review of safety or effectiveness data, summaries of the basis of approval (Freedom of Information Summaries) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). These public documents may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management (HFA–305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. Persons with access to the Internet may obtain these documents at the Center for Veterinary Medicine FOIA Electronic Reading Room:
In addition, the animal drug regulations are being amended at 21 CFR 510.600 to correct a sponsor's name and at 21 CFR 556.733 to correct the acceptable daily intake of total residues of tildipirosin. This is being done to improve the accuracy of the regulations.
This rule does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a rule of “particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801–808.
Administrative practice and procedure, Animal drugs, Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Animal drugs.
Animal drugs, Foods.
Animal drugs, Animal feeds.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR parts 510, 520, 524, 556, and 558 are amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352, 353, 360b, 371, 379e.
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(2) * * *
21 U.S.C. 360b.
(a)
(1) 22.7, 68.0, or 136.0 milligrams (mg) enrofloxacin; or
(2) 22.7, 68.0, 136.0, or 272 mg enrofloxacin.
(b)
(1) Nos. 000859 and 026637 for use of product described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
(2) No. 058198 for use of product described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
21 U.S.C. 360b.
21 U.S.C. 342, 360b, 371.
21 U.S.C. 360b, 371.
(e) * * *
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Final regulations and removal of temporary regulations.
This document contains final regulations that implement the use of the differential income stream as a consideration in assessing the best method in connection with a cost sharing arrangement and as a specified application of the income method.
Mumal R. Hemrajani, (202) 622–3800 (not a toll-free call).
Final cost sharing regulations were published in the
Temporary cost sharing regulations and a notice of proposed rule making on application of the differential income stream approach were published in the
The Treasury Department and the IRS were aware that some taxpayers were taking unreasonable positions in applying the income method by using relatively low licensing discount rates, and relatively high cost sharing discount rates, without sufficiently considering the appropriate interrelationship of the discount rates and financial projections. This practice gave rise to material distortions and the potential for PCT Payments not in accordance with the arm's length standard. To address these problems, the temporary and proposed regulations provided additional guidance on evaluating the results of an application of the income method (§ 1.482–7T(g)(2)(v)(B)(
Comments noted that § 1.482–7T(g)(4)(vi)(F)(
It has been determined that this Treasury decision is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to this regulation, and because the regulation does not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, these regulations have been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (CCASBA) for comment on their impact on small business. CCASBA had no comments.
The principal author of these regulations is Mumal R. Hemrajani, Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (International). However, other personnel from the Internal Revenue Service and the Treasury Department participated in the development of the regulations.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is amended as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
(g) * * *
(2) * * *
(v) * * *
(B) * * *
(
(4) * * *
(v)
(vi) * * *
(F) * * *
(
(viii) * * *
(i) The facts are the same as in
(ii) Based on the best method analysis described in
(iii) The Commissioner makes an adjustment of $296 million, so that the present value of the PCT Payments is $442 million (the median results as shown in column 6 of
The facts are the same as in
(l)
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Final regulations and removal of temporary regulations.
This document contains final regulations that authorize the disclosure of certain items of return information to the Bureau of the Census (Bureau) in conformance with section 6103(j)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code (Code). The final regulations are made pursuant to a request from the Secretary of Commerce. Because the return information will be disclosed to the Bureau in statistical format, specific taxpayers will not be identified, and, therefore, no taxpayers are affected by the disclosures authorized by this guidance.
Melissa Avrutine, (202) 622–7950 (not a toll-free number).
This document contains amendments to 26 CFR part 301. Section 6103(j)(1)(A) authorizes the Secretary of Treasury to furnish, upon written request by the Secretary of Commerce, such return or return information as the Secretary of Treasury may prescribe by regulation to officers and employees of the Bureau for the purpose of, but only to the extent necessary in, the structuring of censuses and conducting related statistical activities authorized by law. Section 301.6103(j)(1)–1 of the existing regulations further defines such purposes by reference to 13 U.S.C. chapter 5 and provides an itemized description of the return information authorized to be disclosed for such purposes.
By letter dated July 24, 2009, the Secretary of Commerce requested that additional items of return information be disclosed to the Bureau for purposes of allowing the Bureau to study a developing trend of increased use of contract workers. Specifically, the Secretary of Commerce requested disclosure of the following additional items: (1) Total number of documents reported on Form 1096 transmitting Forms 1099–MISC and (2) total amount reported on Form 1096 transmitting Forms 1099–MISC.
Section 301.6103(j)(1)–1 of the regulations formerly permitted disclosure of the total number of documents reported on Form 1096 transmitting Forms 1099–MISC and the total amount reported on Form 1096 transmitting Forms 1099–MISC. At the request of the Secretary of Commerce, the Treasury Department removed these items from the list of items of return information authorized to be disclosed, as disclosure of this return information was no longer necessary (See TD 9372, 72 FR 73262 [Dec. 27, 2007]).
In 2009, the Secretary of Commerce determined that these items of return information were needed again to provide critical data about contract labor necessary to estimate total employment and payroll in the United States. The employment and compensation data compiled by the Bureau are important to analysts and policy makers in both the public and private sectors. Thus, the Secretary of Commerce asserted that good cause existed to amend § 301.6103(j)(1)–1 of the regulations to restore these items to the list of items of return information that may be disclosed to the Bureau. The Treasury Department and the IRS agree that amending existing regulations to permit disclosure of these items to the Bureau is appropriate to meet the analytical needs of the Bureau.
On August 26, 2010, the IRS and the Treasury Department published temporary regulations under § 6103(j)(1) and issued a notice of proposed rulemaking cross-referencing those temporary regulations. See TD 9500 (75
Section 301.6103(j)(1)–1T authorizes disclosure of three items of return information. Upon publication, these final regulations remove § 301.6103(j)(1)–1T because all three items of return information listed in § 301.6103(j)(1)–1T will now be contained in § 301.6103(j)(1)–1. On December 31, 2007, temporary regulations were published authorizing one of the items of return information contained in § 301.6103(j)(1)–1T: The disclosure of categorical information on total qualified research expenses in three ranges (greater than zero, but less than $1 million; greater than or equal to $1 million, but less than $3 million; and greater than or equal to $3 million) (§ 301.6103(j)(1)(xxv)–1T). See TD 9500 (75 FR 52458). On August 26, 2010, those temporary regulations were finalized, but § 301.6103(j)(1)(xxv)–1T was inadvertently not removed. Accordingly, these final regulations remove those temporary regulations as well as the remaining two items of return information contained in § 301.6103(j)(1)–1T: total number of documents reported on Form 1096 transmitting Forms 1099–MISC and the total amount reported on Form 1096 transmitting Forms 1099–MISC (subsections xxix and xxx of section 6103(j)(1)–1T).
It has been determined that these final regulations are not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations, and because the regulation does not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, the notice of proposed rulemaking preceding these regulations was submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business, and no comments were received.
The principal author of these regulations is Melissa Avrutine, Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure & Administration).
Employment taxes, Estate taxes, Excise taxes, Gift taxes, Income taxes, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 301 is amended as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
The additions and revision read as follows:
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
(xxix) Total number of documents reported on Form 1096 transmitting Forms 1099–MISC.
(xxx) Total amount reported on Form 1096 transmitting Forms 1099–MISC.
(e)
In rule document C1–2013–18178 appearing on page 50335 in the issue of August 19, 2013, make the following correction:
“9. On page 46443, in the second column, the tenth line above Table 4, “
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
EPA is approving revisions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the state of Iowa. The purpose of these revisions is to update the Polk County Board of Health Rules and Regulations, Chapter V, Air Pollution. The revisions reflect updates to the Iowa statewide rules previously approved by EPA and will ensure consistency between the applicable local agency rules and Federally-approved rules.
This direct final rule will be effective October 28, 2013 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by September 26, 2013. If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07–OAR–2013–0446, by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
Michael Jay, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at (913) 551–7460, or by email at
Throughout this document “we,” “us,” or “our” refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by addressing the following questions:
The State of Iowa has requested EPA approval of revisions to the local agency's Rules and Regulations, Chapter V, “Air Pollution,” as a revision to the SIP. In order for the local program's “Air Pollution” rules to be incorporated into the Federally-enforceable SIP, on behalf of the local agency, the State must submit the formally adopted regulations and control strategies, which are consistent with the State and Federal requirements, to EPA for inclusion in the SIP. The regulation adoption process generally includes public notice, a public comment period and a public hearing, and formal adoption of the rule by the State authorized rulemaking body. In this case, that rulemaking body is the local agency. After the local agency formally adopts the rule, the local agency submits the rulemaking to the State, and then the State submits the rulemaking to EPA for consideration for formal action (inclusion of the rulemaking into the SIP). EPA must provide public notice and seek additional public comment regarding the proposed Federal action on the State's submission.
EPA received the request from the State to adopt revisions to the local air agency rules into the SIP on September 23, 2011. The revisions were adopted by the local agency on July 26, 2011, and became effective on August 3, 2011. EPA is approving the requested revisions to the Iowa SIP relating to the following:
• Article I. In General, Section 5–1. Purpose and Ambient Air Quality Standards;
• Article I. In General, Section 5–2. Definitions;
• Article III. Incinerator and Open Burning, Section 5–7. Open Burning Prohibited;
• Article X. Permits, Division I. Construction Permits, Section 5–33. Exemptions From Permit Requirements;
• Article X. Permits, Division I. Construction Permits, Section 5–35. Operating Permit Required.
EPA's action does not cover revisions to:
• Article VI. Emission of Air Contaminants From Industrial Process, Section 5–17. Excess Emissions;
• Article VI, Sections 5–16 (n), (o), and (p) which pertain to New Source Performance Standards (NSPS);
• Article VIII, which pertain to National Emission Standards Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS).
The state submittal has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submittal also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V.
We are taking direct final action to approve the amendments to the Polk County Board of Health Rules and Regulations, Chapter V, “Air Pollution.” The local agency routinely revises its “Air Pollution” regulations to be consistent with the Federally-approved Iowa Administrative Code. The local agency's “Air Pollution” rules are consistent with State and Federal regulations and were revised as follows:
Article I, Section 5–1(b) was revised to cite the cross-reference to the approved State rules at (455B). Section 5–1(c) revised the amendment dates for each chapter of the Federally-approved State rules. Section 5–2 added the definitions for Greenhouse gases, Regulated NSR pollutant, Subject to regulation, and revised the definition of major stationary source.
Article III, Section 5–7, addresses open burning regulations and a section was added that states these rules do not apply to outdoor patio heaters burning natural gas, propane, or alcohol. This section further states that such heaters shall not be used for burning refuse, rubbish or garbage.
A revision was made to Article X, Division 1, Construction Permits, Section 5–33(6) that refers to incinerators and pyrolysis cleaning furnaces with a manufacturer's design capacity less than 25 pounds per hour. The sentence that refers to single family dwelling's compliance with Section 5–16 was removed. An addition to the pyrolysis cleaning furnace exemption added electric-use furnaces. Under this same article, bathroom vent emissions,
Article X, Division 2, Operating Permits, Section 5–35, (b)(1) and (b)(2) added the phrase “subject to regulation” to differentiate from pollutants that are not regulated. Under this same article and section, a paragraph was added to address greenhouse gas emissions at a stationary source that emits or has the potential to emit less than 100,000 tons per year of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions. Under this same article, bathroom vent emissions, including toilet vent emissions was added to the list of exemptions.
We are publishing this rule without a prior proposed rule because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comment because the revisions are largely administrative and consistent with Federal regulations. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's
If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 28, 2013. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
In this final rule, EPA requires facilities to report non-trade-secret Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) forms to EPA using electronic software provided by the Agency. Electronic reporting of TRI forms provides numerous benefits, including making it easier for facilities to report accurate information, expediting form completion due to the pre-population of many form elements, decreasing the cost to EPA of processing forms, and providing TRI information more quickly to the public. The only exception to this electronic reporting requirement is for the few facilities that submit trade secret TRI information, which will continue to submit their trade secret reporting forms and substantiation forms in hard copy.
Under this rulemaking, EPA also requires facilities to submit electronically via the Internet (i.e., not on paper forms or CD–ROMs) any revisions or withdrawals of previously submitted TRI reporting forms. Additionally, EPA will no longer accept submissions, revisions, or withdrawals of TRI reporting forms submitted for reporting years prior to reporting year 1991. For trade secret submissions, EPA will still only accept revisions or withdrawals of previously submitted trade secret information on paper forms, though only for reporting years back to reporting year 1991.
This final rule is effective on January 21, 2014.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–TRI–2011–0174. All documents in the docket are listed on the
For general information on TRI, contact the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Hotline at (800) 424–9346 or (703) 412–9810, TDD (800) 553–7672,
This final rule applies to facilities that submit annual reports under section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) and section 6607 of the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA). To determine
If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the individual listed in the preceding
The EPA is implementing this action under sections 313(g), 313(h), and 328 of EPCRA, 42 U.S.C. 11023(g), 11023(h) and 11048, and section 6607 of the Pollution Prevention Act, 42 U.S.C. 13106.
Under EPCRA, Congress granted EPA broad rulemaking authority. EPCRA section 328 provides that the “Administrator may prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out this chapter.” 42 U.S.C. 11048. EPCRA requires EPA to “publish a uniform toxic chemical release form for facilities covered” by the TRI Program. 42 U.S.C. 11023(g).
The Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA) (Pub. L. 105–277 (44 U.S.C. 3504)) allows Federal agencies to provide for electronic submissions and the use of electronic signatures, when practicable. Similarly, EPA's Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Regulation (CROMERR) (40 CFR part 3), published in the
EPA is requiring facilities to submit non-trade-secret TRI reporting forms to EPA electronically via the Internet. EPA will no longer accept paper submissions of TRI reports, except for trade secret submissions as defined under EPCRA section 322 (42 U.S.C. 11042) which will still be submitted on paper forms (including sanitized and unsanitized versions).
EPA currently provides an online-reporting application, TRI–MEweb, for facilities to use to submit TRI reporting forms electronically. TRI-MEweb provides a number of features that allow facilities to prepare and submit their TRI reports to EPA more efficiently. For example, it includes data validation tools that help facilities submit complete and valid data and compare current reporting year data to prior reporting year data—a feature which can sometimes help facilities identify potential data errors. Additionally, TRI–MEweb will pre-populate forms based on the prior year's reporting data, which will expedite the data preparation process and help reduce errors.
Under this rule, only TRI facilities that submit trade secret information will continue to submit two versions of the substantiation form and two versions of Form R or Form A—sanitized versions that include the generic chemical name that is structurally descriptive of the chemical being claimed as a trade secret and unsanitized versions that include the trade secret chemical name. EPA strongly recommends that TRI facilities that submit TRI trade secret information use a computer or typewriter to prepare their hard-copy submissions of TRI information and consult the TRI Web site (
Facilities often send additional, unsolicited documentation concerning their TRI reporting to EPA. Though EPA does not currently request that facilities submit TRI-related, miscellaneous documents, some documents contain useful information on current or future non-reporting (e.g., due to not reaching reporting thresholds and facility closures), internal self-audits, notices of bankruptcy, and changes in facility ownership. Such miscellaneous documents help the EPA maintain the quality of TRI data. Miscellaneous documents that do not directly address TRI non-reporting or provide contextual information on TRI reporting are typically not useful to the Agency. The EPA requests that facilities refrain from submitting unsolicited documents that do not provide useful context on matters related to TRI reporting.
To codify this rule, EPA is adding paragraph (c) to 40 CFR 372.85 to require regulated facilities to submit TRI reporting forms electronically using the current electronic reporting tool provided by EPA. EPA is also revising 40 CFR 372.85(b) to remove a mention of magnetic media, which conforms the
In summary, EPA will only accept TRI reporting forms that are submitted electronically via the Internet, except for trade secret TRI forms and substantiations; and EPA will not accept or process TRI reporting forms that are not submitted in the appropriate manner.
TRI-MEweb is an interactive, user-friendly Web-based application that guides facilities through the TRI reporting process. As currently implemented, one or more representatives from each facility must establish an account with EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) in order to prepare, transmit, certify, and submit TRI Forms. CDX is EPA's centralized node on the Environmental Information Exchange Network that serves as EPA's main mechanism for receiving and exchanging electronic information reported via the Internet. A facility representative may register for a CDX account or gain access to an existing CDX account at
During the CDX registration process, CDX prompts the facility representative to indicate which applications (e.g., TRI-MEweb) to link with the account. If the facility representative has previously registered with CDX for other purposes, then he/she can add TRI-MEweb to his/her existing CDX account.
When adding TRI-MEweb to the CDX account, CDX will ask the facility representative to select a role as a form Preparer or Certifying Official. Both a Preparer or Certifying Official can enter data onto a facility's TRI reporting form in TRI-MEweb and validate it for certification; but only a Certifying Official can approve and certify a TRI reporting form and submit the final, certified form to EPA. Preparers and Certifying Officials can use the same account to perform their TRI reporting roles (preparing and/or certifying TRI forms) for multiple facilities for which they are responsible.
EPA's current electronic reporting procedures require each Certifying Official to sign and submit an Electronic Signature Agreement (ESA) to the EPA before certifying any TRI reports for a given facility. Currently, once a facility representative registers in CDX as a TRI-MEweb certifying official, the representative may elect to: (1) Sign and submit an ESA electronically using a real-time online process through a third-party identity verification vendor; or (2) sign and mail a paper ESA to the EPA's Data Processing Center (DPC).
If the Certifying Official does not wish to provide personal information to this third-party vendor, they should submit a paper ESA form, described below, at least two weeks before the July 1st reporting deadline. Further, not every Certifying Official will be able to authenticate his or her identification successfully using this identity verification process and will, as a result, need to submit a paper ESA form.
Once the ESA is approved by EPA (whether instantaneously through the electronic ESA process or via receipt and processing of a paper ESA), the Certifying Official may review, certify, and submit any pending TRI submissions to EPA using TRI-MEweb and CDX. More detailed information on these procedures is available on the TRI Web site (
Once registered with CDX and TRI-MEweb, a facility's Preparer or Certifying Official can gain access to TRI-MEweb through CDX. Once opened, the TRI-MEweb application provides interactive Web pages that enable a Preparer or Certifying Official to enter and validate the current year's TRI reporting form(s). After providing and validating the pertinent TRI reporting forms, a Preparer (or Certifying Official) can transmit the data electronically for certification where it is then available for certification by the facility's Certifying Official(s). The Certifying Official can then log into TRI-MEweb via CDX to review, certify, and submit the TRI report to EPA. Once EPA receives the certified report, the data are then ultimately sent to the public TRI database (and if appropriate, also to a state, tribe, or territory).
Some TRI facilities have their own software or use private software to assist in collecting chemical release data. This “third-party software” is often designed to produce output data files that match EPA's electronic data structure specifications. TRI-MEweb accepts chemical data files from third-party software using Extensible Markup Language (XML). Detailed information describing the XML schema TRI-MEweb uses for the current reporting year is available online at
Detailed instructions on using CDX and TRI-MEweb, including tutorials, are available on the TRI Web site and in the Reporting Forms and Instructions (RFI), which is also available through the TRI Web site. Facilities may also contact the TRI Information Center, the CDX Helpdesk, the Regional TRI Coordinators, or the TRI Program staff at EPA Headquarters for further assistance. Please see the “Contact Us” information located on the TRI Web site for further details.
TRI facilities are required to report to the EPA and the appropriate state, tribe, or territory (known as the dual-reporting requirement). However, facilities that are located in states, Indian country, or territories that actively participate with the TRI Data Exchange (TDX) can meet the dual-reporting requirement by submitting TRI reports using TRI-MEweb. For such facilities, reports submitted via TRI-MEweb are electronically made available to the state, tribe, or territory in which the facility is located, thus satisfying the requirement to submit TRI reporting forms to both the applicable state and EPA. Please note that some states, tribes, or territories may require additional reporting beyond the federal requirements. Dual-reporting does not satisfy such additional requirements.
For facilities located in states, Indian country, or territories not actively participating in TDX, the Certifying Official can print a hard copy of the TRI reporting forms or save the forms to a diskette and then submit the signed
This rule requires facilities that wish to revise or withdraw previously submitted non-trade-secret TRI reporting forms to do so through TRI-MEweb. The EPA will continue to allow facilities to revise, withdraw, or submit TRI reports going back to RY 1991, but not for reporting years prior to RY 1991. In January of 2014, the EPA will release a version of TRI-MEweb that will allow a facility to revise or withdraw TRI reports in TRI-MEweb for prior reporting years, back to RY 1991, even if the facility did not use TRI-MEweb for the original submission. The process used in TRI-MEweb to submit, revise, or withdraw TRI reports for RY 2005 through the present year will differ from the process used for reporting years prior to RY 2005. As addressed below, TRI-MEweb will provide more validation checks for the RY 2005 through the present reporting year period than it will provide for reporting years prior to RY 2005.
For revisions to TRI reporting forms submitted for RY 2005 through the current reporting year, TRI-MEweb will display TRI reporting forms as submitted and allow facilities to modify their data. TRI-MEweb will also validate the data using the validation checks that were in place in TRI-MEweb for those data for that reporting year. Similarly, TRI-MEweb will provide these validation checks for late submissions for RY 2005 through the current reporting year.
For revisions to TRI reporting forms submitted for RYs 1991–2004, TRI-MEweb will provide a blank form for that reporting year and allow the facility to enter data into the form. TRI-MEweb will perform basic error checking to ensure nonsensical values are not provided (e.g., submitting letters in a numeric field or providing negative release quantities), but will not perform the extensive validation checks provided for RY 2005 through the current reporting year. TRI-MEweb will likewise only provide basic error checking for late submissions of TRI reporting forms for RYs 1991–2004.
Keeping the interface simple and not implementing complicated validation checks for RYs 1991–2004 makes it economically and functionally feasible to modify TRI-MEweb to support these additional reporting years. Further, extending the range of reporting years in which facilities may revise, withdraw, and submit TRI reporting forms from RY 2005 (as in the proposed rule) to RY 1991 will allow facilities a greater number of years to submit updated TRI reporting forms. The TRI reporting forms have remained relatively stable from RY 1991 through RY 2004 and this range of years includes the first reporting year (RY 1991) in which facilities reported data elements required by the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990. The EPA has not received a revision for a reporting year prior to RY 1991 since 2004.
As with original TRI submissions, preparing and submitting revisions/withdrawals electronically should facilitate the reporting process for facilities, while also making it possible for EPA to more quickly process and make the updated data available to the public. Information on using TRI-MEweb to submit TRI revisions/withdrawals will be available on the TRI Web site and in the TRI-MEweb application.
As part of a process to reconcile a facility's name, address, and/or ownership and other facility-level information that differs from information provided during a previous reporting year, the EPA has historically contacted facilities about such differences and allowed facilities to update their facility-level information via letters, emails, and other methods less formal than a certified TRI reporting form. Additionally, facilities could access, print, mark up, and certify a copy of a submitted TRI reporting form using the electronic Facility Data Profile (eFDP) application to request revisions to that TRI reporting form. With this rulemaking, the EPA will no longer solicit or allow revisions to TRI reporting forms via the reconciliation process or process marked-up copies of certified forms printed using the eFDP application. Instead, facilities that wish to revise or withdraw previously submitted non-trade-secret TRI reporting forms must use TRI-MEweb to do so.
Please note that any revisions to and withdrawals of TRI reporting forms should also be submitted to the state, tribe, or territory that received the initial TRI report. The TRI Reporting in Indian Country rulemaking, published in the
EPA received five comments on the
EPA had proposed limiting revisions and withdrawals of TRI reporting forms back to RY 2005 due to current capabilities of TRI-MEweb. In response, the industry group comment requested that EPA consider allowing revisions to and withdrawals of data submitted for reporting years prior to 2005. Specifically, this comment suggested EPA allow facilities to submit on paper any revisions or withdrawals of
EPA's responses are provided below.
One comment stated the EPA should continue to accept revisions and withdrawals of TRI reporting forms for all reporting years rather than limiting revisions and withdrawals to those pertaining to RY 2005 through the present reporting year. The comment argues that maintaining the capability for facilities to revise or withdraw reports for reporting years prior to 2005 is important for purposes of compliance and enforcement and helps ensure data accuracy and integrity in the publicly-available databases that provide TRI data.
Recognizing the potential difficulties in updating TRI-MEweb to accommodate revisions and withdrawals of TRI for all reporting years, the comment recommends the EPA accept such revisions and withdrawals on paper for reporting years prior to 2005. To support its position, the comment notes that the EPA receives a small number of revisions and withdrawals pertaining to reporting years prior to 2005 and suggests the cost to process paper submissions of these revisions and withdrawals would be minimal because EPA already plans to receive a limited number of trade secret submissions submitted by paper.
The EPA has reassessed its proposal to limit revisions and withdrawals of TRI reporting forms back to RY 2005 and will modify TRI-MEweb to support revisions, withdrawals, and late submittals of TRI reporting forms back to RY 1991. Keeping the interface simple and not implementing complicated validation checks for RYs 1991–2004 makes it economically and functionally feasible to modify TRI-MEweb to support additional reporting years. This update to TRI-MEweb will also support the spirit of the rulemaking to minimize paper flows of TRI reporting forms and expedite the release of TRI data to the public.
Extending the range of reporting years in which facilities may revise, withdraw, and submit TRI reporting forms from RY 2005 (as proposed) to RY 1991 will allow facilities a greater number of years to submit updated TRI reporting forms. EPA believes RY 1991 is a logical reporting year to serve as a cutoff because the reporting form remained relatively stable during this period and it includes the first reporting year (RY 1991) in which facilities reported data elements required by the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990. The EPA has not received a revision for a reporting year prior to RY 1991 since 2004.
One comment stated that the EPA should require TRI facilities to report trade secrets electronically so that EPA can completely eliminate the need to spend any resources or money processing TRI reporting forms submitted by paper. The comment also stated it would be more effective to institute such a requirement now than to conduct another rulemaking process later to require the electronic reporting of trade secrets.
The EPA recognizes the benefits in requiring facilities to submit all TRI submissions electronically. However, to incorporate trade secret reports into TRI-MEweb, EPA would require enhancements to TRI-MEweb to ensure it adheres to the higher level of security compliance required to accept trade secrets via an online reporting tool. Due to resource constraints, EPA is not at this time incorporating the few trade secret reports received yearly (consistently fewer than ten such reports) into TRI-MEweb. However, EPA does not foreclose the possibility that incorporating trade secrets into TRI-MEweb might prove worthwhile in the future.
One comment suggested that the EPA should provide a more rigorous registration process than it currently uses for a person to register as a Certifying Official because the reports are submitted online, so the lack of a handwritten signature and the ease to which certifying officials can submit TRI forms could cause a certifier to minimize the importance of the certification process.
The comment also recommends that the EPA require each facility to designate at least two Certifying Officials with the Central Data Exchange (CDX) to help ensure facilities can certify their TRI reporting form(s) should a Certifying Official be unavailable near the TRI reporting deadline.
TRI regulations require TRI reporters to designate a senior management official who can certify TRI submissions for the facility. EPA defines a “senior management official” to be a person who is “an official with management responsibility for the person or persons completing the report” or “the manager of environmental programs for the facility or establishments, or for the corporation owning or operating the facility or establishments responsible for certifying similar reports under other environmental regulatory requirements.” 40 CFR 372.3. The ultimate responsibility for submitting TRI reporting forms rests on the owners and operators of facilities that trigger TRI reporting thresholds. 40 CFR 372.5, .30. TRI reporters bear the responsibility to ensure they follow statutory and regulatory requirements, including submitting TRI reports in a timely fashion. EPA believes TRI reporters recognize this responsibility regardless of whether they submit electronically or by paper.
Currently, in order to become a Certifying Official for a facility, a person must sign (in hard copy or electronically with adequate identity proofing) an electronic signature agreement (ESA) and send the ESA to the EPA before being able to certify and submit TRI forms using TRI-MEweb. The certification process used for TRI reporting follows EPA's CROMERR regulations (40 CFR part 3) that provide baseline requirements for electronic reporting to help ensure the signatory of any electronic submission understands the content of the submission. Recently, EPA bolstered its online reporting security by requiring Certifying Officials to select a question and provide an answer prior to gaining access to TRI reports ready for submission. Additionally, EPA continually considers new ways to improve the security of its online reporting processes.
Different TRI reporters have different management structures and some TRI facilities might only have one person who satisfies the definition for a “senior management official.” The EPA strongly encourages facilities to register more than one Certifying Official with CDX, but does not wish to impose a requirement on businesses that they register two or more Certifying Officials when one Certifying Official is adequate.
One comment expresses concern that some unforeseen problem, such as a storm, could disable the online reporting system used to submit TRI reporting forms. The comment requests the EPA extend the reporting deadline or provide an alternative reporting method should an unforeseen problem arise.
The TRI reporting deadline is a statutory deadline. However, as appropriate, EPA can respond to unforeseen events such as natural disasters that would prevent the timely submittal of TRI reporting forms. Should such an event arise, the Agency would consider the particular circumstances and conduct outreach as necessary.
One comment recommends that EPA designate human resources that can act both as liaisons to facilities that seek assistance with submitting TRI reporting forms electronically and as an internal development team to continue to make improvements to the electronic reporting application using feedback received from facilities.
EPA recognizes the need to assist facilities with submitting TRI reporting forms electronically, and addresses this need, in part, by maintaining the TRI Information Center and CDX Helpdesk. Furthermore, facilities may solicit assistance from the TRI DPC, Regional TRI Coordinators, or TRI Program staff at EPA Headquarters.
Each year EPA typically incorporates improved enhancements into TRI-MEweb, often including features to address aspects of the software with which facilities have required assistance in the past. The Agency plans to continue improving TRI-MEweb and encourages TRI reporters to suggest improvements (see
One comment expressed concern that some small facilities and some facilities in rural regions might have difficulties in accessing broadband Internet. Another comment suggested it could take some time for facilities that do not currently use a computer and/or TRI-MEweb to adapt to online reporting. Due to these potential concerns, the comments suggest that the EPA allow for a grace period, consider an interim or transition period, allow for smaller facilities in rural areas to file for waivers, or grandfather smaller and/or rural facilities under the old rule. For waivers, one comment suggested facilities would need to be longstanding reporters of TRI data and demonstrate evidence of extreme difficulty regarding compliance.
One comment also noted the percentage of facilities filing by paper has remained relatively constant since Reporting Year 2005, potentially implying there is a reason why approximately five percent of TRI reporters continue to submit TRI reports by paper.
The EPA has provided notice of this rulemaking since January 2011 when EPA published a notice in the
Further, as mentioned in the preamble for the proposal, the EPA stopped mailing reporting forms to facilities as a matter of course, instead placing the TRI reporting forms on the TRI Web site since RY 2006. Since RY 2006, only one facility has requested that the Agency provide a paper form. This facility could access the Internet, but had recently elected to no longer maintain the connection.
One comment notes that this rulemaking provides an opportunity to facilitate and encourage similar reporting on the state and local level as well, suggesting the next step should be an information-sharing system or proposal of how to streamline information electronically with the public on the state and local level. The comment notes that the “TRI Data Exchange (TDX) has great potential to be the platform by which a certain level of intra-governmental cooperation is achieved. . . .”
The EPA does believe that TDX is an effective tool that states, tribes, and territories can use to access TRI reports and that participation in TDX benefits facilities and participating states, tribes, and territories by automatically sending TRI reports alongside the federal submittal, thereby reducing the collective burden to mail, receive, and process the reports.
Outside of TDX, the EPA also cooperates with state and tribal partners on TRI-related issues by regularly meeting with state, tribal, and EPA regional staff to discuss and coordinate TRI-related efforts on national and local levels. Additionally, to streamline information on a local level, the EPA provides a fact sheet for each state. These fact sheets summarize TRI data for each given state. These efforts are designed to help public users of TRI data view and understand TRI data within their communities.
The EPA is also committed to provide timely access to TRI data to the public by making TRI data available less than one month after the July 1st reporting deadline. With electronic reporting, a higher percentage of reports could be processed and released within the first month. Once EPA publicly releases the TRI data, the public can access the TRI data using several tools, which currently include TRI Explorer, myRight-To-
Several comments approve of this rule as it will lower costs to the EPA, enable the Agency to provide TRI data more quickly, reduce the possibility of transcription errors, improve data quality due to the use of data quality checks in TRI-MEweb, and follow the general trend toward electronic reporting.
EPA appreciates the support offered by these comments and agrees that this rule makes it possible for EPA to process the data more quickly and better provide communities with access to the latest TRI data on toxic chemical releases and other waste management. EPA also agrees that the rule will improve the quality of TRI reporting forms due to the data quality checks incorporated into TRI-MEweb.
EPA has established an official public docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–TRI–2011–0174. The public docket includes information considered by EPA in developing this action, which is electronically or physically located in the docket. For assistance in locating any of these documents, please consult the person listed in the above
This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).
This action does not impose any new information collection burden. Instead, this action would merely change the manner in which the Agency receives information. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved the information collection requirements contained in the existing regulations 40 CFR part 372 under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned the following OMB control numbers 2025–0009 (EPA Information Collection Request (ICR) No. 1363.21) and 2050–0078 (EPA ICR No. 1428.08). The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
EPA conducted an economic analysis to consider the possible effects of this rulemaking on small entities. This analysis, “Economic Analysis of the Electronic Reporting Final Rule: Community Right-to-Know; Toxic Chemical Release Reporting” (Ref. #1), demonstrates this rule should not create an economic burden on an individual small business of more than 1% of its sales (or equivalent metric) and, thus, will not have a significant adverse impact on small businesses.
In summary, this rule will create a one-time burden and a minor subsequent burden for facilities that have not previously used TRI-MEweb to submit TRI reporting forms to EPA. This burden would relate to obtaining access to a computer and the Internet, establishing an account in CDX, and associating the CDX account with TRI-MEweb. A more detailed analysis of the impacts on small entities is located in EPA's economic analysis support document,
After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The small entities directly regulated by this final rule are small businesses and small governmental jurisdictions. We have determined that 3,180 small parent entities will need to familiarize themselves with this rulemaking and 112 small parent entities might need to register with CDX, establish an ESA, and purchase a computer and obtain Internet access. The maximum impact incurred by any small parent entity is approximately 0.5 percent of their annual revenue.
Although this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities. Throughout the process for this rulemaking, the EPA invited facilities to provide feedback on whether it would be difficult to report electronically. Further, the Agency has continually strived to provide an intuitive, user-friendly reporting system to prepare and submit TRI data that has become widely used by facilities submitting TRI forms. Ultimately, due to its economic analysis and its understanding of regulated community, the EPA does not believe this rulemaking will be burdensome for facilities, including small parent entities, that submit TRI forms.
This rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. This rule will merely require facilities under the TRI Program to submit electronic reports using TRI–MEweb. Most facilities already adhere to this requirement, thus this rule will affect a relatively small number of facilities. Further, the cost to adhere to this rule is small and, in aggregate, will not cost more than $100 million or more for state, local, and tribal governments, or the private sector in any one year. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).
This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Any small government that reports to the TRI Program will not incur significant costs because the cost, if any, to report electronically, as described above, is minimal.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. This action would require facilities that submit annual reports under section 313 of EPCRA to do so electronically, which will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). EPA has determined that this rule does not have tribal implications because it will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified in the Executive Order. Instead, the rule merely affects how facilities report information to the TRI Program. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
EPA interprets E.O. 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5–501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law 104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.
E.O. 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) establishes Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.
EPA has determined that this rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. Instead, this rule would merely address the manner in which regulated facilities submit reporting information.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the
Environmental protection, Community right-to-know, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, Chapter I of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 11023 and 11048.
The revised and added text reads as follows:
(b)
(c)
(1) EPA will no longer accept non-trade-secret TRI reports, revisions, or withdrawals on paper reporting forms, magnetic media, or CD–ROMs. Information and instructions regarding online reporting are available on the TRI Web site.
(2) Facilities must submit electronically any revisions or withdrawals of previously submitted TRI reporting forms. Facilities may submit, revise, or withdraw TRI reporting forms for reporting years 1991 through the present reporting year.
(3) The only exception to this TRI electronic reporting requirement of paragraph (c) relates to TRI submissions that claim a trade secret (including sanitized and unsanitized reporting forms) and revisions and withdrawals of such TRI submissions, which must be submitted to EPA on paper. Facilities may submit, revise, or withdraw these paper trade secret (including sanitized and unsanitized) TRI reporting forms for reporting years 1991 through the present reporting year.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule; announcement of effective date.
This document announces the approval of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for information collection requirements in the sections of regulations concerning pole attachments outlined in the
Effective August 27, 2013, the amendments to §§ 1.1403(e) and 1.1404 published at 63 FR 12025, March 12, 1998,have been approved by OMB.
Michele Levy Berlove, Competition Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau at
On June 22, 1998, OMB approved the information collection requirements contained in sections 1.1403(e) and 1.1404 of the Code of Federal Regulations as a revision to OMB Control Number 3060–0392.
On January 24, 2001, OMB approved the information collection requirements contained in sections 1.1404(g), 1.1404(h) and 1.1404(j) of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations as a revision to OMB Control Number 3060–0392.
These information collection requirements required OMB approval to become effective. The Commission publishes this document as an announcement of those approvals. If you have any comments on the burden estimates listed below, or how the Commission can improve the collections and reduce any burdens caused thereby, please contact Thomas Butler, Federal Communications Commission, Room 5–C458, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. Please include the OMB Control Number 3060–0392 in your correspondence. The Commission will also accept your comments via the Internet if you send them to
To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to
For 3060–0392: 1,772 responses, for a total of 2,629 hours, and $450,000 in annual costs.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current valid OMB Control Number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, which does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; reallocation.
NMFS is reallocating the projected unused amounts of Pacific cod from catcher vessels using trawl gear to American Fisheries Act trawl catcher/processors and Amendment 80 catcher/processors in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area. This action is necessary to allow the 2013 total allowable catch of Pacific cod to be harvested.
Effective August 22, 2013, through 2400 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), December 31, 2013.
Steve Whitney, 907–586–7269.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The 2013 Pacific cod total allowable catch (TAC) specified for catcher vessels using trawl gear in the BSAI is 51,312 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2013 and 2014 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (78 FR 13813, March 1, 2013). The Regional Administrator has determined that catcher vessels using trawl gear will not be able to harvest 2,000 mt of the 2013 Pacific cod TAC allocated to those vessels under § 679.20(a)(7)(ii)(A)(
The harvest specifications for Pacific cod included in the final 2013 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (78 FR 13813, March 1, 2013) are revised as follows: 5,840 mt for AFA trawl catcher/processors, 32,612 mt for Amendment 80 catcher/processors, and 49,312 mt for trawl catcher vessels. In accordance with § 679.91(f), NMFS will reissue cooperative quota permits for the reallocated Pacific cod to Amendment 80 catcher/processors following the procedures set forth in § 679.91(f)(3).
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the reallocation of Pacific cod specified for catcher vessels using trawl gear to AFA trawl catcher/processors and Amendment 80 catcher/processors. Since the fishery is currently open, it is important to immediately inform the industry as to the revised allocations. Immediate notification is necessary to allow for the orderly conduct and efficient operation of this fishery, to allow the industry to plan for the fishing season, and to avoid potential disruption to the fishing fleet as well as processors. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of August 21, 2013.
The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Beechcraft Corporation (type certificate previously held by Hawker Beechcraft Corporation) Models 1900, 1900C, and 1900D airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of cracking in the front spar cap angles and hat section structure of the vertical stabilizer. This proposed AD would require inspections of the vertical stabilizer spar angles and hat section for cracks with corrective actions as necessary. We are proposing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 11, 2013.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Beechcraft Corporation at address: 10511 E. Central, Wichita, Kansas 67206; phone: (800) 429–5372 or (316) 676–3140; Internet:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Paul Chapman, Aerospace Engineer, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita, Kansas 67209; phone: (316) 946–4152; fax: (316) 946–4107; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We were notified by Beechcraft Corporation of cracks found in the vertical stabilizer structure of Models 1900, 1900C, and 1900D airplanes. Out of 140 airplanes inspected, 56 cracks have been found. This condition, if not corrected, could lead to structural failure of the vertical stabilizer and result in loss of control.
We reviewed Hawker Beechcraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 55–4114, dated August 2012; Hawker Beechcraft Corporation Model 1900/1900C Airliner Structural Inspection Manual, Part Number 98–30937G2, dated May 1, 2013; and Beechcraft Corporation Model 1900D Airliner Structural Inspection Manual, Part Number 129–590000–65E5, dated May 1, 2013. The service information describes procedures for visually inspecting the vertical stabilizer spar angles and hat section.
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require doing visual inspections of the vertical stabilizer spar angles and hat section for cracks and taking corrective actions as necessary.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 400 airplanes.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repairs that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these repairs:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
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 October 11, 2013.
None.
This AD applies to the following Beechcraft Corporation airplanes, certificated in any category:
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 55, Stabilizers.
This AD was prompted by reports of cracking in the front spar cap angles and hat section of the vertical stabilizer structure. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking in the vertical stabilizer structure, which could lead to structural failure of the vertical stabilizer and result in loss of control.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
If any cracks are found during any of the inspections required in paragraph (g) of this AD, to include all subparagraphs, before further flight, you must contact Beechcraft Corporation to obtain repair instructions approved by the Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO) specifically for compliance with this AD and incorporate those instructions. You can find contact information for Beechcraft Corporation in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD.
If cracks are found during any of the inspections required in paragraph (g) of this AD, to include all subparagraphs, the FAA may allow a one-time special flight permit to a repair facility depending on the cracking found. You must contact Beechcraft Corporation and provide them with crack detail information for them to determine residual strength of the airplane before applying to the FAA for a special flight permit. You can find contact information for Beechcraft Corporation in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD.
(1) The Manager, Wichita 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.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Paul Chapman, Aerospace Engineer, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita, Kansas 67209; phone: (316) 946–4152; fax: (316) 946–4107; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Beechcraft Corporation at address: 10511 E. Central, Wichita, Kansas 67206; phone: (800) 429–5372 or (316) 676–3140; Internet:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to supersede airworthiness directive (AD) 2008–14–16 that applies to certain 328 Support Services GmbH (Type Certificate Previously Held by AvCraft Aerospace GmbH; Fairchild Dornier GmbH; Dornier Luftfahrt GmbH) Model 328–100 and 328–300 airplanes. AD 2008–14–16 currently requires installing warning placards on the inside of the passenger door and service doors and modifying the hinge supports and support struts of the passenger doors. Since we issued AD 2008–14–16, we received reports that certain fasteners, which were installed as part of the modification, are the wrong length. This proposed AD would require replacing the fasteners which were installed as part of the modification with new fasteners of the correct length, adds new airplanes, and removes one airplane. We are proposing this AD to prevent incidents of inadvertent opening and possible detachment of a passenger door in-flight, resulting in damage to airframe and systems and loss of control of the airplane.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 11, 2013.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact 328 Support Services GmbH, Global Support Center, P.O. Box 1252, D–82231 Wessling, Federal Republic of Germany; telephone +49 8153 88111 6666; fax +49 8153 88111 6565; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer,
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 July 17, 2008, we issued AD 2008–14–16, Amendment 39–15611 (73 FR 40955, July 17, 2008). AD 2008–14–16 required actions intended to address an unsafe condition on 328 Support Services GmbH (Type Certificate Previously Held by AvCraft Aerospace GmbH; Fairchild Dornier GmbH; Dornier Luftfahrt GmbH) Model 328–100 and Model 328–300 airplanes.
Since we issued AD 2008–14–16, Amendment 39–15611 (73 FR 40955, July 17, 2008), we received reports that certain fasteners which were installed as part of the modification are the wrong length and need to be replaced. The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the aviation authority for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2012–0183R1, dated September 28, 2012 (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:
328 Support Services GmbH has issued 328 Support Services Service Bulletin SB–328–52–460, Revision 2, dated March 1, 2012 (for Model 328–100 airplanes); and Dornier 328 Support Services Service Bulletin SB–328J–52–213, Revision 1, dated August 17, 2011 (for Model 328–300 airplanes). The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 35 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by October 11, 2013.
This AD supersedes AD 2008–14–16, Amendment 39–15611 (73 FR 40955, July 17, 2008).
This AD applies to 328 Support Services GmbH (Type Certificate previously held by AvCraft Aerospace GmbH; Fairchild Dornier GmbH; Dornier Luftfahrt GmbH) airplanes, certificated in any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD.
(1) Model 328–100 airplanes, serial numbers 3005 through 3101 inclusive, 3103, 3104, 3106, 3109, 3110, 3112, 3113, 3115, 3117, and 3119.
(2) Model 328–300 airplanes, all serial numbers.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 11, Placards and Markings; and Code 52, Doors.
This AD was prompted by reports that certain fasteners, which were installed as part of a modification, are the wrong length. We are issuing this AD to prevent incidents of inadvertent opening and possible detachment of a passenger door in-flight, resulting in damage to airframe and systems and loss of control of the airplane.
You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (f) of AD 2008–14–16, Amendment 39–15611 (73 FR 40955, July 17, 2008), with revised service information.
(1) For Model 328–100 airplanes, serial numbers 3005 through 3098 inclusive, 3100, 3106, 3109, 3110, 3112, 3113, 3115, 3117, and 3119; and Model 328–300 airplanes, having serial numbers 3102, 3105, 3108, 3111, 3114, 3116, 3118, and 3120 through 3224 inclusive: Within 30 days after August 21, 2008, the effective date of AD 2008–14–16, Amendment 39–15611 (73 FR 40955, July 17, 2008), install warning placards on the inside of the passenger door and service doors, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the service information specified in paragraph (g)(1)(i) or (g)(1)(ii) of this AD, as applicable.
(i) Dornier [328 Support Services] Service Bulletin SB–328–11–454, dated May 3, 2004 (for Model 328–100 airplanes).
(ii) Dornier [328 Support Services] Service Bulletin SB–328J–11–209, dated May 3, 2004 (for Model 328–300 airplanes).
(2) For Model 328–100 airplanes, serial numbers 3005 through 3098 inclusive, 3100, 3106, 3109, 3110, 3112, 3113, 3115, 3117, and 3119; and Model 328–300 airplanes, having serial numbers 3102, 3105, 3108, 3111, 3114, 3116, 3118, and 3120 through 3224 inclusive: Within 12 months after the effective date of August 21, 2008, the effective date of AD 2008–14–16, Amendment 39–15611 (73 FR 0955, July 17, 2008), modify the hinge supports and support struts of the passenger doors, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the service information specified in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) through (g)(2)(iv) of this AD, as applicable. As of the effective date of this AD only the service information specified in paragraphs (g)(2)(ii) or (g)(2)(iv) of this AD, as applicable, may be used.
(i) Dornier [328 Support Services] Service Bulletin SB–328–52–460, dated February 4, 2005 (for Model 328–100 airplanes).
(ii) Dornier 328 Support Services Service Bulletin SB–328–52–460, Revision 2, dated March 1, 2012 (for Model 328–100 airplanes).
(iii) Dornier [328J Support Services] Service Bulletin SB–328J–52–213, dated February 4, 2005, (for Model 328–300 airplanes).
(iv) Dornier 328J Support Services Service Bulletin SB–328J–52–213, Revision 1, dated August 17, 2011 (for Model 328–300 airplanes).
For airplanes not identified in paragraph (g) of this AD, do the actions required by paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD.
(1) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, install warning placards on the inside of the passenger door and service doors, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Dornier [328 Support Services] Service Bulletin SB–328–11–454, dated May 3, 2004 (for Model 328–100 airplanes); or Dornier [328 Support Services] Service Bulletin SB–328J–11–209, dated May 3, 2004 (for Model 328–300 airplanes); as applicable.
(2) Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, modify the hinge supports and support struts of the passenger doors, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Dornier 328 Support Services Service Bulletin SB–328–52–460, Revision 2, dated March 1, 2012 (for Model 328–100 airplanes); or Dornier 328 Support Services Service Bulletin SB–328J–52–213, Revision 1, dated August 17, 2011 (for Model 328–300 airplanes); as applicable.
For airplanes on which 26 part number NAS6703U1 fasteners were installed as specified in the service information in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) and (g)(2)(iii) of this AD: Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, replace the 20 affected part number NAS6703U1 fasteners with new fasteners having part number NAS6703U2, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Dornier 328 Support Services Service Bulletin SB–328–52–460, Revision 2, dated March 1, 2012 (for Model 328–100 airplanes); or Dornier 328 Support Services Service Bulletin SB–328J–52–213, Revision 1, dated August 17, 2011 (for Model 328–300 airplanes); as applicable.
Dornier 328 Support Services Service Bulletin SB–
This paragraph provides credit for certain actions required by paragraph (g) and (h)(2) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using 328 Support Services Service Bulletin SB–328–52–460, Revision 1, dated August 17, 2011.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Airworthiness Directive 2012–0183R1, dated September 28, 2012, for related information, which can be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all the Boeing Company Model 727 airplanes. This proposed AD is intended to complete certain mandated programs intended to support the airplane reaching its limit of validity (LOV) of the engineering data that support the established structural maintenance program. This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections for cracking of small repairs done on the vertical flange of the rib chord, repetitive inspections for cracking along the upper fillet radius of the rib chord, and a large repair or preventive modification if necessary. Accomplishment of a large repair or preventive modification would terminate the actions of the proposed AD. We are proposing this AD to prevent cracks in the rib upper chord, which could result in the inability of the wing structure to support the limit load condition, and consequent loss of structural integrity of the wing.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 11, 2013.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, Seattle, WA 98124–2207; telephone 206–544–5000, extension 1; fax 206–766–5680; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Galib Abumeri, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Blvd., Suite 100, Lakewood, CA 90712–4137; phone: 562–627–5324; fax: 562–672–5210; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
As described in FAA Advisory Circular 120–104 (
Cracks have been reported on at least 8 airplanes in the upper vertical flange of the wing-to-body rib upper chord at body station 760. The cracks were detected when the airplanes had reached between 19,700 and 49,000 total flight cycles, and between 35,000 and 54,000 total flight hours. Cracks in the rib upper chord, if not corrected, could result in the inability of the wing structure to support the limit load condition, and consequent loss of structural integrity of the wing.
AD 90–06–09, Amendment 39–6488 (55 FR 8370, March 7, 1990), which affects Model 727 series airplanes, requires, among other things, structural modifications specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 727–57–0112, Revision 2, dated May 19, 1988.
AD 94–07–08, Amendment 39–8866 (59 FR 14545, March 29, 1994), which affects certain Boeing Model 727 series airplanes, requires structural inspections specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 727–57–0112, Revision 2, dated May 19, 1988, and corrective actions if necessary. The corrective actions include small repairs, large repairs, and modifications. AD 94–07–08 requires repetitive inspections for cracks, but does not require repetitive inspections of small repairs. Accomplishment of the modification specified in AD 94–07–08 terminates those repetitive inspections.
We reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin 727–57–0112, Revision 5, dated July 31, 1997. For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections for cracking of any small repairs done on the vertical flange of the rib chord from the inboard side. The proposed AD would require a large repair or modification if any cracking is found. Accomplishment of a large repair or preventive modification would terminate the actions of the proposed AD.
This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections for cracks along the upper fillet radius of the rib chord. Boeing Service Bulletin 727–57–0112, Revision 5, dated July 31, 1997, does not specify this inspection if a small repair is done. This difference has been coordinated with Boeing.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 106 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
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 October 11, 2013.
None.
This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 727, 727C, 727–100, 727–100C, 727–200, and 727–200F series airplanes, certificated in any category.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.
This AD is intended to complete certain mandated programs intended to support the airplane reaching its limit of validity (LOV) of the engineering data that support the established structural maintenance program. We are issuing this AD to prevent cracks in the rib upper chord, which could result in the inability of the wing structure to support the limit load condition, and consequent loss of structural integrity of the wing.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
For any small repair that has been done as specified in Boeing 727 Service Bulletin 57–112; or Part III of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 727–57–0112: Within 3,500 flight cycles after the small repair was installed or inspected as specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 727–57–0112, or within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs latest, do a high frequency eddy current inspection for cracking of the vertical flange of the rib chord from the inboard side, and do a detailed (close visual) inspection for cracking along the upper fillet radius of the rib chord, in accordance with Part III of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 727–57–0112, Revision 5, dated July 31, 1997. Repeat the inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed 3,500 flight cycles until accomplishment of the repair or modification specified in paragraph (i) or (j) of this AD.
For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is an intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface cleaning and elaborate procedures may be required.
If any crack is found during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, before further flight, do either action specified in paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD. Accomplishment of either action terminates the requirements of paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD.
(1) Do a large repair, in accordance with Part IV of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 727–57–0112, Revision 5, dated July 31, 1997.
(2) Do a preventive modification, in accordance with Part V of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 727–57–0112, Revision 5, dated July 31, 1997.
Accomplishment of the actions specified in either paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2) of this AD terminates the requirements of paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) of this AD.
(1) A large repair, in accordance with Part IV of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 727–57–0112, Revision 5, dated July 31, 1997. Any crack found must be repaired before further flight using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this AD.
(2) A preventive modification, in accordance with Part V of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 727–57–0112, Revision 5, dated July 31, 1997. Any crack found must be repaired before further flight using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this AD.
This paragraph provides credit for the inspections, large repair, and modification specified in this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Service Bulletin 727–57–0112, Revision 4, dated October 29, 1992.
(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in the Related Information section of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Galib Abumeri, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Blvd., Suite 100, Lakewood, CA 90712–4137; phone: 562–627–5324; fax: 562–672–5210; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P. O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, Seattle, WA 98124–2207; telephone 206–544–5000, extension 1; fax 206–766–5680; Internet
Office for Victims of Crime, Justice.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Office for Victims of Crime (“OVC”) of the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Justice Programs (“OJP”), proposes this rule to
Comments must be received by no later than 11:59 p.m., E.T., on October 28, 2013.
You may view an electronic version of this proposed rule at
Toni Thomas, State Compensation and Assistance Division, Office for Victims of Crime, at (202) 307–5983.
Please note that all comments received are considered part of the public record and made available for public inspection online at
If you wish to submit personal identifying information (such as your name, address, etc.) as part of your comment, but do not wish for it to be posted online, you must include the phrase “PERSONAL IDENTIFYING INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You must also locate all the personal identifying information you do not want posted online in the first paragraph of your comment and identify what information you want redacted.
If you wish to submit confidential business information as part of your comment but do not wish it to be posted online, you must include the phrase “CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You must also prominently identify confidential business information to be redacted within the comment. If a comment has so much confidential business information that it cannot be effectively redacted, all or part of that comment may not be posted on
Personal identifying information identified and located as set forth above will be placed in the agency's public docket file, but not posted online. Confidential business information identified and located as set forth above will not be placed in the agency's public docket file, nor will it be posted online. If you wish to inspect the agency's public docket file in person by appointment, please see the “For Further Information Contact” paragraph.
The Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (VOCA) authorizes OVC to provide an annual formula grant from the Crime Victims Fund to each State and eligible territory. These annual Victim Assistance Program formula grants are used by the States and territories to provide financial support to eligible crime victim assistance programs.
OVC proposes some substantive departure from the Guidelines; however, the majority of provisions in the proposed rule are the same as the corresponding provisions of the Guidelines. The proposed rule would reorganize the program rules into five major parts: (1) General Provisions; (2) State Administering Agency Program Requirements; (3) State Administering Agency Use of VOCA Funds for Administration and Training; (4) Sub-Recipient Program Requirements; and (5) Sub-Recipient Allowable/Unallowable Costs.
The rules proposed in the General Provisions part would not substantively depart from the Guidelines. The definitions section in this part proposes to define frequently used terms, including “crime victim”, “State administering agency”, “victim of child abuse”, and “direct services”. These proposed definitions are consistent in substance with the definitions in the Guidelines. OVC proposes a new definition of the undefined statutory term “child abuse” that is intended to make patent OVC's existing flexible approach of allowing States to address a broad variety of harm to children.
The State Administering Agency Program Requirements part proposes a basic statement of the purpose of State-level VOCA funding, and summarizes the statutory eligibility and certification requirements. OVC proposes to clarify that the existing practice (presently allowed by OVC, but not acknowledged in the existing Guidelines) in some States of passing funds along to another entity to administer the State's victim assistance program is permissible, and to set out rules for administering funding in this way. OVC proposes a section clearly setting forth how States must allocate VOCA funding among various types of victim service programs (e.g., those serving priority crime victim categories, and previously underserved victims), but does not propose any changes to the allocation percentages set out in the Guidelines. OVC proposes a new mandate that State administering agencies compete subawards every five years; as well as a provision allowing States to use alternative risk-based monitoring procedures instead of the standard biennial on-site monitoring of all subawards required by the Guidelines. OVC believes that competition of subawards will lead to better and more cost-effective services; while allowing States to propose alternative monitoring strategies would allow States to use innovative and more cost-effective monitoring practices. This part also proposes other situation-specific rules that State administering agencies must follow when overseeing subawards; these provisions largely track the Guidelines.
The State Administering Agency Use of VOCA Funds for Administration and Training part proposes to clarify and bring the existing guideline provisions setting out maximum amounts for administration and training costs into harmony with more recent statutory changes. The proposed part would list allowable administrative and training costs, all of which would be consistent with those set out in the Guidelines.
The Sub-Recipient Program Requirements part proposes a concise statement of the purpose of VOCA sub-awards, and summarizes the statutory eligibility requirements for sub-recipients. OVC proposes maintaining the existing project match provisions that require most sub-recipients to provide a twenty percent match for the purpose of leveraging and augmenting assistance funding. As in the existing Guidelines, sub-recipients in U.S. territories and possessions would not be subject to match. OVC proposes to eliminate the match requirement, currently at five percent, for American Indian and tribal organizations. These entities, like those in U.S. territories and possessions, often have difficulty accessing matching resources—a match requirement in such circumstances can be counterproductive and lead to fewer victim services in those already underserved jurisdictions.
The Sub-Recipient Allowable/Unallowable Costs part proposes a list of activities that sub-recipients may undertake using VOCA funding. The majority of the listed costs are substantively the same as those listed in the existing Guidelines. OVC does, however, propose a few substantive changes: OVC proposes to allow States more flexibility to support legal services for victims. The existing Guidelines allow legal services for victims, but only in the emergency context. OVC has received feedback from victim service providers indicating that there is a significant need for legal services for victims outside of the emergency context (e.g., asserting rights in the criminal justice process, support for human trafficking victims with a myriad of complicated issues). Allowing States to provide such services will lead to better outcomes for many victims. OVC also proposes to allow States to support services to incarcerated victims (e.g., victims of sexual assault in prison) in most circumstances. The existing Guidelines do not allow such services; however, the change is consistent with the recommendations of the 2009 report by the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission, discussed in more detail below. OVC also proposes allowing States greater flexibility to support transitional housing and relocation expenses using VOCA funds, as such services can lead to better outcomes for many victims (e.g., those abused by a caretaker). OVC proposes allowing States to permit sub-recipients to use VOCA funds for coordination activities, which often allow local organizations to more effectively leverage community resources and provide better and more cost-effective services.
As discussed in more detail under the Executive Orders 12866 and 13563—Regulatory Review section below, the proposed rule would clarify and update the existing Guidelines, but would not alter the existing program structure at all. Updating the existing Guidelines to clearly and accurately reflect the statutory parameters will facilitate State compliance with VOCA requirements, and thus avoid potentially costly non-compliance findings. The proposed rule would make only a few substantive changes to the existing Guidelines, and these would be of a permissive, not mandatory, nature. Some changes, like allowing more flexibility to coordinate and leverage community resources, and adopt alternative monitoring strategies, would impose no costs but will potentially allow States to use existing funding more efficiently. Other proposed changes that allow States to allocate funding to services not presently allowable, could change the allocation of VOCA funding amongst victim services provided by sub-recipient organizations, and amongst victim service organizations. Such reallocations of funding, however, are not mandated and each State and territory would make the ultimate decision with regard to whether to change its current funding allocations, if it chooses to do so at all. This is not a change from the present discretion that States have to allocate funding according to State priorities. OVC anticipates that most States will continue to allocate the majority of VOCA funding to victim services for certain types of crimes (intimate partner violence, sexual assault, child abuse) at consistent levels. Any potential reallocations would be relatively minor (even when taken in aggregate across States) in comparison to the overall mix of allowable victim services, and thus they are unlikely to create new costs or significant fund transfers. In any event, the real benefits of additional allowable services for currently underserved and un-served victims are significant.
OVC proposes this rule to implement its Victim Assistance Program, a formula grant program authorized by Section 1404 of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984, Public Law 98–473, codified at 42 U.S.C. 10603. This section of VOCA authorizes OVC to provide an annual grant from the Crime Victims Fund to each State and eligible territory for the financial support of services to victims of crime by eligible crime victim assistance programs.
OVC's Victim Assistance Program is funded out of the Crime Victims Fund. The Fund receives Federal criminal fines, penalties, and assessments, as well as certain gifts and bequests, but does not receive any general tax revenue. The Crime Victims Fund is administered by OVC and amounts that may be obligated therefrom are allocated each year according to the VOCA formula at 42 U.S.C. 10601. In recent years, the amount available for obligation via the VOCA formula allocations has been capped by law at less than the total amount available in the Fund. The VOCA formula specifies that (in most years) the first $20M available in the Fund for that year will go toward child abuse prevention and treatment programs, with a certain amount to be carved out for programs to address child abuse in Indian Country. After that, such sums as may be necessary are available to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Attorneys Offices to improve services to victims of Federal crime, and to operate a victim notification system. Whatever is left is allocated as follows: 47.5% for OVC's Victim Compensation Program, 47.5% for OVC's Victim Assistance Program, and the remaining 5% for the OVC Director to distribute in discretionary awards in certain statutorily defined categories. Generally, under the distribution rules for the Victim Compensation Program, if a portion of the 47.5% available for Compensation is not needed for that purpose, it is (per formula) made available to augment the Victim Assistance Program. The Victim Assistance Program distributes funds to the States and eligible territories as mandated by VOCA in 42 U.S.C. 10603. The VOCA statutory distribution formula provides each State with a base amount (presently $500,000 for each State; $200,000 for each eligible territory), and distributes the remainder proportionately based on the State populations.
The proposed rule would supersede the existing VOCA Victim Assistance Program Guidelines that were published in the
OVC published the Final Program Guidelines, Victims of Crime Act, FY 1997 Victim Assistance Program on April 22, 1997. Those Guidelines were based on OVC experience with the Victim Assistance Program, legal opinions rendered since the inception of the program in 1986, and comments from the field on the Proposed Program Guidelines published in the
The 1997 Guidelines have served to assist and guide OVC, State administering agencies, and direct service providers, in administering, distributing, and using VOCA funds to assist victims of crime nationwide. As mentioned above, however, over the sixteen years since their promulgation, the existing Guidelines have been overtaken by changes in the VOCA statute itself, developments in the crime victim services field, as well as technological advancements, and new approaches to State administration of VOCA funding. For example, OVC, through its funding of nationwide training and technical assistance for victim service organizations and the findings of its Vision 21 initiative, which examined the state of the victim services field, as well as through reports of other organizations, such as the Prison Rape Elimination Commission, has become aware of a need for certain types of services and gaps in services for certain types of victims. In particular, OVC wishes to address the need for increased legal services for victims, which is particularly important for human trafficking victims, but also for victims of domestic abuse, identity theft, and other crimes as well. OVC has funded programs providing services for human trafficking victims for more than a decade under the authority of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, and, through various evaluation efforts, has gained significant experience in providing effective services for this victim population. OVC wishes to incorporate this experience into the proposed rule to allow States to effectively assist these victims. Likewise, the findings of the Prison Rape Elimination Commission illuminated an acute need for increased victim services for incarcerated victims, and OVC wishes to allow States to address this gap in services. In addition, information technology has advanced significantly since 1997, and the proposed rule would allow victim service providers greater flexibility to use VOCA funding to leverage technology to enhance victim services. For example, informational and outreach efforts via online forums and social networking may be effective and relatively inexpensive ways to reach certain victim populations. In addition, podcasting and digital video sharing enable victim service providers to continually reach victims with enriched information. Videoconferencing using real-time audio and video technology services, administered through a secure, encrypted connection, can deliver confidential, face-to-face assistance. OVC's intent for this proposed rule is to account for developments over the last decade, and to reflect program parameters applicable to each participating entity accurately. In so doing, OVC hopes to allow administering agencies and victim service providers to fully leverage the progress that the field has made over the last decade in knowledge of victim needs, victim service strategies, and efficient program administration, with the end goal of assisting crime victims more effectively.
As a technical and structural matter, the existing Victim Assistance Program Guidelines are not in a format suitable for publication in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), and therefore have been re-formatted in this notice to conform to CFR formatting requirements. Moreover, the existing Guidelines are not ideally structured in terms of readability and ease of reference. The proposed rule below attempts to remedy these deficiencies by creating manageable units of information, reorganizing related concepts and rules together more logically, and attempting to use consistent terminology throughout the document.
In addition, the existing Guidelines contain extended repetition of the VOCA statutory language. OVC notes that in several instances this has caused confusion as certain statutory language was changed in subsequent laws (for example, the provisions regarding the percentage of funds that a State may use for training and administration), thereby making obsolete and inaccurate the existing guideline's recitation of the superseded law (as statutory language obviously supersedes an agency's contrary guidance or rule on the same subject pronounced through guideline or regulation). The proposed rule omits repetition of statutory language, except where needed for context and ease of use. OVC notes that the proposed rule is drafted to be read
OVC here proposes several substantive changes to the program Guidelines, although many of the provisions for the Victim Assistance Program set out in the existing Guidelines have been retained in substance. (It should be noted that, as explained above, the text of such provisions may have been reformatted as needed to accommodate the regulatory process and to improve the overall clarity of the document.) The most significant of these substantive proposed changes are discussed below in the order that they appear in the revised document, and with reference to the applicable section of the proposed rule. Cross-references to corresponding sections of the existing Guidelines are provided where possible for ease of comparison.
The proposed rule contains several terms and definitions that are used throughout the document. These are set out in section 94.102 for ease of reference. Notably—
• The definitions of
• The term
• OVC has added a definition of the term “spousal abuse” that clarifies that the term includes intimate partner violence and dating violence. Spousal abuse was the terminology used in VOCA in the 1980s, but has since fallen out of use in the victim service field. OVC retains the term in the proposed rule because it is still in the statute, but clarifies that OVC understands it to encompass the concepts of intimate partner and dating violence.
• OVC has added a definition of “victim of child abuse”, to clarify that the term covers a broad variety of harm to children. Child abuse victims are a statutorily mandated priority category, and the clarification will ensure that VOCA-funded State victim assistance programs may support a broad variety of victim assistance projects that address the abuse of children. Many child victims experience poly-victimization, meaning several different kinds of direct victimization or indirect exposure to violence (either as an eyewitness or through other knowledge) over a period of time. Poly-victimization greatly increases children's vulnerability to mental health, behavioral, school performance, and other problems, and can contribute to lifelong challenges for the affected children. In addition, children's exposure to violence—in their homes, schools, or communities—as victims or witnesses, is often associated with long-term physical, psychological, and emotional harm, and can contribute to behavioral problems, including substance abuse, and negative health outcomes. VOCA-funded victim assistance programs may use funding to address these various forms of child abuse. In addition, the definition clarifies that child pornography related offenses are a form of child abuse. OVC intends to permit States the flexibility to fund programs to help these victims, whose needs may arise immediately after the abuse, or much later—for example, upon distribution of images of the abuse. OVC views distribution of such images as a form of re-victimization that States and victim advocates are struggling to address, and seeks comments on this provision.
• The definition of
Section 94.105(e) proposes to require State administrative agencies to fund eligible sub-entities through a competitive process. This is an important new requirement that will support innovation at the direct service level through regular review of approaches to victim assistance services.
• Leasing vehicles. The SAA may authorize sub-recipients to lease vehicles, but only upon a showing that each such vehicle is essential for the delivery of victim services.
• Faith-based and neighborhood organizations. Faith-based and neighborhood organizations are valued partners for government. They support and assist victims in countless ways. In keeping with our values and our laws, the Federal Government has issued specific guidance for programs in which faith-based and neighborhood organizations may receive Federal aid to ensure that those programs are implemented in accordance with the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The proposed rule provides a reference to the Department of Justice regulation that implements this guidance and that applies to entities funded through this program.
• Crime victim compensation agencies. A State may use victim assistance funding for services provided by its State victim compensation staff where such services are direct services and outside of that staff's normal duties.
• SAA use of VOCA funds to provide direct services, and limits on the amount of funds that SAAs may use for these purposes.
• Funding victim service programs located in adjacent States.
The existing Guidelines are inaccurate with regard to the allocation of VOCA grant funds for SAA administration and training purposes, as VOCA was amended after the issuance of the 1997 guidance. VOCA now prohibits grantees from using more than five percent of their annual OVC Victim Assistance Program funds for administrative and training purposes. This means that SAAs must allocate this five percent between both administration and training purposes; SAAs are not allowed to use five percent for administration and an additional five percent for training. Sections 94.110 through 94.113 detail allowable uses of and necessary recordkeeping for, administration and training funds. These sections also address non-supplantation requirements as applicable to administrative and training funds, as well as indirect cost rates.
• Using volunteers
• Promotion of community efforts to aid crime victims
• Assistance to victims in applying for compensation
• Compliance with all State requirements
• Providing services at no charge unless permitted by the SAA to generate program income
•
The proposed rule offers several examples of circumstances under which legal services may be appropriate as victim assistance and supported with VOCA funding. It also clarifies that criminal defense, tort suits, and divorce proceedings generally are not allowable costs. It is important to note that the proposed rule merely
•
With this in mind, OVC is proposing a provision specifically allowing for VOCA-funded victim service providers to serve incarcerated individuals, provided that the incarcerated individual is a victim, the service addresses issues directly arising from the victimization, and the need for such services does not directly arise from the crime for which that individual was incarcerated. For example, under the proposed rule a State could choose to fund a service provider to provide mental health services to an individual incarcerated for illegal distribution of drugs who is a victim of sexual assault while so incarcerated. By contrast, VOCA funding could not be used to support medical or mental health services relating to a pre-incarceration assault of that individual by a co-conspirator for not dividing up in an equitable manner the proceeds from sales of illegal drugs.
It is important to note that a person who is targeted and victimized while incarcerated because of the crime for which he is incarcerated (e.g., a person imprisoned for child abuse who is subsequently sexually assaulted by other inmates) would not be excluded from receiving VOCA-funded assistance.
In addition, VOCA victim assistance does not cover non-emergency medical costs—therefore, it is anticipated that the majority of any costs incurred for services to incarcerated victims would be related to forensic exams for sexual assault victims and mental health services to address the consequences of a victimization.
Finally, the rule does not mandate that States make funding available for services to incarcerated victims, but rather, merely permits them to do so. OVC anticipates that State administering agencies will make their own determinations regarding the appropriate delegation of responsibility (and fiscal burden) between victim service agencies/organizations and detention/correctional facilities with regard to caring for this victim population. OVC welcomes comments on any aspect of this proposed rule provision.
•
•
•
•
•
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the Office for Victims of Crime has reviewed this regulation and, by approving it, certifies that it will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The OVC Victim Assistance Program distributes funding to States and eligible territories pursuant to the VOCA formula, a statutory provision, which is not affected by this regulation. The VOCA formula sets out the allocation of grant funds among States and territories, and designates the States and territories that will receive grant funds—the regulation alters neither the allocation of Federal funding, nor the designation of which entities will receive annual funding pursuant to that allocation. Moreover, VOCA affords substantial latitude to the States and territories in determining where to allocate the formula funding within each jurisdiction. This rule, to the extent that it creates certain set asides and permissible areas of emphasis for State victim assistance programs, only applies to federally provided funding. As a rule governing a Federal grant program to States and major U.S. territories, the only economic impact on small entities is that of potential financial assistance, as the rule would not apply to any entity that was not a recipient of VOCA funding under this program. This regulation, therefore, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This regulation has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” section 1(b), Principles of Regulation, and in accordance with Executive Order 13563 “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” section 1(b), General Principles of Regulation.
The Office of Justice Programs has determined that this rule is a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), Regulatory Planning and Review, and accordingly this rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
Executive Order 13563 directs agencies to propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs; tailor the regulation to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining the regulatory objectives; and, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 recognizes that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify and provides that, where appropriate and permitted by law, agencies may consider and discuss qualitative values that are difficult or impossible to quantify, including equity, human dignity, fairness, and distributive impacts.
The proposed rule would clarify and update the existing Guidelines, but would not alter the existing program structure at all. Updating the existing Guidelines to clearly and accurately reflect the statutory parameters will facilitate State compliance with VOCA requirements, and thus avoid potentially costly non-compliance findings. The proposed rule would make only a few substantive changes to the existing Guidelines, and these would be of a permissive, not mandatory, nature. Some changes, like allowing more flexibility to coordinate and leverage community resources, and adopt alternative monitoring strategies, would impose no costs but will potentially allow States to use existing funding more efficiently. Other proposed changes that allow States to allocate funding to services not presently allowable, could change the allocation of VOCA funding amongst victim services provided by sub-recipient organizations, and amongst
The proposed requirement to periodically compete subawards may impose minimal costs associated with administering a competition at least every five years, but these costs are outweighed by the gains in both program effectiveness and cost efficiency that competition would create. The proposed provision allowing alternative risk-based monitoring procedures imposes no new costs on States that choose to retain their existing procedures, but will allow States that wish to implement more cost effective alternatives to do so.
The proposed elimination of match for American Indian and tribal organizations will permit victim service organizations in these communities, many of which do not have the resources to provide matching funds, the ability to more easily seek VOCA funding for victim services. This will benefit victims in these communities, many of whom are underserved. This change is unlikely to impose new costs on States or territories, as there is no requirement that the administering agencies fund American Indian or tribal organizations at a particular level, and the amount of funding allocated to these organizations is a very small percentage of overall VOCA funding.
All of the proposed changes to the provisions governing allowable and unallowable costs are in the nature of granting States additional flexibility to fund certain activities. None of the changes would require States to expend additional funding in any area, or change funding allocations. Moreover, the changes, while important, are relatively minor when compared to the entire scope of costs allowable with VOCA funding. Consequently, to the extent that States choose to fund the newly allowable victim services (e.g., increased time allowed in transitional housing), the reallocation of funding will not result in a significant reallocation of overall funding, given the small number of newly allowable services when compared to the overall mix of allowable victim services. In addition, it is not certain which States will permit what additional services if given the flexibility to do so, and to what extent, as these decisions typically are often made through State legislative or administrative processes and address considerations unique to each State. The important benefit of such potential minor reallocations of resources, whether within organizations that presently receive VOCA funding and will provide augmented services, or (in the less common case) to new organization, would be that previously underserved or un-served victims would receive needed assistance.
This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as the relationship between the States and territories and the national government, for purposes of this program, is set out primarily in the statutory law, not this regulation. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order No. 13132, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
This rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) & (b)(2) of Executive Order No. 12988. Pursuant to section 3(b)(1)(I) of the Executive Order, nothing in this or any previous rule (or in any administrative policy, directive, ruling, notice, guideline, guidance, or writing) directly relating to the Program that is the subject of this rule is intended to create any legal or procedural rights enforceable against the United States, except as the same may be contained within subpart B of part 94 of title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The VOCA Victim Assistance Program is a formula grant program that provides funds to States to provide financial support to eligible crime victim assistance programs. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
This rule is not a major rule as defined by section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets.
This proposed rule does not propose any new, or changes to existing, “collection[s] of information” as defined by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) and its implementing regulations at 5 CFR Part 1320. The existing collections (VOCA Victim Assistance Grant Program State Performance Report, 1121–0115, and OVC Subgrant Award Report, 1121–0142) have both been cleared by the Office of Management and Budget.
Administrative practice and procedure, victim assistance, formula grant program, Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) of 1984.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 94 of chapter I of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 10603, 10603c, 10604(a), 10605.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) Respond to the emotional and physical needs of crime victims;
(2) Assist victims of crime to stabilize their lives after victimization;
(3) Assist victims to understand and participate in the criminal justice system; or
(4) Restore a measure of security and safety for the victim (for example, by replacing or repairing broken windows, doors, and locks).
(a)
(b)
(1) Priority will be given to programs providing assistance to victims of sexual assault, spousal abuse, or child abuse;
(2) Funds will be made available to programs serving previously underserved victims; and
(3) VOCA funding will not supplant State and local funds otherwise available for crime victim assistance.
(c)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(1) The support and approval of a program's services by the community;
(2) The program's history of providing direct services in a cost-effective manner; and
(3) Financial support from sources other than VOCA.
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(a)
(b)
(1) Sexual assault,
(2) Spousal abuse, and
(3) Child abuse.
(c)
(d)
(1) A priority category is currently receiving significant amounts of financial assistance from the State or other sources;
(2) A smaller amount of financial assistance, or no assistance, is needed for a particular priority category or previously underserved victims from the VOCA victim assistance grant program; or
(3) Crime rates for a priority category do not justify the required allocation.
(e)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
State administering agencies shall ensure that VOCA sub-recipients obligate and expend funds in accordance with §§ 94.117 through 94.120, which set out allowable and unallowable costs under VOCA subawards. In addition, State administering agencies shall refer to the following rules when overseeing subawards that involve the following entities or activities:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(1) Ensure that any such award is an efficient and cost-effective way to provide services to victims who reside in the awarding State;
(2) Ensure that the amount of the award is proportionate to the number of victims in the awarding State that will be served by the adjacent State program; and
(3) Enter into an interstate agreement with the adjacent State to address provision of services, monitoring, auditing Federal funds, overseeing compliance, and reporting.
(a)
(b)
(1) The sub-recipient's justification for charging for services or otherwise generating program income in light of the particular project's objectives, and the overall purpose of victim assistance programs; and
(2) The sub-recipient's ability to track program income generated in accordance with Federal financial accounting requirements.
(c)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)
(1) Establish and document a baseline level of non-VOCA funding required to administer the State victim assistance program prior to expending VOCA funds for administrative costs; and
(2) Notify OVC if there is a decrease in the State's financial commitment to the cost of administering the State's crime victim assistance program.
(c)
(1) A serious loss of State revenue results in across-the-board budget restrictions, or
(2) A State decreases the number of State-supported staff positions used to meet the State's maintenance of effort in administering the VOCA grant program.
(d)
State administering agencies may use VOCA funds to support administrative costs as provided in VOCA, at 42 U.S.C. 10603(b)(3). Only those costs directly associated with administering the State administering agency's program and training its staff, enhancing overall program operations, and ensuring compliance with Federal requirements may be reimbursed with administrative grant funds. These costs generally include the following:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
(k)
State administering agencies may use VOCA funds to support training costs as provided in VOCA, at 42 U.S.C. 10603(b)(3). Allowable training costs generally include the following:
(a)
(b)
VOCA funds shall be available to sub-recipients only to provide direct services to victims of crime (unless such funds are otherwise available to the sub-recipient for administrative or other costs as allowable under this subpart).
Sub-recipients shall adhere to the following rules in undertaking activities using VOCA funds:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(a)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(c)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(d)
(e)
(a) The following are allowable direct service costs for which sub-recipients may use VOCA funds:
(1)
(i) Crisis intervention services;
(ii) Accompaniment to hospitals for medical examinations;
(iii) Hotline counseling;
(iv) Safety planning;
(v) Emergency food, shelter, clothing, and transportation;
(vi) Short-term (up to 45 days) in-home care and supervision services for children and adults who remain in their own homes when the offender/caregiver is removed;
(vii) Short-term (up to 45 days) nursing home, adult foster care, or group home placement for adults for whom no other safe, short-term residence is available;
(viii) Window, door, and lock replacement or repair;
(ix) Emergency costs of non-prescription and prescription medicine, prophylactic treatment to prevent HIV/AIDS infection, durable medical equipment (such as wheel chairs, crutches, hearing aids, eyeglasses), and other health care items are allowed when the State's compensation program, the victim's (or in the case of a minor child, the victim's parent's or guardian's) health insurance plan, Medicaid, or other health care funding source cannot provide for these expenses within 48 hours of the crime; and
(x) Emergency legal assistance such as filing restraining or protective orders, and obtaining emergency custody orders and visitation rights.
(2)
(i) Working with a victim to assess the impact of the crime;
(ii) Identify needs;
(iii) Case management;
(iv) Manage practical problems created by the victimization;
(v) Identify resources;
(vi) Provide information, referrals, advocacy, and follow-up contact for continued services, as needed; and
(vii) Traditional, cultural and/or alternative therapy/healing (e.g., art therapy, yoga).
(3)
(4)
(5)
(i) Advocacy on behalf of crime victims;
(ii) Accompaniment to criminal justice offices and court;
(iii) Transportation, meals, and lodging to allow victims who are not witnesses to participate in the criminal justice system;
(iv) Interpreters for victims who are hearing-impaired, or with limited English proficiency, when they are not witnesses;
(v) Child care and respite care to enable a victim who is a caregiver to attend criminal justice activities related to the case;
(vi) Notification to victims regarding trial dates, case disposition, incarceration, and parole hearings;
(vii) Assistance with victim impact statements; and
(viii) Assistance in recovering property that was retained as evidence and projects devoted to restitution advocacy on behalf of crime victims.
(6)
(i) Legal services (including, but not limited to, those provided by pro bono legal clinics) that help victims assert their rights as victims or protect their safety, privacy, or other interests, in a criminal proceeding directly related to the victimization, are allowable.
(ii) Civil legal services for victims where the need for such services arises as a direct result of the victimization, are allowable.
(iii) The following are examples (which are merely illustrative, and not meant to be a comprehensive listing) of some circumstances where civil legal services may be appropriate: Protective and restraining orders against a stalker or abuser; campus administrative protection or stay away order proceedings; family, custody, contract, housing, and dependency matters for victims of intimate partner violence, child abuse, sexual assault, and elder abuse; immigration assistance for victims of human trafficking and domestic abuse victims; intervention with creditors, law enforcement (e.g., to obtain police reports), and other entities on behalf of victims of identity theft and financial fraud; intervention with administrative agencies, schools/colleges, tribal entities, and other circumstances where legal advice or intervention would assist in addressing the consequences of a person's victimization.
(iv) OVC encourages State administering agencies to set reasonable limits on the amount and duration of funding, and the types of legal services that are provided by their sub-recipients.
(v) In general, legal services for divorce proceedings, alteration of child support payments, criminal defense, and tort lawsuits are not an appropriate use of VOCA funding.
(7)
(8)
(i) Results of the interview will be used not only for law enforcement and prosecution purposes, but also for identification of needs such as social services, personal advocacy, case management, substance abuse treatment, and mental health services;
(ii) Interviews are conducted in the context of a multidisciplinary investigation and diagnostic team, or in a specialized setting such as a child advocacy center;
(iii) The interviewer is trained to conduct forensic interviews appropriate to the developmental age and abilities of children, or the developmental, cognitive, and physical or communication disabilities presented by adults; and
(iv) VOCA victim assistance funds are not used to supplant other State and local public funding available for forensic interviews, including criminal justice funding.
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(b) [Reserved].
The following are other allowable victim-service-related costs for which sub-recipients may use VOCA funds:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
The following are allowable administrative costs for which sub-recipients may use VOCA funds:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(1) Supplies;
(2) Equipment use fees, when supported by adequate documentation;
(3) Prorated costs of property insurance;
(4) Printing, photocopying, and postage;
(5) Courier services;
(6) Brochures that describe available services;
(7) Books and other victim-related materials;
(8) Computer backup files/tapes and storage; and
(9) Security systems.
(g)
(1) Completing VOCA-required time and attendance sheets and programmatic documentation, reports, and statistics;
(2) Collecting and maintaining crime victims records;
(3) Conducting victim satisfaction surveys and needs assessments to improve victim services delivery in the VOCA-funded project; and
(4) Funding the prorated share of audit costs.
(h)
(i)
(j)
Notwithstanding any other provision of this subpart, VOCA funds shall not be used to fund or support the following:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
(k)
(l)
(m)
In proposed rule document 2013–13233 appearing on pages 34178 through 34239 in the issue of Thursday, June 6, 2013, make the following correction.
1. On page 34234, in the first column, on the twenty-fifth line from the bottom, “
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the state of Iowa. The purpose of these revisions is to update the Polk County Board of Health Rules and Regulations. These proposed revisions reflect updates to the Iowa statewide rules previously approved by EPA and will ensure consistency between the applicable local agency rules and Federally-approved rules.
Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by September 26, 2013.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07–OAR–2013–0446 by mail to: Michael Jay, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219. Comments may also be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following the detailed instructions in the
Michael Jay at (913) 551–7460, or by email at
In the final rules section of the
Federal Communications Commission.
Petition for reconsideration.
In this document, a Petition for Reconsideration has been filed in the Commission's Rulemaking proceeding by Ivanna Yang on behalf of American Association for Justice.
Oppositions to the Petitions must be filed on or before September 11, 2013. Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before September 23, 2013.
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
Martin Doczkat, Office of Engineering and Technology, 202–418–2435,
This is a summary of Commission's document, Report No. 2988, released July 31, 2013. The full text of Report No. 2988 is available for viewing and copying in Room CY–B402, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC or may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI) (1–800–378–3160). The Commission will not send a copy of this
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce the reopening of the public comment period on our October 16, 2012, proposed designation of critical habitat for the Neosho mucket (
For the proposed rule published October 16, 2012 (77 FR 63440), we will consider all comments received or postmarked on or before October 28, 2013. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see
(1)
(2)
We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. We will post all comments on
Jim Boggs, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arkansas Ecological Services Field Office, 110 South Amity Road, Suite 300, Conway, AR 72032; by telephone 501–513–4475; or by facsimile 501–513–4480. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339.
On October 16, 2012, the Service published a proposed rule in the
• Benton and Washington Counties, Arkansas;
• Allen, Chase, Cherokee, Coffey, Elk, Greenwood, Labette, Montgomery, Neosho, Wilson, and Woodson Counties, Kansas;
• Jasper, Lawrence, McDonald, and Newton Counties, Missouri; and
• Adair, Cherokee, and Delaware Counties, Oklahoma.
• Colbert, Jackson, Madison, and Marshall Counties, Alabama;
• Arkansas, Ashley, Bradley, Clark, Cleveland, Dallas, Drew, Fulton, Grant, Hot Spring, Independence, Izard, Jackson, Lawrence, Little River, Marion, Monroe, Montgomery, Newton, Ouachita, Randolph, Saline, Searcy, Sevier, Sharp, Van Buren, White, and Woodruff Counties, Arkansas;
• Allen and Cherokee Counties, Kansas;
• Ballard, Green, Hart, Livingston, Logan, Marshall, and McCracken Counties, Kentucky;
• Massac, Pulaski, and Vermilion Counties, Illinois;
• Carroll, Pulaski, Tippecanoe, and White Counties, Indiana;
• Hinds, Sunflower, Toshimingo, and Warren Counties, Mississippi;
• Jasper, Madison, and Wayne Counties, Missouri;
• Coshocton, Madison, Union, and Williams Counties, Ohio;
• McCurtain and Rogers Counties, Oklahoma;
• Crawford, Erie, Mercer, and Venango Counties, Pennsylvania; and
• Hardin, Hickman, Marshall, Maury, and Robertson Counties, Tennessee.
On May 9, 2013, we announced the reopening of the comment period for the proposed listing of Neosho mucket and rabbitsfoot and the availability of our draft environmental assessment (DNEPA–EA) and draft economic analysis (DEA) of the proposed critical habitat (78 FR 27171). The comment period was reopened for 30 days, ending on June 10, 2013. We received two requests for the reopened comment period to be extended so that the public could have additional time to review the draft environmental assessment and draft economic analysis. The requests were from Senator Mark Pryor of Arkansas and the Kansas Farm Bureau. Therefore, with this notice we are reopening the comment period on the proposed designation of critical habitat and the draft EA and NEPA–EA for an additional 60 days.
Pursuant to a court-ordered deadline, we must make a final determination on whether to list Neosho mucket and
Additional information may be found in the October 16, 2012, proposed rule (77 FR 63440) and the May 9, 2013, reopening of the comment period and availability of the draft environmental assessment and draft economic analysis (78 FR 27171).
We are again seeking written comments and information during this reopened comment period on our proposed designation of critical habitat for Neosho mucket and rabbitsfoot that published in the
With regard to the proposed critical habitat determination, we are particularly interested in comments concerning:
(1) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as “critical habitat” under section 4 of the Act, including whether there are threats to the species from human activity, the degree of which can be expected to increase due to the designation, and whether that increase in threat outweighs the benefit of designation such that the designation of critical habitat is not prudent.
(2) Specific information on:
(a) The amount and distribution of the species' habitat;
(b) What areas occupied by the species at the time of listing that contain features essential for the conservation of the species we should include in the designation and why;
(c) Special management considerations or protection that may be needed in critical habitat areas we are proposing, including managing for the potential effects of climate change; and
(d) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential to the conservation of the species and why.
(3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
(4) Any foreseeable economic, national security, or other relevant impacts that may result from designating any area that may be included in the final designation. We are particularly interested in any impacts on small entities and the benefits of including or excluding areas from the proposed designation that are subject to these impacts.
(5) Whether our approach to designating critical habitat could be improved or modified in any way to provide for greater public participation and understanding, or to assist us in accommodating public concerns and comments.
If you submitted comments or information on the proposed rule (77 FR 63440) during the initial comment period from October 16, 2012, to December 17, 2012, or the reopened comment period (78 FR 27171) from May 9, 2013, to June 10, 2013, please do not resubmit them. We have incorporated them into the public record as part of the original comment period, and we will fully consider them in our final determinations.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposed rules by one of the methods listed in
If you submit a comment via
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing the proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by September 26, 2013 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The Department of Agriculture will submit the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13 on or after the date of publication of this notice. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received by September 26, 2013. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720–8681.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The management of the NSIIC is vested in a Board of Directors (Board) that is appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture. The primary objective of the NSIIC is to assist U.S. sheep and goat industries by strengthening and enhancing the production and marketing of sheep, goats, and their products in the United States.
Office of the Chief Economist, USDA.
Notice of availability for public comment.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has prepared a report containing methods for quantifying entity-scale greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and removals from the agriculture and forestry sectors. The purpose of this notice is to seek input from the public on the proposed methods. This report was prepared in part to meet requirements of Section 2709 of the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008. The report was prepared by 38 technical experts and reviewed by 29 scientific reviewers. USDA anticipates that the methods will be used by landowners and USDA to improve management practices and identify actions to reduce GHG emissions and increase carbon sequestration. The guidelines and methods could also be used by farmers, ranchers, and forest owners to facilitate their participation in voluntary state and regional GHG registries and programs. Notice of the project was announced in the
When submitting responses, please annotate comments using the report section number designations. All information received will be included in the public docket and made available online at
Responses to this notice should be submitted by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on October 11, 2013.
The report is available for download from the project Web site at
Responses to this notice must be submitted electronically through the regulations.gov portal at
• Via email to
• Via fax to 202–401–1176; or,
• Via courier delivery to Marlen Eve, USDA Climate Change Program Office, 1400 Independence Ave SW., Room 4407 South Bldg, Washington, DC 20250.
Responses submitted through email, fax or courier will be recorded in full, including any identity and contact information.
Any questions about the content of this notice should be sent to Marlen Eve, USDA Climate Change Program Office, via Email
The Climate Change Program Office (CCPO) operates within the Office of the Chief Economist at USDA and functions as the Department-wide focal point on agriculture, rural, and forestry-related climate change activities. The CCPO ensures that USDA is a source of objective, analytical assessments of the effects of climate change and proposed response strategies. This project addresses the need for scientifically-sound, Department-wide guidelines for quantifying GHG emissions and carbon sequestration at the farm-, forest- and entity-scale. The report and other products developed by this project will be useful in assessing the carbon and GHG related environmental service benefits of various agricultural and forestry management practices and technologies. Supplementary information on the project is included below.
Project scope. USDA has created a comprehensive set of GHG inventory methods that builds upon existing estimation and inventory efforts with the aim of providing transparent and robust inventory guidelines and reporting tools. The methods address direct greenhouse gas emissions and carbon sequestration from agriculture and forest management at the farm, ranch or forest boundary. This report does not establish a GHG crediting framework or address policy issues related to crediting GHG reductions such as additionality or leakage.
The following GHG sources and sinks are addressed in the report:
• Biomass carbon stock changes;
• Soil organic carbon stocks for mineral soils;
• Soil organic carbon stocks for organic soils;
• Direct nitrous oxide emissions from mineral soils;
• Direct nitrous oxide emissions from drainage of organic soils;
• Indirect nitrous oxide emissions;
• Methane uptake by soils;
• Methane and nitrous oxide emissions from rice cultivation;
• Carbon dioxide emissions from liming;
• Methane and nitrous oxide emissions from biomass burning; and
• Carbon dioxide emissions from urea fertilizer application.
• Biomass carbon stock changes;
• Soil carbon stock changes; and
• Methane and nitrous oxide emissions.
• Enteric fermentation and animal housing emissions;
• Solid manure storage and treatment emissions;
• Liquid manure storage and treatment emissions; and
• Manure application emissions.
• Forest carbon stock changes;
• Establishing, re-establishing, and clearing forests;
• Forest management;
• Harvested wood products;
• Urban forestry; and
• Natural disturbances.
• Dead wood carbon;
• Carbon in litter; and
• Soil organic carbon in mineral soils.
Methods have not been delineated for all of the sources considered. In some
Specifically, USDA requests comments on:
1. Are sources of GHG emissions or sinks missing? Are the methods provided complete? Are there potential inconsistencies in and across the methods?
2. Are the proposed methods suitable for estimating GHG emissions at the farm-, forest- or entity-scale while meeting the selection criteria of transparency, consistency, comparability, completeness, accuracy, cost effectiveness, and ease of use?
3. Are new (or additional) data sources available for calculating emission factors?
4. Are there additional management practices for which the science and data are clear, and which should be addressed in the methods report? If yes, please provide details.
5. Are the methods appropriate across a variety of farm and forest entities as well as applicable to operations of any size?
6. Are the research gaps clearly identified? Are there additional gaps to note, or new data sources that significantly address any of the listed gaps?
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA.
Notice.
This Notice announces 5 listening sessions to support the Request for Information (RFI) published by FNS regarding Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) retailer eligibility requirements (78 FR 51136, August 20, 2013). As explained in the RFI, FNS is re-examining SNAP retailer eligibility requirements in part because of concerns raised in a recent FNS report examining the trafficking rates at different types of retail food stores and a 2006 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report suggesting that the minimal stocking requirements in SNAP contribute to corrupt retailers entering the program. The FNS report is available at:
Listening sessions are scheduled in 5 cities: Wednesday, August 28 in Ames, Iowa; Monday, September 9 in Baltimore, Maryland; Tuesday, September 10 in Greenville, Mississippi; Wednesday, September 11 in Chicago, Illinois; and Monday, September 16 in Los Angeles, California.
Written comments may be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Contact information is listed under
Complete information for the five scheduled listening sessions is as follows:
All sessions are open to the public and will be recorded. Each forum will begin with opening remarks from the USDA official charged with moderating the session. Both a sign language and a Spanish language interpreter will be available. Speakers' time will be limited to four minutes. Written comments will also be accepted at every session. Each session location is accessible to persons with disabilities.
The Agency is seeking public input regarding the following questions, with particular attention to impacts of each on program integrity, healthy food choices, access to food, and retailer operations. Listening session attendees will be provided with a list of these questions at the forum site:
1. Is ensuring that SNAP retailers provide SNAP clients access to healthy food choices a reasonable priority for establishing SNAP store eligibility criteria?
2. Are there store types that clearly meet all of the Program goals and, consequently, should always be eligible for SNAP participation?
3. Conversely, are there store types that do not effectively improve access to food choices (e.g., stores that sell low amounts of food when compared to the amounts of distilled liquor, tobacco and/or lottery tickets sold) and, therefore, should always be ineligible for SNAP participation?
4. Would a different definition of the “staple foods” required in SNAP authorized stores help to ensure that these stores offer more healthy food choices? If so, what kinds of changes would be most effective? Specifically, almost all foods can be counted towards meeting staple food requirements,
5. How should prepared foods with multiple ingredients, such as chicken pot pie or other frozen dinners, or single serving meat jerky packages, be treated with regards to “staple foods” categories?
6. Do twelve items (the minimum amount necessary to meet SNAP authorization criterion A, by virtue of needing three varieties in the four different staple food categories) provide adequate variety for a retailer to further the Program's purpose? If not, what would be a more appropriate requirement?
7. Currently, retailers who are authorized under criterion A are required to stock perishable items (e.g., fresh, frozen or refrigerated fruits and vegetables; dairy; meats, poultry and fish; bread or cereal) in two categories. Should perishable items be required in more than two categories?
8. Are 50 percent of sales in staple foods, as currently required for criterion B, sufficient to ensure that a SNAP authorized store furthers the program's purpose, given the current definition of “staple foods?” Would this percentage be sufficient if the definition of “staple foods” is changed to exclude items high in added sugar, sodium or solid fats?
9. Should stores whose primary business (as evidenced by marketing, inventory or sales) is not the sale of food, be eligible to participate in SNAP?
10. Restaurants are generally prohibited from being SNAP retailers, and hot foods cannot be purchased with SNAP benefits. However, there are authorized retailers who primarily sell food for immediate consumption, often on premises, but also sell their products cold and heat them for SNAP recipients immediately after purchase for a nominal fee. These stores qualify today based on the array of raw ingredients, such as unbaked pizza or raw fish. Should such stores be eligible for participation in SNAP?
11. Should all retailers who meet SNAP eligibility criteria be authorized, even when sufficient store access for recipients is not a concern?
12. If store access were a concern in an area where no store meets basic eligibility criteria for SNAP authorization, how should FNS select the stores to authorize that best serve the needs of the client population? Should FNS employ an evaluation and scoring system? If so, what criteria should make up such a system?
13. How should integrity and management priorities be balanced against healthy food choice criteria in the SNAP authorization process? What elements could be used to assess integrity risks, and how should they be applied?
14. Are there any other ways in which the criteria for retailer eligibility should be changed? If so, how?
Forest Service, Department of Agriculture.
Request for applications
The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, requests applications for the Community Forest and Open Space Conservation Program (Community Forest Program or CFP). This is a competitive grant program whereby local governments, qualified nonprofit organizations, and Indian tribes are eligible to apply for grants to establish community forests through fee simple acquisition of private forest land from a willing seller. The purpose of the program is to establish community forests by protecting forest land from conversion to non-forest uses and provide community benefits such as sustainable forest management, environmental benefits including clean air, water, and wildlife habitat; benefits from forest-based educational programs; benefits from serving as models of effective forest stewardship; and recreational benefits secured with public access.
Eligible lands for grants funded under this program are private forest land that is at least five acres in size, suitable to sustain natural vegetation, and at least 75 percent forested. The lands must also be threatened by conversion to non-forest uses, must not be held in trust by the United States on behalf of any Indian tribe, must not be Tribal allotment lands, must be offered for sale by a willing seller, and if acquired by an eligible entity, must provide defined community benefits under CFP and allow public access.
Interested local government and nonprofit applicants must submit applications to the State Forester. Tribal applicants must submit applications to the appropriate Tribal government officials. All applications must be received by State Foresters or Tribal governments by January 15, 2014. State Foresters or Tribal government officials must forward applications to the Forest Service Region, Northeastern Area or International Institute of Tropical Forestry by February 17, 2014.
All local government and qualified nonprofit organization applications must be submitted to the State Forester of the State where the property is located. All Indian tribal applications must be submitted to the Tribal government officials of the Indian tribe. Applicants are encouraged to contact and work with the Forest Service Region, Northeastern Area, or International Institute of Tropical Forestry, and the State Forester or equivalent official of the Indian tribe when developing their proposal. The State Forester's contact information may be found at
State Foresters and Tribal government officials shall submit applications to the appropriate Forest Service Regional/Area/Institute contact noted below.
For questions regarding the grant application or administrative regulations, contact Scott Stewart, Program Manager, 202–205–1618,
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1–800–877–8339 twenty-four hours a day, every day of the year, including holidays.
Detailed information regarding what to include in the application, definitions of terms, eligibility, and necessary prerequisites for consideration can be found in the final program rule, published October 20, 2011 (76 FR 65121–65133), which is available at
a.
b.
c.
d.
The Administration proposed to fund the CFP at $4 million for fiscal year 2014. Individual grant applications may not exceed $400,000, which does not include technical assistance requests. The Federal Government's obligation under this program is contingent upon the availability of appropriated funds.
No legal liability on the part of the Government shall be incurred until funds are committed by the grant officer for this program to the applicant in writing. The initial grant period shall be for 2 years, and acquisition of lands should occur within that timeframe. Lands acquired prior to the grant award are not eligible for CFP funding. The grant may be reasonably extended by the Forest Service when necessary to accommodate unforeseen circumstances in the land acquisition process. Written annual financial performance reports and semi-annual project performance reports shall be required and submitted to the appropriate grant officer.
Technical assistance funds, totaling not more than 10 percent of all funds, may be allocated to State Foresters and equivalent officials of the Indian tribe. Technical assistance, if provided, will be awarded at the time of the grant. If seeking technical assistance funds, the applicant must work with the State Foresters and equivalent officials of the Indian tribe to determine technical assistance needs and include the technical assistance request in the project budget separate from the budget for the land acquisition.
As funding allows, applications submitted through this request may be funded in future years, subject to the availability of funds and the continued feasibility and viability of the project.
All applicants must also send an email to
All State Foresters and Tribal government officials must forward applications to the Forest Service by February 17, 2014.
The following section outlines grant application requirements:
a. The application can be no more than eight pages long, plus no more than two maps (eight and half inches by eleven inches in size), the grant forms specified in (b), and the draft Community Forest Plan specified in (d).
b. The following grant forms and supporting materials must be included in the application:
(1) An Application for Federal Assistance (Standard Form 424);
(2) Budget information (Standard Form SF 424c—Construction Programs); and
(3) Assurances of compliance with all applicable Federal laws, regulations, and policies (Standard Form 424d— Construction Programs).
c. Documentation verifying that the applicant is an eligible entity and that the land proposed for acquisition is eligible (see § 230.2 of the final program rule).
d. Applications must include the following, regarding the property proposed for acquisition:
(1) A description of the property, including acreage and county location;
(2) A description of current land uses, including improvements;
(3) A description of forest type and vegetative cover;
(4) A map of sufficient scale to show the location of the property in relation to roads and other improvements as well as parks, refuges, or other protected lands in the vicinity;
(5) A description of applicable zoning and other land use regulations affecting the property;
(6) A description of relationship of the property within and its contributions to a landscape conservation initiative; and
(7) A description of any threats of conversion to non-forest uses, including any encumbrances on the property that prevent conversion to non-forest uses.
e. Information regarding the proposed establishment of a community forest, including:
(1) A description of the benefiting community, including demographics, and the associated benefits provided by the proposed land acquisition;
(2) A description of community involvement to-date in the planning of the community forest acquisition and of community involvement in anticipated long-term management;
(3) Identification of persons and organizations that support the project and their specific role in establishing and managing the community forest; and
(4) A draft Community Forest Plan. The eligible entity is encouraged to work with the State Forester or equivalent official of the Indian tribe for technical assistance when developing or updating the Community Forest Plan. In addition, the eligible entity is encouraged to work with technical specialists, such as professional foresters, recreation specialists, wildlife biologists, or outdoor education specialists, when developing the Community Forest Plan.
f. Information regarding the proposed land acquisition, including:
(1) A proposed project budget not exceeding $400,000 and any additional funds for technical assistance needs as coordinated with the State Forester or equivalent Indian tribe (§ 230.6 of the final program rule);
(2) The status of due diligence, including signed option or purchase and sale agreement, title search, minerals determination, and appraisal;
(3) Description and status of cost share (secure, pending, commitment letter, etc. (§ 230.6 of the final program rule));
(4) The status of negotiations with participating landowner(s) including purchase options, contracts, and other terms and conditions of sale;
(5) The proposed timeline for completing the acquisition and establishing the community forest; and
(6) Long term management costs and funding source(s).
g. Applications must comply with the Uniform Federal Assistance Regulations (7 CFR part 3015).
h. Applications must also include the forms required to process a Federal grant. Section 230.7 references the grant forms that must be included in the application and the specific administrative requirements that apply to the type of Federal grant used for this program.
A sample grant application outline can be found on the CFP Web site at:
a. Using the criteria described below, to the extent practicable, the Forest Service will give priority to applications that maximize the delivery of community benefits, as defined in the final rule (see § 230.2 of the final program rule); and
b. The Forest Service will evaluate all applications received by the State Foresters or Tribal government officials and award grants based on the following criteria:
(1) Type and extent of community benefits provided, including to underserved communities. Community benefits are defined in the final program rule as:
(i) Economic benefits such as timber and non-timber products;
(ii) Environmental benefits, including clean air and water, stormwater management, and wildlife habitat;
(iii) Benefits from forest-based experiential learning, including K–12 conservation education programs; vocational education programs in disciplines such as forestry and environmental biology; and environmental education through individual study or voluntary participation in programs offered by organizations such as 4–H, Boy or Girl Scouts, Master Gardeners, etc;
(iv) Benefits from serving as replicable models of effective forest stewardship for private landowners; and
(v) Recreational benefits such as hiking, hunting and fishing secured through public access.
(2) Extent and nature of community engagement in the establishment and long-term management of the community forest;
(3) Amount of cost share leveraged;
(4) Extent to which the community forest contributes to a landscape conservation initiative;
(5) Extent of due diligence completed on the project, including cost share committed and status of appraisal;
(6) Likelihood that, unprotected, the property would be converted to non-forest uses; and
(7) Costs to the Federal Government.
a. Once an application is selected, funding will be obligated to the grant recipient through a grant.
b. Local and Indian tribal governments should refer to 2 CFR part 225, Cost Principles for State, Local, and Indian Tribal Governments (OMB Circular A–87) and 7 CFR part 3016, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments for directions.
c. Nonprofit organizations should refer to 2 CFR part 215, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Other Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals and Other Nonprofit Organizations, (OMB Circular A–110) and 7 CFR part 3019, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements, with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and other Nonprofit Organizations for directions.
d. Forest Service must approve any amendments to a proposal or request to reallocate funding within a grant proposal. If negotiations on a selected project fail, the applicant cannot substitute an alternative site.
e. The grant recipient must comply with the requirements in § 230.8 in the final rule before funds will be released.
f. After the project has closed, as a requirement of the grant, grant recipients must provide the Forest Service with a Geographic Information System (GIS) shapefile: a digital, vector-based storage format for storing geometric location and associated attribute information of CFP project tracts and cost share tracts, if applicable.
g. Any funds not expended within the grant period must be de-obligated and revert to the Forest Service.
h. All media, press, signage, and other documents discussing the creation of the community forest must reference the partnership and financial assistance by the Forest Service through the CFP. Additional information may be found in § 230.9 of the final rule.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Humboldt (NV) Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Winnemucca, Nevada. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (Pub. L. 112–141) (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the RAC is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with Title II of the Act. The purpose of the meeting is to review and recommend any new proposed projects authorized under Title II of the Act to the Humboldt-Toiyabe Forest Supervisor and/or review prior year project accomplishments; lacking any new monetary authority, this meeting may be cancelled.
The meeting will be held on September 24, 2013 at 10:00 a.m., Pacific Standard Time.
The meeting will be held at the Humboldt County Court House, Room 201, 50 West 5th Street, Winnemucca, Nevada. The meeting can also be attended by teleconference by dialing 1–888–858–2144, access code 7727626.
Written comments may be submitted as described under Supplementary Information. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying.
Jeff Ulrich, RAC Designated Federal Official, at 775–352–1215.
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.
Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the Designated Federal Official before the meeting. A meeting agenda, public comments, and the meeting minutes will be posted at the RAC's Web site at
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a planning meeting of the New York Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 12:00 p.m. (ET) on Friday, September 13, 2013, at the Law Offices of Sullivan and Cromwell, 535 Madison Avenue, New York, New York. The purpose of the meeting is for project planning.
Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments. The comments must be received in the regional office by Monday, October 14, 2013. Comments may be mailed to the Eastern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425, faxed to (202) 376–7548, or emailed to
Persons needing accessibility services should contact the Eastern Regional Office at least 10 working days before the scheduled date of the meeting.
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Eastern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site,
The meetings will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the Commission and FACA.
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
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 71030, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no later than ten (10) calendar days following publication of this notice.
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.
The Regulations and Procedures Technical Advisory Committee (RPTAC) will meet September 10, 2013, 9:00 a.m., Room 3884, in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, 14th Street between Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration on implementation of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) and provides for continuing review to update the EAR as needed.
1. Opening remarks by the Chairman.
2. Opening remarks by Bureau of Industry and Security.
3. Export Enforcement update.
4. Regulations update.
5. Working group reports.
6. Automated Export System (AES) update.
7. Presentation of papers or comments by the Public.
8. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3).
The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 25 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at
A limited number of seats will be available for the public session. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent that time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate the distribution of public presentation materials to the Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters forward the public presentation materials prior to the meeting to Ms. Springer via email.
The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on February 4, 2013, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2 (10)(d)), that the portion of the meeting dealing with pre-decisional changes to the Commerce Control List and U.S. export control policies shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public.
For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482–2813.
The Transportation and Related Equipment Technical Advisory Committee will meet on September 11, 2013, 9:30 a.m., in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 3884, 14th Street between Constitution & Pennsylvania Avenues, NW., Washington, DC The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration with respect to technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to transportation and related equipment or technology.
1. Welcome and Introductions.
2. Status reports by working group chairs.
3. Public comments and Proposals.
4. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3).
The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 20 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at
A limited number of seats will be available during the public session of the meeting. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters forward the public presentation materials prior to the meeting to Ms. Springer via email.
The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on October 19, 2012, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2 § (10)(d)), that the portion of the meeting dealing with pre-decisional changes to the Commerce Control List and U.S. export control policies shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public.
For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482–2813.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Pursuant to section 751(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.216 and 351.221(c)(3), the Department of Commerce (Department) is initiating a changed circumstances review (CCR) of the antidumping duty order on low-enriched uranium from France with respect to Eurodif S.A. and AREVA NP Inc. (collectively, AREVA). Moreover, the Department has determined that it is appropriate to conduct this CCR on an expedited basis. Thus, the Department has preliminarily determined to extend the deadline for the re-exportation of one specified entry of LEU until November 1, 2015. The Department has also preliminarily determined that this will be the final extension. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results.
Andrew Huston or Dana Mermelstein, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4261 or (202) 482–1391, respectively.
On February 13, 2002, the Department published an order on low-enriched uranium from France.
On December 5, 2011, AREVA requested that the Department initiate and conduct an expedited CCR to amend the scope of the order to extend by 18 months the deadline for re-exporting an entry of low-enriched uranium for which AREVA reported it would not be able to meet the deadline for re-exportation.
On July 8, 2013, AREVA requested that the Department initiate a CCR in order to further extend the period for the re-exportation this sole entry of low-enriched uranium from November 1, 2013, until November 1, 2015. AREVA also requested that the Department conduct the review on an expedited basis. On August 7, 2013, USEC, Inc., and its subsidiary, United States Enrichment Corporation (collectively, USEC), filed a letter indicating that it does not object to a further extension of the deadline, as requested by AREVA, for the re-exportation of this one shipment.
The product covered by the order is all low-enriched uranium. Low-enriched uranium is enriched uranium hexafluoride (UF
Certain merchandise is outside the scope of the order. Specifically, the order does not cover enriched uranium hexafluoride with a U
Also excluded from the order is low-enriched uranium owned by a foreign utility end-user and imported into the United States by or for such end-user solely for purposes of conversion by a U.S. fabricator into uranium dioxide (UO
The merchandise subject to this order is classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheading 2844.20.0020. Subject merchandise may also enter under 2844.20.0030, 2844.20.0050, and 2844.40.00. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to this proceeding is dispositive.
Pursuant to section 751(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216 and 351.221(c)(3), the Department is initiating a CCR of the antidumping duty order on low-enriched uranium from France with respect to AREVA. Based on the information and documentation AREVA submitted in its July 8, 2013, letter we find that we have received information which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant initiation of a review to determine if circumstances support the extension of the time period to re-export the specified entry of low-enriched uranium. Further, the Department finds that it is appropriate to conduct this review on an expedited basis, and issue the preliminary results along with this initiation.
Based on the Department's analysis of the information provided by AREVA with its request for CCR, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.216, we preliminarily determine to amend the scope of the order to extend by an additional 18 months the deadline for re-exporting the LEU entry at issue. AREVA imported the entry of LEU at issue into the United States on November 1, 2010, for fabrication and subsequent re-exportation to the end-user, the Japanese customer. The entry met the conditions in the scope of the order for exclusion from the order; both the importer and the end-user filed with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) the certifications required for exclusion. As a result of the shutdown of the Hamaoka nuclear power facility following the March 11, 2011 earthquake and tsunami in Japan, the Department extended the 18-month period for the re-exportation of this entry by an additional 18 months, until November 1, 2013, and new certifications were filed with CBP by the importer and the end-user.
AREVA's July 8, 2013, request explains its end-user is not yet in a position to take delivery of the low-enriched uranium. AREVA provided documents with its request indicating that the improvements and the earthquake and tsunami countermeasures at the Hamaoka facility have not been completed, as previously anticipated, and the Japanese end-user was unable to take delivery of the subject merchandise within both the original and the second, subsequent, 18-month periods (
We preliminarily find that the evidence provided by AREVA is sufficient to establish that changed circumstances exist. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.216, we preliminarily find that it is appropriate to extend further the deadline for re-exportation of this sole entry of low-enriched uranium by an additional 24 months. Should these preliminary results remain unchanged in the final results, we will extend the deadline for re-exportation of this entry to no later than November 1, 2015. AREVA and the end-user will be required to provide new certifications to CBP prior to the current deadline for re-exportation of this entry,
The Department specifically requests that parties comment on the Department's preliminary determination that this extension will be final, addressing if relevant an appropriate alternative for establishing an end-date by which the re-exportation of this shipment should be required, or any other options for the final resolution of this matter.
Any interested party may request a hearing within 15 days of publication of this notice. Any hearing, if requested, will be held no later than 27 days after the date of publication of this notice, or the first business day thereafter. Persons interested in attending the hearing, if one is requested, should contact the Department for the date and time of the hearing. Case briefs from interested parties may be submitted not later than 15 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to the issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than five days after the submission of case briefs. All written comments shall be submitted in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303. Parties are reminded that as of August 5, 2011, with certain, limited exceptions, all submissions for all proceedings must be filed electronically using Import Administration's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS).
The Department intends to issue the final results of this CCR no later than October 31, 2013. This date may be extended in accordance with 19 CFR 351.216(e). The final results will include the Department's analysis of issues raised in any written comments.
We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results and notice in
The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements.
Determination to add a product in unrestricted quantities to Annex 3.25 of the CAFTA–DR agreement.
The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (“CITA”) has determined that certain polyester/nylon cut corduroy fabric, as specified below, is not available in commercial quantities in a timely manner in the CAFTA–DR countries. The product will be added to the list in Annex 3.25 of the CAFTA–DR Agreement in unrestricted quantities.
Effective August 27, 2013.
Maria Dybczak, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, (202) 482–3651.
The CAFTA–DR Agreement; Section 203(o)(4) of the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (“CAFTA–DR Implementation Act”), Public Law 109–53; the Statement of Administrative Action, accompanying the CAFTA–DR Implementation Act; and Presidential Proclamations 7987 (February 28, 2006) and 7996 (March 31, 2006).
The CAFTA–DR Agreement provides a list in Annex 3.25 for fabrics, yarns, and fibers that the Parties to the CAFTA–DR Agreement have determined are not available in commercial quantities in a timely manner in the territory of any Party. The CAFTA–DR Agreement provides that this list may be modified pursuant to Article 3.25(4)–(5), when the President of the United States determines that a fabric, yarn, or fiber is not available in commercial quantities in a timely manner in the territory of any Party.
The CAFTA–DR Implementation Act requires the President to establish procedures governing the submission of a request and providing opportunity for interested entities to submit comments and supporting evidence before a commercial availability determination is made. In Presidential Proclamations 7987 and 7996, the President delegated to CITA the authority under section 203(o)(4) of CAFTA–DR Implementation Act for modifying the Annex 3.25 list. Pursuant to this authority, on September 15, 2008, CITA published modified procedures it would follow in considering requests to modify the Annex 3.25 list of products determined to be not commercially available in the territory of any Party to CAFTA–DR (
On July 25, the Chairman of CITA received a request for a Commercial Availability determination (“Request”) from Alston & Bird, LLP on behalf of SPC Global, LLC, for certain polyester/nylon cut corduroy fabric, as specified below. On July 29, 2013, in accordance with CITA's procedures, CITA notified interested parties of the Request, which was posted on the dedicated Web site for CAFTA–DR Commercial Availability proceedings. In its notification, CITA advised that any Response with an Offer to Supply (“Response”) must be submitted by August 8, 2013, and any Rebuttal Comments to a Response must be submitted by August 14, 2013, in accordance with sections 6 and 7 of CITA's procedures. No interested entity submitted a Response to the Request advising CITA of its objection to the Request and its ability to supply the subject product.
In accordance with section 203(o)(4)(C) of the CAFTA–DR Implementation Act, and section 8(c)(2) of CITA's procedures, as no interested entity submitted a Response to object to the Request with an offer to supply the subject product, CITA has determined to add the specified fabric to the list in Annex 3.25 of the CAFTA–DR Agreement.
The subject product has been added to the list in Annex 3.25 of the CAFTA–DR Agreement in unrestricted quantities. A revised list has been posted on the dedicated Web site for CAFTA–DR Commercial Availability proceedings.
HTS: 5801.32.0000.
Fiber Content: 80–95% polyester, 5–20% nylon.
Yarn Size:
Warp: Polyester filament between 111–222 decitex (English: 100–200 denier).
Fill: Polyester filament 111–278 decitex (English: 100–250 denier) and bi-constituent polyester-nylon filament between 222–389 decitex (English: 200–350 denier).
NOTE 1: In the bi-constituent yarn, the polyester and nylon are mixed prior to extrusion.
NOTE 2: The yarn size designations describe a range of specifications for yarn in its greige condition. They are intended as specifications to be followed by the mill in sourcing yarn used to produce the fabric. Weaving, dyeing, and finishing can alter the characteristics of the yarn as it appears in the finished fabric. This specification therefore includes yarns appearing in the finished fabric as finer or coarser than the designated yarn sizes provided that the variation occurs after processing of the greige yarn and production of the fabric.
Thread count: 20–34 warp ends x 50–67 fill picks per centimeter (English: 50–86 warp ends x 127–170 fill picks per inch).
Weight: 220–290 grams per sq. meter (English: 6.48–8.55 oz per sq. yard).
Width: 142–162 cm (English: 56–64 inches).
Weave: Cut corduroy with 3–6 wales per cm (English: 8–16 wales per inch).
Finishing: Piece dyed or of yarns of different colors.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice of FY 2013 Schedule of Fees.
The Commission charges fees to designated contract markets and registered futures associations to recover the costs incurred by the Commission in the operation of its program of oversight of self-regulatory organization rule enforcement programs, specifically National Futures Association, a
Mark Carney, Chief Financial Officer, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, (202) 418–5477, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581. For information on electronic payment, contact Jennifer Fleming, (202) 418–5034, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581.
This notice relates to fees for the Commission's review of the rule enforcement programs at the registered futures associations
The fees charged by the Commission to the SROs are designed to recover program costs, including direct labor costs and overhead. The overhead rate is calculated by dividing total Commission-wide overhead direct program labor costs into the total amount of the Commission-wide overhead pool. For this purpose, direct program labor costs are the salary costs of personnel working in all Commission programs. Overhead costs consist generally of the following Commission-wide costs: indirect personnel costs (leave and benefits), rent, communications, contract services, utilities, equipment, and supplies. This formula has resulted in the following overhead rates for the most recent three years (rounded to the nearest whole percent): 153 percent for fiscal year 2010, 145 percent for fiscal year 2011, and 161 percent for fiscal year 2012.
Under the formula adopted by the Commission in 1993, the Commission calculates the fee to recover the costs of its rule enforcement reviews and examinations, based on the three-year average of the actual cost of performing such reviews and examinations at each SRO. The cost of operation of the Commission's SRO oversight program varies from SRO to SRO, according to the size and complexity of each SRO's program. The three-year averaging computation method is intended to smooth out year-to-year variations in cost. Timing of the Commission's reviews and examinations may affect costs—a review or examination may span two fiscal years and reviews and examinations are not conducted at each SRO each year.
As noted above, adjustments to actual costs may be made to relieve the burden on an SRO with a disproportionately large share of program costs. The Commission's formula provides for a reduction in the assessed fee if an SRO has a smaller percentage of United States industry contract volume than its percentage of overall Commission oversight program costs. This adjustment reduces the costs so that, as a percentage of total Commission SRO oversight program costs, they are in line with the pro rata percentage for that SRO of United States industry-wide contract volume.
The calculation is made as follows: The fee required to be paid to the Commission by each DCM is equal to the lesser of actual costs based on the three-year historical average of costs for that DCM or one-half of average costs incurred by the Commission for each DCM for the most recent three years, plus a pro rata share (based on average trading volume for the most recent three years) of the aggregate of average annual costs of all DCMs for the most recent three years. The formula for calculating the second factor is: 0.5a + 0.5 vt = current fee. In this formula, “a” equals the average annual costs, “v” equals the percentage of total volume across DCMs over the last three years, and “t” equals the average annual costs for all DCMs. NFA has no contracts traded; hence, its fee is based simply on costs for the most recent three fiscal years. This table summarizes the data used in the calculations of the resulting fee for each entity:
An example of how the fee is calculated for one exchange, the Chicago Board of Trade, is set forth here:
a. Actual three-year average costs equal 110,535.
b. The alternative computation is: (.5) (110,535) + (.5) (.292) (1,542,570) = 280,868.
c. The fee is the lesser of a or b; in this case 110,535.
As noted above, the alternative calculation based on contracts traded is not applicable to NFA because it is not a DCM and has no contracts traded. The Commission's average annual cost for conducting oversight review of the NFA rule enforcement program during fiscal years 2010 through 2012 was 708,424 (one-third of 2,125,273). The fee to be paid by the NFA for the current fiscal year is 708,424.
Therefore, fees for the Commission's review of the rule enforcement programs at the registered futures associations and DCMs regulated by the Commission are as follows:
The Debt Collection Improvement Act (DCIA) requires deposits of fees owed to the government by electronic transfer of funds.
7 U.S.C. 16a.
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Notice of Availability of Final Environmental Assessment (FINAL EA) and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for Renovation and Modernization of the organization headquarters building located at 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is issuing this notice to advise the public that, on January 3, 2013, the CFPB prepared and completed, a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) based on the Final Environmental Assessment (FINAL EA) for the project at 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC is to modernize the interior and courtyard space of the building. The building is currently used as the headquarters for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Originally built in 1976, the building has three below ground levels that extend beneath a large public courtyard (two of which include secured parking) and seven floors above ground with the highest reserved for mechanical equipment. Storefront retail is located at the ground level. The CFPB prepared the final EA, dated July 2013, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Comments must be received no later than September 25, 2013. The FONSI and/or Final EA are available as of the publication date of this notice.
Interested parties may request copies of the FONSI and/or Final EA, from: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Facilities Office—Projects, 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC, 20552. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
Michael Davis, Project Manager, Office of Administrative Operations, at (202) 435–9405.
The Final EA evaluated the future project at 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC to modernize the interior and courtyard space of the building. The building is currently used as the headquarters for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Originally built in 1976, the building has three below ground levels that extend beneath a large public courtyard (two of which include secured parking) and seven floors above ground with the highest reserved for mechanical equipment. Storefront retail is located at the ground level. The Final EA has been prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. Based on the results of the EA, the CFPB has issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) indicating that the proposed action will not have a significant impact on the environment. Minimization and mitigating measures will include: Compliance with applicable regulatory laws, procedures, and permits for all construction activities; site review by state historic preservation office before construction to avoid disturbance of any site with the potential for historical significance; and the application of best management practices (BMP) to minimize short term air quality and noise impact during construction activities.
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). 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 AmeriCorps Application Instructions: Administrative, Program Development and Training grants. State commissions will respond to the questions included in this ICR in order to apply for funding through these grants and to report on progress and performance measures.
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) By mail sent to: Corporation for National and Community Service; Attention James Stone, Senior Program and Project Specialist, Room 9518–B; 1201 New York Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20525.
(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) By fax to: (202) 606–3476, Attention James Stone, Senior Program and Project Specialist.
(4) Electronically through
James Stone, (202) 606–6885, or by email at
• 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).
These application instructions will be used by applicants for funding through AmeriCorps State and National Administrative, Program Development and Training, and Disability grants and funded grantees for reporting purposes.
CNCS seeks clear a new set of AmeriCorps Administrative, Program Development and Training, and Disability Application Instructions. The Application Instructions are being revised for increased clarity and to align with national performance measures. The Application Instructions will be used on an annual basis by State Service Commissions to report on progress and apply for funding.
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 Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, DoD.
Notice; correction.
On Tuesday, August 20, 2013 (78 FR 51172–51173), the Department of Defense published a notice titled Proposed Collection; Comment Request. Subsequent to the publication of this notice in the
This notice is effective on August 27, 2013.
Fred Licari, 571–372–0493.
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before September 26, 2013.
Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Tomakie Washington, 202–401–1097 or electronically mail
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces an open meeting of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (SEAB). SEAB was reestablished pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463, 86 Stat. 770) (the Act). This notice is provided in accordance with the Act.
Friday, September 13, 2013, 9:00 a.m.–2:00 p.m.
Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585.
Amy Bodette, Designated Federal Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585; telephone (202) 586–0383 or facsimile (202) 586–1441;
Those not able to attend the meeting or have insufficient time to address the committee are invited to send a written statement to Amy Bodette, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, or by email to:
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report 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 corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Allegany Generating Station LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is September 10, 2013.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Notice and request for comment.
In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the FDIC may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The FDIC hereby gives notice that it is seeking comment on renewal of its information collection, entitled
Comments must be submitted on or before October 28, 2013.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to the FDIC by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
All comments should refer to the relevant OMB control number. A copy of the comments may also be submitted to the OMB desk officer for the FDIC: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
Leneta Gregorie, at the FDIC address above.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the 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; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
10:00 a.m., Thursday, September 19, 2013.
The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004 (entry from F Street entrance).
Open.
The Commission will consider and act upon the following in open session:
Any person attending this meeting who requires special accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. Subject to 29 CFR 2706.150(a)(3) and 2706.160(d).
Jean Ellen (202) 434–9950 / (202) 708–9300 for TDD Relay / 1–800–877–8339 for toll free.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than September 20, 2013.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (Adam M. Drimer, Assistant Vice President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23261–4528:
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 22, 2013.
The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y, (12 CFR Part 225) to engage
Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than September 11, 2013.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (E. Ann Worthy, Vice President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201–2272:
1.
Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”).
Notice.
The information collection requirements described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”). The FTC is seeking public comments on its proposal to extend through January 31, 2017, the current PRA clearance for its shared enforcement authority with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) for information collection requirements contained in the CFPB's Regulation O. That clearance expires on January 31, 2014.
Comments must be filed by October 28, 2013.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
Requests for additional information or copies of the proposed information requirements should be addressed to Rebecca Unruh, Attorney, Division of Financial Practices, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326–3565.
Title X of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank Act”), Public Law 111–203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010), transferred the
Regulation O contains information requirements that have been approved by OMB under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The discussion immediately below details the nature of and justification for the information collection requirements of Regulation O for which the FTC, as a co-enforcer, seeks OMB clearance for its share of the estimated PRA burden.
In commercial communications for a general audience, MARS providers are required to make the following disclosure:
(1) “(Name of company) is not associated with the government and our service is not approved by the government or your lender”; and
(2) In some instances, that “[e]ven if you accept this offer and use our service, your lender may not agree to change your loan.”
In addition, MARS providers must disclose to consumers, in any subsequent commercial communication directed to a specific consumer, the following information:
(1) That “You may stop doing business with us at any time. You may accept or reject the offer of mortgage assistance we obtain from your lender [or servicer]. If you reject the offer, you do not have to pay us. If you accept the offer, you will have to pay us (insert amount or method for calculating the amount) for our services”;
(2) That “(Name of company) is not associated with the government and our service is not approved by the government or your lender”; and
(3) In some instances, that “[e]ven if you accept this offer and use our service, your lender may not agree to change your loan.”
Furthermore, MARS providers are required to disclose to consumers in all communications in which the provider represents that the consumer should temporarily or permanently discontinue payments, in whole or in part, the following information:
“If you stop paying your mortgage, you could lose your home and damage your credit rating.”
Finally, after a provider has obtained an offer of mortgage assistance relief from the lender or servicer and presented the consumer with a written agreement incorporating the offer, the MARS provider must disclose the following:
(1) “This is an offer of mortgage assistance relief service from your lender [or servicer]. You may accept or reject the offer. If you accept the offer, you will have to pay us [same amount as disclosed pursuant to § 1015.4(b)(1)] for our services”; and
(2) A description of all “material differences” between the terms, conditions, and limitations of the consumer's current mortgage and those associated with the offer for mortgage relief, provided in a written notice from the consumer's lender or servicer.
Regulation O also requires that the disclosures be “clear and prominent,” as defined specific to the media used.
The FTC and CFPB (“Agencies”) believe the above-noted disclosures are necessary for the following reasons:
•
•
•
•
•
•
In some instances, Regulation O's recordkeeping requirements pertain to records that are customarily kept in the ordinary course of business, such as copies of contracts and consumer files containing the name and address of the borrower and materially different versions of sales scripts and related promotional materials. Thus, the retention of these documents does not constitute a “collection of information,” as defined by OMB's regulations that implement the PRA.
In other instances, Regulation O requires providers to create and retain documents demonstrating their compliance with specific rule requirements. These include the requirement that providers document the following activities:
(1) Performing MARS and retaining documentation provided to the consumer;
(2) Monitoring sales presentations by recording and testing oral representations if engaged in telemarketing of services;
(3) Establishing a procedure for receiving and responding to consumer complaints;
(4) Ascertaining, in some instances, the number and nature of consumer complaints; and
(5) Taking corrective action if sales persons fail to comply with Regulation O, including training and disciplining sales persons.
At the time it submitted the FTC Final Rule for OMB review, the FTC determined that the information obtained from the rulemaking record established the need for these recordkeeping requirements. The FTC concluded that there appeared to be widespread deception and unfair practices in the MARS industry, targeting financially vulnerable consumers. Accordingly, the Agencies believe that strong recordkeeping requirements are needed to ensure effective and efficient enforcement of Regulation O and to identify injured consumers.
Because the FTC and CFPB share enforcement authority for this rule, the FTC is seeking clearance for one-half of the following estimated PRA burden that the FTC attributes to the disclosure and recordkeeping requirements under Regulation O. The potential entities providing MARS services are varied, and there are no ways to formally track them. By extension, there is no clear path to track how many affected individual entities have newly entered and departed from one year to the next or from one triennial PRA clearance cycle to the next. For simplicity, the FTC analysis will continue to treat covered entities as newly undergoing the previously assumed learning curve cycle, although this would effectively overstate estimated burden for unidentified covered entities that have remained in existence since OMB's most recently issued PRA clearance for the FTC Rule. Based on law enforcement experiences and information in the rulemaking record, the FTC estimates that Regulation O affects roughly 500 MARS providers.
The above hours estimate is based on the following assumptions:
(1) Disclosures required incremental to Government-supplied language: 500 MARS providers × 2 hours each (1,000 hours).
(2) Initial setup: creating procedures to monitor compliance: 500 MARS providers × 25 hours each (12,500 hours).
(3) Documenting compliance, monitoring sales presentations, related training: 500 MARS providers × 100 hours each (50,000 hours).
(4) Retaining and filing records of compliance: 500 MARS providers × 3 hours each (1,500 hours).
Commission staff assumes that management personnel will prepare the required disclosures and implement and monitor compliance procedures at an hourly rate of $58.47.
The FTC assumes that each of the estimated 500 MARS providers will make required disclosures in writing to approximately 1,000 consumers annually. Under these assumptions, non-labor costs will be limited mostly to printing and distribution costs. At an estimated $1 per disclosure, total non-labor costs would be $1,000 per provider or, cumulatively for all providers, $500,000. Associated costs would be reduced if the disclosures are made electronically.
Accounting for half of the above totals, the FTC's share of burden hours is 32,500 hours, $1,866,975 for labor costs, and $250,000 for non-labor costs.
Under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501–3521, federal agencies must obtain approval from OMB for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” means agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. 44 U.S.C. 3502(3); 5 CFR 1320.3(c). As required by section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the FTC is providing this opportunity for public comment before requesting that OMB extend the existing paperwork clearance for the regulations noted herein.
Pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the FTC invites comments on: (1) Whether the disclosure and recordkeeping requirements are necessary, including whether the information will be practically useful; (2) the accuracy of our burden estimates, including whether the methodology and assumptions used are valid; (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. All comments should be filed as prescribed in the
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before October 28, 2013. Write “Regulation O PRA Comment, FTC File No. P134812” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at
Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, like anyone's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, like medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, do not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which is obtained from any person and which is privileged or confidential,” as provided in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.
If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you file your comment on paper, write “Regulation O PRA Comment, FTC File No. P134812” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail or deliver it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H–113 (Annex J), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Visit the Commission Web site at
Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”).
Notice.
The FTC intends to ask the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) to extend through December 31, 2016, the current Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”) clearance for the FTC's enforcement of the information collection requirements in its Affiliate Marketing Rule (or “Rule”), which applies to certain motor vehicle dealers, and its shared enforcement with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) of the provisions (subpart C) of the CFPB's Regulation V regarding other entities (“CFPB Rule”). The current clearance expires on December 31, 2013.
Comments must be filed by October 28, 2013.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments electronically or in paper form by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
Requests for additional information should be addressed to Steven Toporoff, Attorney, Division of Privacy and Identity Protection, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, NJ–8100, Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326–3135.
On July 21, 2010, President Obama signed into law the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank Act”).
The FTC retains rulemaking authority for its Affiliate Marketing Rule, 16 CFR 680, solely for motor vehicle dealers described in section 1029(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act that are predominantly engaged in the sale and servicing of motor vehicles, the leasing and servicing of motor vehicles, or both.
On December 21, 2011, the CFPB issued its interim final FCRA rule, including the affiliate marketing provisions (subpart C) of CFPB's Regulation V.
As mandated by section 214 of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (“FACT Act”), Public Law 108–159 (Dec. 6, 2003), the Affiliate Marketing Rule, 16 CFR part 680, specifies disclosure requirements for certain affiliated companies. Except as discussed below, these requirements constitute “collection[s] of information” for purposes of the PRA. Specifically, the FACT Act and the FTC Rule require covered entities to provide consumers with notice and an opportunity to opt out of the use of certain information before sending marketing solicitations. The FTC Rule generally provides that, if a company communicates certain information about a consumer (eligibility information) to an affiliate, the affiliate may not use it to make or send solicitations to him or her unless the consumer is given notice and a reasonable opportunity to opt out of such use of the information and s/he does not opt out.
To minimize compliance costs and burdens for entities, particularly any small businesses that may be affected, the FTC Rule contains model disclosures and opt-out notices that may be used to satisfy the statutory requirements. The FTC Rule also gives covered entities flexibility to satisfy the notice and opt-out requirement by sending the consumer a free-standing opt-out notice or by adding the opt-out notice to the privacy notices already provided to consumers, such as those provided in accordance with the provisions of Title V, subtitle A of the Gramm Leach Bliley Act (“GLBA”).
Under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501–3521, federal agencies must get OMB approval for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” includes agency requests or requirements to submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. 44 U.S.C. 3502(3); 5 CFR 1320.3(c). The FTC is seeking clearance for its assumed share of the estimated PRA burden regarding the disclosure requirements under the FTC and CFPB Rules.
Except where otherwise specifically noted, staff's estimates of burden are based on its knowledge of the consumer credit industries and knowledge of the entities over which the Commission has jurisdiction. This said, estimating PRA burden of the Rule's disclosure requirements is difficult given the highly diverse group of affected entities that may use certain eligibility information shared by their affiliates to send marketing notices to consumers.
The estimates provided in this burden statement may well overstate actual burden. As noted above, verbatim adoption of the disclosure of information provided by the federal government is not a “collection of information” to which to assign PRA burden estimates, and an unknown number of covered entities will opt to use the model disclosure language. Second, an uncertain, but possibly significant, number of entities subject to FTC jurisdiction do not have affiliates and thus would not be covered by section 214 of the FACT Act or the Rule. Third, Commission staff does not know how many companies subject to FTC jurisdiction under the Rule actually share eligibility information among affiliates and, of those, how many affiliates use such information to make marketing solicitations to consumers. Fourth, still other entities may choose to rely on the exceptions to the Rule's notice and opt-out requirements.
As in the past, FTC staff's estimates assume a higher burden will be incurred during the first year of a prospective OMB three-year clearance, with a lesser burden for each of the subsequent two years because the opt-out notice to consumers is required to be given only once. Institutions may provide for an indefinite period for the opt-out or they may time limit it, but for no less than five years.
Staff's labor cost estimates take into account: Managerial and professional time for reviewing internal policies and determining compliance obligations; technical time for creating the notice and opt-out, in either paper or electronic form; and clerical time for disseminating the notice and opt-out.
Based, in part, on industry data regarding the number of businesses under various industry codes, staff estimates that 1,174,347 non-GLBA entities under FTC jurisdiction have affiliates and would be affected by the
Staff also estimates that non-GLBA entities under the jurisdiction of the FTC would each incur 14 hours of burden during the prospective requested three-year PRA clearance period, comprised of a projected 7 hours of managerial time, 2 hours of technical time, and 5 hours of clerical assistance.
Based on the above, total burden for non-GLBA entities during the prospective three-year clearance period would be approximately 3,288,166 hours, cumulatively. Associated labor cost would total $123,353,199.
Entities that are subject to the Commission's GLBA privacy notice regulation already provide privacy notices to their customers.
Allowing for increased familiarity with procedure, the PRA burden in ensuing years would decline, with GLBA entities each incurring an estimated 4 hours of annual burden (3 hours of managerial time and 1 hour of technical time) during the remaining two years of the clearance, amounting to 13,400 hours (3,350 × 4) and $653,753 in labor costs in each of the ensuing two years.
The cumulative average annual burden for both non-GLBA and GLBA for the prospective three-year clearance period is 1,111,688 burden hours and $41,888,066 in labor costs. GLBA entities are already providing notices to their customers so there are no new capital or non-labor costs, as this notice may be consolidated into their current notices. For non-GLBA entities, the Rule provides for simple and concise model forms that institutions may use to comply. Thus, any capital or non-labor costs associated with compliance for these entities are negligible.
560,179 hours; $20,771,941, labor costs.
To calculate the total burden attributed to the FTC, staff first deducted from the total annual burden hours those hours attributed to motor vehicle dealers, which are in the exclusive jurisdiction of the FTC. Staff estimates that there are 60,959 motor vehicle dealerships subject to the Rule.
Staff further estimates that non-GLBA business families will spend 14 hours in the first year and 0 hours thereafter to comply with the Rule, while GLBA business families will spend 6 hours in the first year, and 4 hours in each of the following two years. The cumulative average annual burden is 8,670 hours.
To calculate the FTC's total shared burden hours, staff deducted from the total burden hours (1,111,688 hours) those attributed to motor vehicle dealerships (8,670), leaving a total of 1,103,108 hours to split between the CFPB and the FTC. The resulting shared burden for the CFPB is half that amount, or 551,509 hours. To calculate the total burden hours for the FTC, staff added the burden hours associated with motor vehicle dealers (8,670 hours), resulting in a total burden of 560,179 hours.
Staff used the same approach to estimate the shared costs for the FTC. Staff estimated the costs attributed to motor vehicle dealers as follows: Non-GLBA business families have $3,501
To calculate, on an annualized basis, the FTC's cumulative share of labor cost burden, staff deducted from the overall total ($41,117,733) the labor costs attributed to motor vehicle dealerships ($426,149), leaving a net amount of $40,691,584 to split between the CFPB and the FTC. The resulting shared burden for the CFPB is half that amount, or $20,345,792. To calculate the total burden hours for the FTC, staff added the costs associated with motor vehicle dealers ($426,149), resulting in a total cost burden for the FTC of $20,771,941.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments. Comments should refer to “Affiliate Marketing Rule PRA” to facilitate the organization of comments. Please note that your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including on the publicly accessible FTC Web site, at
Because comments will be made public, they should not include any sensitive personal information, such as any individual's Social Security Number; date of birth; driver's license number or other state identification number, or foreign country equivalent; passport number; financial account number; or credit or debit card number. Comments also should not include any sensitive health information, such as medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, comments should not include “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which is obtained from any person and which is privileged or confidential” as provided in Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTC Act”), 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). Comments containing matter for which confidential treatment is requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c).
Because paper mail addressed to the FTC is subject to delay due to heightened security screening, please consider submitting your comments in electronic form. Comments filed in electronic form should be submitted using the following weblink
The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives, whether filed in paper or electronic form. Comments received will be available to the public on the FTC Web site, to the extent practicable, at
Pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the FTC invites comments on: (1) Whether the disclosure requirements are necessary, including whether the information will be practically useful; (2) the accuracy of our burden estimates, including whether the methodology and assumptions used are valid; (3) how to improve the quality, utility, and clarity of the disclosure requirements; and (4) how to minimize the burden of providing the required information to consumers. All comments should be filed as prescribed in the
Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, HHS.
Notice.
Behavioral health disorders are common in the United States. Approximately 20% of adults and 13% of adolescents suffer from mental disorders each year and 8.7% of Americans aged 12 and older experience substance dependence or abuse each year.
Health IT has significant potential to enable self management of behavioral health disorders (including both mental health and substance use disorders) as well as to act as a treatment extender for patients with limited access to care. On September 16th Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC), in partnership with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), and National Institutes of Health (NIH) is organizing a Technology Innovations for Substance Abuse and Mental Health Disorders Conference taking place at the White House. This conference will highlight how technology can be used to improve treatment for behavioral health disorders. In conjunction with this
The statutory authority for this challenge competition is Section 105 of the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111–358).
Submission period begins: August 21, 2013.
Submission period ends: September 3, 2013.
Winners announced: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Disorders Conference, White House, September 16, 2013.
Adam Wong, 202–720–2866.
The Behavioral Health Patient Empowerment Challenge is a call for developers to showcase technologies that empower consumers to manage their mental health and/or substance use disorders. The intent of the challenge is to identify and highlight existing innovative technologies that use evidence based strategies to empower consumer self-management of behavioral health disorders.
The application submitted must be available for use by consumers on a widely-used platform for mobile devices by the submission end date of September 3.
To be eligible to receive a prize, Solvers must submit:
(1) The functioning application, or directions to access it,
(2) an overview, of no more than 500 words, that
(3) a 5 minute-maximum video demonstration of the tool.
To be eligible to win a prize under this challenge, an individual or entity—
(1) Shall have registered to participate in the competition under the rules promulgated by the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology.
(2) Shall have complied with all the requirements under this section.
(3) In the case of a private entity, shall be incorporated in and maintain a primary place of business in the United States, and in the case of an individual, whether participating singly or in a group, shall be a citizen or permanent resident of the United States.
(4) May not be a Federal entity or Federal employee acting within the scope of their employment.
(5) Shall not be an HHS employee working on their applications or submissions during assigned duty hours.
(6) Shall not be an employee of Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT.
(7) Federal grantees may not use Federal funds to develop COMPETES Act challenge applications unless consistent with the purpose of their grant award.
(8) Federal contractors may not use Federal funds from a contract to develop COMPETES Act challenge applications or to fund efforts in support of a COMPETES Act challenge submission.
An individual or entity shall not be deemed ineligible because the individual or entity used Federal facilities or consulted with Federal employees during a competition if the facilities and employees are made available to all individuals and entities participating in the competition on an equitable basis.
Entrants must agree to assume any and all risks and waive claims against the Federal Government and its related entities, except in the case of willful misconduct, for any injury, death, damage, or loss of property, revenue, or profits, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, arising from my participation in this prize contest, whether the injury, death, damage, or loss arises through negligence or otherwise.
Entrants must also agree to indemnify the Federal Government against third party claims for damages arising from or related to competition activities.
To register for this Challenge, participants can access
The top three finishers will be invited to the event taking place at the White House, and the winner will be able to demo it there. Travel funding is not available, so if the winner cannot attend in person the video demonstration of the winning technology will be played during the conference.
The top three technologies will be highlighted on a behavioral health technology innovations Web site which is being developed by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in conjunction with this conference.
No monetary prize is provided for this challenge.
The review panel will make selections based upon the following criteria:
In order for an entry to be eligible to win this Challenge, it must meet the following requirements:
General—Contestants must provide continuous access to the tool, a detailed description of the tool, instructions on how to install and operate the tool, and system requirements required to run the tool (collectively, “Submission”).
Acceptable platforms—The tool must be designed for use on a widely-used platform for mobile devices; this includes web optimization for mobile devices.
Section 508 Compliance—Contestants must acknowledge that they understand that, as a pre-requisite to any subsequent acquisition by FAR contract or other method, they may be required to make their proposed solution compliant with Section 508 accessibility and usability requirements at their own expense. Any electronic information technology that is ultimately obtained by HHS for its use, development, or maintenance must meet Section 508 accessibility and usability standards. Past experience has demonstrated that it can be costly for solution-providers to “retrofit” solutions if remediation is later needed. The HHS Section 508 Evaluation Product Assessment Template, available at
No HHS, ONC, or other federal government logo—The app must not use HHS', ONC's, or any other federal government agency's logos or official seals in the Submission, and must not claim endorsement.
Functionality/Accuracy—A Submission may be disqualified if the software application fails to function as expressed in the description provided by the user, or if the software application provides inaccurate or incomplete information.
Security—Submissions must be free of malware. Contestant agrees that ONC may conduct testing on the app to determine whether malware or other security threats may be present. ONC may disqualify the app if, in ONC's judgment, the app may damage government or others' equipment or operating environment.
General Conditions: ONC reserves the right to cancel, suspend, and/or modify the Contest, or any part of it, for any reason, at ONC's sole discretion. Participation in this Contest constitutes a contestant's full and unconditional agreement to abide by the Contest's Official Rules found at
Ownership of intellectual property is determined by the following:
• Each entrant retains title and full ownership in and to their submission. Entrants expressly reserve all intellectual property rights not expressly granted under the challenge agreement.
• By participating in the challenge, each entrant hereby irrevocably grants to Sponsor and Administrator a limited, non-exclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license and right to reproduce, publically perform, publically display, and use the Submission to the extent necessary to administer the challenge, and to publically perform and publically display the Submission, including, without limitation, for advertising and promotional purposes relating to the challenge.
15 U.S.C. 3719.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Secretary, HHS.
Notice of meeting.
As stipulated by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is hereby giving notice that the National Vaccine Advisory Committee (NVAC) will hold a meeting. The meeting is open to the public. Pre-registration is required for both public attendance and comment. Individuals who wish to attend the meeting and/or participate in the public comment session should register at
The meeting will be held on September 10–11, 2013. The meeting times and agenda will be posted on the NVAC Web site at
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, Room 800, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20201.
National Vaccine Program Office, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Room 715–H, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20201. Phone: (202) 690–5566; Fax: (202) 690–4631; email:
Pursuant to Section 2101 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300aa–1), the Secretary of Health and Human Services was mandated to establish the National Vaccine Program to achieve optimal prevention of human infectious diseases through immunization and to achieve optimal prevention against adverse reactions to vaccines. The National Vaccine Advisory Committee was established to provide advice and make recommendations to the Director of the National Vaccine Program on matters related to the Program's responsibilities. The Assistant Secretary for Health serves as Director of the National Vaccine Program.
The topics to be discussed at the NVAC meeting will include updates from the NVAC working groups on Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccine and Maternal Immunization, Healthy People 2020 Immunization objectives, immunizations and the Affordable Care Act, deliberation and vote on the NVAC Report on Global Immunization and NVAC Adult Immunization Standards of Practice. The meeting agenda will be posted on the NVAC Web site:
Public attendance at the meeting is limited to space available. Please note agenda meeting times are approximate and are subject to change. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the National Vaccine Program Office at the address/phone listed above at least one week prior to the meeting. Members of the public will have the opportunity to provide comments at the NVAC meeting during the public comment periods on the agenda. Individuals who would like to submit written statements should email or fax their comments to the National Vaccine Program Office at least five business days prior to the meeting.
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 is hereby giving notice that the National Biodefense Science Board (NBSB) will be holding a public meeting on September 12, 2013.
The September 12, 2013, NBSB public meeting is tentatively scheduled from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. EST, both in-person in Washington, DC and with teleconference connectivity. The agenda
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20201. Pre-registration is required for all members of the public wishing to attend this meeting in-person by September 5, 2013; all attendees must be signed in by a federal staff member. To attend either in-person or by teleconference, please refer to the NBSB Web site for further instructions at
The National Biodefense Science Board mailbox:
Pursuant to section 319M of the Public Health Service Act (
Part A, Office of the Secretary, Statement of Organization, Function, and Delegation of Authority for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is being amended at Chapter AC, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health (OASH), as last amended at 77 FR 60996–97, dated October 5, 2012, and 72 FR 58095–96, dated October 12, 2002. The amendment reflects the realignment of personnel oversight, administration and management functions for the Office on Women's Health (OWH) in the OASH. Specifically, this notice establishes the Division of Policy and Performance Management (ACB2), the Division of Strategic Communication (ACB3) and the Division of Program Innovation (ACB4) within the Office on Women's Health (ACB). The changes are as follows:
I. Under Part A, Chapter AC, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, make the following changes:
A. Under Section AC.20, Functions, “B. Office on Women's Health (ACB), Section 1. Immediate Office of the Director (ACB1)” replace the entire section with:
1. Immediate Office of the Director (ACB1). The Immediate Office of the Director, headed by the Deputy Director of the Office on Women's Health, is responsible for operations and administrative management, HR management, and budget planning and coordination. The office coordinates the programmatic aspects of HHS components in regards to issues relating to women's health; serves as the locus within HHS to identify changing needs, to recommend new studies, and to assess new challenges to the health of women; serves as a focal point within HHS to coordinate the continuing implementation of health objectives for the future; assures liaison occurs with relevant HHS agencies and offices; and facilitates the expansion of services and access to health care for all women. The Deputy Director plans and directs financial management activities, including budget formulation and execution; provides liaison on personnel management activities with the OASH and the Program Support Center; and is responsible for implementing the congressional, international health and national (regional) components for the OWH mission. The office also provides scientific analyses for all initiatives.
B. Under Section AC.20, Functions, “B. Office on Women's Health (ACB), Section 2. Division of Program Coordination (ACB2)” replace the entire section with:
2. Division of Policy and Performance Management (ACB2). The Division of Policy and Performance Management, headed by the Division Director, is responsible for strategic planning; policy review, development and analysis; and program evaluation and performance management. The division forecasts future OWH direction, leads strategic and operational plans development; supports and monitors their implementation; leads the design, management, and monitoring of evidence based women's health programs for targeted issues; advises director on policy issues and engages stakeholders, organizations, and partners in reviewing, developing and analyzing practices to inform policy development; and leads efforts to incorporate gender specific issues into broader health policy as well as evaluate how those issues are incorporated into health policy.
C. Under Section AC.20, Functions, “B. Office on Women's Health (ACB), Section 3. Division of Outreach and Collaboration (ACB3)” replace the entire section with:
3. Division of Strategic Communication (ACB3). The Division of
D. Under Section AC.20, Functions, “B. Office on Women's Health (ACB)” following Section 3 Division of Strategic Communication (ACB3) insert:
4. Division of Program Innovation (ACB4). The Division of Program Innovation, headed by the Division Director, is responsible for program development, management and support, and program development research. The division identifies evidence based strategies and develops model programs for targeted issues; designs, develops and implements interventions to improve women's health; incorporates gender specific issues into model programs; provides oversight for model program development and all related activities, including budget development and management; identifies future direction of women's health and associated strategies and gaps in current coverage; and reviews promising strategies to identify and promote innovative ideas for future program development.
II. Delegations of Authority. Directives or orders made by the Secretary, Assistant Secretary for Health, or Director, Office on Women's Health, all delegations and re-delegations of authority made to officials and employees of the affected organizational component will continue in force pending further redelegations, provided they are consistent with this reorganization.
III. Funds, Personnel, and Equipment. Transfer of organizations and functions affected by this reorganization shall be accompanied by direct and support funds, positions, personnel, records, equipment, supplies, and other resources.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces the intention of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve the proposed information collection project: “Pilot Test of an Emergency Department Discharge Tool.” In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), AHRQ invites the public to comment on this proposed information collection.
Comments on this notice must be received by October 28, 2013.
Written comments should be submitted to: Doris Lefkowitz, Reports Clearance Officer, AHRQ, by email at
Copies of the proposed collection plans, data collection instruments, and specific details on the estimated burden can be obtained from the AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer.
Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer, (301) 427–1477, or by email at
The research study “Pilot Test of an Emergency Discharge Tool” fully supports AHRQ's mission. The ultimate aim of this study is to pilot test a discharge tool which has the potential to reduce unnecessary visits to the Emergency Department (ED), reduce healthcare expenditure in the ED, as well as streamline and enhance the quality of care delivered to ED patients.
The ED is an important and frequently used setting of care for a large part of the U.S. population. In 2006, there were nearly 120 million ED visits in the U.S., of which only 15.5 million (14.7%) resulted in admission to the hospital or transfer to another hospital. Thus the majority ED visits result in discharge to home. Patients discharged from the ED face significant risk for adverse outcomes, with between 3–5 patients per 100,000 visits experiencing an unexpected death following discharge from the ED. Additionally, a sizable minority of patients return to the ED frequently. Published studies estimate that 4.5% to 8% of patients revisit the ED 4 or more times per year, accounting for 21% to 28% of all ED visits. Internal data from John Hopkins Hospital, AHRQ's contractor for this pilot test, supports these findings with 7% of their patients accounting for 26% of visits to the Johns Hopkins Hospital ED in 2011.
Patients who revisit the ED contribute to overcrowding, unnecessary delays in care, dissatisfaction, and avoidable patient harm. ED revisits are also an important contributor to rising health care costs, as ED care is estimated to cost two to five times as much as the same treatment delivered by a primary care physician. Thus it is estimated that eliminating revisits and inappropriate use of EDs could reduce health care spending as much as $32 billion each year. Overall, an effective and efficient ED discharge process would improve the quality of patient care in the ED as well as reduce healthcare costs.
To respond to the challenges faced by our nation's EDs and the patients they serve, AHRQ will develop and pilot test a tool to improve the ED discharge process. More specifically, this project has the following goals:
(1) Develop and Pilot Test a Prototype ED Discharge Tool in a limited
number of settings to assess:
(A) The feasibility for use with patients;
(B) The methodological and resource requirements associated with tool use;
(C) The feasibility of measuring outcomes;
(D) The costs of implementation and;
(E) Treliminary outcomes or impacts of tool use.
(2) Revise the Tool based on the results from the Pilot Test
This study is being conducted by AHRQ through its contractor, John Hopkins Hospital, pursuant to AHRQ's statutory authority to conduct and support research on healthcare and on
To achieve these goals the following data collections will be implemented:
(1) Emergency Department Discharge Tool (EDT)—The EDT will be pilot tested in the three John Hopkins EDs in Baltimore. The purpose of the EDT is to assist hospitals in identifying patients who excessively use the ED and can be categorized as “frequent ED users,” and to target interventions to these patients to reduce the risk of further avoidable revisits. A designated ED personnel will screen the medical record of all adult patients for the presence of frequent ED use, the key risk factor for ED discharge failure. Frequent ED use is defined as: (1) 1 or more previous ED visit within the last 72-hours, or (2) 2 or more previous ED visits within the last 3 months, or (3) 3 or more ED visits within the last 12 months. This definition can be modified to align with the resources of the individual ED.
For those flagged as frequent ED users this tool uses data collected from the patient's record and from the patient himself to identify individuals with risk factors that have been shown in the literature to predict sub-optimal ED discharges and resulting revisits. These risk factors include patients who are uninsured, lack a primary care physician, have psychiatric diseases, are substance users, have difficulty caring for themselves, or have trouble comprehending ED discharge instructions.
A user's manual (EDT User's Manual) is also provided to assist EDs in developing resources to provide interventions recommended by the EDT. No data collection activities will be made from this manual.
(2) One Month Patient Follow-up—After the ED visit, a project research assistant (RA) will have a follow-up telephone interview with all enrolled patients. During the interview, the RA will inquire about the patient's remembrance of the instructions that were given for the patient.
(3) Three Month Patient Follow-up—Patients who are uninsured will receive an additional phone call 3 months after the ED visit to assess whether or not they were able to acquire insurance.
(4) Post Pilot Test Focus Groups—AHRQ will conduct three sets of focus groups to collect qualitative data about the usability and usefulness of the EDT from three stakeholder groups: EDT implementers, patients, and post-ED care providers. Questions for each of the focus groups will vary based on their differing objectives:
(A) EDT Implementers Focus Group—For implementers of the EDT (RNs, case managers, social workers, research assistants), the objectives will include: (1) How well it does or does not meet implementer goals of discharge; (2) resources required for implementation; and (3) unintended consequences or impacts on other ED operations.
(B) Patient Focus Group—For the patients, the objective will be: (1) What was their general impression of the EDT; (2) did the EDT improve the ED discharge process for them; and (3) do they foresee any potential unintended problems of the EDT.
(C) Post-ED Care Providers Focus Group—For the post-ED care providers, the objectives are to determine: (1) How well the EDT has met the needs of these providers in caring for these patients; (2) how feasible it has been to properly care for patients for whom the EDT had been implemented; (3) if there are any unintended consequences of using the EDT. Post-ED care provider focus group members will be drawn from Johns Hopkins Community Physicians, East-Baltimore Medical Center (a primary referral site for patients without primary care), and Healthcare for the Homeless, a not-for-profit organization in Baltimore, Maryland that provides health services, education and advocacy to people affected by homelessness.
(5) Post Pilot Test In-depth Interviews—AHRQ will conduct semi-structured interviews with approximately eight individuals from each of the 3 stakeholder groups: EDT implementers, patients, and post-ED care providers. These individuals will provide feedback on issues surfaced during the focus groups. This will provide an opportunity to delve more deeply into specific topics of interest.
(6) Administrative and Observational Data—Quantitative outcome measures will come from an extraction of medical record data and direct observations performed by project RAs. Data will be extracted from hospital billing records and Electronic Medical Records (EMRs) and will include frequency of revisits, cost of 72-hour returns, cost of ED visits per 3 months and the cost of implementing the EDT. To calculate costs of program implementation, RAs will observe the time required by social work, case management, and nursing staff to implement the interventions prescribed in the tool. They will also keep a log of the materials given to the patients as part of the intervention. To evaluate the percentage of patients evaluated for assistance or placement, RAs will observe case managers/social workers during their interaction with the patients. To evaluate the percentage of follow-up phone calls, the RAs will keep a log of attempts and actual contacts. Since these data collections involve RA observations, or extractions from existing medical records performed by the RA, they pose no burden to the hospital or public and therefore are not included in the burden estimates in Exhibit 1.
Exhibit 1 shows the estimated annualized burden for the respondents' time to participate in this pilot test. The EDT will be pilot tested with a total of 1,200 patients (50 per week * 8 weeks * 3 sites = 1,200) and takes about 20 minutes per patient to complete. The one-month patient follow-up will be conducted with all 1,200 patients and will take 10 minutes to complete. The 3-month patient follow-up will be conducted with those patients identified as being uninsured and is estimated to take 5 minutes to complete.
Focus groups will be conducted with all three of the stakeholder groups (EDT implementers, patients, and post-ED care providers). There will be two groups held for the EDT implementers consisting of 8 persons each (16 total), and one group of 8 for both the patients and the post-ED care providers. Each focus group will last for 2 hours.
As a follow-up to the focus groups in-depth interviews will be conducted with eight members from each of the three stakeholder groups. The interviews will require one hour to complete. The total annualized burden is estimated to be 708 hours.
Exhibit 2 shows the annualized cost burden associated with the respondents' time to participate in the pilot test. The total annualized cost burden is estimated to be $16,359.
In accordance with the above-cited Paperwork Reduction Act legislation, comments on AHRQ's information collection are requested with regard to any of the following: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of AHRQ health care research, quality improvement and information dissemination functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of AHRQ's estimate of burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection(s) 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 upon the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the Agency's subsequent request for OMB approval of the proposed information collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces the intention of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve the proposed information collection project: “Assessing the Impact of the National
Comments on this notice must be received by October 28, 2013.
Written comments should be submitted to: Doris Lefkowitz, Reports Clearance Officer, AHRQ, by email at
Copies of the proposed collection plans, data collection instruments, and specific details on the estimated burden can be obtained from the AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer.
Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer, (301) 427–1477, or by email at
As part of their effort to fulfill their mission goals, AHRQ, in collaboration with the Department of Defense's (DoD) Tricare Management Activity (TMA), developed TeamSTEPPS® (aka Team Strategies and Tools for Enhancing Performance and Patient Safety) to provide an evidence-based suite of tools and strategies for training teamwork-based patient safety to health care professionals. In 2007, AHRQ and DoD coordinated the national implementation of the TeamSTEPPS program. The main objective of this program is to improve patient safety by training a select group of stakeholders such as Quality Improvement Organization (QIO) personnel, High Reliability Organization (HRO) staff, and health care system staff in various teamwork, communication, and patient safety concepts, tools, and techniques and ultimately helping to build national capacity for supporting teamwork-based patient safety efforts in health care organizations and at the state level. The implementation includes the availability of voluntary training of Master Trainers in various health care systems capable of stimulating the utilization and adoption of TeamSTEPPS in their health care delivery systems, providing technical assistance and consultation on implementing TeamSTEPPS, and developing various channels of learning (e.g., user networks, various educational venues) for continuation support and improvement of teamwork in health care. During this effort, AHRQ has trained more than 2400 participants to serve as the Master Trainer infrastructure supporting national adoption of TeamSTEPPS. Participants in training become Master Trainers in TeamSTEPPS and are afforded the opportunity to observe the tools and strategies provided in the program in action. In addition to developing Master Trainers, AHRQ has also developed a series of support mechanisms for this effort including a data collection Web tool, a TeamSTEPPS call support center, and a monthly consortium to address any challenges encountered by implementers of TeamSTEPPS.
To understand the extent to which this expanded patient safety knowledge and skills have been created, AHRQ will conduct an evaluation of the National Implementation of TeamSTEPPS Master Training program. The goals of this evaluation are to examine the extent to which training participants have been able to:
(1) Implement the TeamSTEPPS products, concepts, tools, and techniques in their home organizations and,
(2) spread that training, knowledge, and skills to their organizations, local areas, regions, and states.
This study is being conducted by AHRQ through its contractor, Health Research & Educational Trust (HRET), pursuant to AHRQ's statutory authority to conduct and support research on health care and on systems for the delivery of such care, including activities with respect to the quality, effectiveness, efficiency, appropriateness and value of health care services and with respect to quality measurement and improvement. 42 U.S.C. 299a(a)(1) and (2).
To achieve the goals of this assessment the following two data collections will be implemented:
(1) Web-based questionnaire to examine post-training activities and teamwork outcomes as a result of training from multiple perspectives. The questionnaire is directed to all master training participants. Items will cover post-training activities, implementation experiences, facilitators and barriers to implementation encountered, and perceived outcomes as a result of these activities.
(2) Semi-structured interviews will be conducted with members from organizations who participated in the TeamSTEPPS Master Training program. Information gathered from these interviews will be analyzed and used to draft a “lessons learned” document that will capture additional detail on the issues related to participants' and organizations' abilities to implement and disseminate the TeamSTEPPS post-training. The organizations will vary in terms of type of organization (e.g., QIO or hospital associations versus health care systems) and region (i.e., Northeast, Midwest, Southwest, Southeast, Mid-Atlantic, and West Coast). In addition, we will strive to ensure representativeness of the sites by ensuring that the distribution of organizations mirrors the distribution of organizations in the master training population. For example, if the distribution of organizations is such that only one out of every five organizations is a QIO, we will ensure that a maximum of two organizations in the sample are QIOs. The interviews will more accurately reveal the degree of training spread for the organizations included. Interviewees will be drawn from qualified individuals serving in one of two roles (i.e., implementers or facilitators). The interview protocol will be adapted for each role based on the respondent group and to some degree, for each individual, based on their training and patient safety experience.
Exhibit 1 shows the estimated annualized burden hours for the respondent's time to participate in the study. Semi-structured interviews will be conducted with a maximum of 9 individuals from each of 9 participating organizations and will last about one hour each. The training participant questionnaire will be completed by approximately 10 individuals from each of about 240 organizations and is estimated to require 20 minutes to complete. The total annualized burden is estimated to be 881 hours.
Exhibit 2 shows the estimated annualized cost burden based on the respondents' time to participate in the study. The total cost burden is estimated to be $38,923.
In accordance with the above-cited Paperwork Reduction Act legislation, comments on AHRQ's information collection are requested with regard to any of the following: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of AHRQ health care research and health care information dissemination functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of AHRQ's estimate of burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection(s) 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 upon the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the Agency's subsequent request for OMB approval of the proposed information collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), HHS.
Request for scientific information submissions.
The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) is seeking scientific information submissions from the public on imaging tests for the diagnosis and staging of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Scientific information is being solicited to inform our review of
Robin Paynter, Research Librarian, Telephone: 503–220–8262 ext. 58652 or Email:
The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality has commissioned the Effective Health Care (EHC) Program Evidence-based Practice Centers to complete a review of the evidence for
The EHC Program is dedicated to identifying as many studies as possible that are relevant to the questions for each of its reviews. In order to do so, we are supplementing the usual manual and electronic database searches of the literature by requesting information from the public (e.g., details of studies conducted). We are looking for studies that report on
This notice is to notify the public that the EHC program would find the following information on
A list of completed studies your company has sponsored for this indication. In the list,
Description of whether the above studies constitute
Your contribution is very beneficial to the Program. The contents of all submissions will be made available to the public upon request. Materials submitted must be publicly available or can be made public. Materials that are considered confidential; marketing materials; study types not included in the review; or information on indications not included in the review cannot be used by the Effective Health Care Program. This is a voluntary request for information, and all costs for complying with this request must be borne by the submitter.
The draft of this review will be posted on AHRQ's EHC program Web site and available for public comment for a period of 4 weeks. If you would like to be notified when the draft is posted, please sign up for the email list at:
What is the comparative effectiveness of imaging techniques (e.g., MDCT angiography ± 3D reconstruction, other MDCT, EUS–FNA, PET–CT, MRI) for diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma in adults with suspicious symptoms?
a. What is the accuracy of each imaging technique for diagnosis and assessment of resectability?
b. What is the comparative accuracy of the different imaging techniques for diagnosis and assessment of resectability?
c. What is the comparative diagnostic accuracy of using a single imaging technique versus using multiple imaging techniques?
d. How is test experience (e.g., operative experience, assessor experience, center's annual volume) related to comparative diagnostic accuracy of the different imaging strategies?
e. How are patient factors and tumor characteristics related to the comparative diagnostic accuracy of the different imaging strategies?
f. What is the comparative clinical management after the different imaging strategies when used for diagnosis?
What is the comparative impact of the different imaging strategies on long-term survival and quality of life when used for diagnosis?
What is the comparative effectiveness of imaging techniques (e.g., MDCT angiography ± 3D reconstruction, other MDCT, EUS–FNA, PET–CT, MRI) for
a. What is the staging accuracy of each imaging technique (for tumor size, lymph node status, vessel involvement, metastases, stage [I–IV], and resectability)?
b. What is the comparative staging accuracy among the different imaging techniques?
c. What is the comparative staging accuracy of using a single imaging technique versus using multiple imaging techniques?
d. How is test experience (e.g., operative experience, assessor experience, center's annual volume) related to comparative staging accuracy of the different imaging strategies?
e. How are patient factors and tumor characteristics related to the comparative staging accuracy of the different imaging strategies?
f. What is the comparative clinical management of the different imaging strategies when used for staging?
What is the comparative impact of the different imaging strategies on long-term survival and quality of life when used for staging?
What are the rates of harms of imaging techniques (e.g., MDCT angiography ± 3D reconstruction, other MDCT, EUS–FNA, PET–CT, MRI) when used to diagnose and/or stage pancreatic adenocarcinoma?
a. How are patient factors related to the harms of different imaging techniques?
What are patient perspectives on the tolerance of different imaging techniques and the balance of benefits and harms of different imaging techniques?
What is the comparative screening accuracy of imaging techniques (e.g., MDCT angiography ± 3D reconstruction, other MDCT, EUS–FNA, PET–CT, MRI) in high-risk asymptomatic adults (i.e., those at genetic or familial risk of pancreatic adenocarcinoma)?
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of
Fax written comments on the collection of information by September 26, 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
FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50–400B, 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.
This information collection was established because epidemiological evidence gathered in the United Kingdom suggested that bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), a progressively degenerative central nervous system disease, is spread to ruminant animals by feeding protein derived from ruminants infected with BSE. This regulation places general requirements on persons that manufacture, blend, process, and distribute products that contain or may contain protein derived from mammalian tissue, and feeds made from such products.
Specifically, this regulation requires renderers, feed manufacturers, and others involved in feed and feed ingredient manufacturing and distribution to maintain written procedures specifying the cleanout procedures or other means, and specifying the procedures for separating products that contain or may contain protein derived from mammalian tissue from all other protein products from the time of receipt until the time of shipment. These written procedures are intended to help the firm formalize their processes, and then to help inspection personnel confirm that the firm is operating in compliance with the regulation. Inspection personnel will evaluate the written procedure and confirm it is being followed when they are conducting an inspection.
These written procedures must be maintained as long as the facility is operating in a manner that necessitates the record, and if the facility makes changes to an applicable procedure or process the record must be updated. Written procedures required by this section shall be made available for inspection and copying by FDA.
In the
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 the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “ANDAs: Stability Testing of Drug Substances and Products, Questions and Answers.” This draft guidance clarifies stability testing recommendations for abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) by providing responses to public comments in a questions-and-answers format. This draft guidance addresses public comments regarding FDA's recommendation to generic drug manufacturers to follow International Conference on Hamonisation (ICH) stability guidances Q1A (R2) through Q1E.
Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by October 28, 2013.
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 2201, Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist the office in processing your requests. See the
Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance to
Radhika Rajagopalan, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (HFD–640), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., MPN2, Rm. 243, Rockville, MD 20855, 240–276–8546.
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “ANDAs: Stability Testing of Drug Substances and Products, Questions and Answers.” Because of increases in the number and complexity of ANDAs and FDA's desire to standardize generic drug review, on September 25, 2012 (77 FR 58999), FDA published a draft and on June 20, 2013 (78 FR 37231), published a final guidance recommending the generic industry follow the approach in the ICH stability-related guidances: (1) “Q1A(R2) Stability Testing of New Drug Substances and Products,” November 2003; (2) “Q1B Photostability Testing of New Drug Substances and Products,” November 1996; (3) “Q1C Stability Testing for New Dosage Forms,” November 1996; (4) “Q1D Bracketing and Matrixing Designs for Stability Testing of New Drug Substances and Products,” January 2003; and (5) “Q1E Evaluation of Stability Data,” June 2004. These guidances can be found on the FDA Guidances (Drugs) Web site under International Conference on Harmonisation—Quality at
While carefully considering the public comments on the September 2012 draft guidance, we decided to publish a draft guidance in a questions-and-answers format. This draft guidance discusses stability testing relating to general questions, drug master files, drug product manufacturing and packaging, amendments to pending ANDA applications, and stability studies.
This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the Agency's current thinking on ANDAs: Stability Testing of Drug Substances and Products, Questions and Answers. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to
This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR parts 312 and 314 have been approved under OMB control numbers 0910–0014 and 0910–0001, respectively.
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a guidance entitled “Guidance for IRBs, Clinical Investigators, and Sponsors: IRB Responsibilities for Reviewing the Qualifications of Investigators, Adequacy of Research Sites, and the Determination of Whether an IND/IDE is Needed.” The guidance announced in this notice is intended to assist institutional review boards (IRBs), clinical investigators, and sponsors involved in clinical investigations of FDA-regulated products in fulfilling responsibilities related to reviewing the qualifications of investigators and adequacy of research sites, and determining whether an investigational new drug (IND) application or investigational device exemption (IDE) is required, to protect the rights and welfare of human subjects involved in biomedical research.
Submit written or electronic comments on Agency guidances at any time.
Submit written requests for single copies of this guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 2201, Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002, 1–888–463–6332 or 301–796–3400; or the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development (HFM–40), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, suite 200N, Rockville, MD 20852–1448, 1–800–835–4709 or 301–827–1800; or the Division of Small Manufacturers, International, and Consumer Assistance, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave. Bldg. 66, Rm. 4621, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 1–800–638–2041 or 301–796–7100. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist the office in processing your requests. See the
Submit electronic comments on the guidance to
Doreen Kezer, Office of Good Clinical Practice, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 5170, Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002, 301–796–8340.
FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance entitled “Guidance for IRBs, Clinical Investigators, and Sponsors: IRB Responsibilities for Reviewing the Qualifications of Investigators, Adequacy of Research Sites, and the
Many of the recommendations in this guidance have appeared in other FDA guidance documents. FDA has compiled the recommendations from these various sources into this guidance to ensure that all IRBs have access to it. The guidance also explains how IRBs may efficiently fulfill these important responsibilities.
To enhance protection of human subjects and reduce regulatory burden, the Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP), and FDA have been actively working to harmonize the Agencies' regulatory requirements and guidance for human subject research. This guidance document was developed as a part of these efforts and in consultation with OHRP.
In the
The guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents FDA's current thinking on this topic. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). None of the collections of information referenced in this guidance are new or represent material modifications to previously approved collections of information. The collections of information under 21 CFR part 312 have been approved under OMB control number 0910–0014; the collections of information under 21 CFR part 812 have been approved under OMB control number 0910–0078; and the collections of information under 21 CFR part 56 have been approved under OMB control number 0910–0130.
Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this guidance to
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of grant funds for the support of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) Data Standards Program. The goal of the CDER Data Standards Program is to strengthen and support the Coalition for Accelerating Standards and Therapies (CFAST) Initiative in its efforts to establish and maintain clinical data standards that will enable FDA reviewers to more efficiently perform efficacy analysis of potential new drugs in therapeutic areas that are important to public health.
Important dates are as follows:
1. The application due date is August 26, 2013.
2. The anticipated start date is September 15, 2013.
3. The expiration date is August 27, 2013.
Submit the paper application to: Kimberly Pendleton-Chew, Grants Management (HFA–500), 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 2031, Rockville, MD 20857, and a copy to Fatima Frye, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 1195, Silver Spring, MD 20993. For more information, see section III of the
Fatima Frye, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 1195, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301–796–4863; or Kimberly Pendleton-Chew, Office of Acquisition Support and Grants, Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 2031, Rockville, MD 20857, 301–827–9363, email:
For more information on this funding opportunity announcement (FOA) and to obtain detailed requirements, please refer to the full FOA located at
CDER receives an enormous and growing amount of data in a variety of regulatory submissions from a multitude of sources and in a variety of formats. This wealth of data holds great potential to advance CDER's regulatory and scientific work, but the present lack of standardized data creates significant challenges to realizing that potential. The volume and complexity of drug-related information submitted to CDER for regulatory review is creating significant challenges to the Center's ability to efficiently and effectively perform its critical public health mission.
The lack of standardized data affects CDER's review processes by curtailing a reviewer's ability to perform integral tasks such as rapid acquisition, analysis, storage, and reporting of regulatory data. Improved data quality, accessibility, and predictability will give reviewers more time to carry out complex analyses, ask in-depth questions, and address late-emerging issues. Standardized data will allow reviewers to increase review consistency and perform evaluations across the drug lifecycle. This will enhance the Center's performance across key drug regulatory functions and ongoing business operations, including premarket review, post-market safety, oversight of drug quality, and oversight of drug promotion.
Standardized data elements that are common to all clinical trials, such as age and gender, have been established through Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium standards. However, data elements that are unique for a particular disease or therapeutic area still need to be developed so that the data are consistent and consistently understood for efficacy analysis, and that data from multiple trials can be more easily grouped for reporting and meta-analysis.
In short, establishing common standards for data reporting will provide new opportunities to transform the massive amount of data from drug studies on specific diseases into useful information to potentially speed the delivery of new therapies to patients.
The CFAST Initiative aims to accelerate clinical research and medical product development by establishing and maintaining data standards, tools, and methods for conducting research in therapeutic areas that are important to public health. It is established as a public-private partnership (PPP) involving multiple stakeholders. The Grantee funded through this announcement would be expected to accomplish activities such as, but not limited to:
• Maintenance of the scientific and administrative infrastructure of the PPP to support a series of projects under the CFAST Initiative.
• Coordination and management of therapeutic area standards development projects with key experts in the specific therapeutic areas, including stakeholders from industry, professional organizations, academia, and Government agencies.
• Identification and engagement with key experts in the therapeutic areas, including stakeholders from industry, professional organizations, academia, and Government agencies.
• Development of therapeutic area data standards, initially proposed for diabetes, QT studies, lipid lowering/altering drugs, and hepatitis C. Additional or different areas can be considered as well.
• Identification and implementation of continuous quality improvements with respect to the data standards development process and product(s) to facilitate timely and sustainable standards.
The following organization is eligible to apply: The Critical Path Institute (C-Path).
Over the past 7 years, C-Path has become an international leader in forming and leading/managing collaborations globally. They currently lead 7 very active scientific consortia across multiple disease areas. C-Path consortia include more than 1,000 scientists from Government, academia, patient advocacy organizations, and 41 major pharmaceutical companies. C-Path has a proven process, capability, and institutional knowledge critical to successfully leading scientific consortia and rapid therapeutic area standards development projects through an open, transparent process as identified by the Prescription Drug User Fee Act V.
Total amount of funding available is $2,000,000. Anticipate one award.
Scope of the proposed project should determine the project period. The maximum period is 3 years.
To submit a paper application in response to this FOA, applicants should first review the full announcement located at
• Step 1: Obtain a Dun and Bradstreet (DUNS) Number
• Step 2: Register With System for Award Management (SAM)
• Step 3: Register With Electronic Research Administration (eRA) Commons
Steps 1 and 2, in detail, can be found at
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
The inventions listed below are owned by an agency of the U.S. Government and are available for
Licensing information and copies of the U.S. patent applications listed below may be obtained by writing to the indicated licensing contact at the Office of Technology Transfer, National Institutes of Health, 6011 Executive Boulevard, Suite 325, Rockville, Maryland 20852–3804; telephone: 301–496–7057; fax: 301–402–0220. A signed Confidential Disclosure Agreement will be required to receive copies of the patent applications.
• Research reagents for studying the expression and signaling of IFNAR1.
• A potential therapeutic reagent.
• Specific for the extracellular domain of human IFNAR1. Can therefore specifically recognize receptor expressed on the cell surface.
• Bind IFNAR1 and reduce interferon signaling
• Pilot
• In vitro data available
1. Goldman LA, et al. Characterization of antihuman IFNAR–1 monoclonal antibodies: epitope localization and functional analysis. J Interferon Cytokine Res. 1999 Jan;19(1):15–26. [PMID 10048764]
2. Benoit P, et al. A monoclonal antibody to recombinant human IFN-alpha receptor inhibits biologic activity of several species of human IFN-alpha, IFN-beta, and IFN-omega. Detection of heterogeneity of the cellular type I IFN receptor. J Immunol. 1993 Feb 1;150(3):707–16. [PMID 8423335]
• Pharmaceutical compositions to selectively treat cancer
• Applications to treat or prevent growth of undesirable cells
• Selective with low systemic toxicity
• Potent (pM LD50 values)
• Early-stage
• In vitro data available
• In vivo data available (animal)
• Prototype
• In vitro data available
1. Guajardo R, Sousa R. A model for the mechanism of polymerase translocation. J Mol Biol. 1997 Jan 10;265(1):8–19. [PMID 8995520]
2. Guo Q, et al. (2005). Major conformational changes during T7RNAP transcription initiation coincide with, and are required for, promoter release. J Mol Biol. 2005 Oct 21;353(2):256–70. [PMID 16169559]
3. Mukherjee S, et al. Structural transitions mediating transcription initiation by T7 RNA polymerase. Cell. 2002 Jul 12;110(1):81–91. [PMID 12150999]
4. Mentesana PE, et al. Characterization of halted T7 RNA polymerase elongation complexes reveals multiple factors that contribute to stability. J Mol Biol. 2000 Oct 6;302(5):1049–62. [PMID 11183774]
The inventors have developed a sensitive, reliable assay for the diagnosis of hyposialylation disorders that detects a novel glycoprotein biomarker in a patient blood sample. This assay has been validated using samples from patients with GNE myopathy and other hyposialylation disorders. A distinct advantage of this assay is that it is minimally invasive, unlike many currently-available methods for diagnosing hyposialylation disorders, which typically require a tissue biopsy. In particular, this biomarker represents the first non-invasive method for diagnosis of renal hyposialylation.
• Diagnostic assay to detect hyposialylation
• Monitoring tool to track patient response to sialylation-increasing therapy
• Early-stage
• In vitro data available
• HHS Reference No. E–217–2007/0—N-Acetyl Mannosamine as a Therapeutic Agent
• HHS Reference No. E–270–2011/0—Encapsulated N-Acetylmannosamine or N-Acetylneuraminic Acid to Increase Sialylation
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
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 contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, National Institute of Mental Health.
The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National Institute of Mental Health, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable 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.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
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.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
This notice, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404, that the National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, is contemplating the grant of an Exclusive Patent License to Antares Pharma Inc., a company having a place of business in Ewing, New Jersey, to practice the inventions embodied in the following patent applications and patents:
1. U.S. Patent Application 11/137,114, filed May 25, 2005, titled “Scopolamine for the Treatment of Depression and Anxiety” [HHS Ref. No. E–175–2004/0–US–01];
2. European Patent 1896025, issued December 28, 2011, titled “Scopolamine for the Treatment of Depression and Anxiety” [HHS Ref. No. E–175–2004/0–EP–03];
3. German Patent 1896025, issued December 28, 2011, titled “Scopolamine for the Treatment of Depression and Anxiety” [HHS Ref. No. E–175–2004/0–DE–07];
4. French Patent 1896025, issued December 28, 2011, titled “Scopolamine for the Treatment of Depression and Anxiety” [HHS Ref. No. E–175–2004/0–FR–08];
5. British Patent 1896025, issued December 28, 2011, titled “Scopolamine for the Treatment of Depression and Anxiety” [HHS Ref. No. E–175–2004/0–GB–09]; and
6. Canadian Patent Application 2610025, filed May 18, 2006, titled “Scopolamine for the Treatment of Depression and Anxiety” [HHS Ref. No. E–175–2004/0–CA–04.
The patent rights in these inventions have been assigned to the Government of the United States of America. The territory of the prospective Exclusive Patent License may be worldwide, and the field of use may be limited to: “The use of scopolamine for treatment of depression, including major depressive disorder, wherein the route of administration is subcutaneous, intramuscular, or transdermal delivery such as through injection or a patch or topical gel-based product”. This announcement is the second notice to grant an exclusive license to this technology.
Only written comments and/or applications for a license which are received by the NIH Office of Technology Transfer on or before September 26, 2013 will be considered.
Requests for copies of the patents, patent applications, inquiries, comments, and other materials relating to the contemplated Exclusive Patent License should be directed to: Betty B. Tong, Ph.D., Senior Licensing and Patenting Manager, Office of Technology Transfer, National Institutes of Health, 6011 Executive Boulevard, Suite 325, Rockville, MD 20852–3804; Telephone: (301) 594–6565; Facsimile: (301) 402–0220; Email:
The subject invention describes the use of scopolamine for the treatment of depression, including major depressive disorders (MDD). Although scopolamine has been employed in the treatment of nausea and motion sickness, the suitability of scopolamine for treating MDD was unrecognized prior to this invention. Current MDD treatments can be ineffective in a large percentage of patients and typically do not take effect until 4 weeks after administration. In contrast, treatment with scopolamine has a wide-ranging and rapid effect, suggesting it can be effective either as a standalone treatment or as a treatment for patients who are unresponsive to currently available drugs.
The prospective Exclusive Patent License will be royalty bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404. The prospective Exclusive Patent License may be granted unless within thirty (30) days from the date of this published notice, NIH receives written evidence and argument that establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404.
Complete applications for a license in the prospective field of use that are filed in response to this notice will be treated as objections to the grant of the contemplated Exclusive Patent License. Comments and objections submitted in response to this notice will not be made available for public inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.
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 for the following collection of information: 1625—NEW, U.S. Coast Guard Non-Appropriated Fund Employment Application. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.
Comments must reach the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before September 26, 2013.
You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG–2013–0222] to the Docket Management Facility (DMF) at the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and/or to OIRA. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the following means:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
The DMF maintains the public docket for this Notice. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in this Notice as being available in the docket, will become part of the docket and will be available for inspection or copying at Room W12–140 on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find the docket on the Internet at
A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the Internet at
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 Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection.
The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. These comments will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICR referred to in this Notice.
We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number of this request, [USCG 2013–0222], and must be received by September 26, 2013. We will post all comments received, without change, to
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number [USCG–2013–0222], indicate the specific section of the document to which each comment applies, providing a reason for each comment. You may submit your comments and material online (via
You may submit comments and material by electronic means, mail, fax, or delivery to the DMF at the address under
To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this Notice as being available in the docket, go to
OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at
Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received in dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act statement regarding Coast Guard public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (78 FR 26798, May 8, 2013) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited no comments. Accordingly, no changes have been made to the Collection.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of intent; request for public comments.
The Coast Guard is announcing its intent to enter into a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) with Marine Exchange of Alaska (MXAK) to develop, demonstrate, and evaluate, in an operational setting, at least one promising technology approach to the “Next Generation Arctic Maritime Navigational Safety Information System,” which provides important, time-critical, information to mariners, in order that they may better assess and manage their voyage risks, as they transit the remote and hostile waters of the U.S. Arctic Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). While the Coast Guard is currently considering partnering with MXAK, it is soliciting public comment on the possible nature of and participation of other parties in the proposed CRADA. In addition, the Coast Guard also invites other potential non-Federal participants, who have the interest and capability to bring similar contributions to this type of research, to consider submitting proposals for consideration in similar CRADAs.
Comments and related material on the proposed CRADA must either be submitted to the online docket via
Synopses of proposals regarding future, similar CRADAs must reach the Docket Management Facility on or before February 24, 2014.
You may submit comments on this notice identified by docket number USCG–2013–0799 using any one of the following methods:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the
If you have questions on this notice, contact Mr. James E. Fletcher, Project Official, U.S. Coast Guard Research and Development Center, 1 Chelsea Street, New London, CT 06320, telephone 860–271–2659, email
We encourage you to submit comments and related material on this notice. All comments received will be posted, without change, to
Do not submit detailed proposals for future CRADAs to the Docket Management Facility. Potential non-Federal CRADA participants should submit these documents directly to James E. Fletcher, U.S. Coast Guard Research and Development Center, 1 Chelsea Street, New London, CT 06320, email
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (USCG–2013–0799), and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online via
To submit your comment online, go to
To view the comments and related material, go to
Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act, system of records notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Cooperative Research and Development Agreements are authorized by the Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986 (Pub. L. 99–502, codified at 15 U.S.C. 3710(a)). A CRADA
CRADAs are not procurement contracts. Care is taken to ensure that CRADAs are not used to circumvent the contracting process. CRADAs have a specific purpose and should not be confused with other types of agreements such as procurement contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements.
Under the proposed CRADA, the R&DC would collaborate with one or more non-Federal participants. Together, the R&DC and the non-Federal participants would define, develop, demonstrate, and evaluate, in an operational setting, at least one promising technology approach to the “Next Generation Arctic Maritime Navigational Safety Information System,” which provides important, time-critical, information to mariners in order that they may better assess and manage their voyage risks as they transit the remote and hostile waters of the U.S. Arctic Exclusive Economic Zone.
Increased maritime activity in the Arctic has raised the potential for maritime accidents and serious environmental harm to that region's fragile environment, warranting the need to implement enhanced maritime safety measures. Presently, the environmental and safety information needed by mariners to identify, assess and mitigate the risks of operating in the Arctic is not available due to a lack of infrastructure that exists in other maritime regions. The proposed CRADA strives to promote a public-private analysis and eventual solution to this problem.
The R&DC, with the non-Federal participants, will mutually define the prototype system that will be developed, installed, utilized, and evaluated under this CRADA. It is anticipated that this system will be a to-be-determined combination of (a) AIS-Transmit, (b) SATCOM, (c) DSC VHF, and (d) other components/sub-systems such as the proposed 500 kHz, 47,400 bits/sec, NAVTEX Replacement being considered by the International Telecommunications Union and the IMO's International NAVTEX Coordinating Panel. Arctic mariner navigational information requirements will drive the design of this prototype system. Care will be taken to (a) minimize and define any additional vessel equipment carriage requirements and (b) define the specific content and format of the information presented to the mariner.
We anticipate that the Coast Guard's contributions under the proposed CRADA will include the following:
(1) Review and comment on non-Federal participant's preliminary functional design of the prototype system. After discussion and agreement between the CRADA collaborators, the R&DC will develop an Interim CRADA Report, which documents the mutually-agreed-upon design.
(2) Support the non-Federal participant in the development of the AIS-Transmit, SATCOM, and DSC VHF components of the prototype system. It is anticipated that this support will include technology expertise and authorization to transmit on specific frequencies for the DSC VHF components. The R&DC will also provide the proposed 500 kHz, NAVTEX Replacement component, if it is mutually agreed by the collaborators to be part of the prototype system.
(3) Support the non-Federal participant with the installation, testing, operation, and maintenance of the prototype system at specific, jointly-agreed-upon, field locations. The RD&C will develop the test plan and provide any test and network monitoring equipment/capabilities needed, to ensure that the prototype system is “Ready for Tech Demo Utilization” and continues to meet the jointly-agreed-upon performance criteria through the duration of the Tech Demo.
(4) Monitor the performance of the prototype system during the Tech Demo. This monitoring will be accomplished in accordance with the above mentioned test plan. The R&DC will also develop an appropriate CRADA Report, which documents the prototype system, its performance, and its utilization by mariners during the Tech Demo period.
We anticipate that the non-Federal participant's contributions under the proposed CRADA will include the following:
(1) Develop a preliminary functional design of the prototype system to be developed and evaluated under this CRADA. The non-Federal participant will collaborate with the RD&C on the final prototype system design and the Interim Report which the RD&C will develop to document said design.
(2) Provide the AIS-Transmit, SATCOM, and DSC VHF components of the prototype system. The non-Federal participant will support the R&DC with the development of the proposed 500 kHz, NAVTEX Replacement, if it is mutually-agreed-upon to be part of the prototype system. It is anticipated that this support will include technical guidance/assistance with any integration with other components of the prototype system, particularly at the planned field installation sites.
(3) Install, test, operate, and maintain the prototype system at specific, mutually-agreed-upon, field locations. The non-Federal participant will provide site space, power, security, and back-haul communications capability for all system components, including the 500 kHz NAVTEX Replacement, if it is mutually-agreed-upon to be part of the prototype system. The non-Federal participant will support the R&DC in test plans/system/components and conduct of the test plan to ensure that the prototype system is “Ready for Tech Demo Utilization” and continues to meet the mutually-agreed-upon performance criteria through the duration of the Tech Demo.
(4) Support the R&DC in its monitoring of the performance of the prototype system during the Tech Demo. The non-Federal participant will also support the R&DC in the development of an appropriate CRADA report, which documents the prototype system, its performance, and its utilization by mariners during the Tech Demo period.
The Coast Guard reserves the right to select for CRADA participants all, some, or none of the proposals in response to this notice. The Coast Guard will provide no funding for reimbursement of proposal development costs. Proposals (or any other material) submitted in response to this notice will not be returned. Proposals submitted are expected to be unclassified and have no more than four single-sided pages
(1) How well they communicate an understanding of, and ability to meet, the proposed CRADA's goal; and
(2) How well they address the following criteria:
(a) Technical capability to support the non-Federal party contributions described; and
(b) Resources available for supporting the non-Federal party contributions described.
Currently, the Coast Guard is considering MXAK for participation in this CRADA. This consideration is based on the fact that MXAK has demonstrated its expertise in providing mariners with important information for the voyage planning and safe navigation of their vessels, and has an established infrastructure within the Arctic for providing such information. However, we do not wish to exclude other viable participants from this or future similar CRADAs.
This is a technology transfer/development effort. Presently, the Coast Guard has no plan to procure an Arctic Navigation Safety Information System (ANSIS) capability. Since the goal of this CRADA is to identify and investigate the advantages, disadvantages, required technology enhancements, performance, costs, and other issues associated with the Next Generation ANSIS, non-Federal CRADA participants will not be excluded from any future Coast Guard procurements based solely on their participation in this CRADA.
Special consideration will be given to small business firms/consortia, and preference will be given to business units located in the U.S.
This notice is issued under the authority of 15 U.S.C. 3710(a), 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 33 CFR 1.05–1 and DHS Delegation No. 0160.1.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice lists communities where the addition or modification of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations), as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for each community, is appropriate because of new scientific or technical data. The FIRM, and where applicable, portions of the FIS report, have been revised to reflect these flood hazard determinations through issuance of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), in accordance with FEMA regulations. The LOMR will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings. For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown in the table below and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
These flood hazard determinations will become effective on the dates listed in the table below and revise the FIRM panels and FIS report in effect prior to this determination for the listed communities.
From the date of the second publication of notification of these changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has ninety (90) days in which to request through the community that the Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation reconsider the changes. The flood hazard determination information may be changed during the 90-day period.
The affected communities are listed in the table below. Revised flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Submit comments and/or appeals to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–4064, or (email)
The specific flood hazard determinations are not described for each community in this notice. However, the online location and local community map repository address where the flood hazard determination information is available for inspection is provided.
Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. The flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood hazard determination information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below.
Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice lists communities where the addition or modification of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations), as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for each community, is appropriate because of new scientific or technical data. The FIRM, and where applicable, portions of the FIS report, have been revised to reflect these flood hazard determinations through issuance of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), in accordance with FEMA regulations. The LOMR will be used by insurance agents
These flood hazard determinations will become effective on the dates listed in the table below and revise the FIRM panels and FIS report in effect prior to this determination for the listed communities.
From the date of the second publication of notification of these changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has ninety (90) days in which to request through the community that the Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation reconsider the changes. The flood hazard determination information may be changed during the 90-day period.
The affected communities are listed in the table below. Revised flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Submit comments and/or appeals to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–4064, or (email)
The specific flood hazard determinations are not described for each community in this notice. However, the online location and local community map repository address where the flood hazard determination information is available for inspection is provided.
Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. The flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood hazard determination information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below.
Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final notice.
New or modified Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, and/or the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations) as shown on the indicated Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for each of the communities listed in the table below are finalized. Each LOMR revises the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and in some cases the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, currently in effect for the listed communities. The flood hazard determinations modified by each LOMR will be used to calculate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and their contents.
The effective date for each LOMR is indicated in the table below.
Each LOMR is available for inspection at both the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the table below and online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–4064, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final flood hazard determinations as shown in the LOMRs for each community listed in the table below. Notice of these modified flood hazard determinations has been published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety (90) days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
The modified flood hazard determinations are made pursuant to section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
The new or modified flood hazard determinations are the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
These new or modified flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities.
These new or modified flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings, and for the contents in those buildings. The changes in flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the final flood hazard information available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final Notice.
Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have been made final for the communities listed in the table below.
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that a community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report are used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for buildings and the contents of those buildings.
The effective date of January 16, 2014 which has been established for the FIRM and, where applicable, the supporting FIS report showing the new or modified flood hazard information for each community.
The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the final flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–4064, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or modified flood hazard information for each community listed. Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety (90) days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Adminstrator for Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
The flood hazard determinations are made final in the watersheds and/or communities listed in the table below.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final notice.
Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have been made final for the communities listed in the table below.
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that a community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report are used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for buildings and the contents of those buildings.
The effective date of August 19, 2013 which has been established for the FIRM and, where applicable, the supporting FIS report showing the new or modified flood hazard information for each community.
The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the final flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–4064, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or modified flood hazard information for each community listed. Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety (90) days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Adminstrator for Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
The flood hazard determinations are made final in the watersheds and/or communities listed in the table below.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice lists communities where the addition or modification of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations), as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for each community, is appropriate because of new scientific or technical data. The FIRM, and where applicable, portions of the FIS report, have been revised to reflect these flood hazard determinations through issuance of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR). The LOMR will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings. For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown in the table below and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
These flood hazard determinations will become effective on the dates listed in the table below and revise the FIRM panels and FIS report in effect prior to this determination for the listed communities.
From the date of the second publication of notification of these changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has ninety (90) days in which to request through the community that the Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation reconsider the changes. The flood hazard determination information may be changed during the 90-day period.
The affected communities are listed in the table below. Revised flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Submit comments and/or appeals to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–4064, or (email)
The specific flood hazard determinations are not described for each community in this notice. However, the online location and local community map repository address where the flood hazard determination information is available for inspection is provided.
Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean
The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood hazard determination information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below.
Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Federal Emergency Management Agency; DHS.
Notice; correction.
On June 17, 2013, FEMA published in the
Comments are to be submitted on or before November 25, 2013.
The Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), and where applicable, the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA–B–1322, to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–4064, or (email)
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–4064 or (email)
FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed in the table below, in accordance with Section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are also used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the table below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard determinations shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations will also be considered before the FIRM and FIS report are made final.
Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP may only be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online at
In the proposed flood hazard determination notice published at 78 FR 36220 in the June 17, 2013, issue of the
In Proposed rule FR Doc. 2013–14285, beginning on page 36220 in the issue of June 17, 2013, make the following correction. On page 36222, correct the Orange County, Texas table as follows:
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of accreditation and approval of Inspectorate America Corporation, as a commercial gauger and laboratory.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that Inspectorate America Corporation, has been approved to gauge and accredited to test petroleum and petroleum products, organic chemicals and vegetable oils for customs purposes for the next three years as of March 14, 2013.
Approved Gauger and Accredited Laboratories Manager, Laboratories and Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, tel. 202–344–1060.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, that Inspectorate America Corporation, 3306 Loop 197 North, Texas City, TX 77590, has been approved to gauge and accredited to test petroleum and petroleum products, organic chemicals and vegetable oils for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344–1060. The inquiry may also be sent to
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of accreditation and approval of Inspectorate America Corporation, as a commercial gauger and laboratory.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that Inspectorate America Corporation, has been approved to gauge and accredited to test petroleum and petroleum products, organic chemicals and vegetable oils for customs purposes for the next three years as of March 6, 2013.
Approved Gauger and Accredited Laboratories Manager, Laboratories and Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, tel. 202–344–1060.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, that Inspectorate America Corporation, 6175 Hwy 347, Beaumont, TX 77705, has been approved to gauge and accredited to test petroleum and petroleum products, organic chemicals and vegetable oils for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344–1060. The inquiry may also be sent to
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
General notice.
This document announces U.S. Customs and Border Protection's (CBP's) plan to conduct a test concerning the manifesting and entry of residual cargo found in containers arriving as Instruments of International Traffic (IIT). The document also announces that CBP will begin enforcement of HQ Ruling H026715, dated June 19, 2009, when the test announced in this document begins. In HQ Ruling H026715, CBP held that in order to ensure the safety and security of the transportation of IIT containers and the CBP Officers who may examine or work in close proximity to them, IIT containers with residual cargo should not be manifested as empty consistent with the advance cargo information reporting requirements authorized pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 2071 note. The
CBP recognizes that the trade community believes that the requirement to manifest and enter for residual cargo in accordance with the current regulations would be overly burdensome. As a result, CBP, with input from the trade, has developed a test in order to determine a less burdensome way for the trade to manifest and enter residual cargo in IITs while also ensuring the safety and security of CBP Officers and the transportation of such IITs. Accordingly, this test will allow for a new type of entry designed to capture residue in containers that will be cleaned or re-filled that can be made off the manifest through an indicator that identifies it as a Residue Entry.
Parties not wishing to participate in the test, however, will be required to “classify, enter, and manifest” (formal or informal entry) the residual cargo in accordance with the underlying statutes and their implementing regulations when the test begins.
CBP will begin enforcement of the requirement to manifest and enter residual cargo beginning November 25, 2013. The test announced in this notice will also commence on that date and will run for a period of one year, which may be extended. CBP will begin an evaluation of the test approximately 90 days after commencement.
Comments concerning this notice or any aspect of the test may be submitted via email, with a subject line identifier reading “Comment on the Residue Manifesting and Entry Test”, to
Amy E. Hatfield, Branch Chief, Cargo Conveyance & Security, Office of Field Operations, (202) 365–2698.
A notice was published in the
Consistent with CBP's treatment of similar commodities such as petroleum slops, and to ensure the safety and security of the transportation of such containers and CBP Officers, CBP proposed to modify the ruling to hold that the containers should not be manifested as empty and that the chemical residue contained therein should be “classified, entered, and manifested.” This position is in furtherance of the advance cargo information reporting requirements authorized pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 2071 note; and the implementing CBP regulations set forth in 19 CFR 4.7, 123.91, and 123.92. The trade was invited to submit comments on the proposed modification of the 1994 ruling.
Upon review of the comments from the trade on the proposed modification, CBP issued a modification of HQ 113219 on June 19, 2009. This modification, HQ H026715, was published in the
Due to concerns voiced by the trade about the burdens imposed by this ruling, CBP delayed enforcement of this ruling. CBP established a residual cargo working group that included representation from CBP as well as trade alliances from each mode of transportation, in order to implement this ruling. The working group helped establish manifest threshold limits for residual cargo that would be permissible to enter as residual cargo. The working group also helped establish methods of importation that would comply with the 2009 ruling in a less burdensome way. It was determined that CBP would need a test to evaluate the effectiveness of the procedures developed by the working group. As CBP began developing the test, it met many times with the trade and conducted a series of webinars with them.
Through this Notice, CBP is announcing the commencement of the Residue Manifesting and Entry Test (“Residue Test”) that will provide specific test procedures concerning how to manifest and enter residual cargo. The Residue Test will require suspension of certain CBP regulations (title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)). Current electronic functionality will be used in the implementation of this test.
The Residue Test is being conducted in accordance with § 101.9(a) of the CBP regulations (19 CFR 101.9(a)), which prescribes general test requirements.
In a Notice published in the
The Residue Test is open to any party submitting manifest or advance cargo information or any other party who has the right to make entry under 19 U.S.C. 1484.
Participants and non-participants in the Residue Test will be afforded the ability to help CBP develop procedures and engage CBP in discovering efficiencies that might be achieved in the manifesting and processing of entries of residual cargo. It should be noted that non-participation in this test does not relieve one from the obligation to manifest and enter residual cargo. Furthermore, one's liability for user fees under 19 U.S.C. 58c is not affected by this test.
The Residue Test may be used nationwide.
Procedures for each mode (rail, truck, ocean, and air) of transport are described separately in this Notice, and are as follows:
All data must be submitted electronically. All containers must be manifested whether they are empty or contain residue.
Any container arriving clean (
Any arriving container that contains cargo exceeding 7% of the total capacity of the container by weight or volume, using industry standards, must be manifested. A consumption entry will be required, either formal or informal, depending upon its value and applicable regulations. Entry requirements and payment of duties, taxes, and fees, as applicable and as provided by law, will apply.
Any arriving container with cargo not exceeding 7% of the container's total capacity by weight or volume, using industry standards, will be considered to contain residual cargo and the container must be manifested and entered as having residue.
If the residual cargo has no commercial value,
CBP will release this merchandise under the low value mechanism of 19 U.S.C. 1321, so no merchandise processing fee will be due. For purposes of the Residue Test, this type of entry will be known as a residue entry.
Regulations concerning the making of entry of low value shipments are waived for this portion of the Residue Test. Under the Residue Test, the carrier will have the right to make a residue entry and entry can be made off the manifest with no further documentary requirements if the container is below the set limits.
(1) Carrier sends Bill of Lading (BOL) message (X12 309) with Bill Type 23 indicated.
(2) When Bill Type 23 is used, the carrier must also submit value (0 to 200) and country of origin information. Additionally, a reference identifier, ZF, has been created specifically for this type of shipment.
(3) Bills of Type 23 with the ZF qualifier will be identified by the system to the CBP officer reviewing the manifest for review and mass posting of release.
(4) Release Notifications (1C) will be sent electronically to the carrier and Secondary Notify Parties as currently enabled in the system.
A manifest record indicating a residue entry has been filed will be sufficient to meet recordkeeping requirements for residue entries under the 7% threshold. The record must be maintained by the entry filer in accordance with 19 CFR Part 163.
All data must be submitted electronically. All containers must be manifested whether they are empty or contain residue.
Any container arriving clean (
Any arriving container that contains cargo exceeding 3% of the total capacity of the container by weight or volume, using industry standards, must be manifested. A consumption entry will be required, either formal or informal, depending upon its value and applicable regulations. Entry requirements and payment of duties, taxes, and fees, as applicable and as provided by law, will apply.
Any arriving container with cargo not exceeding 3% of the container's total capacity by weight or volume, using industry standards, must be manifested and entered as having residual cargo.
If the residual cargo has no commercial value,
CBP will release this merchandise under the low value mechanism of 19 U.S.C. 1321 so no merchandise processing fee will be due. For purposes of the Residue Test, this type of entry will be known as a residue entry.
Regulations concerning the making of entry of low value shipments are waived for this portion of the Residue Test. For purposes of the Residue Test, the carrier will have the right to make a residue entry and entry can be made off the manifest with no further documentary requirements if the container is below the set limits.
(1) In the Manifest Bill of Lading details the carrier would use either type code `13' for Section 321 release without the Food and Drug Administration-Bio Terrorism Act (FDA–BTA) considerations, or type code `35' for 321 release with FDA–BTA considerations.
(2) If the carrier uses the ACE Portal for submission, these identifiers are all drop down values in the manifest creation screens.
(3) If either type code is used, the carrier must supply `Customs Shipment Value' and `country of origin'.
(4) Value submitted must currently be greater than 0 and less than $200. CBP is working to change this edit to accept 0 but will establish a value of $1 as an acceptable alternative to 0 if not available.
(5) CBP will review at arrival and post release.
(6) Release Notifications (1C) will be sent electronically to the carrier and Secondary Notify Parties as currently enabled in the system.
A manifest record indicating a residue entry has been filed will be sufficient to meet recordkeeping requirements for residue entries under the 3% threshold. The record must be maintained by the entry filer in accordance with 19 CFR Part 163.
All data must be submitted electronically. All containers must be manifested whether they are empty or contain residue.
Any container arriving clean (
Any arriving container that contains cargo exceeding 3% of the total capacity of the container by weight or volume, using industry standards, must be manifested. A consumption entry will be required, either formal or informal, depending upon its value and applicable regulations. Entry requirements and payment of duties, taxes, and fees, as applicable and as provided by law, will apply.
Any arriving container with residual cargo not exceeding 3% of the container's total capacity by weight or volume, using industry standards, must be manifested and entered as having residue.
If the residue has no commercial value,
CBP will release this merchandise under the low value mechanism of 19 U.S.C. 1321, so that no merchandise processing fee or harbor maintenance fee will be due. For purposes of the Residue Test, this type of entry will be known as a residue entry.
Regulations concerning the making of entry of low value shipments are waived for this portion of the Residue Test. For purposes of the Residue Test, the carrier will have the right to make a residue entry and entry can be made off the manifest with no further documentary requirements if the container is below the set limits.
(1) Regular Bill submitted electronically via EDI process at the master or simple bill level.
(2) Qualifiers for IIT with Residue (TBD) should be the first line of text in the description field, which will include value and country of origin information.
(3) A request for clearance should be made to the CBP port of arrival via existing port procedures for release request notifications.
(4) CBP will manually post release in ACE.
(5) Release Notifications (1C) will be sent electronically to the carrier and Secondary Notify Parties as currently enabled in the system.
A manifest record indicating a residue entry has been filed will be sufficient to meet recordkeeping requirements for residue entries under the 3% threshold. The record must be maintained by the entry filer in accordance with 19 CFR Part 163.
All data must be submitted electronically. All containers must be manifested whether they are empty or contain residue.
Any container arriving clean (
Any arriving container that contains cargo exceeding 5% of the total capacity of the container by weight or volume, using industry standards, must be manifested. A consumption entry will be required, either formal or informal, depending upon its value and applicable regulations. Entry requirements and payment of duties, taxes, and fees, as applicable and as provided by law, will apply.
Any arriving container with cargo not exceeding 5% of the container's total capacity by weight or volume, using industry standards, must be manifested and entered as having residue.
If the residual cargo has no commercial value,
CBP will release this merchandise under the low value mechanism of 19 U.S.C. 1321, so that no merchandise processing fee will be due. For purposes of the Residue Test, this type of entry will be known as a residue entry.
Regulations concerning the making of entry of low value shipments are waived for this portion of the Residue Test. For purposes of this test, the carrier will have the right to make a residue entry and entry can be made off the manifest with no further documentary requirements if the commercial value is below the set limits.
(a) A Regular Bill should be submitted electronically via EDI process.
(b) Qualifiers for IIT with Residue (TBD) should be the first line of text in the description field, which will include the value and country of origin information.
(c) A request for clearance should be made to the CBP port of arrival via existing port procedures for release request notifications.
(d) CBP will manually post release in Air Manifest (AMS).
(e) Release Notifications (1C) will be sent electronically to the carrier and Secondary Notify Parties as currently enabled in the system.
(a) A request using entry type 86 can be filed in Air AMS Express codes.
(b) If entry type 86, then value and country of origin are required fields.
(c) System identifies shipment to CBP users at arrival port.
(d) Release Notifications are sent electronically as enabled in the system.
ACAS filings will not be required for containers with residue in the air environment.
A manifest record indicating a residue entry has been filed will be sufficient to meet record keeping requirements for entries of residue under the 5% threshold. The record must be maintained by the entry filer in accordance with 19 CFR Part 163.
No additional bonding is required for the Residue Test.
Any provision in title 19 of the CFR including, but not limited to, provisions found in Subpart C to Part 143 and Subpart C to Part 128 relating to entry/entry summary processing and any manifest reporting requirements set forth in Part 4, 122, or 123 that are inconsistent with the requirements set forth in this notice are waived for the duration of the Residue Test.
Any and all other government agency requirements relating to transport, manifesting, and entry must be met, including the Environmental Protection Agency requirements that are set forth in 19 CFR Part 12.
Residue cargo must be entered and manifested either in compliance with the current regulations or in compliance with the test procedures set forth in this notice as of 90 days after the date of publication in the
The Residue Test will begin on or about 90 days after the date of publication in the
All interested parties are invited to comment on any aspect of this test at any time. To ensure adequate feedback, participants are encouraged to provide an evaluation of this test. CBP needs comments and feedback on all aspects of this test to determine whether to modify, alter, expand, limit, continue, end or implement this program by regulation.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410–5000; telephone 202–402–3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Thomas L. Goade, Director of Technical Support, Office of Multifamily Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Thomas L. Goade at
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Mr. Goade.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
The Department requires information collection of loan origination, loan closing, loan management, and servicing in accordance with 25 CFR 266 and HUD Handbook 4590.01. This information must be available to the Department to assess participating HFAs compliance with program regulations and guidelines.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) 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) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(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 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.
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410–5000; telephone 202–402–3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Thomas L. Goade, Director of Technical Support, Office of Multifamily Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Thomas L. Goade at
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Mr. Goade.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
Average Hours per Response:
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) 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) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(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 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.
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD has submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: 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 7th 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 in Section A. The
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) 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) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (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 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. HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of the Chief Procurement Officer, HUD.
Notice.
This notice advises of the availability to the public of service contracts awarded by HUD in Fiscal Years (FY) 2011 and 2012.
Lisa D. Maguire, Assistant Chief Procurement Officer, Office of Policy, Oversight, and Systems, Office of the Chief Procurement Officer, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; telephone number 202–708–0294 (this is not a toll-free number) and fax number 202–708–8912. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access Mr. Blocker's telephone number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800–877–8339.
In accordance with section 743 of Division C of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111–117, approved December 16, 2009, 123 Stat. 3034, at 123 Stat. 3216), HUD is publishing this notice to advise the public of service contracts inventories that were awarded in FY 2011 and FY 2012. The inventories are organized by function and are reviewed by HUD to better understand how contracted services are used to support HUD's primary mission, to insure HUD maintains an adequate workforce for operations and to research whether contractors were performing inherently governmental functions.
The inventory was developed in accordance with guidance issued on November 5, 2010 by the Office of Management and Budget's Office
HUD has posted its inventory and a summary of the inventory on the Department of Housing and Urban Development's homepage at the following link:
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for comment/information.
We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the availability of an incidental take permit (ITP) application and Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). Connie Stark (applicant) requests an ITP under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The applicant anticipates taking about 1.49 acres of foraging, breeding, and sheltering habitat used by the Florida scrub-jay (
Written comments on the ITP application and HCP should be sent to the South Florida Ecological Services Office (see
See the
Ms. Elizabeth Landrum, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, South Florida Ecological Services Office (see
If you wish to comment on the ITP application and HCP, you may submit comments by any one of the following methods:
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comments, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
We received an application for an incidental take permit, along with a proposed habitat conservation plan. The applicant requests a 5-year permit under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
The applicant proposes to mitigate for the loss of 1.49 acres of occupied scrub-jay habitat by onsite establishment of a 3.8 acre conservation easement to be managed by Charlotte Harbor Environmental Center, along with a fee of $11,400 for perpetual maintenance of the donated land, within 30 days of permit issuance.
The Service has made a preliminary determination that the applicant's project, including the proposed mitigation and minimization measures, will individually and cumulatively have a minor or negligible effect on the species covered in the HCP. Therefore, issuance of the ITP is a “low-effect” action and qualifies as a categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (40 CFR 1506.6), as provided by the Department of the Interior Manual (516 DM 2 Appendix 1 and 516 DM 6 Appendix 1), and as defined in our Habitat Conservation Planning Handbook (November 1996).
We base our determination that issuance of the ITP qualifies as a low-effect action on the following three criteria: (1) Implementation of the project would result in minor or negligible effects on federally listed, proposed, and candidate species and their habitats; (2) Implementation of the project would result in minor or negligible effects on other environmental values or resources; and (3) Impacts of the plan, considered together with the impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable similarly situated projects, would not result, over time, in cumulative effects to environmental values or resources that would be considered significant. As more fully explained in our environmental action statement and associated Low-Effect Screening Form, the applicant's proposed project qualifies as a “low-effect” project. This preliminary determination may be revised based on our review of public comments that we receive in response to this notice.
The Service will evaluate the HCP and comments submitted thereon to determine whether the application meets the requirements of section 10(a) of the Act. The Service will also evaluate whether issuance of the section 10(a)(1)(B) ITP complies with section 7 of the Act by conducting an intra-Service section 7 consultation. The results of this consultation, in combination with the above findings, will be used in the final analysis to
We provide this notice under Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of applications for permit.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species, marine mammals, or both. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibit activities with listed species unless Federal authorization is acquired that allows such activities.
We must receive comments or requests for documents on or before September 26, 2013. We must receive requests for marine mammal permit public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in the
Brenda Tapia, Division of Management Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 212, Arlington, VA 22203; fax (703) 358–2280; or email
Brenda Tapia, (703) 358–2104 (telephone); (703) 358–2280 (fax);
Send your request for copies of applications or comments and materials concerning any of the applications to the contact listed under
Please make your requests or comments as specific as possible. Please confine your comments to issues for which we seek comments in this notice, and explain the basis for your comments. Include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to authenticate any scientific or commercial data you include.
The comments and recommendations that will be most useful and likely to influence agency decisions are: (1) Those supported by quantitative information or studies; and (2) Those that include citations to, and analyses of, the applicable laws and regulations. We will not consider or include in our administrative record comments we receive after the close of the comment period (see
Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the street address listed under
To help us carry out our conservation responsibilities for affected species, and in consideration of section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
The applicant requests a permit to import two male and two female American crocodiles (
The applicant requests amendment and renewal of the permit to rescue, rehabilitate, and release southern sea otters (
Concurrent with publishing this notice in the
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, U.S. Department of the Interior.
Notice of Intent to initiate public scoping and prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA, and the Department of the Interior's (DOI) NEPA regulations, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), Western Region (WR), Denver, Colorado, intends to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The EIS, to be prepared in conjunction with the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) pursuant to the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) and its implementing rules, will analyze the environmental impacts of the proposed action to permit the operation and reclamation of the proposed Area F expansion of the Rosebud Coal Mine.
A single EIS that meets the requirements of both MEPA and NEPA and evaluates all components of the proposed project will be prepared. OSM and DEQ are requesting public comments on the scope of the EIS and significant issues that should be addressed in the EIS.
The public scoping period will be 45 days in length. Comments concerning the proposed action must be postmarked by October 11, 2013, to be considered in preparing the draft EIS.
OSM, in conjunction with DEQ, will hold a public scoping meeting in Colstrip, Montana, on Thursday, September 12, 2013, from 3pm–7pm at the Isabel Bills Community Learning Center. The meeting will include an open house from 3pm–4pm with the opportunity to view project information. There will be brief presentations from OSM regarding the EIS process and from Western Energy Company (WECo) regarding the proposed project. Presentations will begin at 4pm followed by the opportunity for the public to provide oral and/or written testimony. If you require reasonable accommodations to attend the meeting, contact the person listed under
The draft EIS is expected to be released for public comment in the second quarter of 2014, and the final EIS is expected by the second quarter of 2015.
Comments may be submitted in writing or by email. At the top of your letter or in the subject line of your email message, please indicate that the comments are “Rosebud Mine Area F EIS Comments.” All comments received must contain: name of commenter, postal service mailing address, and date of comment. Comments sent as an email message should be sent as an attachment to the message.
The public scoping meeting on September 12, 2013, will be held at the Isabel Bills Community Learning Center located at 520 Poplar Drive, Colstrip, MT 59323.
A scoping newsletter is available upon request or an electronic copy may be viewed at (Web site):
Franklin Bartlett, Project Coordinator, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Western Region, Casper Area Office, Dick Cheney Federal Building PO Box 11018, 150 East B Street, Casper, WY 82601–7032; phone: (307) 261–6543, or email:
The project area is 12 miles west of Colstrip, Montana, in Rosebud and Treasure counties. The surface of the permit area is entirely privately owned, and the subsurface minerals are either privately or federally held. WECo, a subsidiary of Westmoreland Coal Company, operates the Rosebud Mine.
WECo submitted a permit application (C2011003F) to DEQ in October 2011 for Area F, a proposed expansion of the mine. DEQ determined that WECo's revised application was administratively complete on August 1, 2012, and began its review for technical adequacy, which is currently ongoing. This permit application involves Federal lands. Pursuant to 30 CFR 746, no mining shall be conducted on Federal lands until the Secretary has approved the mining plan. The decision to approve a mining plan for the proposed Area F is a Federal action and NEPA analysis will be required.
A single EIS that meets the requirements of both MEPA and NEPA and evaluates all components of the proposed project will be prepared. This Notice of Intent initiates the scoping process, which guides the development of the EIS. At this stage of the planning process, site-specific public comments are being requested to determine the scope of the analysis and identify significant issues and alternatives to the proposed action. OSM and DEQ are requesting public comments on the scope of the EIS and significant issues that should be addressed in the EIS.
The Rosebud Mine is a 25,576-acre surface coal mine producing low-sulfur subbituminous coal. The proposed permit area for Area F would add 6,746 acres (4,287 acres would be disturbed by the mining operations, highwall reduction, soil storage, scoria pits, haul road construction, and other miscellaneous disturbances) in Township 2 North, Range 38 and 39 East, and Township 1 North, Range 39 East. If approved, Area F would add coal reserves to the existing Rosebud Mine and extend mine life by an estimated 19 years.
Current land uses include grazing land, pastureland, cropland, and wildlife habitat. Tributaries of Horse Creek and West Fork Armells Creek, including Black Hank Creek, Donley Creek, Robbie Creek, and McClure Creek (all of which lie within the drainage of the Yellowstone River), drain the proposed mine area. A ridge in the western portion of the proposed mine area divides the Horse Creek and West Fork Armells Creek drainages.
Beginning in 2015, WECo proposes to mine 2,164 acres within the proposed 6,746-acre Area F permit area and would complete mining operations by
The coal mining method proposed would be the same area strip mining method that WECo currently uses in other permitted areas of the Rosebud Mine. In advance of each mining pass, soil would be removed from the area and stockpiled according to type for use later during reclamation. Next, the overburden (sedimentary rock material covering the coal seams) would be drilled and blasted. Overburden from the initial cut would be stockpiled as spoil. A dragline would then be used to strip the overburden from succeeding mine passes. Spoil would be cast into the mined-out pit created by the preceding pass. After the dragline exposes the coal seam in each pass, the coal would be drilled and blasted. A loading shovel, front-end loader, or backhoe would be used to load blasted coal into coal haulers.
The coal would be transported on an established haul road to permit Area C for crushing. From there, per WECo's contract with PPL Electric Utilities Corporation, most of the coal would be sent via the existing 4.2-mile conveyor to the Colstrip Steam Electric Station. Coal with higher sulfur content (an estimated 105,000 tons/year) would be trucked to the Rosebud Power Plant. WECo does not propose to ship any coal from Area F by rail.
As proposed, initial operations in 2015 would be limited to mine passes in the northeastern portion of Area F and would sequentially progress toward the southwest, and then north to the final cuts. As mining progresses to each new portion of Area F, a boxcut will be made to expose the coal seam. Overburden stockpiles, soil stockpiles, and scoria pits would be developed adjacent to the active boxcut pit area. After the initial cut, spoil from succeeding mine passes would be deposited in previous passes, including the boxcut. The sequence of operations would be as follows: (1) Sediment control, (2) soil salvage, (3) access and haul roads, (4) blasting, (5) overburden removal, (6) coal recovery, (7) highwall reduction, (8) backfilling and recontouring, and (9) revegetation.
Starting in 2019, reclamation would be concurrent with and following mining (ending in 2039) and would facilitate the following post-mine land uses: grazing land, pastureland, cropland, and wildlife habitat. The major reclamation steps planned for before and after mining include soil material salvage and redistribution, pit backfilling, regrading and contouring, drainage construction, revegetation, and post-mine monitoring. In addition to reclamation of the landscape disturbed by actual mining, other disturbed areas would require reclamation including the road system, mine plant facilities, sedimentation ponds, and temporary diversion structures.
The EIS will consider a range of alternatives based on the issues, concerns, and opportunities associated with the proposed Area F project. A preliminary identification of issues, concerns, and opportunities are:
• What effect would the proposed project have on soils and geology?
• What effect would the proposed project have on ground water?
• What effect would the proposed project have on surface water?
• What effect would the proposed project have on wetlands?
• What effect would the proposed project have on wildlife, particularly on threatened, endangered, or sensitive species?
• What effect would the proposed project have on air quality?
• What effect would the proposed project have on noise receptors?
• What effect would the proposed project have on visual resources?
• What effect would the proposed project have on land use?
• What effect would the proposed project have on transportation systems?
• What social and economic effects would the proposed project have on local communities?
• What would be the cumulative effects of the proposed project in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities?
Two primary alternatives will be considered: a no action alternative and an alternative to approve the project as proposed. Other alternatives will be developed that consist of modifications of, or changes to, various elements comprising the proposal.
OSM and DEQ have agreed to be the Lead Agencies for this project. The Bureau of Land Management may participate as a cooperating agency in the preparation of the EIS. Other governmental agencies and any members of the public that may be interested in, or affected by, the proposal are invited to participate in the scoping process, which is designed to obtain input and identify potential issues relating to the proposed project.
Allen D. Klein, Regional Director, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Western Region, 1999 Broadway, Suite 3320, Denver, CO 80202–3050 and Tracy Stone-Manning, Director, Montana Department of Environmental Quality, Director's Office, 1520 East 6th Avenue, Helena, MT 59620–9601 will be jointly responsible for the EIS. These two decision makers will make a decision regarding this proposal after considering comments and responses pertaining to environmental consequences discussed in the Final EIS and all applicable laws, regulations, and policies.
The decision of a selected alternative and supporting reasoning will be documented in two Records of Decision (ROD), one issued by OSM and one issued by DEQ. OSM's ROD will be integrated into a mining plan decision document (MPDD) that will be submitted for approval to the DOI Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management (ASLM).
The nature of the decisions to be made is to select an action that meets the legal rights of the proponent while protecting the environment, and is in compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and policies. OSM and DEQ will use the EIS process to develop the necessary information to make an informed decision as required by 30 CFR 746.
Based on the alternatives developed in the EIS, the following are possible OSM decisions:
(1) Recommendation that the DOI ASLM approve a mining plan based on the proposed action;
(2) Recommendation that the DOI ASLM conditionally approve a mining plan based on a preferred alternative; or
(3) Recommendation that the DOI ASLM deny a mining plan based on the proposed action.
Based on the alternatives developed in the EIS, the following are possible DEQ decisions:
(1) An approval of the permit application as submitted;
(2) An approval of the permit application with changes, and the incorporation of mitigations and stipulations that meet the mandates of applicable laws, regulations, and policies; or
(3) Denial of the permit application if no alternative can be developed that is in compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and policies.
Various permits and licenses are needed prior to implementation of the proposed project. Permits or licenses required by the issuing agencies identified for this proposal are:
• Mine permit from DEQ;
• Mining plan approval by DOI;
• Air quality permit from DEQ;
• Storm water permit and modification of the existing Montana Pollution Discharge Elimination System (MPDES) Permit MT–0023965 from DEQ; and
• 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
OSM, in conjunction with DEQ, will hold a public scoping meeting in Colstrip, Montana, on Thursday, September 12, 2013 from 3pm–7pm at the Isabel Bills Community Learning Center, located at 520 Poplar Drive, Colstrip, MT 59323. The meeting will include an open house from 3pm–4pm with the opportunity to view project information. There will be brief presentations from OSM regarding the EIS process and from WECo regarding the proposed project. Presentations will begin at 4pm followed by the opportunity for the public to provide oral and/or written testimony. Oral testimony will be limited to three minutes per person. A court reporter will be present to record comments. The location and time of the meeting will also be published in the Billings Gazette and Forsythe Independent Press approximately one week prior to the meeting date.
A scoping newsletter is available upon request or an electronic copy may be viewed at (Web site):
Written comments, including email comments, should be sent to OSM at the addresses given in the
OSM will make comments, including name of respondent, address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information, available for public review during normal business hours. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, those who submit anonymous comments may not have standing to challenge the subsequent decision.
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, will be publicly available. 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.
All submissions from organizations or businesses and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses will be available for public review to the extent consistent with applicable law.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of a full review pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)) (the Act) to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on persulfates from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. For further information concerning the conduct of this review and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).
Angela M. W. Newell (202–708–5409), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202–205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to section 201.12 of the Commission's rules, shall not be accepted unless good cause is shown for accepting such submissions, or unless the submission is pursuant to a specific request by a Commissioner or Commission staff.
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the review must be served on all other parties to the review (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
This review is being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled
Lisa R. Barton, Acting Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205–2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at
The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to section 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of A&J Manufacturing, LLC and A&J Manufacturing, Inc. on August 21, 2013. The complaint alleges 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 multiple mode outdoor grills and parts thereof. The complaint names as respondents The Brinkmann Corporation of TX; W.C. Bradley Co. of GA; GHP Group, Inc. of IL; Kamado Joe Company of GA; Outdoor Leisure Products Inc. of MO; Rankam Group of CA; Academy Ltd., d/b/a Academy Sports + Outdoors of TX; HEB Grocery Company, LP, d/b/a H–E–B of TX; Kmart Corporation of IL; Sears Brands Management Corporation of IL; Sears Holding Corporation of IL; Sears, Roebuck, & Company of IL; Tractor Supply Company of TN; Guangdong Canbo Electrical Co., Ltd. of China; Chant Kitchen Equipment (HK) Ltd. of China; Dongguan Kingsun Enterprises Co., Ltd, of China; Zhejiang Fudeer Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. of China; Ningbo Huige Outdoor Products Co., Ltd. of China; Keesung Manufacturing Co., Ltd. of China; Ningbo Spring Communication Technologies Co. Ltd. of China; and Wuxi Joyray International Corp. of China. The complainant requests that the Commission issue a general exclusion order or in the
Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five (5) pages in length, inclusive of attachments, on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or section 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) Identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;
(iii) Identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) Indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) Explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.
Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 2974”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of sections 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).
By order of the Commission.
On August 21, 2013, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree (“Decree”) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, Ashland Division in the lawsuit entitled
This Decree represents a settlement of claims against the Defendant for violations of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq., implementing regulations, the Defendant's title V permit, and the Kentucky State Implementation Plan (“SIP”). The alleged violations occurred at the Defendant's coke production facilities located at 400 East Winchester Avenue in Ashland, Kentucky. The Defendant ceased operations at the coke facilities on June 21, 2011.
Under this settlement between the United States and the Commonwealth and the Defendant, the Defendant will be required to pay a civil penalty to the United States in the amount of $1,625,000. The Defendant will be required to pay a civil penalty to the Commonwealth in the amount of $25,000. In addition, the Defendant will be required to perform two supplemental environmental projects (“SEPs”) for the benefit of the Commonwealth at the Defendant's steel facilities which are also situated in Ashland, Kentucky. The purpose of the SEPs is to reduce the emission of particulates. The estimated cost of performing the SEPs is $2 million. Since the coke facilities are no longer in operation, the Defendant is not required, under this Consent Decree, to take any action to bring the coke facilities into compliance with the Clean Air Act.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to United States and Commonwealth of Kentucky v. AK Steel Corporation, D.J. Ref. No. 90–5–2–1–09449. All comments must be submitted no later than thirty (30) days after the publication date of this notice. Comments may be submitted either by email or by mail:
During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site:
Please enclose a check or money order for $8.75 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
On July 23, 2013, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Third Amendment to the Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois in the lawsuit entitled
Following public notice and opportunity for public comment, on March 18, 2010 the Court entered a Consent Decree resolving certain violations of the federal Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401
The United States, the State of New York, and the Lafarge Companies have agreed to further amend the Consent Decree to provide the Lafarge Companies with an extension of time of until July 1, 2016 to complete construction of a replacement kiln at the Ravena, New York cement plant in return for commitments by the Lafarge Companies set forth in the proposed Third Amendment to the Consent Decree. In general, those commitments by the Lafarge Companies are that beginning on January 1, 2013, the Lafarge Companies shall comply with stringent emission caps, specified herein, for sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides from the Ravena cement plant, and further that the Lafarge Companies shall fund emission reduction projects in the community surrounding the plant.
The publication of this notice continues a period for public comment on the proposed Third Amendment to the Consent Decree that began on July 26, 2013. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the proposed Third Amendment to the Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site:
Please enclose a check or money order for $5.75 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury. For a paper copy without the exhibits and signature pages, the cost is $4.25.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) sponsored information collection request (ICR) revision titled, “Report on Occupational Employment and Wages,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for use in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995.
Submit comments on or before September 26, 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–BLS, 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:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202–693–4129 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email at
The Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) survey is a Federal/State establishment survey of wage and salary workers designed to produce data on current detailed occupational employment and wages for each Metropolitan Statistical Area and Metropolitan Division as well as by detailed industry classification. OES survey data assist in the development of employment and training programs established by the Perkins Vocational Education Act of 1998 and the Workforce Investment Act of 1998. This ICR has been classified as a revision, because the OES Response Analysis Survey has been completed, allowing for its removal from the ICR, and a reduction in the OES sample as a result of the elimination of the Green Goods and Services survey.
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
• 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.
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
On May 16, 2013, the Department of Labor issued an Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the workers and former workers of ICG Knott County, LLC, a subsidiary of ICG, Inc., a subsidiary of Arch Coal, Inc., Kite, Kentucky (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.
The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination based on the findings that worker separations were not attributable to increased imports of bituminous coal (or articles like or directly competitive), by the subject firm or its declining customers, or a shift/acquisition of the production of bituminous coal (or articles like or directly competitive) to/from a foreign country by the workers' firm during the time period under investigation (2011 and 2012).
In the request for reconsideration, a former worker alleged that workers at the subject firm were impacted by the operations of the parent company, Arch Coal, Inc., and the purchasing patterns of its customers. The former worker also alleged that the increased use of natural gas instead of bituminous coal by customers of the subject firm and customers of the parent company led to production declines and worker separations at the subject firm.
Further, according to the allegation, the customers that the subject firm previously supplied with bituminous coal switched to gas for their energy use because the two products are directly competitive. Therefore, the former worker requested that the Department expand the reconsideration investigation to examine the operations of the parent company and to evaluate imports of natural gas.
During the reconsideration investigation, the Department reviewed and confirmed information collected during the initial investigation, collected additional information from the subject firm and its major customers, and collected and analyzed natural gas data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration and the U.S. Department of Energy.
The reconsideration investigation findings confirmed that neither the subject firm nor its major customers imported articles like or directly competitive with bituminous coal during the relevant period. Additionally, the findings confirmed that the subject firm did not shift the production of bituminous coal to a foreign country or acquire this article, or any articles like or directly competitive, from a foreign country during the period under investigation. The findings of the reconsideration investigation also confirmed that Arch Coal, Inc. acquired the subject firm during the period under investigation but clarified that the subject firm continued to operate independently and retained its own customer base following the acquisition.
During the initial investigation, the Department conducted a customer survey on the major customers of the subject firm. The surveyed customers reported no imports of bituminous coal or articles like or directly competitive. During the reconsideration investigation, the Department contacted
No customer survey was conducted on the customers of Arch Coal, Inc., because the subject firm retained its own customer base during the period under investigation.
During the reconsideration investigation, the Department collected natural gas data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration and the U.S. Department of Energy. An analysis of the data revealed that imports of natural gas into the United States declined in the period under investigation while exports of natural gas by the United States increased during this period.
After careful review of the request for reconsideration, previously-submitted information, 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 ICG Knott County, LLC, a subsidiary of ICG, Inc., a subsidiary of Arch Coal, Inc., including on-site leased workers of P&P Construction, Kite, Kentucky, to apply for adjustment assistance, in accordance with Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2273.
Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on June 25, 2013 in response to a Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers of Keithley Instruments, Solon, Ohio. On July 5, 2013, the Department issued a Notice of Termination of Investigation on the basis that the subject worker group was eligible to apply for TAA under TA–W–80,264. Based on information provided by the subject firm, the Department has determined that the termination was issued in error. Consequently, the Department is withdrawing the Notice of Termination of Investigation and will issue a determination accordingly.
On March 8, 2013, the Department of Labor issued a negative determination regarding eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) applicable to workers and former workers of Gamesa Technology Corporation, Trevose, Pennsylvania, Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, Ebensburg, Pennsylvania, and Bristol, Pennsylvania (hereafter collectively referred to as “Gamesa” or “the subject firm”).
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 misinterpretation of facts or of the law justified reconsideration of the decision.
The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination based on the Department's finding of no shift in production of like or directly competitive articles to a foreign country, no acquisition of production of like or directly competitive articles from a foreign country, and no increased imports of like or directly competitive articles during the relevant period, as defined in 29 CFR part 90.
In the request for reconsideration, the state workforce official alleged that the subject firm has shifted abroad the production or articles like or directly competitive with those produced by the subject firm and urged the Department to consider information in the 201302015 business plan on the Gamesa Web site, which reflected increased reliance on a facility on Spain and “increased blade outsourcing of 65%.” The attachment to the request included a letter which alleged imports from China and Spain and the effect of lost bids due to the uncertainty of the Production Tax Credit extension.
Information obtained during the reconsideration investigation confirmed that the subject firm did not shift, and does not plan to shift, production of like or directly competitive articles to a foreign country or acquire such production from a foreign country, and that the subject firm did not import, and has no plans to import, articles like or directly competitive with those produced by the subject firm.
Should the subject firm shift, or decide to shift, production of like or directly competitive articles to a foreign country, acquire the production of like or directly competitive articles from a foreign country, or begin to import like or directly competitive articles, those facts would be relevant to the investigation of a new petition, not the immediate investigation.
For the reasons stated above, 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
By application dated July 8, 2013, workers requested administrative reconsideration of the negative determination regarding workers' eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The determination was issued on June 14, 2013 and the Notice of Determination was published in the
The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination based on the findings that there was no increase in imports by the workers' firm or its customers, nor was there a foreign shift or acquisition by the workers' firm or its customers.
The request for reconsideration alleges, among other things, that Belden has been outsourcing to China and Mexico for twenty years, that the subject firm's “splice connectors are now almost solely produced in Asia, including . . . TBCF81” and “In 2012, Belden bought PPC . . . PPC sources almost all of its 350 million Drop-line connector components in China.”
The Department has carefully reviewed the request for reconsideration and the existing record, and has determined that the Department will conduct further investigation to clarify key facts and to determine if the workers meet 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.
Homeward Residential, Inc. a Subsidiary of Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC Including On-Site Leased Workers from Staffmark Staffing Including Workers whose Unemployment Insurance (UI) Wages are Reported through American Mortgage Servicing, Inc., Power Reo Management Services, Inc., and Stratus Asset Management Coppell, Texas; Homeward Residential, Inc. a Subsidiary of Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC Including On-Site Leased Workers from Staffmark Staffing Including Workers whose Unemployment Insurance (UI) Wages are Reported Through American Mortgage Servicing, Inc., Power Reo Management Services, Inc., and Stratus Asset Management Addison, Texas; Homeward Residential, Inc. a Subsidiary of Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC Including On-Site Leased Workers from Staffmark Staffing Including Workers whose Unemployment Insurance (UI) Wages are Reported Through American Mortgage Servicing, Inc., Power Reo Management Services, Inc., and Stratus Asset Management Jacksonville, Florida
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 April 24, 2013, applicable to workers of Homeward Residential, Inc., a subsidiary of Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, including on-site leased workers from Staffmark Staffing, Coppell, Texas (TA–W–82,568), Addison, Texas (TA–W–82,568A) and Jacksonville, Florida (TA–W–82,568B). On June 21, 2013, the Department issued an amended certification to include workers whose unemployment insurance wages were reported under American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc.
At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm.
New information shows that workers separated from employment at the Coppell, Texas, Addison, Texas and/or Jacksonville, Florida locations of Homeward Residential, Inc. had their unemployment insurance (UI) wages paid under the names Power REO Management Services, Inc. and/or Stratus Asset Management.
Accordingly, the Department is amending this certification to include workers of the subject firm whose UI wages are reported through Power REO Management Services, Inc. and/or Stratus Asset Management.
The amended notice applicable to TA–W–82,568, TA–W–82,568A and TA–W–82,568B are hereby issued as follows:
“All workers from Homeward Residential, Inc., a subsidiary of Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, including on-site leased workers from Staffmark Staffing, including workers whose unemployment insurance (UI) wages are reported through American Mortgage Servicing, Inc., Power REO Management Services, Inc., and Stratus Asset Management, Coppell, Texas (TA–W–82,568); Homeward Residential, Inc., a subsidiary of Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, including on-site leased workers from Staffmark Staffing, including workers whose unemployment insurance (UI) wages are reported through American Mortgage Servicing, Inc., Power REO Management Services, Inc., and Stratus Asset Management, Addison, Texas (TA–W–82,568A), and Homeward Residential, Inc., a subsidiary of Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, including on-site leased workers from Staffmark Staffing, including workers whose unemployment insurance (UI) wages are reported through American Mortgage Servicing, Inc., Power REO Management Services, Inc., and Stratus Asset Management, Jacksonville, Florida (TA–W–
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)(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.
I hereby certify that the aforementioned determinations were issued during the period of August 5, 2013 through August 9, 2013. These determinations are available on the Department's Web site
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.
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 criterion under paragraph (a)(1), or (b)(1), or (c)(1)(employment decline or threat of separation) of section 222 has not been met.
The investigation revealed that the criteria under paragraphs (a)(2)(A) (increased imports) and (a)(2)(B) (shift in production or services to a foreign country) of section 222 have not been met.
After notice of the petitions was published in the
The following determinations terminating investigations were issued because the petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn.
The following determinations terminating investigations were issued because the petitioning groups of workers are covered by active certifications. Consequently, further investigation in these cases would serve no purpose since the petitioning group of workers cannot be covered by more than one certification at a time.
The following determinations terminating investigations were issued because the petitions are the subject of ongoing investigations under petitions filed earlier covering the same petitioners.
The following determinations terminating investigations were issued because the Department issued a negative determination on petitions related to the relevant investigation period applicable to the same worker group. The duplicative petitions did not present new information or a change in circumstances that would result in a reversal of the Department's previous negative determination, and therefore, further investigation would duplicate efforts and serve no purpose.
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 September 6, 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 September 6, 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 September 6, 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 Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on December 18, 2012, applicable to workers of Regal Beloit Corporation, Springfield, Missouri Division, including on-site leased workers from Penmac Personnel Services, Springfield, Missouri. The Department's notice of determination was published in the
At the request of a state workforce office, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers were engaged in the production of contributing parts- rotors, stators, endshields, shells, and shafts for 48Frame NEMA Electrics motors for the HVAC market.
The company reports that workers leased from GCA Services Group were employed on-site at the Springfield, Missouri location of Regal Beloit Corporation, Springfield, Missouri Division. The Department has determined that these workers were sufficiently under the control of the subject firm to be considered leased workers.
Based on these findings, the Department is amending this certification to include workers leased from GCA Services Group working on-site at the Springfield, Missouri location of Regal Beloit Corporation, Springfield, Missouri Division.
The amended notice applicable to TA–W–82,199 is hereby issued as follows:
“All workers of GCA Services Group, reporting to Regal Beloit Corporation, Springfield, Missouri Division, including on-site leased workers from Penmac Personnel Services, Springfield, Missouri, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after November 30, 2011, through December 18, 2014, 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.”
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 April 4, 2013, applicable to workers of Experian, Experian Healthcare, (medical Present Value (MPV)—Credit Services and Decision Analytics), Austin, Texas (TA–W–82,506), Experian, Information Technology & Operations, (Data Center and Technical Services, Telecommunications, Network Services, Compliance and Distributed Applications), Allen, Texas (TA–W–82,506A), Experian, Information Technology & Operations, (Data Center and Technical Services, Telecommunications, Network Services, Compliance and Distributed Applications, Allen, Texas (TA–W–82,506B), Experian, Business Information Services, Corporate Marketing, Credit Services, Data
At the request of a company official, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. Information shows that worker separations occurred during the relevant time period at the Global Technology Services (GTS) unit of Experian, Experian US Headquarters, Costa Mesa, California (TA–W–82,506F) Experian, Experian Consumer Direct (Experian Interactive, Consumerinfo.com), Costa Mesa, California (TA–W–82,506G) and Experian, Schaumburg, Illinois (TA–W–82,506R). The Global Technology Services (GTS) unit supplied various global services for Experian.
Accordingly, the Department is amending the certification to include workers of the Global Technology Services (GTS) unit of Experian located at the above mentioned facilities.
The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers of the subject firm who were adversely affected by a shift in services of credit reporting services to a foreign country.
The amended notice applicable to TA–W–82,506 (A–S) is hereby issued as follows:
On June 7, 2013, the Department of Labor (Department) issued a Notice of Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration applicable to workers and former workers of Stone Age Interiors, Inc., d/b/a Colorado Springs Marble and Granite, Colorado Springs, Colorado (hereafter collectively referred to as either “Stone Age Interiors” or “subject firm”). The subject firm is engaged in activities related to the production of finished stone fabrication products. The workers are not separately identifiable by product line.
The subject worker group includes on-site leased workers from Express Employment Professionals.
Based on a careful review of previously-submitted information and additional information obtained during the reconsideration investigation, the Department determines that the petitioning worker group, including on-site leased workers, has met the eligibility criteria set forth in the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
Section 222(a)(1) has been met because a significant number or proportion of the workers at Stone Age Interiors have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened with such separation.
Section 222(a)(2)(A)(i) has been met because Stone Age Interiors sales and/or production of finished stone fabrication products have decreased.
Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) has been met because aggregate imports of articles like or directly competitive with the finished stone fabrication products produced by Stone Age Interiors have increased during the relevant period.
Finally, Section 222(a)(2)(A)(iii) has been met because increased imports contributed importantly to the worker group separations and sales/production declines at Stone Age Interiors.
After careful review of previously-submitted facts and the additional facts obtained during the reconsideration investigation, I determine that workers of Stone Age Interiors, Inc., d/b/a Colorado Springs Marble and Granite, including on-site leased workers from Express Employment Professionals, Colorado Springs, Colorado, meet the worker group certification criteria under Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a). In accordance with Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2273, I make the following certification:
All workers of Stone Age Interiors, Inc., d/b/a Colorado Springs Marble and Granite, including on-site leased workers from Express Employment Professionals, Colorado Springs, Colorado, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after February 9, 2012, through two years from the date of this certification, 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.
Millennium Challenge Corporation.
Notice.
Section 608(d) of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003 requires the Millennium Challenge Corporation to publish a report that identifies countries that are “candidate countries” for Millennium Challenge Account assistance during FY 2014. The report is set forth in full below.
This report to Congress is provided in accordance with section 608(a) of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003, as amended, 22 U.S.C. 7701, 7707(a) (the Act).
The Act authorizes the provision of Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) assistance for countries that enter into a Millennium Challenge Compact with the United States to support policies and programs that advance the progress of such countries to achieve lasting economic growth and poverty reduction. The Act requires the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) to take a number of steps in selecting countries with which MCC will seek to enter into a compact, including (a) determining the countries that will be eligible for MCA assistance for fiscal year (FY) 2014 based on a country's demonstrated commitment to (i) just and democratic governance, (ii) economic freedom, and (iii) investments in its people; and (b) considering the opportunity to reduce poverty and generate economic growth in the country. These steps include the submission of reports to the congressional committees specified in the Act and the publication of notices in the
The countries that are “candidate countries” for MCA assistance for FY 2014 based on their per capita income levels and their eligibility to receive assistance under U.S. law and countries that would be candidate countries but for specified legal prohibitions on assistance (section 608(a) of the Act);
The criteria and methodology that the MCC Board of Directors (Board) will use to measure and evaluate the relative policy performance of the “candidate countries” consistent with the requirements of subsections (a) and (b) of section 607 of the Act in order to determine “eligible countries” from among the “candidate countries” (section 608(b) of the Act); and
The list of countries determined by the Board to be “eligible countries” for FY 2014, identification of such countries with which the Board will seek to enter into compacts, and a justification for such eligibility determination and selection for compact negotiation (section 608(d) of the Act).
This report is the first of three required reports listed above.
The Act requires the identification of all countries that are candidates for MCA assistance for FY 2014 and the identification of all countries that would be candidate countries but for specified legal prohibitions on assistance. Under the terms of the Act, sections 606(a) and (b) set forth the two income tests countries must satisfy to be candidates
Under the redefined categories, a country will be a candidate for MCA assistance for FY 2014 if it:
Meets one of the following tests:
Has a per capita income that is not greater than the World Bank's lower middle income country threshold for such fiscal year ($4,085 GNI per capita for FY 2014); and is among the 75 lowest per capita income countries, as identified by the World Bank; or
Has a per capita income that is not greater than the World Bank's lower middle income country threshold for such fiscal year ($4,085 GNI per capita for FY 2014); but is
Is not ineligible to receive U.S. economic assistance under part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended (the Foreign Assistance Act), by reason of the application of the Foreign Assistance Act or any other provision of law.
Due to the provisions requiring countries to retain their former income classification for three fiscal years, changes from the low income to lower middle income categories or vice versa for FY 2014 will go into effect for FY 2017. Countries transitioning to the upper middle income category do not retain their former income classification.
Pursuant to section 606(c) of the Act, the Board identified the following countries as candidate countries under the Act for FY 2014. In so doing, the Board referred to the prohibitions on assistance to countries for FY 2013 under the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2012, Pub. L. 112–74, Div. I. (the SFOAA), as carried forward by the FY 2013 Appropriations Act.
Countries that would be considered candidate countries for FY 2014, but are ineligible to receive United States economic assistance under part I of the Foreign Assistance Act by reason of the application of any provision of the Foreign Assistance Act or any other provision of law are listed below. This list is based on legal prohibitions against economic assistance that apply as of August 16, 2013. All section references below are to the SFOAA, unless another statue is identified.
Burma is subject to restrictions, including but not limited to section 570 of the FY 1997 Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act (P.L. 104–208), which prohibits assistance to the government of Burma until it makes measurable and substantial progress in
Cameroon is subject to section 7031(b) regarding budget transparency.
Central African Republic is subject to section 7031(b) regarding budget transparency.
Congo, Republic of the, is subject to section 7031(b) regarding budget transparency.
Eritrea is subject to restrictions due to its status as a Tier III country under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, as amended, 22 U.S.C. sections 7101 et seq.
Gambia, The is subject to section 7031(b) regarding budget transparency.
Guinea-Bissau is subject to section 7008, which prohibits assistance to the government of a country whose duly elected head of government is deposed by military coup or decree.
Madagascar is subject to section 7008, which prohibits assistance to the government of a country whose duly elected head of government is deposed by military coup or decree and also section 7031(b) regarding budget transparency.
Mali is subject to section 7008, which prohibits assistance to the government of a country whose duly elected head of government is deposed by military coup or decree.
Nicaragua is subject to section 7031(b) regarding budget transparency.
North Korea is subject to numerous restrictions, including section 7007, which prohibits any direct assistance to the government.
Sudan is subject to numerous restrictions, including but not limited to section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act which prohibits assistance to governments supporting international terrorism, section 7012 of the SFOAA and section 620(q) of the Foreign Assistance Act, both of which prohibit assistance to countries in default in payment to the U.S. in certain circumstances, section 7008, which prohibits assistance to the government of a country whose duly elected head of government is deposed by military coup or decree, and section 7043(f).
Swaziland is subject to section 7031(b) regarding budget transparency.
Syria is subject to numerous restrictions, including but not limited to 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act which prohibits assistance to governments supporting international terrorism, section 7007 of the SFOAA which prohibits direct assistance, and section 7012 of the SFOAA and section 620(q) of the Foreign Assistance Act, both of which prohibit assistance to countries in default in payment to the U.S. in certain circumstances.
Zimbabwe is subject to several restrictions, including section 7043(j)(2), which prohibits assistance (except for macroeconomic growth assistance) to the central government of Zimbabwe, unless the Secretary of State determines and reports to Congress that the rule of law has been restored in Zimbabwe.
Countries identified above as candidate countries, as well as countries that would be considered candidate countries but for the applicability of legal provisions that prohibit U.S. economic assistance, may be the subject of future statutory restrictions or determinations, or changed country circumstances, that affect their legal eligibility for assistance under part I of the Foreign Assistance Act by reason of application of the Foreign Assistance Act or any other provision of law for FY 2014.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of information collection.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).
All comments should be submitted within 60 calendar days from the date of this publication.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of NASA.
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Frances Teel, NASA Clearance Officer, NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street SW., JF000, Washington, DC 20546,
This collection of information supports the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, as amended, to create opportunities to improve processes associated with the evaluation and selection of individuals to participate in the NASA Astronaut Candidate Selection Program. The NASA Astronaut Selection Office (ASO) located at the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center (JSC) in Houston, Texas is responsible for selecting astronauts for the various United States Space Exploration programs. In evaluating an applicant for the Astronaut Candidate Program, it is important that the ASO have the benefit of qualitative and quantitative information and recommendations from persons who have been directly associated with the applicant over the course of their career.
This information will be used by the NASA ASO and Human Resources (HR) personnel, during the candidate selection process (approx. 2 year duration), to gain insight into the candidates' work ethic and professionalism as demonstrated in previous related employment activities. Respondents may include the astronaut candidate's previous employer(s)/direct-reporting manager, as well as co-workers and other references provided by the candidate.
Electronic and optionally by paper
Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of NASA, including whether the information collected has practical utility; (2) the accuracy of NASA's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection. They will also become a matter of public record.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has concluded that existing exemptions from its regulations, “Fire Protection Program for Nuclear Power Facilities Operating Prior to January 1, 1979,” for Fire Areas ETN–4 and PAB–2, issued to Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (the licensee), for operation of Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit 3 (Indian Point 3), located in Westchester County, NY, will remain as originally granted and will not be modified.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2013–0063 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may access publicly-available information related to this action by the following methods:
•
•
•
Douglas V. Pickett, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415–1364; email:
On July 24, 2006, Indian Point 3 submitted exemption requests from part 50 to Title 10 of the
In 2007, Mr. Richard Brodsky, then a New York State Assemblyman, and others (the petitioners) petitioned the NRC to hold a public hearing before granting the exemptions. The NRC denied Mr. Brodsky's petition. In 2008, the petitioners filed suit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, challenging the NRC's denial of a hearing. On August 27, 2009, the Court of Appeals denied the suit for lack of jurisdiction, but afforded the petitioners an opportunity to refile their claims in the U.S. District Court (ADAMS Accession No. ML092610050). In 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the NRC summary judgment on the refiled claims, finding no violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), or the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in the denial of a hearing on the exemption (ADAMS Accession No. ML110660214). The petitioners then sought review of that decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
On January 7, 2013, the Second Circuit reversed and vacated the U.S. District Court decision with respect to public participation on the EA and FONSI issued in support of the exemptions (ADAMS Accession No. ML13199A023). All other aspects of the U.S. District Court decision were upheld as described in the Second Circuit's Summary Order (ADAMS Accession No. ML13164A362). The Circuit Court remanded the case to the District Court “with instructions for it in turn to remand to the NRC so that the agency may: (1) Supplement the administrative record to explain why allowing public input into the exemption request was inappropriate or impracticable, or (2) take other such action as it may deem appropriate to resolve this issue.” The Court directed that proceedings were to be concluded within 120 days of the Mandate, which was issued on March 1, 2013.
In response to the Mandate of the U.S. Court of Appeals, on April 3, 2013 (78 FR 20144), a
The proposed action would revise the January 7, 1987, safety evaluation to reflect that the installed Hemyc electrical raceway fire barrier system (ERFBS) configurations provide either a 30-minute fire resistance rating, or in one case a 24-minute fire resistance rating, in lieu of the previously stated one-hour fire resistance rating. The licensee states that a Hemyc ERFBS fire resistance rating will provide sufficient protection for the affected raceways, with adequate margin, to continue to meet the intent of the original requests for exemption and conclusions presented in the NRC's January 7, 1987, safety evaluation. The licensee concludes that the revised fire resistance rating of the Hemyc ERFBS does not reflect a reduction in overall fire safety, and presents no added challenge to the credited post-fire safe-shutdown capability which remains materially unchanged from the configuration originally described in
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's application dated July 24, 2006, as supplemented by letters dated April 30 (ADAMS Accession No. ML071280504), May 23 (ADAMS Accession No. ML071520177), and August 16, 2007 (ADAMS Accession No. ML072400369).
The proposed revision of existing exemptions from 10 CFR part 50, appendix R, is needed in response to NRC Information Notice 2005–07, Results of Hemyc Electrical Raceway Fire Barrier System Full Scale Fire Testing, dated April 1, 2005 (ADAMS Accession No. ML050890089). The information notice provided to licensees the details of Hemyc ERFBS full-scale fire tests conducted by the NRC's Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. The test results concluded that the Hemyc ERFBS does not provide the level of protection expected for an one-hour rated fire barrier, as originally designed. The proposed revision to existing exemptions would revise the fire resistance rating of Hemyc ERFBS configurations.
The NRC has completed its safety evaluation of the proposed action and concludes that the configuration of the fire zones under review provides reasonable assurance that a severe fire is not plausible and the existing fire protection features are adequate. Based on the presence of redundant safe-shutdown trains, minimal fire hazards and combustibles, automatic cable tray fire suppression system, manual fire suppression features, fire barrier protection, existing Hemyc configuration, and the installed smoke detection system, the NRC staff finds that the use of this Hemyc fire barrier in these zones will not significantly increase the consequences from a fire in these fire zones.
The proposed action will not significantly increase the probability or consequences of accidents. No changes are being made in the types of effluents that may be released offsite. There is no significant increase in the amount of any effluent released offsite. There is no significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed action does not have a potential to affect any historic sites. It does not affect non-radiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impact. Therefore, there are no significant non-radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
Accordingly, the NRC staff concludes that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
As an alternative to the proposed action, the NRC staff considered denial of the proposed action (i.e., the “no-action” alternative). Denial of the application would result in no change in current environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the alternative action are similar.
The action does not involve the use of any different resources than those previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for Indian Point 3, dated February 1975.
Development of this EA/FONSI did not result in consultation.
The NRC received 135 submissions containing comments from interested members of the public, organizations, and the State of New York. The majority of these comments expressed opposition to the granting of the requested exemptions, and many commenters suggested that the NRC prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) and convene a formal evidentiary hearing or other form of public hearing to consider the matter. Many of the commenters were concerned that granting the exemptions could result in a degradation of fire protection levels afforded by current regulatory requirements that would leave the licensee unable to respond to a serious fire and result in catastrophic offsite consequences.
Each comment was carefully reviewed by the NRC staff. In this document, the NRC has responded to the various comments received by category. However, many comments received did not fall into the broader categories discussed in this document and were outside the scope of the draft EA, which deals strictly with the environmental impacts of granting the exemption. These comments are not addressed in this document, but the NRC has responded to all comments received in a separate comment resolution document (ADAMS Accession No. ML13203A145).
Some commenters questioned whether the NRC has the authority to grant exemptions from its regulations, whether the NRC has complied with each applicable statute, and whether the NRC may grant permanent exemptions. These questions have recently been addressed by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and, on appeal by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. These courts upheld the agency's authority and statutory compliance in these respects, except in the case of NEPA's requirement for an opportunity for public participation on the proposed exemptions. (
The NRC is denying the commenters' request for a hearing. Neither the AEA nor the NRC's regulations grant the right to a hearing on an application for an exemption. (42 U.S.C. 2239(a);
A number of commenters questioned the NRC's technical judgment that the exemptions to the fire protection requirements of 10 CFR 50.48 and appendix R, section III.G.2, would afford equivalent protection of public health and safety in the event of a fire in the two affected areas of the plant for which exemptions had been proposed. One commenter stated that a fire lasting beyond the 24-minute fire rating of the Hemyc fire barrier would result in a reactor meltdown. Other commenters expressed concern whether the exemptions present an undue risk to the public health and safety, would compromise the AEC standard of “reasonable assurance” for the safety of plant operations, or would degrade the plant's margin of safety.
However worded, these concerns are beyond the scope of the NRC's notice of opportunity to comment on the draft EA
Many comments raised the specter of a terrorist attack or other event that would defeat the Indian Point 3 defense-in-depth fire protection measures in place at the two affected fire areas for which exemptions have been granted. These commenters were concerned that a severe fire caused by these events could result in a loss of reactor safe shutdown capability and serious offsite consequences. As explained in this document, however, issues relating to terrorism and other low-probability, high-consequence events are beyond the scope of the EA and FONSI.
Acts of terrorism are inherently unpredictable and stochastic and, therefore, are not separately considered in preparing the NRC's environmental analyses. The NRC has, therefore, determined that NEPA “imposes no legal duty on the NRC to consider intentional malevolent acts” because those acts are “too far removed from the natural or expected consequences of agency action.” (
Although the inherent uncertainty of terrorism precludes reliably quantifying the likelihood of a terrorist attack, under credible threat conditions assumed by the NRC, the probability of such an attack is believed to be low. To provide high assurance that a terrorist act will not lead to significant radiological consequences, the NRC has analyzed plausible threat scenarios and has defined, by regulation, a Design Basis Threat of radiological sabotage in 10 CFR 73.1 that licensees must protect against. Aside from the Design Basis Threat of radiological sabotage, the NRC has also established new physical protection requirements in 10 CFR 73.55 to protect against radiological sabotage as well as requirements for safety/security interface in 10 CFR 73.58, potential aircraft threats in 10 CFR 50.54(hh)(1), and the loss of large areas of the plant due to explosions and/or fire to mitigate potential consequences for these threat scenarios as well as accident scenarios with similar radiological consequences in 10 CFR 50.54(hh)(2). Each of these protective and mitigation measures has been taken without regard to the probability of an attack. The NRC's approach is consistent with NEPA. As the Third Circuit has held, “precautionary actions to guard against a particular risk do not trigger a duty to perform a NEPA analysis.”
Whether resulting from a terrorist attack or some internally-initiated event, the NRC staff determined from its independent safety evaluation of the licensee's proposal that the configuration of the fire zones under review provide reasonable assurance that a severe fire is not plausible and the existing fire protection features are adequate. From this and related findings, the NRC concluded that the proposed action would not significantly increase the probability or consequences of accidents. This finding renders a severe fire in the affected areas resulting from granting the exemptions, however initiated or whatever its consequences, so unlikely as not to require further environmental analysis. (
Some commenters claimed that the NRC did not consider denying the exemptions and requiring compliance with 10 CFR part 50, appendix R, section III.G.2, or some other alternative. In fact, the NRC did consider the alternative of denying the exemption requests. The
The NRC determined, however, that denial of the exemption requests would result in no change in current environmental impacts, and that the environmental impacts of denying the exemption requests or approving the requested exemptions are similar. Thus, the NRC has considered imposing a requirement that the fire insulation be upgraded to meet the one-hour requirement in 10 CFR part 50, appendix R. Moreover, consideration of requiring the licensee to comply with the one-hour barrier requirement necessarily bounds any period less than one-hour, i.e, a fixed period not tied to Hemyc test results. In any event, “the range of alternatives an agency must consider is narrower when, as here, the agency has found that a project will not have a significant environmental impact.” (
Several commenters suggested that the NRC had not considered categories of relevant documents or specific documents relating to Indian Point 3 or fire protection issues. The NRC staff reviewed all information supplied by the licensee and commenters in accordance with 10 CFR 50.12 and appropriate guidance and engineering judgment in granting the exemptions. The commenters, however, have either failed to identify specific documents not considered by the NRC or have failed to demonstrate the relevance or probative value of specific documents they have cited. On this point, the Second Circuit recently found that one commenter's failure to demonstrate that specific “documents are in fact relevant or probative” was fatal to the individual's claim that the NRC improperly failed to consider specific documents.
Some commenters questioned whether the NRC has applied or relied upon the recently revised provisions of 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9) in granting the exemptions. These provisions categorically exclude certain qualifying exemptions from environmental review, such as the review given the exemptions in this instance. These new provisions,
Publication of the draft EA and FONSI for the requested exemptions included a brief discussion of this regulatory amendment to inform the public of a topically-relevant change in the NRC's regulations occurring since the NRC approved the requested exemptions in 2007 (78 FR 20144: April 3, 2013). The NRC included this information because these changes will be relevant to future exemption requests, but did not suggest that 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9) applies to the requested exemptions. Moreover, the NRC observed in the discussion that “[a]lthough NRC approval of exemptions that meet the criteria of this section no longer require preparation of an EA/FONSI, the NRC retains discretion to prepare an EA and FONSI, including an opportunity for public comment, where special circumstances exist.” Finally, we note that the NRC recently published an editorial correction to 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9) (78 FR 34245: June 7, 2013) to clarify that this provision categorically excludes certain kinds of stand-alone exemptions from environmental review, not just exemptions issued as a license amendment.
On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action.
For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the licensee's letters dated July 24, 2006, April 30, 2007, May 23, 2007, and August 16, 2007 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML062140057, ML071280504, ML071520177, ML072400369, respectively); the EA and FONSI, dated September 24, 2007 (ADAMS Accession No. ML072110018); the NRC letter dated September 28, 2007, approving the exemption (ADAMS Accession No. ML072410254); and the draft EA and FONSI, dated March 26, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13066A275).
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, [NRC–2013–0001].
Weeks of August 26, September 2, 9, 16, 23, 30, 2013.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and Closed.
2:00 p.m. Discussion of Management and Personnel Issues (Closed—Ex. 2 and 6).
9:00 a.m. Briefing on NRC's Construction Activities (Public Meeting) (Contact: Michelle Hayes, 301–415–8375).
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
3:00 p.m. Briefing on NRC International Activities (Closed—Ex. 1 & 9) (Contact: Karen Henderson, 301–415–0202).
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of September 2, 2013.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of September 9, 2013.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of September 16, 2013.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of September 23, 2013.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of September 30, 2013.
The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. To verify the status of meetings, call (recording)—301–415–1292. Contact person for more information: Rochelle Bavol, 301–415–1651.
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (e.g. braille, large print), please notify Kimberly Meyer, NRC Disability Program Manager, at 301–287–0727, or by email at
This notice is distributed electronically to subscribers. If you no longer wish to receive it, or would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301–415–1969), or send an email to
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94–409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday, August 29, 2013 at 2:00 p.m.
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.
The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.
Commissioner Aguilar, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the Closed Meeting in a closed session.
The subject matter of the Closed Meeting will be:
Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
an adjudicatory matter; and
other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.
For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551–5400.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to discontinue the differentiation in subsection (n)(i)(A)(2) and subsection (n)(i)(B)(2) of Rule 1080 (Phlx XL and Phlx XL II) regarding Price Improvement XL (“PIXL”) Orders that are for a size of less than 50 contracts.
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to discontinue the differentiation in subsection (n)(i)(A)(2) and subsection (n)(i)(B)(2) of Rule 1080 regarding PIXL Orders that are for a size of less than 50 contracts.
The PIXL program in Rule 1080(n) provides a price-improvement mechanism in which a member (an “Initiating Member”) may electronically submit for execution an order it represents as agent on behalf of a public customer, broker-dealer, or any other entity (known as the “PIXL Order”) against principal interest or against any other order it represents as agent, provided that such Initiating Member submits the PIXL Order for electronic execution into the one-second long PIXL Auction (“Auction”) pursuant to the rule. In addition, PIXL provides for the automatic execution, under certain conditions, of a crossing transaction where there is a public customer order in the same options series on each side.
Currently, subsection (n)(i)(A) of Rule 1080 states that for public customer orders, if a PIXL Order is for 50 contracts or more, the Initiating Member must stop the entire PIXL Order at a price that is equal to or better than the National Best Bid or Offer (“NBBO”) on the opposite side of the market from the PIXL Order, provided that such price must be at least one minimum price improvement increment (as determined by the Exchange but not smaller than one cent) better than any limit order on the limit order book on the same side of the market as the PIXL Order. Subsection (n)(i)(B) states that for non-public customer orders (
Two subsections of Rule 1080 ((n)(i)(A)(2) and (n)(i)(B)(2)) currently require, on a pilot basis expiring July 18, 2014, a separate price improvement process for public customer and non-public customer PIXL Orders that are less than 50 contracts in size. Subsection (n)(i)(A)(2) states that if the PIXL Order is for less than 50 contracts, the Initiating Member must stop the entire PIXL Order at a price that is the better of: (i) The PBBO price on the opposite side of the market from the PIXL Order, improved by at least one minimum price improvement increment; or (ii) the PIXL Order's limit price (if the order is a limit order), provided in either case that such price is at or better than the NBBO, and at least one price improvement increment better than any limit order on the book on the same side of the market as the PIXL Order. Subsection (n)(i)(B)(2) states that if the PIXL Order is for less than 50 contracts, the Initiating Member must stop the entire PIXL Order at a price that is the better of: (i) The PBBO price improved by at least one minimum price improvement increment on the same side of the market as the PIXL Order; or (ii) the PIXL Order's limit price (if the order is a limit order), provided in either case that such price is at or better than the NBBO and at least one price improvement increment better than the PBBO on the opposite side of the market from the PIXL Order. Subsections (n)(i)(A)(2) and (n)(i)(B)(2) are together known as the “Differentiation Provision”.
The Exchange is proposing to discontinue the Differentiation Provision and the disparate treatment for PIXL Orders for less than 50 contracts.
Pursuant to the PIXL Filing,
The Exchange believes using the same exact allocation method, as it does today for PIXL Orders of 50 contracts or greater, is a fair distribution because the Initiating Order provides significant value to the market. The Initiating Member guarantees the PIXL Order an execution price at the NBBO or better at time of receipt, and is subject to market risk while the order is exposed to other market participants. The Initiating Member may only improve the stop price where they have stopped the agency side, and may not cancel their order once the Auction commences. Other market participants are free to modify or cancel their quotes and orders at any time during the Auction. The Exchange believes that the Initiating Member provides an important role in facilitating the price improvement opportunity for market participants. The following example illustrates how the proposed rule change would operate:
PBBO is 2.48–2.51 (60×30) (10 of the 30 on the offer is a public customer; 10 of the 30 on the offer is a market maker (MM) offering 10; 10 of the 30 on the offer is a resting off-floor broker dealer order).
NBBO is 2.48–2.51 (100×100).
Under the proposed PIXL Rule with the removal of the Differentiation Provision, a public customer order to buy may be entered into PIXL and stopped at a price equal to or within a range of 2.48–2.51. A non-public customer order to buy may be entered into PIXL and stopped at a price equal to or within a range of 2.49–2.51.
Assume a public customer or non-public customer order to buy 45 contracts is submitted into PIXL with a Stop Price of 2.51. The Auction will commence with an Auction notification being sent to market participants.
Assume, during the Auction, two market makers (MM1 and MM2) respond. MM1 responds to sell 10 contracts at 2.50 and MM2 responds to sell 10 contracts at 2.51.
At the end of the Auction, the PIXL Order will buy 10 contracts from MM1 at 2.50, leaving 35 to be allocated at the Stop Price of 2.51.
The allocation process would continue and 10 contracts will be allocated to the public customer on the book at 2.51, leaving 25 contracts to be allocated among the Initiating Order
The remaining 25 contracts will be allocated at a price of 2.51 with 10 contracts (40%) being allocated to the Initiating Order, 8 (or 7)
The Exchange believes that the Differentiation Provision is unnecessary, and indeed is counterproductive to the goal of treating all PIXL Orders equally regardless of PIXL Order size. The Exchange believes removing the Differentiation Provision will attract new order flow that might not currently be afforded any price improvement opportunity into PIXL. When PIXL was first implemented, the Differentiation Provision was a means to ensure some level of price improvement for smaller orders. Currently, PIXL is a more mature product with a robust and seasoned price improvement mechanism that has the capacity to benefit all orders regardless of their size. Moreover, the Exchange notes that the Boston Options Exchange (“BOX”) currently has rules that do not differentiate price improvement opportunities based on the order size.
While the removal of the Differentiation Provision removes the guarantee of price improvement in a limited instance, specifically when a PIXL Order is for fewer than 50 contracts and PHLX is already present at the NBBO at the commencement of the Auction, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will benefit
The Exchange believes that because there is no rational need for volume differentiation, and as there is a competitive disadvantage to the Exchange in continuing differentiation, it is appropriate to discontinue the Differentiation Provision and thereby simplify the way PIXL operates.
This proposal would continue to afford the same price improvement opportunities for public customer and non-public customer PIXL Orders as is in operation today, but without differentiating based on order size. By way of example, to initiate an Auction for public customer orders, the Initiating Member would stop the entire PIXL Order at a price that is equal to or better than the NBBO on the opposite side of the market from the PIXL Order, provided that such price was at least one price improvement increment (no smaller than one cent) better than any limit order on the limit order book on the same side of the market as the PIXL Order. Conversely, to initiate an Auction for non-public customer orders where the order is for the account of a broker-dealer or any other person or entity that is not a public customer, the Initiating Member would stop the entire PIXL Order at a price that is the better of: (i) The PBBO price improved by at least one minimum price improvement increment on the same side of the market as the PIXL Order; or (ii) the PIXL Order's limit price (if the order is a limit order), provided that in either case that such price is at or better than the NBBO. A member would initiate a one-second long Auction by submitting a PIXL Order in one of three ways: (i) A single stop price; (ii) an auto-match price; or (iii) a not-worse-than price. Thus, under this proposal all PIXL Orders would be handled by current procedures for the price improvement of non-public and public PIXL Orders that are of 50 contracts or greater.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, the Exchange is proposing to amend Rule 1080(n) to offer opportunities found on other options exchanges and to further foster the price discovery process as well as create systems that embolden market participants to seek out price improvement opportunities for customers.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
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 modify NASDAQ's optional anti-internalization functionality.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
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 proposing to modify its voluntary anti-internalization functionality to provide an additional option under that functionality. In addition, the proposed rule change contains certain clarifications to the text of the rule. Anti-internalization functionality is designed to assist market participants in complying with certain rules and regulations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) that preclude and/or limit broker-dealers managing accounts governed by ERISA from trading as principal with orders generated for those accounts. The functionality can also assist market participants in avoiding execution fees that may result from the interaction of executable buy and sell trading interest from the same firm. NASDAQ notes that use of the functionality does not relieve or otherwise modify the duty of best execution owed to orders received from public customers. As such, market participants using anti-internalization functionality will need to take appropriate steps to ensure that public customer orders that do not execute because of the use of anti-internalization functionality ultimately receive the same execution price (or better) they would have originally obtained if execution of the order was not inhibited by the functionality.
Currently, market participants may apply anti-internalization logic to all quotes/orders entered through a particular MPID, or to all orders entered through a particular order entry port, to which a unique group identification modifier is then appended. In other words, the logic may be applied on an MPID-by-MPID, or on a port-by-port basis.
In response to member input, the proposed rule change will add an additional form of anti-internalization logic that a market participant could choose to apply, under which the most recent quote/order would be cancelled. As with the two existing forms of anti-internalization logic, the logic could be applied to an entire MPID, or to selected order entry ports under a particular MPID.
NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
NASDAQ does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. Specifically, by offering market participants additional options with regard to preventing inadvertent internalization of orders submitted to NASDAQ, the change has the potential to enhance NASDAQ's competitiveness with respect to other trading venues, thereby promoting greater competition. Moreover, the change does not burden competition in that its use is optional and provided at no additional cost to members.
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
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.
U. S. Small Business Administration.
Notice of Members for the FY 2014 Performance Review Board.
Title 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4) requires each agency to publish notification of the appointment of individuals who may serve as members of that Agency's Performance Review Board (PRB). The following individuals have been designated to serve on the FY 2014 Performance Review Board for the U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice of request for public comments.
The Department of State is seeking Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we are requesting comments on this collection from all interested individuals and organizations. The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
The Department will accept comments from the public up to 60 days from August 27, 2013.
Comments and questions should be directed to Mr. Nicholas Memos, Office of Defense Trade Controls Policy, U.S. Department of State, who may be reached via the following methods:
•
•
•
You must include the information collection title and the OMB control number in any correspondence.
Direct requests for additional information to Mr. Nicholas Memos, PM/DDTC, SA–1, 12th Floor, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC 20522–0112, who may be reached via phone at (202) 663–2829, or via email at
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department.
• Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please note that comments submitted in response to this Notice are public record. Before including any detailed personal information, you should be aware that your comments as submitted, including your personal information, will be available for public review.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202–632–6467). The mailing address is U.S. Department of
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202–632–6467). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA–5, L/PD, Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522–0505.
Consistent with the authority contained in Section 604 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2003 (Pub. L. 107–228) (the “Act”), the Delegation of Authority in the April 30, 2009, Memorandum for the Secretary of State, and Department of State Delegation of Authority No. 245–1, and with reference to the determinations set out in the Report to the Congress transmitted pursuant to Section 603 of that Act, regarding the extent of noncompliance by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) or Palestinian Authority with certain commitments, I hereby impose the sanction set out in Section 604(a)(2), “Downgrade in Status of the PLO Office in the United States.” This sanction is imposed for a period of 180 days from the date that the report under Section 603 of the Act is transmitted to the Congress or until such time as the next report under Section 603 is required to be transmitted to the Congress, whichever is later.
Furthermore, I hereby determine that it is in the national security interest of the United States to waive that sanction, pursuant to Section 604(c) of the Act. This waiver shall be effective for a period of 180 days from the date hereof or until such time as the next report under Section 603 of the Act is required to be transmitted to Congress, whichever is later.
This Determination shall be reported to Congress promptly and published in the
ITS Joint Program Office, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) Intelligent Transportation System Joint Program Office (ITS JPO) will host its annual free public meeting to provide an overview of the ITS JPO Connected Vehicle research program. The meeting will take place September 24 to 26, 2013, at the Holiday Inn Arlington at Ballston, 4610 Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA, 22203, 703–243–9800. Persons planning to attend the meeting should register online at
The public meeting is the best opportunity to learn details about the Connected Vehicle research program in anticipation of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's 2013 decision regarding vehicle safety communications for light vehicles and 2014 decision for heavy vehicles. The meeting will have focused discussions on the ITS JPO's Connected Vehicle safety program, including vehicle-to-vehicle communications, safety pilot, vehicle-to-infrastructure communications, human factors, and policy. There will also be a special session dedicated to the
Connected Vehicle research at USDOT is a multimodal program that involves using wireless communication between vehicles, infrastructure, and personal communications devices to improve safety, mobility, and environmental sustainability. To learn more about the Connected Vehicle program please visit
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of waiver.
This notice concerns a petition for waiver submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) by Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) to waive a limit that the risk to the public from the launch of an expendable launch vehicle not exceed an expected average number of 0.00003 casualties (E
For technical questions concerning this waiver, contact Charles P. Brinkman, Licensing Program Lead, Commercial Space Transportation—Licensing and Evaluation Division, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267–7715; email:
On July 10, 2013, SpaceX submitted a petition to the FAA's Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST) requesting a waiver for a launch from Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB) of a Falcon 9 Version 1.1 (v1.1) launch vehicle carrying, a Canadian scientific and research satellite called Cassiope, and several small secondary payloads. SpaceX requested a waiver of 14 CFR 417.107(b)(1), which prohibits the launch of an expendable launch vehicle if the total expected average number of casualties (E
The FAA licenses the launch of a launch vehicle and reentry of a reentry vehicle under authority granted to the Secretary of Transportation in the Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984, as amended and re-codified by 51 U.S.C. Subtitle V, chapter 509 (Chapter 509), and delegated to the FAA Administrator and the Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation, who exercises licensing authority under Chapter 509.
SpaceX is a private commercial space flight company. It has initiated activities with the U.S. Air Force's EELV Program to become a certified launch service provider for National Security space missions. In addition, SpaceX launches commercial payloads such as Cassiope.
This petition for waiver addresses an upcoming flight that SpaceX plans to undertake transporting the Cassiope satellite and several small secondary payloads to earth orbit. This will be the first launch by SpaceX from VAFB. It will also be the first flight of the Falcon 9 v1.1 vehicle, which is larger and has greater thrust and payload capacity than SpaceX's Falcon 9 vehicle. SpaceX's Falcon 9 v1.1 launch vehicle will launch from VAFB and place the Cassiope satellite into a near-polar orbit. The launch vehicle will also carry five secondary payloads to the same orbit. The first stage will coast after stage separation, and then perform an experimental burn with three engines to reduce the entry velocity just prior to entry. Prior to landing in the water, it will perform a second experimental burn with one engine to impact the water with minimal velocity. The second stage will coast and then perform an experimental burn to depletion.
The preliminary calculation of E
The Falcon 9 v1.1 is a new launch vehicle. The U.S. Air Force has determined that its overall failure probability is nearly fifty percent for each of the first two launches. AST has determined that the Air Force's calculation of probability of failure satisfies the requirements in part 417. Weather conditions during the day in September are likely to be unfavorable and delays may last for days. SpaceX, therefore, seeks a waiver of this risk requirement.
Chapter 509 allows the FAA to waive a license requirement if the waiver (1) will not jeopardize public health and safety, safety of property; (2) will not jeopardize national security and foreign policy interests of the United States; and (3) will be in the public interest. 51 U.S.C. 50905(b)(3) (2011); 14 CFR 404.5(b) (2011).
Section 417.107(b)(1) prohibits the launch of a launch vehicle if the E
The FAA waives the far field overpressure risk requirement of section 417.107(b)(1) because the Falcon 9 v1.1 launch will not jeopardize public health and safety or safety of property, a national security or foreign policy interest of the United States, and is in the public interest.
The Falcon 9 v1.1 launch is the first launch of the v1.1 vehicle, and the first SpaceX launch from VAFB. Although the risk from far field blast overpressure is likely to exceed 0.00003, the estimated risks for debris and toxic release are very low. Based on preliminary calculations performed by the U.S. Air Force for SpaceX, the collective risk to the public from the Falcon 9 v1.1 launch will be less than 0.0001 approximately forty percent of the time during September.
The increase in the E
This waiver for the risk from far field blast overpressure is consistent with the Air Force total risk threshold for E
The FAA has identified no national security or foreign policy implications associated with granting this waiver.
The waiver is consistent with the public interest goals of Chapter 509. Three of the public policy goals of Chapter 509 are: (1) To promote economic growth and entrepreneurial activity through use of the space environment; (2) to encourage the United States private sector to provide launch and reentry vehicles and associated services; and (3) to facilitate the strengthening and expansion of the United States space transportation infrastructure to support the full range of United States space-related activities.
With a requirement that E
Additionally, the proposed launch is consistent with the principles and goals of the 2010 National Space Policy, which emphasizes the importance of developing a robust domestic commercial space transportation industry and acquiring commercial space services to meet United States Government requirements. The development of commercial launch service providers is crucial because, as noted in the 2010 National Space Policy, United States access to space depends in the first instance on launch capabilities. To that end, SpaceX has applied to the U.S. Air Force's EELV Program to become a certified launch service provider for National Security space missions. In accordance with the Air Force's approved New Entrant Certification Guide, SpaceX is required to demonstrate its compliance with EELV program requirements, including successfully demonstrating launches of the launch vehicle being proposed for certification. In the certification approach being taken under the New Entrant Certification Guide, SpaceX is required to successfully launch three Falcon 9 launch vehicles, the first of which is planned to be the Cassiope mission from VAFB. Each flight of the Falcon 9 builds heritage for this vehicle, which will be used by the United States Government. NASA has already contracted with SpaceX for Cargo Resupply Services missions from CCAFS using Falcon 9 v1.1. Accordingly, proceeding with the proposed launch is in the public interest.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of Limitation on Claims for Judicial Review of Actions by FHWA and United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), DOI.
This notice announces actions taken by the FHWA and the USFWS that are final within the meaning of 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1). The actions relate to proposed highway projects for a 21 mile segment of I–69 in the Counties of Monroe and Morgan, State of Indiana, and grant licenses, permits, and approvals for the project.
By this notice, the FHWA is advising the public that the FHWA and the USFWS have made decisions that are subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1) and are final within the meaning of that law. A claim seeking judicial review of those Federal agency decisions on the proposed highway project will be barred unless the claim is filed on or before January 24, 2014. 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 the shorter time period applies.
For the FHWA: Ms. Michelle Allen, Federal Highway Administration, Indiana Division, 575 North Pennsylvania Street, Room 254, Indianapolis, IN 46204–1576; telephone: (317) 226–7344; email:
Notice is hereby given that the FHWA has approved a Tier 2 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for section 5 of the I–69 highway project from Evansville to Indianapolis and issued a Record of Decision (ROD) for section 5 on August 7, 2013. Section 5 of the I–69 project extends from the intersection of Victor Pike and State Road 37 (south of Bloomington) to south of the intersection of State Road 37 and State Road 39 (south of Martinsville). Section 5 generally follows the alignment of and upgrades State Road 37, an existing four-lane median divided highway, to a fully access-controlled highway. As approved in the Tier 1 ROD, the corridor is generally 2,000 feet wide. The ROD selected Refined Preferred Alternative 8 for section 5, as described in the
1. Purpose and need for the project.
2. Range of alternatives for analysis.
3. Selection of the Interstate highway build alternative and highway corridor for the project, as Alternative 3C.
4. Elimination of other alternatives from consideration in Tier 2 NEPA proceedings.
5. Process for completing the Tier 2 alternatives analysis and studies for the project, including the designation of six Tier 2 sections and a decision to prepare a separate environmental impact statement for each Tier 2 section.
The Tier 1 ROD and Notice specifically noted that the ultimate alignment of the highway within the corridor, and the locations and number of interchanges and rest areas would be evaluated in the Tier 2 NEPA proceedings. Those proceedings for section 5 of the I–69 project from Evansville to Indianapolis have culminated in the August 7, 2013 ROD and this Notice. Interested parties may consult the Tier 2, section 5 ROD and FEIS for details about each of the decisions described above and for information on other issues decided. The Tier 2, section 5 ROD can be viewed and downloaded from the project Web site at
Notice is hereby given that, subsequent to the earlier FHWA notices cited above, the USFWS has taken two final agency actions within the meaning of 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1) by issuing: 1) “Amendment 2 to the Tier 1 Revised Programmatic Biological Opinion (dated August 24, 2006, previously amended May 25, 2011) for the I–69, Evansville to Indianapolis, Indiana Highway” dated July 24, 2013, and, 2) an individual Biological Opinion, dated July 25, 2013, for the Tier 2, section 5, 21 mile I–69 project in Monroe and Morgan counties, that concluded that the section 5 project was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Indiana bat and was not likely to adversely modify the bat's designated Critical Habitat.
Previous actions taken by the USFWS for the Tier 1, I–69 project, pursuant to the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531–1544, included its concurrence with the FHWA's determination that the I–69 project was not likely to adversely affect the eastern fanshell mussel (
For the Tier 2, section 5, 21 mile I–69 Project in Monroe County, an
On July 24, 2013, USFWS issued “Amendment 2 To the Tier 1 Revised Programmatic Biological Opinion (RPBO dated August 24, 2006, previously amended May 25, 2011) for the I–69, Evansville to Indianapolis, Indiana highway” USFWS decided to issue the Amendment to the RPBO primarily due to the identification of two new Indiana bat maternity colonies in the Section 5 project area (which begins south of Bloomington near Victor Pike in Monroe County, Indiana and terminates south of State Road 39 south of Martinsville in Morgan County, Indiana). Additionally, the project identified increases to exempt level of forest and wetland impacts based on refinement of the Tier 1 RPBO estimates. Finally additional forest impacts were revealed within and adjacent to the Section 4 (which begins east of the intersection of U.S. 231 and SR 45/SR58 in Greene County, Indiana and terminates at SR 37 near Victor Pike in Monroe County, Indiana) project right-of-way due to private landowner tree-clearing actions. In light of this new information, USFWS chose to reevaluate impacts to the Indiana bat and to update the 2006 and 2011 Tier 1 RPBO and Incidental Take Statement. The Amendment 2 to the Tier 1 RPBO contains new analysis and comment for each of the sections of the 2006 Tier 1 RPBO affected by the new information, and USFWS affirmed that all other sections of the Tier 1 RPBO remain valid. Based on analysis of the new information, USFWS concluded that appreciable reductions in the likelihood of survival and recovery of Indiana bats due to the construction, operation, and maintenance of I–69 from Evansville to Indianapolis, Indiana are unlikely to occur, and hence, the FHWA has ensured that the proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Indiana bat or destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. USFWS did not conduct any new analysis for either the bald eagle or eastern fanshell mussel (Cyprogenia stegaria), and the non-jeopardy conclusion regarding impacts to the bald eagle still stands as stated in the original Tier 1 Biological Opinion (dated December 3, 2003). The Amendment 2 To the Tier 1 Revised Programmatic Biological Opinion (RPBO dated August 24, 2006, previously amended May 25, 2011) for the I–69, Evansville to Indianapolis, Indiana highway can be found and downloaded from the project Web site at
23 U.S.C. 139(
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.
Notice.
This notice announces final environmental actions taken by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for projects in the following locations: San Francisco, CA; Rochester, NY; Michigan City, IN; Chicago, IL; and Minneapolis, MN. The purpose of this notice is to announce publicly the environmental decisions by FTA on the subject projects and to activate the limitation on any claims that may challenge these final environmental actions.
By this notice, FTA is advising the public of final agency actions subject to Section 139(l) of Title 23, United States Code (U.S.C.). A claim seeking judicial review of the FTA actions announced herein for the listed public transportation project will be barred unless the claim is filed on or before January 24, 2014.
Nancy-Ellen Zusman, Assistant Chief Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel, (312) 353–2577 or Terence Plaskon, Environmental Protection Specialist, Office of Human and Natural Environment, (202) 366–0442. FTA is located at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Notice is hereby given that FTA has taken final agency actions by issuing certain approvals for the public transportation projects listed below. The actions on the projects, as well as the laws under which such actions were taken, are described in the documentation issued in connection with the project to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and in other documents in the FTA administrative record for the projects. Interested parties may contact either the project sponsor or the relevant FTA Regional Office for more information on the project. Contact information for FTA's Regional Offices may be found at
This notice applies to all FTA decisions on the listed projects as of the issuance date of this notice and all laws under which such actions were taken, including, but not limited to, NEPA [42 U.S.C. 4321–4375], Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 [49 U.S.C. 303], Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act [16 U.S.C. 470f], and the Clean Air Act [42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q]. This notice does not, however, alter or extend the limitation period for challenges of project decisions subject to previous notices published in the
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Federal Transit Administration, DOT.
Notice of proposed Buy America waiver and request for comment.
The Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS) requested a waiver of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Buy America rules for a Video Ready Access Device (VRAD) cabinet. The VRAD cabinet is needed for an AT&T utility relocation associated with the LYNX Blue Line Extension project. This notice is to inform the public of the waiver request, and to seek public comment to inform FTA's decision whether to grant the request.
Comments must be received by September 26, 2013. Late-filed comments will be considered to the extent practicable.
Please submit your comments by one of the following means, identifying your submissions by docket number FTA–2013–0035:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Mary J. Lee, FTA Attorney-Advisor, at (202) 366–0985 or
The purpose of this notice is to provide notice and seek comment on whether FTA should grant a non-availability waiver for the procurement of a VRAD cabinet that will be used in a utility relocation performed by AT&T. This utility relocation will be performed in connection with the CATS LYNX Blue Line Extension (BLE) project, which is an FTA-funded project.
With certain exceptions, FTA's Buy America requirements prevent FTA from obligating an amount that may be appropriated to carry out its program for a project unless “the steel, iron, and manufactured goods used in the project are produced in the United States.” 49 U.S.C. 5323(j)(1). A manufactured product is considered produced in the United States if: (1) all of the manufacturing processes for the product must take place in the United States; and (2) all of the components of the product must be of U.S. origin. A component is considered of U.S. origin if it is manufactured in the United States, regardless of the origin of its subcomponents. 49 CFR 661.5(d). If, however, FTA determines that “the steel, iron, and goods produced in the United States are not produced in a sufficient and reasonably available amount or are not of a satisfactory quality,” then FTA may issue a waiver (non-availability waiver). 49 U.S.C. 5323(j)(2)(B); 49 CFR 661.7(c).
On May 24, 2013, the City of Charlotte requested an interpretation of FTA's Buy America rules with respect to the utility relocation performed for the LYNX BLE project. In an August 8, 2013 letter to the City of Charlotte, FTA determined that the VRAD cabinet is a component of the communications network end product. Having done its own analysis prior to FTA's August 8, 2013 determination, on June 4, 2013, the City of Charlotte requested a non-availability waiver for the VRAD cabinet. According to the City of Charlotte, AT&T has been working diligently to find U.S. manufactured components and has been able to identify U.S. manufacturers of most of the components necessary for the utility relocation. The only component for which AT&T is unable to find a U.S. manufacturer is the VRAD cabinet.
The purpose of this notice is to publish the request and seek public comment from all interested parties in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 5323(j)(3)(A). Comments will help FTA understand completely the facts surrounding the request, including the effects of a potential waiver and the merits of the request. A full copy of the request has been placed in docket number FTA–2013–0035.
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice.
As authorized by 46 U.S.C. 12121, the Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before September 26, 2013.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD–2013–0095. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M–30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Linda Williams, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23–453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202–366–0903, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel MOVIN' ON is:
The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD–2013–0095 at
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice.
As authorized by 46 U.S.C. 12121, the Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before September 26, 2013.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD–2013–0094. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M–30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Linda Williams, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23–453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202–366–0903, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel MELE MAKANI is:
The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD–2013–0094 at
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice.
As authorized by 46 U.S.C. 12121, the Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before September 26, 2013.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD–2013–0093. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M–30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Linda Williams, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23–453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202–366–0903, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel SECOND WIND is:
The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD–2013–0093 at
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of submission of information collection request to Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before September 26, 2013.
Send comments, within 30 days, to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725–17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: NHTSA Desk Officer.
Comments are invited on: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Julie Kang, Ph.D., Contracting Officer's Technical Representative Task Order Manager, Office of Human-Vehicle Performance Research (NVS–331), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave SE., Washington, DC 20590. Dr. Kang's phone number is 202–366–7664. Her email address is
NHTSA proposes an experimental driving simulator study to develop algorithms for detecting impaired driving. This study will measure the ability of subjects to maintain lane position and vehicle speed relative to the posted speed limit while either drowsy or distracted by a secondary task while driving a driving simulator. NHTSA is requesting clearance to collect voluntary information from subjects to determine their eligibility to participate and remain in the driving simulator study.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.95.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on continuing information collections through CIIS, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A). Currently, the Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) Fund, Department of the Treasury, is soliciting comments concerning the Community Development Financial Institutions FundAwardee/Allocatee Annual Report (OMB Number 1559–0027), comprising the Institution Level Report (ILR) and the Transaction Level Report (TLR). The two documents comprise certain reporting requirements for participants in the CDFI Program, the Native American CDFI Assistance (NACA) Program, and the New Markets Tax Credits (NMTC) Program. The Annual Report forms (and related documents, including the CDFI Program assistance agreement, the NACA Program assistance agreement, and the NMTC Program allocation agreement) may be found at the CDFI Fund's Web site at
Written comments must be received on or before October 28, 2013 to be assured of consideration.
All comments on the Annual CIIS Report must be submitted in writing and sent to Greg Bischak, Program Manager for Financial Strategies and Research, Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, U.S. Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20220, by email to
Greg Bischak, Program Manager for Financial Strategies and Research, Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, U.S. Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20220, by email to
Annual Reporting Requirements: The Annual Report consists of quantitative information at the institution and transaction levels for CDFIs and CDEs and is used to assess: (1) The awardee's/allocatee's activities as detailed in its application materials; (2) the awardee's/allocatee's approved use of the assistance; (3) the awardee's/allocatee's financial condition; (4) the socio-economic characteristics of awardee's/allocatee's borrowers/investees, loan and investment terms, repayment status, and community development outcomes; and (5) overall compliance with the terms and conditions of the assistance/allocation agreement entered into by the CDFI Fund and the awardee/allocatee.
A CDFI Program awardee or a NACA Program awardee must submit an Annual Report that comprises several sections, depending on the program and the type of award. The specific components that comprise an awardee's Annual Report are set forth in the assistance agreement that the awardee enters into with the CDFI Fund in order to receive a CDFI Program or a NACA Program award. In summary:
1. A CDFI Program or NACA/NATA Program awardee that is a non-regulated entity and that receives Financial Assistance (FA) only must submit an Annual Report that comprises: (i) A Financial Report (Financial Statement) reviewed or audited by an independent certified public accountant; (ii) Single Audit A–133 (if applicable); (iii) an Institution Level Report (ILR) and a Transaction Level Report (TLR) (which include, among others, questions that measure the awardee's achievement of the Performance Goals and Measures set forth in its assistance agreement); (iv) a Uses of Financial Assistance and Matching Funds Report; and (v) an Explanation of Noncompliance (if applicable).
2. A CDFI Program or NACA Program awardee that is a regulated entity and that receives FA only must submit an Annual Report that comprises: (i) An ILR and a TLR; (ii) a Uses of Financial Assistance and Matching Funds Report; (iii) an Explanation of Noncompliance (if applicable); and (iv) a Single Audit A–133 (if applicable).
3. A CDFI Program or NACA Program awardee that receives an award from the CDFI Fund that is in the form of an equity investment must also submit a Shareholder Report.
4. A CDFI Program or NACA Program awardee that receives Technical Assistance (TA) must submit an Annual Report that comprises: (i) The documents set forth in either (1) or (2) above, as applicable, if the awardee also receives FA; (ii) Uses of Technical Assistance Report; and (iii) OMB form 269A (Financial Status Report), which can be found on the Web site at
A NMTC Program allocatee must submit an Annual Report that comprises: (i) A financial statement that has been audited by an independent certified public accountant; (ii) an ILR (including the IRS Compliance Questions section), if the allocatee has issued any Qualified Equity Investments; and (iii) a TLR if the allocatee has issued any Qualified Low-Income Community Investments in the form of loans or investments. The components that comprise an allocatee's Annual Report are set forth in the allocation agreement that the allocatee enters into with the CDFI Fund in order to receive a NMTC Program allocation.
12 U.S.C. 4707 et seq.; 26 U.S.C. 45D; 12 CFR part 1805.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) is publishing the name of one individual whose property and interests in property has been blocked pursuant to the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act (“Kingpin Act”) (21 U.S.C. 1901–1908, 8 U.S.C. 1182).
The designation by the Director of OFAC of the individual identified in this notice pursuant to section 805(b) of the Kingpin Act is effective on August 21, 2013.
Assistant Director, Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC 20220, Tel: (202) 622–2490.
This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available on OFAC's Web site at
The Kingpin Act became law on December 3, 1999. The Kingpin Act establishes a program targeting the activities of significant foreign narcotics traffickers and their organizations on a worldwide basis. It provides a statutory framework for the imposition of sanctions against significant foreign narcotics traffickers and their organizations on a worldwide basis, with the objective of denying their businesses and agents access to the U.S. financial system and the benefits of trade and transactions involving U.S. companies and individuals.
The Kingpin Act blocks all property and interests in property, subject to U.S. jurisdiction, owned or controlled by significant foreign narcotics traffickers as identified by the President. In addition, the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Homeland Security may designate and block the property and interests in property, subject to U.S. jurisdiction, of persons who are found to be: (1) Materially assisting in, or providing financial or technological support for or to, or providing goods or services in support of, the international narcotics trafficking activities of a person designated pursuant to the Kingpin Act; (2) owned, controlled, or directed by, or acting for or on behalf of, a person designated pursuant to the Kingpin Act; or (3) playing a significant role in international narcotics trafficking.
On August 21, 2013, the Director of OFAC designated the following individual whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to section 805(b) of the Kingpin Act:
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) is publishing the name of one individual whose property and interests in property have been blocked pursuant to the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act (“Kingpin Act”) (21 U.S.C. 1901–1908, 8 U.S.C. 1182).
The designation by the Director of OFAC of the individual identified in this notice pursuant to section 805(b) of the Kingpin Act is effective on August 20, 2013.
Assistant Director, Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC 20220, Tel: (202) 622–2490.
This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available on OFAC's Web site at
The Kingpin Act became law on December 3, 1999. The Kingpin Act establishes a program targeting the activities of significant foreign narcotics traffickers and their organizations on a worldwide basis. It provides a statutory framework for the imposition of sanctions against significant foreign narcotics traffickers and their organizations on a worldwide basis, with the objective of denying their businesses and agents access to the U.S. financial system and the benefits of trade and transactions involving U.S. companies and individuals.
The Kingpin Act blocks all property and interests in property, subject to U.S. jurisdiction, owned or controlled by significant foreign narcotics traffickers as identified by the President. In addition, the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Homeland Security may designate and block the property and interests in property, subject to U.S. jurisdiction, of persons who are found to be: (1) Materially assisting in, or providing financial or technological support for or to, or providing goods or services in support of, the international narcotics trafficking activities of a person designated pursuant to the Kingpin Act; (2) owned, controlled, or directed by, or acting for or on behalf of, a person designated pursuant to the
On August 20, 2013, the Director of OFAC designated the following individual whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to section 805(b) of the Kingpin Act.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning carryover allocations and other rules relating to the low-income housing credit, and the section 42 utility allowance regulations concerning the low-income housing tax credit.
Written comments should be received on or before October 28, 2013 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Yvette Lawrence, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the regulations should be directed to LaNita Van Dyke at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6511, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 13094, Recommendation for Juvenile Employment with the Internal Revenue Service.
Written comments should be received on or before October 28, 2013 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Yvette Lawrence, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to LaNita Van Dyke at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6511, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 1099–K, Payment Card and Third Party Network Transactions.
Written comments should be received on or before October 28, 2013 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Yvette Lawrence, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Kerry Dennis, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number.
Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort
Written comments should be received on or before October 28, 2013 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Yvette Lawrence, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the regulations should be directed to LaNita Van Dyke, (202) 622–3215, or at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6511, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington DC 20224, or through the Internet, at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3521), this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, has submitted the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden; it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before September 26, 2013.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Crystal Rennie, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632–7492 or email
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. The
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3521), this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden; it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before September 26, 2013.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Crystal Rennie, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632–7492 or email
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. The
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C., 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, has submitted the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden; it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before September 26, 2013.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Crystal Rennie, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632–7492 or email
a. Application for Reinstatement (Insurance Lapsed More than 6 Months), Government Life Insurance and/or Total Disability Income Provision, VA Form 29–352.
b. Application for Reinstatement (Non Medical—Comparative Health Statement), Government Life Insurance, VA Form 29–353.
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. The
a. VA Form 29–352—750 hours.
b. VA Form 29–353—375 hours.
a. VA Form 29–352—30 minutes.
b. VA Form 29–353—15 minutes.
a. VA Form 29–352—1,500.
b. VA Form 29–353—1,500.
By direction of the Secretary.
Activity: Comment Request.
Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Veterans Health Administration (VHA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before October 28, 2013.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor at (202) 461–5870 or fax (202) 495–5397.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13; 44 U.S.C. 3501–3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VHA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VHA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VHA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (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 or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3521), this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden; it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before September 26, 2013.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Crystal Rennie, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632–7492 or email
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. The
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–21), this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden and it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before September 26, 2013.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Crystal Rennie, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632–7492 or email:
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. The
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3521), this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden; it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before September 26, 2013.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Crystal Rennie, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632–7492 or email
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. The
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Veterans Health Administration (VHA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before October 28, 2013.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor at (202) 461–5870 or fax (202) 495–5397.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Public Law 104–13; 44 U.S.C. 3501–3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VHA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VHA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VHA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (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 or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice; withdrawal.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) published a notice in a
Crystal Rennie, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, at (202) 632–7492.
FR Doc. 2013–10112, published on April 30, 2013 (78 FR 25359), is withdrawn by this notice.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3521), this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden; it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before September 26, 2013.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Crystal Rennie, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632–7492 or email
a. Claim for One Sum Payment (Government Life Insurance), VA Form 29–4125.
b. Claim for Monthly Payments (National Service Life Insurance), VA Form 29–4125a.
c. Claim for Monthly Payments (United States Government Life Insurance, (USGLI)), VA Form 29–4125k.
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. The
a. VA Form 29–4125—8,200 hours.
b. VA Form 29–4125a—185 hours.
c. VA Form 4125k—125 hours.
a. VA Form 29–4125—6 minutes.
b. VA Form 29–4125a—6 minutes.
c. VA Form 4125k—15 minutes.
a. VA Form 29–4125—82,000.
b. VA Form 29–4125a—1,850.
c. VA Form 4125k—500.
By direction of the Secretary:
The Department of Veterans Affairs gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, that the Clinical Science Research and Development Service Cooperative Studies Scientific Evaluation Committee will hold a meeting on September 18, 2013, at 131 M Street NE., Washington, DC. The meeting is scheduled to begin at 8:30 a.m. and end at 3 p.m.
The Committee advises the Chief Research and Development Officer through the Director of the Clinical Science Research and Development Service on the relevance and feasibility of proposed projects and the scientific validity and propriety of technical details, including protection of human subjects.
The session will be open to the public for approximately 30 minutes at the start of the meeting for the discussion of administrative matters and the general status of the program. The remaining portion of the meeting will be closed to the public for the Committee's review, discussion, and evaluation of research and development applications.
During the closed portion of the meeting, discussions and recommendations will deal with qualifications of personnel conducting the studies, staff and consultant critiques of research proposals and similar documents, and the medical records of patients who are study subjects, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. As provided by section 10(d) of Public Law 92–463, as amended, closing portions of this meeting is in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6) and (c)(9)(B).
No oral comments will be accepted from the public for the open session. Those who plan to attend or wish further information should contact Dr. Grant Huang, Deputy Director, Cooperative Studies Program (10P9CS), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, at (202) 443–5700 or by email at
By Direction of the Secretary.