Agricultural Marketing Service
Forest Service
Engineers Corps
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Defense Acquisition Regulations System
Engineers Corps
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Presidential Documents
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Surface Transportation Board
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.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Affirmation of interim rule as final rule.
The Department of Agriculture is adopting, as a final rule, without change, an interim rule that decreased the assessment rate established for the Washington Cherry Marketing Committee (Committee) for the 2013–2014 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.18 to $0.15 per ton of sweet cherries handled. The Committee locally administers the marketing order for sweet cherries grown in designated counties in Washington. The Committee's fiscal period begins on April 1, and ends March 31. The interim rule was necessary to allow the Committee to reduce its monetary reserve while still providing adequate funding to meet program expenses.
Effective December 17, 2013.
Teresa Hutchinson, Marketing Specialist, or Gary Olson, Regional Director, Northwest Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (503) 326–2724, Fax: (503) 326–7440, or Email:
Small businesses may obtain information on complying with this and other marketing order regulations by viewing a guide at the following Web site:
This rule is issued under Marketing Order No. 923, as amended (7 CFR part 923), regulating the handling of sweet cherries grown in designated counties in Washington, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601–674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Orders 12866 and 13563.
Under the order, Washington sweet cherry handlers are subject to assessments which provide funds to administer the order. Assessment rates issued under the order are intended to be applicable to all assessable Washington sweet cherries for the entire fiscal period, and continue indefinitely until amended, suspended, or terminated. The Committee's fiscal period begins on April 1, and ends March 31.
In an interim rule published in the
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601–612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.
There are 53 handlers of Washington sweet cherries subject to regulation under the order and approximately 1,500 producers in the regulated production area. Small agricultural service firms are defined by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.201) as those having annual receipts of less than $7,000,000, and small agricultural producers are defined as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000.
The National Agricultural Statistics Service has prepared a preliminary report for the 2012 shipping season showing that prices for the 210,000 tons of sweet cherries that entered the fresh market averaged $2,140 per ton. Based on the number of producers in the production area (1,500), the average producer revenue from the sale of sweet cherries in 2012 can therefore be estimated at approximately $299,600 per year. In addition, the Committee reports that most of the industry's 53 handlers reported gross receipts of less than $7,000,000 from the sale of fresh sweet cherries last season. Thus, the majority of producers and handlers of Washington sweet cherries may be classified as small entities.
This rule continues in effect the action that decreased the assessment rate established for the Committee for the 2013–2014 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.18 to $0.15 per ton of sweet cherries. The Committee also unanimously recommended 2013–2014 fiscal period expenditures of $65,900. The quantity of assessable sweet cherries for the 2013–2014 fiscal period is estimated by the Committee to be 160,000 tons. Thus, the $0.15 per ton rate should provide $24,000 in assessment income. Income derived from handler assessments, along with funds from the Committee's authorized reserve, should be adequate to cover budgeted expenses. The Committee recommended the assessment rate decrease to reduce its monetary reserve to a level that is less than approximately
This rule continues in effect the action that decreased the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. Assessments are applied uniformly on all handlers, and some of the costs may be passed on to producers. However, decreasing the assessment rate reduces the burden on handlers, and may reduce the burden on producers.
In addition, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the Washington sweet cherry industry. All interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations. Like all Committee meetings, the May 21, 2013, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express their views on this issue.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581–0189, Generic Fruit Crops. No changes in those requirements as a result of this action are anticipated. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.
This action imposes no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large Washington sweet cherry handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.
USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule.
Comments on the interim rule were required to be received on or before October 7, 2013. No comments were received. Therefore, for reasons given in the interim rule, we are adopting the interim rule as a final rule, without change.
To view the interim rule, go to:
This action also affirms information contained in the interim rule concerning Executive Orders 12866, 12988, and 13563; the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35); and the E-Gov Act (44 U.S.C. 101).
After consideration of all relevant material presented, it is found that finalizing the interim rule, without change, as published in the
Cherries, Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, the interim rule amending 7 CFR part 923, which was published at 78 FR 48283 on August 8, 2013, is adopted as a final rule, without change.
Federal Election Commission.
Notice of interpretive rule.
The Federal Election Commission is clarifying its interpretation of its rules for determining the date of a special primary election as those rules apply to nominations conducted under New York statutes that provide for a candidate to be nominated for a special election by a vote of a state or county party committee.
December 16, 2013.
Robert M. Knop, Assistant General Counsel, or Cheryl A.F. Hemsley, Attorney, 999 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20463, (202) 694–1650 or (800) 424–9530.
This Notice clarifies that, for purposes of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (the “Act”), and Commission regulations, the date of a special primary election under New York law is the date on which the political party committee votes to nominate the party's candidate for the special general election, not the date on which the certification of that vote is filed. Because the Act and Commission regulations provide for separate contribution limits for each “election,”
The Act provides that an “election” includes “a general, special, primary, or runoff election . . . [or] a convention or caucus of a political party which has authority to nominate a candidate.” 2 U.S.C. 431(1)(A), (B). Commission regulations define a “primary election” as an “election which is held prior to a general election, as a direct result of which candidates are nominated, in accordance with applicable State law, for election to Federal office in a subsequent election.” 11 CFR 100.2(c)(1).
New York election law generally provides that “[p]arty nominations for an office to be filled at a special election shall be made in the manner prescribed by the rules of the party.” N.Y. Elec. Law 6–114. New York Democratic and Republican State party committee rules provide that the county committees within a vacant congressional district nominate candidates for a special election to the U.S. House of Representatives; and that the state committees nominate candidates for a special election to the U.S. Senate.
Sections 6–114 and 6–116 vest special election nominating authority in the party committees, either directly or by operation of state party rules. Under these provisions, therefore, candidates are placed on the general election ballot “in accordance with applicable state law” as “a direct result” of the relevant party committee vote.
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission issues this interpretive rule to clarify that the date of a special primary election held pursuant to N.Y. Elec. Law 6–114 or 6–116 is the date of the party committee's nomination vote. To the extent that other states' nominating procedures for special elections are materially indistinguishable from those of New York, the Commission anticipates that this interpretation would apply to such other states as well.
This interpretive rule clarifies the Commission's interpretation of existing statutory and regulatory provisions and therefore does not constitute an agency action subject to notice and comment requirements or a delayed effective date under the Administrative Procedure Act.
On behalf of the Commission,
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Final rule; official interpretation.
The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) is publishing this final rule amending the regulatory text and official interpretations for Regulation Z, which implements the Truth in Lending Act (TILA). The Bureau is required to calculate annually the dollar amounts for several provisions in Regulation Z; this final rule reviews the dollar amounts for provisions implementing amendments to TILA under the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 (CARD Act) and the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act of 1994 (HOEPA). These amounts are adjusted, where appropriate, based on the annual percentage change reflected in the Consumer Price Index in effect on June 1, 2013. The minimum interest charge disclosure thresholds will remain unchanged in 2014. The adjusted dollar amount for the penalty fees safe harbor in 2014 is $26 for a first late payment and $37 for each subsequent violation within the following six months. The adjusted statutory fee trigger for HOPEA loans is $632, effective January 1, 2014.
This final rule is effective January 1, 2014.
David Friend, Counsel, Office of Regulations, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20552 at (202) 435–7700.
In 2010, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) published amendments to Regulation Z implementing the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 (CARD Act), which amended the Truth in Lending Act (TILA). Public Law 111–24, 123 Stat. 1734 (2009). Pursuant to the CARD Act, the Board's Regulation Z amendments established new requirements with respect to open-end consumer credit plans, including requirements for the disclosure of minimum interest charge amounts and the establishment of a safe harbor provision allowing card issuers to impose penalty fees for violating account terms without violating the restrictions on penalty fees established by the CARD Act.
Sections 1026.6(b)(2)(iii) and 1026.60(b)(3) of the Bureau's Regulation Z provide that the minimum interest charge thresholds will be re-calculated annually using the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI–W) that was in effect on the preceding June 1. When the cumulative change in the adjusted minimum value derived from applying the annual CPI–W level to the current amounts in §§ 1026.6(b)(2)(iii) and 1026.60(b)(3) has risen by a whole dollar, the minimum interest charge amounts set forth in the regulation will be increased by $1.00. The Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes consumer-based indices monthly, but does not report a CPI change on June 1; adjustments are reported in the middle of the month. The CPI–W is a subset of the CPI–U index (based on all urban consumers) and represents approximately 28 percent of the U.S. population. The adjustment reflects a 0.9 percent increase in the CPI–W from April 2012 to April 2013 and is rounded to the nearest $1 increment. This increase in the CPI–W when applied to the current amounts in §§ 1026.6(b)(2)(iii) and 1026.60(b)(3) did not trigger an increase in the minimum interest charge threshold of at least
The Bureau's Regulation Z provides that the safe harbor provision which establishes the permissible fee thresholds in § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(A) and (B) will be re-calculated annually using the CPI–W that was in effect on the preceding June 1. This adjustment is based on the CPI–W index in effect on June 1, 2013, which was reported on May 16, 2013. The Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes consumer-based indices monthly, but does not report a CPI change on June 1; adjustments are reported in the middle of the month. The CPI–W is a subset of the CPI–U index (based on all urban consumers) and represents approximately 28 percent of the U.S. population. When the cumulative change in the adjusted minimum value derived from applying the annual CPI–W level to the current amounts in § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(A) and (B) has risen by a whole dollar, those amounts will be increased by $1.00. Similarly, when the cumulative change in the adjusted minimum value derived from applying the annual CPI–W level to the current amounts in § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(A) and (B) has decreased by a whole dollar, those amounts will be decreased by $1.00.
In 1995, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) published amendments to Regulation Z implementing the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act of 1994 (HOEPA), which amended TILA and was contained in the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994, Public Law 103–325, 108 Stat. 2160. These amendments impose substantive limitations and additional disclosure requirements on certain closed-end home mortgage loans bearing annual percentage rates or points and fees above a certain percentage or amount. As enacted, the statute requires creditors to comply with the HOEPA requirements if the total points and fees payable by the consumer at consummation exceed the greater of $400 or 8 percent of the total loan amount. TILA and Regulation Z provide that the $400 figure shall be adjusted annually on January 1 by the annual percentage change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) that was reported on the preceding June 1. 15 U.S.C. 1602(bb)(3); 12 CFR 1026.32(a)(1)(ii).
The Bureau uses the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI–U) index, as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), as the index for adjusting the $400 figure. The CPI–U is based on all urban consumers and represents approximately 88 percent of the U.S. population, The BLS publishes consumer-based indices monthly, but does not report a CPI change on June 1; adjustments are reported in the middle of each month. The adjustment to the CPI–U index reported by BLS on May 16, 2013, was the CPI–U index in effect on June 1, and reflects the percentage change from April 2012 to April 2013. The adjustment to the $400 figure being adopted here reflects a 1.1 percent increase in the CPI–U index for this period and is rounded to whole dollars for ease of compliance.
The fee trigger being adjusted in this
The minimum interest charge amounts for §§ 1026.6(b)(2)(iii) and 1026.60(b)(3) will remain unchanged for the year 2014. Accordingly, the Bureau is not amending these sections.
Effective January 1, 2014, the permissible fee threshold amounts are $26 for § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(A) and $37 for § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(B). Accordingly, the Bureau is revising § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(A) and (B) to state that the fee imposed for violating the terms or other requirements of an account shall not exceed $26 and $37 respectively. The Bureau is also adopting new comment 52(b)(1)(ii)–2.i to preserve a list of the historical thresholds for this provision.
Effective January 1, 2014, for purposes of determining whether a consumer credit transaction that is secured by a consumer's principal dwelling and is not otherwise exempt is covered by § 1026.32 (based on the total points and fees payable by the consumer at consummation), a loan is covered if the points and fees exceed $632 or 8 percent of the total loan amount, whichever is greater. Comment 32(a)(1)(ii)–2, which lists the adjustments for each year, is amended to reflect the new dollar threshold amount for 2014.
Under the Administrative Procedure Act, notice and opportunity for public comment are not required if the Bureau finds that notice and public comment are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. 5 U.S.C. 553(b). The amendments in this notice are technical and non-discretionary, and they apply the method previously established in the agency's regulations for determining adjustments to the thresholds. For these reasons, the Bureau has determined that publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking and providing opportunity for public comment are unnecessary. Therefore, the amendments are adopted in final form.
Section 553(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act generally requires publication of a final rule not less than
Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not require an initial or final regulatory flexibility analysis. 5 U.S.C. 603(a), 604(a).
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506; 5 CFR 1320), the agency reviewed this final rule. No collections of information pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act are contained in the final rule.
Advertising, Consumer protection, Credit, Credit unions, Mortgages, National banks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations, Truth in lending.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Bureau amends Regulation Z, 12 CFR part 1026, as set forth below:
12 U.S.C. 2601, 2603–2605, 2607, 2609, 2617, 5511, 5512, 5532, 5581; 15 U.S.C. 1601
(b * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) $26;
(B) $37 if the card issuer previously imposed a fee pursuant to paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) of this section for a violation of the same type that occurred during the same billing cycle or one of the next six billing cycles; or
The additions read as follows:
32(a) Coverage.
Paragraph 32(a)(1)(ii).
2.
xix. For 2014, $632, reflecting a 1.1 percent increase in the CPI–U from June 2012 to June 2013, rounded to the nearest whole dollar.
i.
A. Card issuers were permitted to impose a fee for violating the terms of an agreement if the fee did not exceed $25 under § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(A) and $35 under § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(B), through December 31, 2013.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are revising Airworthiness Directive (AD) 98–15–18 that applies to certain Maule Aerospace Technology, Inc. Models M–4, M–5, M–6, M–7, MT–7, MX–7, MXT–7, and M–8 airplanes that are equipped with rear wing lift struts, part number (P/N) 2079E, and/or front wing lift struts, P/N 2080E. AD 98–15–18 required repetitively inspecting certain wing lift struts for internal corrosion and replacing of any wing lift strut where corrosion was found. Since we issued AD 98–15–18, we were informed by the manufacturer that Model MXT–7–420 airplanes are no longer in existence, are no longer type certificated, and should be removed from the Applicability section. We were also informed that paragraph (b) in AD 98–15–18 had been misinterpreted and caused confusion. This AD removes Model MXT–7–420 airplanes from the Applicability section and clarifies the intent of the language in paragraph (b) of AD 98–15–18. This AD also retains all other requirements of AD 98–15–18. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective January 21, 2014.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of January 26, 1996 (61 FR 623, January 9, 1996).
For service information identified in this AD, contact Maule Air, Inc., 2099 GA Hwy 133 South, Moultrie, Georgia 31768; telephone: (229) 985–2045; fax: (229) 890–2402; Internet:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Gregory “Keith” Noles, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337; phone: (404) 474–5551; fax: (404) 474–5606; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to revise AD 98–15–18, Amendment 39–10669 (63 FR 39018, July 21, 1998), (“AD 98–15–18”). AD 98–15–18 was also reissued with a correction on September 18, 1998 (63 FR 51520, September 28, 1998). AD 98–15–18 applied to the specified products. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (78 FR 49207, August 13, 2013) or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 49207, August 13, 2013) for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 49207, August 13, 2013).
We estimate that this AD affects 1,196 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD. However, the only difference in the costs presented below and the costs associated with AD 98–15–18 is the change in the labor rate from $65 per hour to $85 per hour.
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements that will be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that might need these replacements:
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 January 21, 2014.
This AD revises AD 98–15–18, Amendment 39–10669 (63 FR 39018, July 21, 1998), which superseded AD 95–26–18, Amendment 39–9476 (61 FR 623, January 9, 1996.)
This AD applies to the following Maule Aerospace Technology, Inc. airplanes, all serial numbers, identified in figure 1 of paragraph (c) of this AD, that are:
(1) Equipped with original equipment manufacturer (OEM) Maule Aerospace Technology, Inc. rear wing lift struts, part number (P/N) 2079E (or FAA-approved equivalent part numbers), and/or front wing lift struts, P/N 2080E (or FAA-approved equivalent part numbers), excluding airplanes equipped with four Maule sealed lift struts, P/N 2200E and P/N 2201E, which are identified by two raised weld spots on the upper end of the strut just below the serial number plate. Removal of the upper cuff is needed to locate the weld spots; and
(2) certificated in any category.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.
(1) The subject of this AD was originally prompted by reports of corrosion damage found on the wing lift struts. We are revising AD 98–15–18, Amendment 39–10669 (63 FR 39018, July 21, 1998), because of reports that the language in paragraph (b) had been misinterpreted and caused confusion. Since we issued AD 98–15–18, we were informed by the manufacturer that Model MXT–7–420 airplanes are no longer in existence, are no longer type certificated, and should be removed from the Applicability section. This AD removes Model MXT–7–420 airplanes from the Applicability section and clarifies the intent of the language in paragraph (b) of AD 98–15–18, which is being removed by this AD.
(2) This AD clarifies the FAA's intention that if a sealed wing lift strut assembly is installed as a replacement part, the repetitive inspection requirement is terminated only if the seal is never improperly broken. If the seal is improperly broken, then that wing lift strut becomes subject to continued repetitive inspections. We did not intend to promote drilling holes into or otherwise unsealing a sealed strut. This AD retains all the actions required in AD 98–15–18 and does not add any actions over that already required in AD 98–15–18. This AD does not add any additional burden to the owners/operators of the affected airplanes.
(3) We are issuing this AD to detect and correct corrosion on the front and rear wing lift struts, which could cause the wing lift strut to fail. This failure could result in the wing separating from the airplane.
Since AD 98–15–18, Amendment 39–10669 (63 FR 39018, July 21, 1998), was issued, the AD format has been revised, and certain paragraphs have been rearranged. As a result, the corresponding paragraph identifiers have changed in this AD, as listed in the following table:
Unless already done (compliance with AD 98–15–18, Amendment 39–10669 (63 FR 39018, July 21, 1998)), do the following actions within the compliance times specified in paragraphs (h) through (j) of this AD, including all subparagraphs. Properly unsealing and resealing a sealed wing lift strut is still considered a terminating action for the repetitive inspection requirements of this AD as long as all appropriate regulations and issues are considered, such as static strength, fatigue, material effects, immediate and long-term (internal and external) corrosion protection, resealing methods, etc. Current FAA regulations in 14 CFR 43.13(b) specify that maintenance performed will result in the part's condition to be at least equal to its original or properly altered condition. Any maintenance actions that unseal a sealed wing lift strut should be coordinated with the Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO) through the local airworthiness authority (e.g., Flight Standards District Office). There are provisions in paragraph (k) of this AD for approving such actions as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC).
At whichever of the compliance times specified in paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), or (h)(3) of this AD that occurs later, remove the wing lift struts following the INSTRUCTIONS section in PART I of Maule Service Bulletin (SB) No. 11, dated October 30, 1995. Before further flight after the removal, do the actions in one of the following paragraphs (i)(1), (i)(2), (j)(1), or (j)(2) of this AD, including all subparagraphs.
(1) Upon accumulating 2 years time-in-service on an OEM Maule wing lift strut, P/N 2079E and/or P/N 2080E;
(2) Within 3 calendar months after September 9, 1998 (the effective date retained from AD 98–15–18, Amendment 39–10669 (63 FR 39018, July 21, 1998)); or
(3) Within 2 years after the last inspection done in accordance with AD 95–26–18, Amendment 39–9476 (61 FR 623, January 9, 1996) (which was superseded by AD 98–15–18).
Before further flight after the removal required in paragraph (h) of this AD, inspect
(1) Inspect each wing lift strut for corrosion and perceptible dents following the INSTRUCTIONS section in PART I of Maule SB No. 11, dated October 30, 1995.
(i)
(ii)
(2) Inspect each wing lift strut for corrosion following the procedures in the Appendix to this AD. This inspection must be done by a Level 2 or Level 3 inspector certified using the guidelines established by the American Society for Non-destructive Testing or the “Military Standard for Nondestructive Testing Personnel Qualification and Certification” (MIL–STD–410E), which can be found on the Internet at
(i)
(ii)
Before further flight after the removal required in paragraph (h) of this AD, replace the wing lift struts following one of the options in paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2) of this AD, or inspect each wing lift strut following paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD, including all subparagraphs.
(1) Install OEM Maule P/N wing lift struts (or FAA-approved equivalent part numbers) that have been inspected following the procedures in either paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD, including all subparagraphs, and are found to be airworthy. Do the installations following the INSTRUCTIONS section in PART II of Maule SB No. 11, dated October 30, 1995. Repetitively thereafter inspect the newly installed wing lift struts at intervals not to exceed 24 calendar months following the procedures in either paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD, including all subparagraphs.
(2) Install new Maule sealed wing lift struts, P/N 2200E or P/N 2201E, as applicable (or FAA-approved equivalent part numbers) following the INSTRUCTIONS section in PART II of Maule SB No. 11, dated October 30, 1995. Installing one of these new sealed wing lift strut assemblies terminates the repetitive inspection requirements in paragraphs (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD, including all subparagraphs, for that wing lift strut assembly.
(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.
(3) AMOCs approved for AD 98–15–18, Amendment 39–10669 (63 FR 39018, July 21, 1998) and AD 95–26–18, Amendment 39–9476 (61 FR 623, January 9, 1996) are approved as AMOCs for this AD.
For more information about this AD, contact Gregory K. Noles, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Atlanta ACO, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337; phone: (404) 474–5551; fax: (404) 474–5606; 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 January 26, 1996 (61 FR 623, January 9, 1996).
(i) Maule Service Bulletin No. 11, dated October 30, 1995.
(ii) Reserved.
(4) For Maule Aerospace Technology, Inc. service information identified in this AD, contact Maule Air, Inc., 2099 GA Hwy 133 South, Moultrie, Georgia 31768; telephone: (229) 985–2045; fax: (229) 890–2402; Internet:
(5) You may view this service information at Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329–4148.
(6) 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:
1. A portable ultrasonic thickness gauge or flaw detector with echo-to-echo digital thickness readout capable of reading to 0.001-inch and an A-trace waveform display will be needed to do this inspection.
2. An ultrasonic probe with the following specifications will be needed to do this inspection: 10 MHz (or higher), 0.283-inch (or smaller) diameter dual element or delay line transducer designed for thickness gauging. The transducer and ultrasonic system shall be capable of accurately measuring the thickness of AISI 4340 steel down to 0.020-inch. An accuracy of ± 0.002-inch throughout a 0.020-inch to 0.050-inch thickness range while calibrating shall be the criteria for acceptance.
3. Either a precision machined step wedge made of 4340 steel (or similar steel with equivalent sound velocity) or at least three shim samples of same material will be needed to do this inspection. One thickness of the step wedge or shim shall be less than or equal to 0.020-inch, one shall be greater than or equal to 0.050-inch and at least one other step or shim shall be between these two values.
4. Glycerin, light oil, or similar non-water based ultrasonic couplants are recommended in the setup and inspection procedures. Water-based couplants, containing appropriate corrosion inhibitors, may be utilized, provided they are removed from both the reference standards and the test item after the inspection procedure is completed and adequate corrosion prevention steps are then taken to protect these items.
• NOTE: Couplant is defined as “a substance used between the face of the transducer and test surface to improve transmission of ultrasonic energy across the transducer/strut interface.”
• NOTE: If surface roughness due to paint loss or corrosion is present, the surface should be sanded or polished smooth before testing to assure a consistent and smooth surface for making contact with the transducer. Care shall be taken to remove a minimal amount of structural material. Paint repairs may be necessary after the inspection
1. Set up the ultrasonic equipment for thickness measurements as specified in the instrument's user's manual. Because of the variety of equipment available to perform ultrasonic thickness measurements, some modification to this general setup procedure may be necessary. However, the tolerance requirement of step 13 and the record keeping requirement of step 14, must be satisfied.
2. If battery power will be employed, check to see that the battery has been properly charged. The testing will take approximately two hours. Screen brightness and contrast should be set to match environmental conditions.
3. Verify that the instrument is set for the type of transducer being used, i.e. single or dual element, and that the frequency setting is compatible with the transducer.
4. If a removable delay line is used, remove it and place a drop of couplant between the transducer face and the delay line to assure good transmission of ultrasonic energy. Reassemble the delay line transducer and continue.
5. Program a velocity of 0.231-inch/microsecond into the ultrasonic unit unless an alternative instrument calibration procedure is used to set the sound velocity.
6. Obtain a step wedge or steel shims per item 3 of the Equipment Requirements. Place the probe on the thickest sample using couplant. Rotate the transducer slightly back and forth to “ring” the transducer to the sample. Adjust the delay and range settings to arrive at an A-trace signal display with the first backwall echo from the steel near the left side of the screen and the second backwall echo near the right of the screen. Note that when a single element transducer is used, the initial pulse and the delay line/steel interface will be off of the screen to the left. Adjust the gain to place the amplitude of the first backwall signal at approximately 80% screen height on the A-trace.
7. “Ring” the transducer on the thinnest step or shim using couplant. Select positive half-wave rectified, negative half-wave rectified, or filtered signal display to obtain the cleanest signal. Adjust the pulse voltage, pulse width, and damping to obtain the best signal resolution. These settings can vary from one transducer to another and are also user dependent.
8. Enable the thickness gate, and adjust the gate so that it starts at the first backwall echo and ends at the second backwall echo. (Measuring between the first and second backwall echoes will produce a measurement of the steel thickness that is not affected by the paint layer on the strut). If instability of the gate trigger occurs, adjust the gain, gate level, and/or damping to stabilize the thickness reading.
9. Check the digital display reading and if it does not agree with the known thickness of the thinnest thickness, follow your instrument's calibration recommendations to produce the correct thickness reading. When a single element transducer is used this will usually involve adjusting the fine delay setting.
10. Place the transducer on the thickest step of shim using couplant. Adjust the thickness gate width so that the gate is triggered by the second backwall reflection of the thick section. If the digital display does not agree with the thickest thickness, follow your instruments calibration recommendations to produce the correct thickness reading. A slight adjustment in the velocity may be necessary to get both the thinnest and the thickest reading correct. Document the changed velocity value.
11. Place couplant on an area of the lift strut which is thought to be free of corrosion and “ring” the transducer to surface. Minor adjustments to the signal and gate settings may be required to account for coupling improvements resulting from the paint layer. The thickness gate level should be set just high enough so as not to be triggered by irrelevant signal noise. An area on the upper surface of the lift strut above the inspection area would be a good location to complete this step and should produce a thickness reading between 0.034-inch and 0.041-inch.
12. Repeat steps 8, 9, 10, and 11 until both thick and thin shim measurements are within tolerance and the lift strut measurement is reasonable and steady.
13. Verify that the thickness value shown in the digital display is within ± 0.002-inch of the correct value for each of the three or more steps of the setup wedge or shims. Make no further adjustments to the instrument settings.
14. Record the ultrasonic versus actual thickness of all wedge steps or steel shims available as a record of setup.
1. Clean the lower 18 inches of the wing lift struts using a cleaner that will remove all dirt and grease. Dirt and grease will adversely affect the accuracy of the inspection technique. Light sanding or polishing may also be required to reduce surface roughness as noted in the Equipment Requirements section.
2. Using a flexible ruler, draw a
3. Apply a generous amount of couplant inside each of the square areas or along the edge of the ruler. Re-application of couplant may be necessary.
4. Place the transducer inside the first square area of the drawn grid or at the first
5. Take readings inside each square on the grid or at
• NOTE: A reading shall not exceed .041 inch. If a reading exceeds .041 inch, repeat steps 13 and 14 of the Instrument Setup section before proceeding further.
6. If the A-trace is unsteady or the thickness reading is clearly wrong, adjust the signal gain and/or gate setting to obtain reasonable and steady readings. If any instrument setting is adjusted, repeat steps 13 and 14 of the Instrument Setup section before proceeding further.
7. In areas where obstructions are present, take a data point as close to the correct area as possible.
• NOTE: The strut wall contains a fabrication bead at approximately 40% of the strut chord. The bead may interfere with accurate measurements in that specific location.
8. A measurement of 0.024 inch or less shall require replacement of the strut prior to further flight.
9. If at any time during testing an area is encountered where a valid thickness measurement cannot be obtained due to a loss of signal strength or quality, the area shall be considered suspect. These areas may have a remaining wall thickness of less than 0.020-inch, which is below the range of this setup, or they may have small areas of localized corrosion or pitting present. The latter case will result in a reduction in signal strength due to the sound being scattered from the rough surface and may result in a signal that includes echoes from the pits as well as the backwall. The suspect area(s) shall be tested with a Maule “Fabric Tester” as specified in Maule Air, Inc. Service Bulletin No. 11, dated October 30, 1995.
10. Record the lift strut inspection in the aircraft log book.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are revising Airworthiness Directive (AD) 99–26–19 that applies to certain The New Piper Aircraft, Inc. Model J–2 airplanes equipped with wing lift struts. AD 99–26–19 required repetitively inspecting the wing lift struts for dents and corrosion; repetitively inspecting the wing lift strut forks for cracks; replacing any dented or corroded wing lift strut; replacing any cracked wing lift strut fork; and repetitively replacing the wing lift strut forks at specified times for certain airplanes. AD 99–26–19 also required incorporating a “NO STEP” placard on the wing lift strut. Since we issued AD 99–26–19, we were informed that paragraph (c) had been misinterpreted and caused confusion. This AD clarifies the intent of the language in paragraph (c) of AD 99–26–19 and retains all other requirements of AD 99–26–19. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective January 21, 2014.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of February 14, 2000 (64 FR 72524, December 28, 1999).
For service information identified in this AD, contact Piper Aircraft, Inc., Customer Services, 2926 Piper Drive, Vero Beach, Florida 32960; telephone: (772) 567–4361; Internet:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Gregory “Keith” Noles, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337; phone: (404) 474–5551; fax: (404) 474–5606; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to revise AD 99–26–19, Amendment 39–11479 (64 FR 72524, December 28, 1999), (“AD 99–26–19”). AD 99–26–19 applied to the specified products. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 49221, August 13, 2013) for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 49221, August 13, 2013).
We estimate that this AD affects 91 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD. However, the only difference in the costs presented below and the costs associated with AD 99–26–19 is the change in the labor rate from $65 per hour to $85 per hour:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements that will be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these replacements:
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 January 21, 2014.
This AD revises AD 99–26–19, Amendment 39–11479 (64 FR 72524, December 28, 1999). AD 99–01–05, Amendment 39–10972 (63 FR 72132, December 31, 1998), which superseded AD 93–10–06, Amendment 39–8586 (58 FR 29965, May 25, 1993), also relates to the subject of this AD.
This AD applies to Piper Aircraft, Inc. Model J–2 airplanes, serial numbers 500 through 1975, that are:
(1) equipped with wing lift struts; and
(2) certificated in any category.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.
(1) The subject of this AD was originally prompted by reports of corrosion damage found on the wing lift struts. We are revising AD 99–26–19, Amendment 39–11479 (64 FR 72524, December 28, 1999), because of reports that paragraph (c) had been misinterpreted and caused confusion. This AD removes the language in paragraph (c) of AD 99–26–19, which caused the confusion.
(2) This AD clarifies the FAA's intention that if a sealed wing lift strut assembly is installed as a replacement part, the repetitive inspection requirement is terminated only if the seal is never improperly broken. If the seal is improperly broken, then that wing lift strut becomes subject to continued repetitive inspections. We did not intend to promote drilling holes into or otherwise unsealing a sealed strut. This AD retains all the actions required in AD 99–26–19 and this AD does not require any actions over that already required in AD 99–26–19. This AD does not add any additional burden to the owners/operators of the affected airplanes.
(3) We are issuing this AD to detect and correct corrosion and cracking on the front and rear wing lift struts and forks, which could cause the wing lift strut to fail. This failure could result in the wing separating from the airplane.
Since AD 99–26–19, Amendment 39–11479 (64 FR 72524, December 28, 1999), was issued, the AD format has been revised, and certain paragraphs have been rearranged. As a result, the corresponding paragraph identifiers have changed in this AD, as listed in the following table:
Unless already done (compliance with AD 99–26–19, Amendment 39–11479 (64 FR 72524, December 28, 1999)), do the following actions within the compliance times specified in paragraphs (h) through (n) of this AD, including all subparagraphs. Properly unsealing and resealing a sealed wing lift strut is still considered a terminating action for the repetitive inspection requirements of this AD as long as all appropriate regulations and issues are considered, such as static strength, fatigue, material effects, immediate and long-term (internal and external) corrosion protection, resealing methods, etc. Current FAA regulations in 14 CFR 43.13(b) specify that maintenance performed will result in the part's condition to be at least equal to its original or properly altered condition. Any maintenance actions that unseal a sealed wing lift strut should be coordinated with the Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO) through the local airworthiness authority (e.g., Flight Standards District Office). There are provisions in paragraph (o) of this AD for approving such actions as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC).
At whichever of the compliance times specified in paragraphs (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD that occurs later, remove the wing lift struts following Piper Service Bulletin (SB) No. 528D, dated October 19, 1990. Before further flight after the removal, do the actions in one of the following paragraphs (i)(1), (i)(2), (j)(1), or (j)(2) of this AD, including all subparagraphs.
(1) Within 1 calendar month after February 14, 2000 (the effective date retained from AD 99–26–19, Amendment 39–11479 (64 FR 72524, December 28, 1999)); or
(2) Within 24 calendar months after the last inspection done in accordance with AD 93–10–06, Amendment 39–8586 (58 FR 29965, May 25, 1993).
Before further flight after the removal required in paragraph (h) of this AD, inspect each wing lift strut following paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD, including all subparagraphs, or do the wing lift strut replacement following one of the options in paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2) of this AD.
(1) Inspect each wing lift strut for corrosion and perceptible dents following Piper SB No. 528D, dated October 19, 1990.
(i)
(ii)
(2) Inspect each wing lift strut for corrosion following the procedures in the Appendix to this AD. This inspection must be done by a Level 2 or Level 3 inspector certified using the guidelines established by the American Society for Non-destructive Testing or the “Military Standard for Nondestructive Testing Personnel Qualification and Certification” (MIL–STD–410E), which can be found on the Internet at
(i)
(ii)
Before further flight after the removal required in paragraph (h) of this AD, replace the wing lift struts following one of the options in paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2) of this AD, or inspect each wing lift strut following paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD, including all subparagraphs.
(1) Install original equipment manufacturer (OEM) part number wing lift struts (or FAA-
(2) Install new sealed wing lift strut assemblies (or FAA-approved equivalent part numbers) (these sealed wing lift strut assemblies also include the wing lift strut forks) following Piper SB No. 528D, dated October 19, 1990. Installing one of these new sealed wing lift strut assemblies terminates the repetitive inspection requirements in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD, and the wing lift strut fork removal, inspection, and replacement requirements in paragraphs (k) and (l) of this AD, including all subparagraphs, for that wing lift strut assembly.
Within the next 100 hours time-in-service (TIS) after February 14, 2000 (the effective date retained from AD 99–26–19, Amendment 39–11479 (64 FR 72524, December 28, 1999)) or within 500 hours TIS after the last inspection done in accordance with AD 93–10–06, Amendment 39–8586 (58 FR 29965, May 25, 1993), whichever occurs later, remove the wing lift strut forks (unless already replaced in accordance with paragraph (j)(2) of this AD). Do the removal following Piper SB No. 528D, dated October 19, 1990. Before further flight after the removal, do the actions in one of the following paragraphs (l) or (m) of this AD, including all subparagraphs.
Before further flight after the removal required in paragraph (k) of this AD, inspect the wing lift strut forks following paragraph (l) of this AD, including all subparagraphs, or do the wing lift strut fork replacement following one of the options in paragraph (m)(1) or (m)(2) of this AD. Inspect the wing lift strut forks for cracks using magnetic particle procedures, such as those contained in FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 43.13–1B, Chapter 5, which can be found in the Internet at
(1)
(2)
(3)
Before further flight after the removal required in paragraph (k) of this AD, replace the wing lift strut forks following one of the options in paragraph (m)(1) or (m)(2) of this AD, or inspect the wing lift strut forks following paragraph (1) of this AD, including all subparagraphs
(1) Install new OEM part number wing lift strut forks of the same part numbers of the existing part (or FAA-approved equivalent part numbers) that were manufactured with rolled threads. Wing lift strut forks manufactured with machine (cut) threads are not to be used. Do the installations following Piper SB No. 528D, dated October 19, 1990. Repetitively thereafter inspect and replace the newly installed wing lift strut forks at intervals not to exceed 500 hours TIS following the procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this AD, including all subparagraphs.
(2) Install new sealed wing lift strut assemblies (or FAA-approved equivalent part numbers) (these sealed wing lift strut assemblies also include the wing lift strut forks) following Piper SB No. 528D, dated October 19, 1990. This installation may have already been done through the option specified in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD. Installing one of these new sealed wing lift strut assemblies terminates the repetitive inspection requirements in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD, and the wing lift strut fork removal, inspection, and replacement requirements in paragraphs (k) and (l) of this AD, including all subparagraphs, for that wing lift strut assembly.
(1) Within 1 calendar month after February 14, 2000 (the effective date retained from AD 99–26–19, Amendment 39–11479 (64 FR 72524, December 28, 1999), or within 24 calendar months after the last inspection required by AD 93–10–06, Amendment 39–8586 (58 FR 29965, May 25, 1993), whichever occurs later, and before further flight after any replacement of a wing lift strut assembly required by this AD, do the actions in one of the following paragraphs (n)(1)(i) or (n)(1)(ii) of this AD:
(i) Install “NO STEP” decal, Piper (P/N) 80944–02, on each wing lift strut approximately 6 inches from the bottom of the wing lift strut in a way that the letters can be read when entering and exiting the airplane; or
(ii) Paint the words “NO STEP” approximately 6 inches from the bottom of the wing lift strut in a way that the letters can be read when entering and exiting the airplane. Use a minimum of 1-inch letters using a color that contrasts with the color of the airplane.
(2) The “NO STEP” markings required by paragraph (n)(1)(i) and (n)(1)(ii) of this AD must remain in place for the life of the airplane.
(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.
(3) AMOCs approved for AD 93–10–06, Amendment 39–8586 (58 FR 29965, May 25, 1993) and AD 99–26–19, Amendment 39–11479 (64 FR 72524, December 28, 1999) are approved as AMOCs for this AD.
For more information about this AD, contact Gregory K. Noles, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Atlanta ACO, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337; phone: (404) 474–5551; fax: (404) 474–5606; 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 February 14, 2000 (64 FR 72524, December 28, 1999).
(i) Piper Service Bulletin No. 528D, dated October 19, 1990.
(ii) Reserved.
(4) For Piper Aircraft, Inc. service information identified in this AD, contact Piper Aircraft, Inc., Customer Services, 2926
(5) You may view this service information at FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329–4148.
(6) 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:
1. A portable ultrasonic thickness gauge or flaw detector with echo-to-echo digital thickness readout capable of reading to 0.001-inch and an A-trace waveform display will be needed to do this inspection.
2. An ultrasonic probe with the following specifications will be needed to do this inspection: 10 MHz (or higher), 0.283-inch (or smaller) diameter dual element or delay line transducer designed for thickness gauging. The transducer and ultrasonic system shall be capable of accurately measuring the thickness of AISI 4340 steel down to 0.020-inch. An accuracy of +/− 0.002-inch throughout a 0.020-inch to 0.050-inch thickness range while calibrating shall be the criteria for acceptance.
3. Either a precision machined step wedge made of 4340 steel (or similar steel with equivalent sound velocity) or at least three shim samples of same material will be needed to do this inspection. One thickness of the step wedge or shim shall be less than or equal to 0.020-inch, one shall be greater than or equal to 0.050-inch, and at least one other step or shim shall be between these two values.
4. Glycerin, light oil, or similar non-water based ultrasonic couplants are recommended in the setup and inspection procedures. Water-based couplants, containing appropriate corrosion inhibitors, may be utilized, provided they are removed from both the reference standards and the test item after the inspection procedure is completed and adequate corrosion prevention steps are then taken to protect these items.
• NOTE: Couplant is defined as “a substance used between the face of the transducer and test surface to improve transmission of ultrasonic energy across the transducer/strut interface.”
• NOTE: If surface roughness due to paint loss or corrosion is present, the surface should be sanded or polished smooth before testing to assure a consistent and smooth surface for making contact with the transducer. Care shall be taken to remove a minimal amount of structural material. Paint repairs may be necessary after the inspection to prevent further corrosion damage from occurring. Removal of surface irregularities will enhance the accuracy of the inspection technique.
1. Set up the ultrasonic equipment for thickness measurements as specified in the instrument's user's manual. Because of the variety of equipment available to perform ultrasonic thickness measurements, some modification to this general setup procedure may be necessary. However, the tolerance requirement of step 13 and the record keeping requirement of step 14, must be satisfied.
2. If battery power will be employed, check to see that the battery has been properly charged. The testing will take approximately two hours. Screen brightness and contrast should be set to match environmental conditions.
3. Verify that the instrument is set for the type of transducer being used, i.e. single or dual element, and that the frequency setting is compatible with the transducer.
4. If a removable delay line is used, remove it and place a drop of couplant between the transducer face and the delay line to assure good transmission of ultrasonic energy. Reassemble the delay line transducer and continue.
5. Program a velocity of 0.231-inch/microsecond into the ultrasonic unit unless an alternative instrument calibration procedure is used to set the sound velocity.
6. Obtain a step wedge or steel shims per item 3 of the EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS. Place the probe on the thickest sample using couplant. Rotate the transducer slightly back and forth to “ring” the transducer to the sample. Adjust the delay and range settings to arrive at an A-trace signal display with the first backwall echo from the steel near the left side of the screen and the second backwall echo near the right of the screen. Note that when a single element transducer is used, the initial pulse and the delay line/steel interface will be off of the screen to the left. Adjust the gain to place the amplitude of the first backwall signal at approximately 80% screen height on the A-trace.
7. “Ring” the transducer on the thinnest step or shim using couplant. Select positive half-wave rectified, negative half-wave rectified, or filtered signal display to obtain the cleanest signal. Adjust the pulse voltage, pulse width, and damping to obtain the best signal resolution. These settings can vary from one transducer to another and are also user dependent.
8. Enable the thickness gate, and adjust the gate so that it starts at the first backwall echo and ends at the second backwall echo. (Measuring between the first and second backwall echoes will produce a measurement of the steel thickness that is not affected by the paint layer on the strut). If instability of the gate trigger occurs, adjust the gain, gate level, and/or damping to stabilize the thickness reading.
9. Check the digital display reading and if it does not agree with the known thickness of the thinnest thickness, follow your instrument's calibration recommendations to produce the correct thickness reading. When a single element transducer is used this will usually involve adjusting the fine delay setting.
10. Place the transducer on the thickest step of shim using couplant. Adjust the thickness gate width so that the gate is triggered by the second backwall reflection of the thick section. If the digital display does not agree with the thickest thickness, follow your instruments calibration recommendations to produce the correct thickness reading. A slight adjustment in the velocity may be necessary to get both the thinnest and the thickest reading correct. Document the changed velocity value.
11. Place couplant on an area of the lift strut which is thought to be free of corrosion and “ring” the transducer to surface. Minor adjustments to the signal and gate settings may be required to account for coupling improvements resulting from the paint layer. The thickness gate level should be set just high enough so as not to be triggered by irrelevant signal noise. An area on the upper surface of the lift strut above the inspection area would be a good location to complete this step and should produce a thickness reading between 0.034-inch and 0.041-inch.
12. Repeat steps 8, 9, 10, and 11 until both thick and thin shim measurements are within tolerance and the lift strut measurement is reasonable and steady.
13. Verify that the thickness value shown in the digital display is within +/− 0.002-inch of the correct value for each of the three or more steps of the setup wedge or shims. Make no further adjustments to the instrument settings.
14. Record the ultrasonic versus actual thickness of all wedge steps or steel shims available as a record of setup.
1. Clean the lower 18 inches of the wing lift struts using a cleaner that will remove all dirt and grease. Dirt and grease will adversely affect the accuracy of the inspection technique. Light sanding or polishing may also be required to reduce surface roughness as noted in the EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS section.
2. Using a flexible ruler, draw a
3. Apply a generous amount of couplant inside each of the square areas or along the edge of the ruler. Re-application of couplant may be necessary.
4. Place the transducer inside the first square area of the drawn grid or at the first
5. Take readings inside each square on the grid or at
• NOTE: A reading shall not exceed .041 inch. If a reading exceeds .041-inch, repeat steps 13 and 14 of the INSTRUMENT SETUP section before proceeding further.
6. If the A-trace is unsteady or the thickness reading is clearly wrong, adjust the signal gain and/or gate setting to obtain reasonable and steady readings. If any instrument setting is adjusted, repeat steps 13 and 14 of the INSTRUMENT SETUP section before proceeding further.
7. In areas where obstructions are present, take a data point as close to the correct area as possible.
• NOTE: The strut wall contains a fabrication bead at approximately 40% of the strut chord. The bead may interfere with accurate measurements in that specific location.
8. A measurement of 0.024-inch or less shall require replacement of the strut prior to further flight.
9. If at any time during testing an area is encountered where a valid thickness measurement cannot be obtained due to a loss of signal strength or quality, the area shall be considered suspect. These areas may have a remaining wall thickness of less than 0.020-inch, which is below the range of this setup, or they may have small areas of localized corrosion or pitting present. The latter case will result in a reduction in signal strength due to the sound being scattered from the rough surface and may result in a signal that includes echoes from the pits as well as the backwall. The suspect area(s) shall be tested with a Maule “Fabric Tester” as specified in Piper SB No. 528D, dated October 19, 1990, or Piper SB No. 910A, dated October 10, 1989.
10. Record the lift strut inspection in the aircraft log book.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for General Electric Company (GE) GE90–110B1 and GE90–115B turbofan engines with certain high pressure compressor (HPC) rotor stage 2–5 spools installed. This AD requires removing these spools from service at times determined by a drawdown plan. This AD was prompted by reports of cracks in HPC rotor stage 2–5 spool aft spacer arms. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of a critical life-limited rotating engine part, which could result in an uncontained engine failure and damage to the airplane.
This AD is effective December 31, 2013.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of December 31, 2013.
We must receive comments on this AD by January 30, 2014.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this AD, contact General Electric Company, GE Aviation, Room 285, 1 Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215, phone: (513) 552–3272; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Tomasz Rakowski, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: (781) 238–7735; fax: (781) 238–7199; email:
We received reports from GE of cracks in the aft spacer arms of several HPC rotor stage 2–5 spools, which occurred before the spools reached their published cyclic life limit. The cracks developed under the seal teeth coating, so they were undetectable by maintenance inspections. This AD requires removal of these spools at a reduced cyclic life threshold, earlier than the published cyclic life limit. Because some engines have spools installed that already exceed the reduced cyclic life threshold, this AD provides a drawdown program to remove the spools within risk guidelines without grounding airplanes. This AD also prohibits spare spools that exceed the reduced cyclic life threshold from re-entering service. This AD is intended to prevent HPC rotor stage 2–5 spool cracks from growing and causing the spool to separate. This condition, if not corrected, could result in failure of a critical life-limited rotating engine part, which could result in an uncontained engine failure and damage to the airplane.
We reviewed GE Service Bulletin (SB) No. GE90–100 S/B 72–0499, dated August 14, 2013. The SB lists part serial numbers affected by this AD.
We are issuing 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 AD requires removing certain HPC rotor stage 2–5 spools from service at times determined by a drawdown plan outlined in the paragraph (f) of the compliance section of this AD.
The schedule for removal of HPC rotor spools in this AD differs from that of GE SB GE90–100 S/B 72–0499, dated August 14, 2013. This AD uses cycles to determine compliance time rather than calendar dates, which are used in the SB, because the unsafe condition is driven by cycles rather than time.
An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because of the short compliance times for HPC rotor stage 2–5 spools that are at or over the removal thresholds. Therefore, we find that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We estimate that this AD will affect two GE90 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. There is no additional labor cost to comply with this AD. We estimate that the cost of a replacement HPC rotor stage 2–5 spool prorated part is $192,800. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of this AD to U.S. operators to be $385,600.
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
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 to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, 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 December 31, 2013.
None.
This AD applies to General Electric Company (GE) GE90–110B1 and GE90–115B turbofan engines with high pressure compressor (HPC) rotor stage 2–5 spools, part numbers (P/Ns) 351–103–106–0, 351–103–107–0, 351–103–141–0, 351–103–142–0, 351–103–144–0, 351–103–145–0, 351–103–148–0, 351–103–149–0, and 351–103–151–0, with spool serial numbers listed in paragraph 4, Appendix A of GE Service Bulletin (SB) No. GE90–100 S/B 72–0499, dated August 14, 2013.
This AD was prompted by reports of cracks in HPC rotor stage 2–5 spool aft spacer arms. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of a critical life-limited rotating engine part, which could result in an uncontained engine failure and damage to the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Remove from service HPC rotor stage 2–5 spools with serial numbers listed in paragraph 4, Appendix A of GE SB No. GE90–100 S/B 72–0499, dated August 14, 2013, as follows:
(1) For spools with fewer than 4,500 cycles since new (CSN) on the effective date of this AD, before exceeding 5,000 CSN.
(2) For spools with 4,500 CSN or more but fewer than 5,200 CSN on the effective date of this AD, within an additional 500 cycles in service (CIS) after the effective date of this AD but not to exceed 5,500 CSN.
(3) For spools with 5,200 CSN or more but fewer than 5,600 CSN on the effective date of this AD, within an additional 300 CIS after the effective date of this AD but not to exceed 5,800 CSN.
(4) For spools with 5,600 CSN or more but fewer than 5,800 CSN on the effective date of this AD, within an additional 200 CIS after the effective date of this AD but not to exceed 5,850 CSN.
(5) For spools with 5,800 CSN or more but fewer than 6,000 CSN on the effective date of this AD, within an additional 50 CIS after the effective date of this AD but not to exceed 6,000 CSN.
(6) For spools with 6,000 CSN or more on the effective date of this AD, before the next flight.
(7) For spools that are not installed on the effective date of this AD and are subsequently installed onto any engine after the effective date of this AD, before exceeding 5,000 CSN.
After the effective date of this AD, do not install or re-install onto any engine any HPC rotor stage 2–5 spool with a serial number listed in paragraph 4, Appendix A of GE SB No. GE90–100 S/B 72–0499, dated August 14, 2013, that exceeds 5,000 CSN.
The Manager, Engine Certification Office, may approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your request.
For more information about this AD, contact Tomasz Rakowski, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: (781) 238–7735; fax: (781) 238–7199; 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) General Electric Company (GE) Service Bulletin No. GE90–100 S/B 72–0499, dated August 14, 2013.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For GE service information identified in this AD, contact General Electric Company, GE Aviation, Room 285, 1 Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215, phone: (513) 552–3272; email:
(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (781) 238–7125.
(5) You may view this service information 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 747–200B, –200C, –200F, –300, and 747SR series airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of cracks of both lower chords and web on certain outboard struts. This AD requires repetitive inspections for cracking of the lower spar chords and web, web lower spar chord modification, which includes inspections for cracking of the lower spar chords, and repetitive post modification inspections for cracking of the lower spar web and chord; and applicable corrective actions. We are issuing this AD to prevent cracked chords and web on certain outboard struts, which, if the chord severs, could result in reduced structural integrity of the diagonal brace load path and of the strut-to-wing attachment, and
This AD is effective January 21, 2014.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of January 21, 2014.
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
Nathan Weigand, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; phone: 425–917–6428; fax: 425–917–6590; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to the specified products. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We have considered the comment received. Boeing stated that it supports the NPRM (78 FR 53078, August 28, 2013).
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 53078, August 28, 2013) for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 53078, August 28, 2013).
We estimate that this AD affects 25 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 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 January 21, 2014.
None.
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 747–200B, 747–200C, 747–200F, 747–300, and 747SR series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–54A2237, dated March 14, 2013.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 54, Nacelles/Pylons.
This AD was prompted by reports of cracks of both lower chords and web on certain outboard struts. We are issuing this AD to prevent cracked chords and web on certain outboard struts, which, if the chord severs, could result in reduced structural integrity of the diagonal brace load path and of the strut-to-wing attachment, and consequent separation of a strut and engine from the airplane during flight.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as required by paragraph (j)(1) of this AD, at the compliance time specified in table 1 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–54A2237, dated March 14, 2013: Do a detailed inspection for cracking of the lower spar chords and web, a high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection for cracking of the lower spar chords, and all applicable repairs and modifications, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–54A2237, dated March 14, 2013, except as required by paragraph (j)(2) of this AD. If no cracking is found, repeat the inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed 600 flight cycles, until the actions specified in paragraph (h) of this AD have been accomplished. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight. Accomplishing a repair and modification, including open-hole HFEC inspections for cracking and applicable corrective actions required by this paragraph terminates the actions required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD for the repaired and modified strut only. The open-hole HFEC inspection for cracking must be done before the modification.
Except as required by paragraph (j)(1) of this AD, at the compliance time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–54A2237, dated March 14, 2013: Do a detailed inspection for cracking of the lower spar chords and web, an HFEC inspection for cracking of the lower spar chords, a lower spar chord modification, including open-hole HFEC inspections for cracking in the chord and all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–54A2237, dated March 14, 2013, except as required by paragraph (j)(2) of this AD. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight. Doing the actions specified in this paragraph terminates the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD for the modified strut only. The open-hole HFEC inspection for cracking must be done before the modification.
For airplanes on which a modification required by paragraph (g) or (h) of this AD has been done: At the compliance time specified in table 2 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–54A2237, dated March 14, 2013, do a detailed inspection for any cracking of the lower spar web and chord, and do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–54A2237, dated March 14, 2013, except as required by paragraph (j)(2) of this AD. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 18 months. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.
(1) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–54A2237, dated March 14, 2013, specifies a compliance time after the original issue date on the service bulletin, this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–54A2237, dated March 14, 2013, specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate action: Before further flight, repair the crack using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.
(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 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 paragraph (l) 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.
For more information about this AD, contact Nathan Weigand, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; phone: 425–917–6428; 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 747–54A2237, dated March 14, 2013.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For Boeing 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 view this service information at FAA, 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), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain EADS CASA (Type Certificate Previously Held by Construcciones Aeronáuticas, S.A.) Model C–212–CB, C–212–CC, C–212–CD, C–212–CE, and C–212–DF airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report of the propeller pitch control (PPC) lever becoming disconnected from the engine due to a missing bolt. This AD requires modifying the PPC lever attachment system. We are issuing this AD to prevent PPC shaft disconnection, which could lead to a loss of propeller pitch control, possibly resulting in uncommanded change to the engine power settings and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.
This AD becomes effective January 21, 2014.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of January 21, 2014.
You may examine the AD on the Internet at
For EADS–CASA service information identified in this AD, contact EADS–CASA, Military Transport Aircraft Division (MTAD), Integrated Customer Services (ICS), Technical Services, Avenida de Aragón 404, 28022 Madrid, Spain; telephone +34 91 585 55 84; fax +34 91 585 55 05; email
Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057–3356; telephone (425) 227–1112; fax (425) 227–1149.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. The NPRM published in the
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2012–0251, dated November 27, 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:
An occurrence was reported where the propeller pitch control (PPC) lever disconnected from the engine (a TPE331–10R–511C) on a C–212–CC aeroplane.
The result of the subsequent investigation revealed that the PPC lever disconnection occurred due to a missing bolt, which fixes the clamp that joins the PPC lever to the PPC rod.
This condition, if not corrected, could lead to a loss of an affected propeller pitch control, possibly resulting in uncommanded change to the engine power settings and consequent reduced control of the aeroplane.
To address this potential unsafe condition, EADS–CASA developed a modification (mod 10515) that eliminates the possibility of PPC shaft disconnection and made this available through Service Bulletin SB–212–76–0009 to be applied in service.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires modification of PPC lever attachment system.
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (78 FR 49235, August 13, 2013) or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We have changed paragraph (c) of this AD to remove EADS CASA (Type Certificate previously held by Construcciones Aeronáuticas, S.A.) Model C–212–CF airplanes, which were included in the NPRM (78 FR 49235, August 13, 2013) in error.
We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 49235, August 13, 2013) for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 49235, August 13, 2013).
We estimate that this AD affects 42 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective January 21, 2014.
None.
This AD applies to EADS CASA (Type Certificate previously held by Construcciones Aeronáuticas, S.A.) Model C–212–CB, C–212–CC, C–212–CD, C–212–CE, and C–212–DF airplanes; certificated in any category; all serial numbers, except those that have been modified in production to incorporate EADS CASA Modification 10515.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 76, Engine Controls.
This AD was prompted by a report of the propeller pitch control (PPC) lever becoming disconnected from the engine due to a missing bolt. We are issuing this AD to prevent PPC shaft disconnection, which could lead to a loss of propeller pitch control, possibly resulting in uncommanded change to the engine power settings and consequent reduced controllability 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.
Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, modify the PCC lever attachment system of the aircraft engine, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of EADS–CASA Service Bulletin SB–212–76–0009, Revision 1, dated August 03, 2012.
EADS–CASA Service Bulletin SB–212–76–0009, Revision 1, dated August 03, 2012, refers to Honeywell Service Bulletin TPE331–72–2190, dated December 21, 2011, as an additional source of guidance for modifying the cam assembly.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2012–0251, dated November 27, 2012, for related information. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) Honeywell service information referenced in this AD can be obtained from Honeywell International Inc., 111 S. 34th Street, Phoenix, AZ 85034–2802; Web site:
(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 this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) EADS–CASA Service Bulletin SB–212–76–0009, Revision 1, dated August 03, 2012.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For EADS–CASA service information identified in this AD, contact EADS–CASA,
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action amends Class E airspace at Gainesville, TX. Decommissioning of the Gainesville non-directional beacon (NDB) at Gainesville Municipal Airport has made reconfiguration necessary for standard instrument approach procedures and for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) operations at the airport.
Scott Enander, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone 817–321–7716.
On August 26, 2013, the FAA published in the
This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by amending Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to for standard instrument approach procedures at Gainesville Municipal Airport, Gainesville, TX. Airspace reconfiguration to within a 6.6-mile radius of the airport, with a segment extending from the 6.6-mile radius to 10.4 miles north of the airport is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Gainesville NDB and the cancellation of the NDB approach. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport. Geographic coordinates of the airport are updated to be in concert with the FAA's aeronautical database.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends controlled airspace at Gainesville Municipal Airport, Gainesville, TX.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action amends Class E airspace at Chariton, IA. Decommissioning of the Chariton non-directional beacon (NDB) at Chariton Municipal Airport has made reconfiguration necessary for standard instrument approach procedures and for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) operations at the airport.
Scott Enander, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone 817–321–7716.
On August 5, 2013, the FAA published in the
This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by amending Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to for standard instrument approach procedures at Chariton Municipal Airport, Chariton, IA. Airspace configuration is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Chariton NDB and the cancellation of the NDB approach, and enhances the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends controlled airspace at Chariton Municipal Airport, Chariton, IA.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air)
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Chariton Municipal Airport
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action establishes Class E airspace at Loup City, NE. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new Area Navigation (RNAV) Standard Instrument Approach Procedures at Loup City Municipal Airport. The FAA is taking this action to enhance the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) operations at the airport.
Effective date: 0901 UTC, February 6, 2014. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR Part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.
Scott Enander, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone 817–321–7716.
On August 16, 2013, the FAA published in the
This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.7-mile radius of Loup City Municipal Airport, Loup City, NE to contain aircraft executing new standard instrument approach procedures at the airport. Controlled airspace enhances the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes controlled airspace at Loup City Municipal Airport, Loup City, NE.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.7-mile radius of Loup City Municipal Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action establishes Class E Airspace at Chatom, AL, to accommodate the Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) Standard Instrument Approach Procedures at Roy Wilcox Airport. This action enhances the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport. Geographic coordinates are also updated.
Effective 0901 UTC, February 6, 2014. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.
John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305–6364.
On September 4, 2013, the FAA published in the
This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 establishes the Class E airspace extending upward from the surface within a 6.5-mile radius at Roy Wilcox Airport, Chatom, AL, providing the controlled airspace required to accommodate the new RNAV (GPS) Standard Instrument Approach Procedures developed at the airport. The geographic coordinates of the airport also are adjusted to be in concert with the FAAs aeronautical database.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore, (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes controlled airspace at Roy Wilcox Airport, Chatom, AL.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Roy Wilcox Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action establishes Class E airspace at Donlin Creek, AK, to accommodate new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures at Donlin Creek Airport. This improves the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport.
Richard Roberts, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203–4517.
On September 24, 2013, the FAA published in the
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005, of FAA Order 7400.9X dated August 7, 2013, and effective September 15, 2013, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in that Order.
This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the within a 2-mile radius of Donlin Creek Airport, and within 2-miles each side of the 312° bearing extending from the 2-mile radius to 8.5-miles northwest of the airport to accommodate new RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures at the airport. This action is necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations.
The FAA has determined this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 discusses the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes controlled airspace at Donlin Creek Airport, Donlin Creek, AK.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist, that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 2-mile radius of Donlin Creek Airport, and within 2-miles each side of the 312° bearing extending from the 2-mile radius to 8.5-miles northwest of the airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action removes Class E airspace at Danville, IL. The FAA has determined that, because of changes in the composition of flight operations at Vermilion Regional Airport, a Class E surface area is no longer needed to enhance the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport.
Scott Enander, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone 817–321–7716.
On August 26, 2013, the FAA published in the
This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by removing Class E airspace designated as a surface area at Vermilion Regional Airport, Danville, IL. Curtailment of scheduled air taxi service and changes in airport usage has rendered this airspace unnecessary for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it removes controlled airspace at Vermilion Regional Airport, Danville, IL.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air)
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Direct final rule.
This direct final rule makes nonsubstantive changes by removing redundant regulatory language that is already captured in statues that govern NASA activities related to delegation of authority of certain civil rights functions, protection of human subjects, and care and use of animals in the conduct of NASA activities. Therefore, NASA regulations will be streamlined to make reference to those statutes.
This direct final rule is effective on February 14, 2014. Comments are due on or before January 15, 2014. If adverse comments are received, NASA will publish a timely withdrawal of the rule in the
Comments must be identified with RIN 2700–AE11 and may be sent to NASA via the
Nanette Jennings, 202–358–0819.
NASA has determined this rulemaking meets the criteria for a direct final rule because it involves nonsubstantive changes to remove redundant regulatory language in 14 CFR 1204.508 and Parts 1230 and 1232 that is already captured in statutes and regulations that govern NASA activities related to delegation of authority of certain civil rights functions, protection of human subjects, and care and use of animals in the conduct of NASA activities. Therefore, Section 1204.508 and Parts 1230 and 1232 will be streamlined to make reference to the governing statutes and regulations. No opposition to the changes and no significant adverse comments are expected. However, if the Agency receives a significant adverse comment, it will withdraw this direct final rule by publishing a notice in the
On January 18, 2011, President Obama signed Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, directing agencies to develop a plan for a retrospective analysis of existing regulations. NASA developed its plan and published it on the Agency's open Government Web site at
The National Aeronautics and Space Act (the Space Act), 51 U.S.C. 20113 (a), authorizes the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to make, promulgate, issue, rescind, and amend rules and regulations governing the manner of its operations and the exercise of the powers vested in it by law.
Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 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 rule has been designated as “not significant” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This direct final rule does not contain any information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Executive Order 13132, Federalism, 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999) requires regulations be reviewed for Federalism effects on the institutional interest of states and local Governments, and, if the effects are sufficiently substantial, preparation of the Federal assessment is required to assist senior policy makers. The amendments will not have any substantial direct effects on state and local Governments within the meaning of the Executive Order. Therefore, no Federalism assessment is required.
Federal buildings and facilities, human research subjects, animal welfare, and research.
For reasons set forth in the preamble, NASA amends 14 CFR parts 1204, 1230, and 1232 as follows:
51 U.S.C. 20113.
It is the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) policy to comply with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub. L. 88–352) that prohibits discrimination in a host of areas, including employment and Federally-assisted programs and activities. To implement the provisions of this Act, NASA promulgated the following internal policies and requirements, and entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Department of Education to ensure compliance:
(a) NASA Policy Directive (NPD) 2081.1, Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted and Conducted Programs of NASA, describes the Agency's policy to ensure nondiscrimination in Federally-assisted and conducted programs of NASA, nondiscrimination in Federally-conducted education and training programs, and access for individuals with disabilities to Federal electronic and information technology. NPD 2081.1 is accessible at
(b) NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 2081.1, Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted and Conducted Programs, describes the requirements for processing complaints of discrimination, conducting civil rights compliance reviews, and internal functional equal opportunity reviews. NPR 2081.1 is accessible at
(c) Memorandum of Understanding between NASA and the Department of Education delegates both the agencies as responsible for specific civil rights compliance duties with respect to elementary and secondary schools, and institutions of higher education. The MOU can be accessed at
5 U.S.C. 301; 45 CFR part 46.
This Part establishes general policy for the protection of human subjects, which is of primary importance in the conduct of any human research, as specified under 5 U.S.C. 301; 45 CFR part 46, subpart A.
This Part applies to NASA Headquarters and NASA Centers, including Component Facilities, and Technical and Service Support Centers for all research involving humans subjects conducted, supported, or otherwise subject to regulations by any Federal department or agency which takes appropriate administrative action to make the policy applicable to such research.
It is the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) policy to comply with 45 CFR part 46, subpart A, Protection of Human Subjects, which applies to all research conducted involving human subjects. To implement the provisions of 45 part 46, subpart A, NASA promulgated the following internal policies and requirements:
(a) NPD 7100.8, Protection of Human Research Subjects, describes the Agency's policy for human research conducted or supported, whether on the ground, in aircraft, or in space. NPD 7100.8 can be accessed at
(b) NPR 7100.1, Protection of Human Research Subjects, describes the requirements for the Agency to conduct or support research involving human subjects. NPR 7100.1 can be accessed at
51 U.S.C. 20102, 51 U.S.C. 20113; Pub. L. 89–544, as amended; 7 U.S.C. 2131; 39 U.S.C. 3001; and Pub. L. 99–158, Sec. 495.
This part establishes general policy for the care and use of vertebrate animals in the conduct of NASA activities.
This part applies to NASA Headquarters and NASA Centers, including Component Facilities, and Technical and Service Support Centers and will be followed in all activities using animal subjects that are supported by NASA and conducted in NASA facilities, aircraft, or spacecraft, or activities, using animal subject conducted under a contract, grant, cooperative agreement, memorandum of understanding, or joint endeavor agreement entered into by NASA and another Government agency, private entity, non-Federal public entity, or foreign entity which are included within the scope of this part.
It is the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) policy to comply with the Animal Welfare Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89–544) which requires that minimum standards of care and treatment be provided for certain animals bred for use in research. To implement the provisions of this Act, NASA promulgated the following internal policies and requirements:
(a) NASA Policy Directive (NPD) 8910.1, Care and Use of Animals, describes the policy and responsibilities for conducting activities involving vertebrate animals. NPD 8910.1 is accessible at
(b) NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 8910.1, Care and Use of Animals, delineates the responsibilities and implements requirements for the Agency's use of animals in research, testing, teaching, and hardware development activities. NPR 8910.1 is accessible is access at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final rule; technical amendment.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the animal drug regulations to remove dairy replacement heifers from the pasture cattle class for which free-choice, loose-mineral medicated feeds containing bambermycins are approved. This action is being taken because a level of selenium for inclusion in such feeds has not been established for dairy cattle under the food additive regulation for selenium.
This rule is effective December 16, 2013.
Amey L. Adams, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV–120), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240–276–8108, email:
FDA has noticed that the animal drug regulations for bambermycins free-choice, loose-mineral Type C medicated feeds for pasture cattle (slaughter, stocker, and feeder cattle; and dairy and beef replacement heifers) specify formulations including trace mineral premixes that include selenium. However, the food additive regulation for selenium in salt-mineral mixtures for free-choice feeding (21 CFR 573.920(c)(3)) does not provide for use in dairy cattle. For this reason, FDA is revising the regulations to remove dairy replacement heifers from the pasture cattle class for which free-choice medicated feeds containing bambermycins are approved. This action is being taken 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.
Animal drugs, Animal feeds.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
21 U.S.C. 360b, 371.
(d) * * *
(4) * * *
(iii) Used as a free-choice Type C medicated loose-mineral feed for pasture cattle (slaughter, stocker, and feeder cattle; and beef replacement heifers) as follows:
(
(iv) Use free-choice Type C medicated feeds for pasture cattle (slaughter, stocker, and feeder cattle; and beef replacement heifers) as follows:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Final rule.
The Corps of Engineers is amending its regulations for the danger zone in waters of the Pacific Ocean off the Pacific Missile Range Facility at Barking Sands, Island of Kauai, Hawaii. The U.S. Navy conducts weapon systems testing and other military testing and training activities at the Pacific Missile Range Facility. The amendment expands the boundaries of the existing danger zone to include an area necessary to protect the public from potential hazards associated with weapon systems testing, other military testing and training activities, and increased threat conditions. Similar to the original danger zone, the expanded danger zone prohibits any activity by the public within the danger zone during range operations, weapon systems testing, other military testing and training activities, increases in force protection and other mission-essential evolutions without first obtaining permission from the Commanding Officer, Pacific Missile Range Facility to ensure public safety and/or installation good order. The expanded danger zone extends along approximately seven miles of shoreline adjacent to the Pacific Missile Range Facility, with its seaward extent ranging between 2.96 and 4.16 nautical miles offshore. Only the portions of the danger zone necessary to safely conduct range operations will be activated.
Mr. David Olson, Headquarters, Operations and Regulatory Community of Practice, Washington, DC at 202–761–4922, or Ms. Susan Meyer, Corps of Engineers, Honolulu District, Regulatory Branch at 808–835–4599 or by email at
Pursuant to its authorities in Section 7 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1917 (40 Stat. 266; 33 U.S.C. 1) and Chapter XIX of the Army Appropriations Act of 1919 (40 Stat. 892; 33 U.S.C. 3), the Corps of Engineers is amending the regulations at 33 CFR 334.1390 by expanding the boundaries of the existing permanent danger zone in the waters of the Pacific Ocean off the Pacific Missile Range Facility at Barking Sands, Island of Kauai, Hawaii.
The proposed rule was published in the July 1, 2013 issue of the
The expansion of the danger zone boundaries will not increase the frequency with which the danger zone is activated for public safety and military security during range operations, weapon systems testing, other military testing and training activities, increases in force protection, and other mission-essential evolutions. Residents and visitors who typically use these waters off Pacific Missile Range Facility should not see any change in practice; the danger zone will continue to be activated only in limited circumstances and on a temporary basis. The intent of the danger zone is to ensure public access is controlled during the infrequent times of increased force protection, range operations, weapon systems training, and other military testing and training activities to minimize the potential for injury to individuals and property.
In addition, the State of Hawaii, Coastal Zone Management Program commented that the proposed federal action to amend the danger zone is subject to federal consistency review under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 and therefore, requires the U.S. Navy to obtain concurrence from the state that the federal activity is consistent with the policies of the Hawaii Coastal Zone Management Program.
The U.S. Navy prepared a federal consistency determination for the proposed federal action and coordinated the document with the State of Hawaii Coastal Zone Management Program. In a letter dated September 13, 2013, the Hawaii Coastal Zone Management Program office concurred with the U.S. Navy's consistency determination, indicating the proposed activity is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the Hawaii Coastal Zone Management Program.
This final rule is issued with respect to a military function of the Defense Department and the provisions of Executive Order 12866 do not apply.
This final rule has been reviewed under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96–354) which requires the preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis for any regulation that will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (i.e., small businesses and small governments). The Corps determined
Due to the administrative nature of this action and because there is no intended change in the use of the area, the Corps determined this amendment to the regulation will not have a significant impact to the quality of the human environment and, therefore, preparation of an environmental impact statement is not required. An environmental assessment (EA) was prepared after the public notice period closed and all comments received from the public were considered. The environmental assessment may be viewed at the District office listed at the end of the
This final rule does not impose an enforceable duty among the private sector and, therefore, it is not a Federal private sector mandate and it is not subject to the requirements of either Section 202 or Section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act. The Corps has also found under Section 203 of the Act, that small governments will not be significantly and uniquely affected by this rulemaking.
Danger zones, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Restricted areas, Waterways.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Corps amends 33 CFR part 334 as follows:
40 Stat. 266 (33 U.S.C. 1) and 40 Stat. 892 (33 U.S.C. 3).
(a)
(b)
(2) All persons, boats, vessels, or other craft are prohibited from entering, transiting, or remaining within the danger zone during range operations, test and training activities, or increases in force protection that pose a hazard to the general public, as determined by the enforcing agency. The enforcing agency's determination of the necessity of closing the danger zone due to increases in force protection will be based on the Department of Defense Force Protection Condition (FPCON) System. From the lowest security level to the highest, FPCON levels are titled Normal, Alpha, Bravo, Charlie and Delta.
(3) Closure of the danger zone will be indicated by Notice to Mariners, the presence of Pacific Missile Range Facility range boats, beach markings including beach signs along the north and south beach borders alerting shoreline foot traffic, security patrols, and radio transmissions on common ocean frequencies to include Marine band channel 6 (156.300 Mhz), Marine band channel 16 (156.800 Mhz), and CB channel 22. The enforcing agency will post the danger zone closure schedule on its official Navy Web site,
(4) Consistent with paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the enforcing agency is authorized to prohibit access into the danger zone by anyone, and all willful violations of the enforcing agency's prohibitions are punishable under 33 U.S.C. 3.
(c)
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Final rule.
This Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) rulemaking amends VA's regulations regarding payment by VA for medical services under VA's statutory authority for non-VA medical care. In the
Lisa Brown, Chief, Policy Management Department, Department of Veterans Affairs, Chief Business Office, Purchased Care, 3773 Cherry Creek North Drive, Suite 450, Denver, CO 80209 at (303) 331–7829. This is not a toll-free number.
On November 28, 2012, VA proposed a rule in the
On the same date, VA published a companion direct final rule at 77 FR 70893 that would have made the same amendments as those in the proposed rule effective on January 28, 2013, if no adverse public comments were received. The direct final rule and proposed rule each provided a 30-day comment period that ended on December 28, 2012. VA received comments on the proposed rule and direct final rule, including some adverse comments. VA is, therefore, withdrawing the direct final rule in a companion document in this issue of the
This final rule adopts the proposed rule without changes.
We received several comments urging VA to expand eligibility for non-VA medical care to allow all veterans the option of using the program for any needed treatment. VA lacks statutory authority to make this change. VA may provide non-VA medical care under 38 U.S.C. 1703 only in limited circumstances: When VA cannot provide economical hospital care or medical services because of geographic inaccessibility, or when VA facilities are not capable of providing the hospital care or medical services that a veteran needs. See 38 U.S.C. 1703(a). Further, if those conditions are met, VA has authority to provide non-VA medical care to a veteran only if the veteran meets the eligibility requirements set forth in section 1703. Thus, VA cannot make the changes these commenters request because to do so would be contrary to VA's statutory authority under 38 U.S.C. 1703.
One commenter who recommended that VA allow veterans to choose to receive care from private providers also stated that “VA hospitals should be for emergency care and for those who are having operations and need weeks or months to recover, such as multi-trauma cases,” suggesting that all other care should be referred to non-VA providers. We emphasize that the VA health care system does provide emergency medical services and hospital care to eligible veterans, including surgical services and acute inpatient polytrauma rehabilitation, as recommended by the commenter. By statute, the VA health care system must also provide “a complete medical and hospital service for the medical care and treatment of veterans” (38 U.S.C. 7301(b)) and therefore cannot reduce the availability of VA care in the manner suggested by the commenter. VA makes no changes based on this comment.
One commenter expressed support for this regulation and stated that veterans receiving non-VA emergency treatment would not need to be transferred from a non-VA hospital to a VA hospital to complete treatment. This comment does not accurately characterize the effect of this rulemaking. To clarify, this action only applies to the provision of non-VA medical services after the veteran has received VA care and the non-VA medical services are needed to complete the VA care.
One commenter stated that VA should not “duplicat[e] medical services readily available by well qualified providers” and that “[m]any veterans are forced by current VA practices to utilize local medical services, even though the services are in theory available from the VA at other than a `local' VA facility.” This comment can be interpreted in two ways. One interpretation is that some veterans are forced to pay for their own care from community providers in order to avoid traveling when their local VA facilities refer them to VA facilities located in other geographic areas. Another interpretation is that VA refers veterans to community providers when care would be better provided at a VA facility. Neither interpretation is within the scope of this rulemaking. VA therefore does not make any changes to this rulemaking based on these comments.
The same commenter recommended that veterans' “expenses in utilizing [Medicare] should be offset by VA reimbursement.” We note that the VA health care system and Medicare are separate programs run under distinct statutory authorities. VA has no authority to reimburse Medicare beneficiaries for expenses they incur to obtain medical care under Medicare in the manner suggested by the commenter (
One commenter asked whether this rulemaking would result in additional administrative burdens for veterans to obtain referrals or for providers to obtain payments for non-VA medical care. This rulemaking only removes a limitation; it does not create any new burdens or procedures. VA's regulations and policies pertaining to how veterans obtain referrals and how VA processes payments for non-VA medical care will remain the same. There will be no additional administrative burden on veterans or non-VA providers as a result of this rulemaking.
The majority of the comments that VA received on this rulemaking requested that VA allow hearing-aid specialists to perform diagnostic hearing evaluations for veterans. We received over one hundred comments on this issue. Some of the commenters requested to become recognized VA providers. VA allows only audiologists to perform such evaluations. We are not aware of any State that licenses hearing-aid specialists to perform such evaluations. VA will consider these comments internally as appropriate, but the request is outside the scope of this rulemaking, so we make no changes based on these comments.
VA received a comment expressing support for the proposed rule, but expressing concern about a draft request for proposals issued by VA for the procurement of non-VA medical care surgical services. This rulemaking affects only eligibility for non-VA medical services, and not VA's means of procuring such services. This comment, therefore, is outside of the scope of the regulation, and we make no changes based on it. VA will consider this comment in its evaluation of the draft request for proposals as appropriate.
VA received a comment expressing support for the proposed rule, but asking VA to remove “a burdensome regulatory requirement that prescriptions for veterans must be written by a VA-affiliated provider for the veteran to obtain the prescription at the VA's discounted price. Instead, the VA should recognize the validity of a community-based physician's prescription.” We do not make changes based on this comment because the issue is outside the scope of this regulation. VA will consider the recommendation internally as appropriate.
VA received one comment expressing support for the proposed rule and requesting that physicians certified by osteopathic boards of medicine be included in all VA activities concerning veterans' healthcare. This comment is outside the scope of this regulation, but no change is required for VA to fulfill the request because VA considers doctors of osteopathic medicine as physicians, and does not distinguish between physicians based on their types of degrees.
VA received one comment stating “[v]ote no.” Since the commenter did
In addition to the comments described above, VA received several comments expressing general support for the proposed rulemaking.
Based on the rationale set forth in the proposed rule and in this document, VA is adopting the provisions of the proposed rule as a final rule with no changes.
Title 38 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as revised by this final rulemaking, represents VA's implementation of its legal authority on this subject. Other than future amendments to this regulation or governing statutes, no contrary guidance or procedures are authorized. All existing or subsequent VA guidance must be read to conform with this rulemaking if possible or, if not possible, such guidance is superseded by this rulemaking.
This final rule contains no provisions constituting a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3521).
The Secretary hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612. This final rule directly affects only individuals and will not directly affect small entities. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this amendment is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) defines a “significant regulatory action,” requiring review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as “any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.”
The economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy implications of this regulatory action have been examined, and it has been determined not to be a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. VA's impact analysis can be found as a supporting document at
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. This final rule will have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance numbers and titles for the programs affected by this document are 64.007, Blind Rehabilitation Centers; 64.008, Veterans Domiciliary Care; 64.009, Veterans Medical Care Benefits; 64.010, Veterans Nursing Home Care; 64.011, Veterans Dental Care; 64.012, Veterans Prescription Service; 64.013, Veterans Prosthetic Appliances; 64.014, Veterans State Domiciliary Care; 64.015, Veterans State Nursing Home Care; 64.018, Sharing Specialized Medical Resources; 64.019, Veterans Rehabilitation Alcohol and Drug Dependence; 64.022, Veterans Home Based Primary Care; and 64.024, VA Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Program.
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Jose D. Riojas, Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on November 6, 2013 for publication.
Administrative practice and procedure, Alcohol abuse, Alcoholism, Claims, Day care, Dental health, Drug abuse, Government contracts, Grant programs—health, Government programs—veterans, Health care, Health facilities, Health professions, Health records, Homeless, Mental health programs, Nursing homes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Veterans.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Veterans Affairs amends 38 CFR part 17 as follows:
38 U.S.C. 501, and as noted in specific sections.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) A veteran who has been furnished hospital care, nursing home care, domiciliary care, or medical services, and requires medical services to complete treatment incident to such care or services (each authorization for non-VA treatment needed to complete treatment may continue for up to 12 months, and new authorizations may be issued by VA as needed), and
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Withdrawal of direct final rule.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) published a direct final rule in the
The direct final rule published on November 28, 2013 (77 FR 70893), is withdrawn as of December 16, 2013.
Lisa Brown, Chief, Policy Management Department, Department of Veterans Affairs, Chief Business Office, Purchased Care, 3773 Cherry Creek North Drive, Suite 450, Denver, CO 80209 at (303) 331–7829. This is not a toll-free number.
In a direct final rule published in the
VA published a companion proposed rule on the same date, at 77 FR 70967, proposing the same amendments as the direct final rule. The direct final rule and proposed rule each provided a 30-day comment period that ended on December 28, 2012. VA received comments on the proposed rule and direct final rule, including some adverse comments. VA is therefore withdrawing the direct final rule, “Authorization for Non-VA Medical Services,” RIN 2900–AO47, which did not become effective on January 28, 2013 because VA received adverse comments on the proposed rule and direct final rule during the 30-day comment period. VA is publishing a final rulemaking, “Authorization for Non-VA Medical Services,” RIN 2900–AO46, in this issue of the
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Jose D. Riojas, Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on November 6, 2013 for publication.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
EPA is approving revisions to the State of Michigan's Clean Air Act New Source Review (NSR) State Implementation Plan (SIP), including the Part 1 general provisions rules and the Part 19 rules for major sources in nonattainment areas. The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) submitted the revisions to address, among other things, the Federal NSR reform rules. EPA is also removing Michigan rule 336.1220 from the Michigan SIP. This rule is being replaced by applicable language found in Michigan's Part 19 NSR rules. MDEQ submitted these revisions to EPA on March 24, 2009.
This final rule is effective on January 15, 2014.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2010–0566. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Constantine Blathras, Environmental Engineer, Air Permit Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–0671,
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:
On February 6, 2013, EPA proposed approval of MDEQ's March 24, 2009 request to revise the Part 19 rules in its SIP (78 FR 8485) and announced a thirty day public comment period. EPA received comments generally supporting
On August 19, 2013, EPA proposed to rescind rule 226.1220 from the Michigan SIP (78 FR 50369). EPA also stated in the proposal that we would not be taking any action in this rulemaking on other Part 2 air use approval rule revisions. EPA received comments supporting the proposal to approve the Part 19 revisions and rescind rule 226.1220 from the SIP, and urging EPA to take action on the remaining Part 2 air use approval rule revisions. EPA will address Michigan's remaining Part 2 rule revisions in a separate rulemaking action.
EPA is approving the following Michigan air pollution control rules into the Michigan SIP: (1) Part 1, general provisions. Revisions include amendments to R336.1102 to R336.1105 (including R336.1103 and R.336.1104) (definitions: B, C, D, E); R336.1109 (definitions: I); R336.1112 to R336.1114 (definitions: L, M, N); and R336.1122 (definitions: V). These revisions were made to modify the definitions that impact the new NSR permitting rules in Part 19 as well as modify the definition of volatile organic compound. (2) Part 19, NSR for major sources impacting nonattainment areas. These revisions include changes to R336.2901 (definitions); R336.2901a (adoption by reference); R336.2902 (applicability); R336.2903 (additional permit requirements for sources impacting nonattainment areas); R336.2907 (plantwide applicability limits or PALs); and R336.2908 (conditions for approval of a major new source review permit in a nonattainment area). (3) Part 2. EPA is removing rule 336.1220. Although EPA proposed on February 6, 2013 to approve other revisions to Part 2 that Michigan had submitted on March 24, 2009, EPA is not currently taking any other action regarding Michigan's Part 2 rules in this action.
EPA has reviewed the rules MDEQ submitted on March 24, 2009, in light of the Federal nonattainment air quality permitting regulations found in 40 CFR 51.165(a) and (b). EPA has found that the rules as submitted by Michigan for inclusion into its SIP are at least as stringent as the Federal rules. The Federal rules found at 40 CFR 51.165(a) and (b) specify the elements necessary for approval of a State permit program for preconstruction review for nonattainment purposes under Part D of the Clean Air Act. A major source or major modification that would be located in an area designated as nonattainment and subject to the nonattainment area permitting rules must meet stringent conditions designed to ensure that the new source's emissions will be controlled to the greatest degree possible; that more than equivalent offsetting emission reductions will be obtained from existing sources; and that there will be progress toward achieving the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Clean Air 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 Clean Air Act. 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 Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 14, 2014. 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. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act.)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The added and revised text reads as follows:
(c) * * *
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Final rule.
DoD is issuing a final rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to update and clarify requirements for unique identification and valuation of items delivered under DoD contracts.
Mr. Dustin Pitsch, telephone 571–372–6090.
DoD published a proposed rule in the
DoD reviewed the public comments in the development of the final rule. A discussion of the comments and the changes made to the rule as a result of those comments is provided, as follows.
The final rule incorporates the following significant changes from the proposed rule:
• Paragraphs 211.274–2(a)(2) and (3) are revised to consolidate requirements.
• The definition of “data matrix” within the clause at 252.211–7003 is modified from the proposed rule to clarify the specification with which contractors must comply.
• The words “at its own expense” at 252.211–7003(c)(1)(v) are removed as a result of a public comment.
• The statement “or registered in the DoD Item Unique Identification Registry” is added at 252.211–7003(c)(2).
• The phrase “ECC200 data matrix specification” is added at 252.211–7003(c)(3) to note the exact specification within the listed standard.
• 252.211–7003(c)(5)(D) is revised to read “Verify that the marks on items and labels on shipments, storage containers, and packages are machine readable and conform to the applicable standards. The contractor shall use an automatic identification technology device for this verification that has been programmed to the requirements of Appendix A, MIL–STD–130, latest version.”
• 252.211–7003(f)(1) is revised to include the sentence “If WAWF is not required by this contract, and the contractor is not using WAWF, follow the procedure at
• 252.211–7003(f)(2)(ii) is revised to clarify that a fill-in is necessary when this circumstance applies.
• Changes previously proposed to update the Web site at 252.225–7039(b)(1)(ii)(B) are no longer required as DFARS final rule 2013–D037 published November 18, 2013 deleted this clause as coverage is now located in the FAR.
• In Appendix F–103(e)(1), the last sentence is revised to read “WAWF
• In Appendix F paragraph F–301(b)(18)(i), the fifth sentence in this paragraph is revised to read: “However, if the contract has Item Unique Identification (IUID) requirements and the receiving report is being processed in WAWF the unit price must represent the acquisition cost that will be recorded in the IUID registry.” This change is being made to ensure the instructions in Appendix F conform to the coverage in the clause.
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 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). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
DoD does not expect this final rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
The changes are being made to refine the language of the regulations and update the clause and prescription to comply with existing item unique identification policy. This DFARS final rule also clarifies the reporting requirements for special tooling and special test equipment, warranty, and type designation, updates text to describe the reason for the policy, clears up language that has been confusing in practice, and adds an alternative method of data submission using either hard copy or a wide-area-workflow attachment. The rule also eliminates Alternate I of DFARS 252.211–7003, which cited reporting requirements covered by other mechanisms.
This rule will apply to small businesses involved in manufacturing. There are currently 1,495 small businesses registered in the Item Unique Identification Registry, out of 2,431 total companies registered. The changes made by this rule will not affect the number of businesses that are required to be registered in the Item Unique Identification Registry.
There were no comments in response to the initial regulatory flexibility analysis. The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration did not file any comments.
This rule does not add any new information collection requirements as it only clarifies existing requirements.
The rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.
No alternatives were determined that will accomplish the objectives of the rule.
This rule does not add any new information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) beyond those already covered by OMB Control Numbers 0704–0246 and 0704–0248. OMB Control Number 0704–0246, titled “Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations Supplement (DFARS) Part 245, Government Property, related clauses in DFARS 252, and related forms in DFARS 253,” includes information collection requirements for DFARS subpart 211.274. OMB Control Number 0704–0248, titled “Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations Supplement (DFARS) Appendix F, Material Inspection and Receiving Report and related forms,” covers all information submitted through the Wide Area WorkFlow system.
Government procurement.
Therefore, 48 CFR parts 211, 212, 218, 246, 252, and Appendix F to Chapter 2 are amended as follows:
41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.
Item unique identification and valuation is a system of marking, valuing, and tracking items delivered to DoD that enhances logistics, contracting, and financial business transactions supporting the United States and coalition troops. Through item unique identification policy, which capitalizes on leading practices and embraces open standards, DoD—
(a) Achieves lower life-cycle cost of item management and improves life-cycle property management;
(b) Improves operational readiness;
(c) Provides reliable accountability of property and asset visibility throughout the life cycle;
(d) Reduces the burden on the workforce through increased productivity and efficiency; and
(e) Ensures item level traceability throughout lifecycle to strengthen supply chain integrity, enhance cyber security, and combat counterfeiting.
The revisions read as follows:
(a) It is DoD policy that DoD item unique identification, or a DoD recognized unique identification equivalent, is required for all delivered items, including items of contractor-acquired property delivered on contract line items (see PGI 245.402–71 for guidance when delivery of contractor acquired property is required)—
(1) For which the Government's unit acquisition cost is $5,000 or more;
(2) For which the Government's unit acquisition cost is less than $5,000 when the requiring activity determines that item unique identification is required for mission essential or controlled inventory items; or
(3) Regardless of value for any—
(i) DoD serially managed item (reparable or nonreparable) or subassembly, component, or part embedded within a subassembly, component, or part;
(ii) Parent item (as defined in 252.211–7003(a)) that contains the embedded subassembly, component, or part;
(iii) Warranted serialized item;
(iv) Item of special tooling or special test equipment, as defined at FAR 2.101, for a major defense acquisition program that is designated for preservation and storage in accordance with the requirements of section 815 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Pub. L. 110–417); and
(v) High risk item identified by the requiring activity as vulnerable to supply chain threat, a target of cyber threats, or counterfeiting.
(b)
(2) A determination and findings has been executed concluding that it is more cost effective for the Government requiring activity to assign, mark, and register the unique item identifier after delivery, and the item is either acquired from a small business concern, or is a commercial item acquired under FAR part 12 or part 8.
The revision reads as follows:
(a) It is DoD policy that contractors shall be required to identify the Government's unit acquisition cost for all deliverable end items to which item unique identification applies.
The revision reads as follows:
(a)(1) Use the clause at 252.211–7003, Item Unique Identification and Valuation, in solicitations and contracts, including solicitations and contracts using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial items, that require item identification or valuation, or both, in accordance with 211.274–2 and 211.274–3.
(2) Identify in paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of the clause the contract line, subline, or exhibit line item number and description of any item(s) below $5,000 in unit acquisition cost for which DoD item unique identification or a DoD recognized unique identification equivalent is required in accordance with 211.274–2(a)(2).
(3) Identify in paragraph (c)(1)(iii) of the clause the applicable attachment number, when DoD item unique identification or a DoD recognized unique identification equivalent is required in accordance with 211.274–2(a)(3)(i) through (v).
(2)
(a) * * *
(c)
(i) Delivered items for which the Government's unit acquisition cost is $5,000 or more, except for the following line items:
(ii) Items for which the Government's unit acquisition cost is less than $5,000 that are identified in the Schedule or the following table:
(iii) Subassemblies, components, and parts embedded within delivered items, items with warranty requirements, DoD serially managed reparables and DoD serially managed nonreparables as specified in Attachment Number __.
(iv) Any item of special tooling or special test equipment as defined in FAR 2.101 that have been designated for preservation and storage for a Major Defense Acquisition Program as specified in Attachment Number __.
(v) Any item not included in paragraphs (c)(1)(i), (ii), (iii), or (iv) of this clause for which the contractor creates and marks a unique item identifier for traceability.
(2) The unique item identifier assignment and its component data element combination shall not be duplicated on any other item marked or registered in the DoD Item Unique Identification Registry by the contractor.
(3) The unique item identifier component data elements shall be marked on an item using two dimensional data matrix symbology that complies with ISO/IEC International Standard 16022, Information technology—International symbology specification—Data matrix; ECC200 data matrix specification.
(4)
(i) The data elements (except issuing agency code) of the unique item identifier are encoded within the data matrix symbol that is marked on the item using one of the following three types of data qualifiers, as determined by the Contractor:
(A) Application Identifiers (AIs) (Format Indicator 05 of ISO/IEC International Standard 15434), in accordance with ISO/IEC International Standard 15418, Information Technology—EAN/UCC Application Identifiers and Fact Data Identifiers and Maintenance and ANSI MH 10.8.2 Data Identifier and Application Identifier Standard.
(B) Data Identifiers (DIs) (Format Indicator 06 of ISO/IEC International Standard 15434), in accordance with ISO/IEC International Standard 15418, Information Technology—EAN/UCC Application Identifiers and Fact Data Identifiers and Maintenance and ANSI MH 10.8.2 Data Identifier and Application Identifier Standard.
(C) Text Element Identifiers (TEIs) (Format Indicator 12 of ISO/IEC International Standard 15434), in accordance with the Air Transport Association Common Support Data Dictionary; and
(ii) The encoded data elements of the unique item identifier conform to the transfer structure, syntax, and coding of messages and data formats specified for Format Indicators 05, 06, and 12 in ISO/IEC International Standard 15434, Information Technology-Transfer Syntax for High Capacity Automatic Data Capture Media.
(5)
(i) The Contractor shall—
(A) Determine whether to—
(B) Place the data elements of the unique item identifier (enterprise identifier; serial number; DoD recognized unique identification equivalent; and for serialization within the part, lot, or batch number only: Original part, lot, or batch number) on items requiring marking by paragraph (c)(1) of this clause, based on the criteria provided in MIL–STD–130, Identification Marking of U.S. Military Property, latest version;
(C) Label shipments, storage containers and packages that contain uniquely identified items in accordance with the requirements of MIL–STD–129, Military Marking for Shipment and Storage, latest version; and
(D) Verify that the marks on items and labels on shipments, storage containers, and packages are machine readable and conform to the applicable standards. The contractor shall use an automatic identification technology device for this verification that has been programmed to the requirements of Appendix A, MIL–STD–130, latest version.
(ii) The issuing agency code—
(A) Shall not be placed on the item; and
(B) Shall be derived from the data qualifier for the enterprise identifier.
(d) For each item that requires item unique identification under paragraph (c)(1)(i), (ii), or (iv) of this clause or when item unique identification is provided under paragraph (c)(1)(v), in addition to the information provided as part of the Material Inspection and Receiving Report specified elsewhere in this contract, the Contractor shall report at the time of delivery, as part of the Material Inspection and Receiving Report, the following information:
(1) * * *
(12) Type designation of the item as specified in the contract schedule, if any.
(13) Whether the item is an item of Special Tooling or Special Test Equipment.
(14) Whether the item is covered by a warranty.
(e) For embedded subassemblies, components, and parts that require DoD item unique identification under paragraph (c)(1)(iii) of this clause or when item unique identification is provided under paragraph (c)(1)(v), the Contractor shall report as part of the Material Inspection and Receiving Report specified elsewhere in this contract, the following information:
(f) The Contractor shall submit the information required by paragraphs (d) and (e) of this clause as follows:
(1) End items shall be reported using the receiving report capability in Wide Area WorkFlow (WAWF) in accordance with the clause at 252.232–7003. If WAWF is not required by this contract, and the contractor is not using WAWF, follow the procedures at
(2) Embedded items shall be reported by one of the following methods—
(i) Use of the embedded items capability in WAWF;
(ii) Direct data submission to the IUID Registry following the procedures and formats at
(iii) Via WAWF as a deliverable attachment for exhibit line item number
(g)
The revisions read as follows:
(e) * * *
(1) Item Unique Identification (IUID), when the clause at DFARS 252.211–7003, Item Unique Identification and Valuation is used in the contract, reporting of IUID data is required. WAWF captures the IUID data and forwards the data to the IUID registry after acceptance. WAWF shall be used to report Unique Item Identifiers (UIIs) at the line item level, unless an exception to WAWF applies, and can also be used to report UIIs embedded at the line item level.
(b) * * *
(18) Unit price. The contractor shall enter unit prices on all WAWF RR copies.
(i) The contractor shall enter unit prices for each item of property fabricated or acquired for the Government and delivered to a
Department of State.
Final rule.
This rule adopts as final certain changes proposed to the Department of State Acquisition Regulation (DOSAR) to conform to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) changes. It adds a new DOSAR clause and provision regarding reporting certain categories of Government-furnished and contractor-acquired property.
This rule is effective on January 15, 2014.
You may obtain copies of the proposed information collection and supporting documents from Ella Ramirez, Senior Procurement Analyst, Policy Division, Department of State, Office of the Procurement Executive, 2201 C Street NW., Suite 1060, State Annex Number 15, Washington, DC 20522–0602; email address:
This rule was published as a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on July 29, 2013 (78 FR 45490), with a provision of 60 days for public comment. A summary of the proposed changes and the reasons therefor were included in the NPRM. The Department of State (Department) received two comments in response to the NPRM.
The first commenter recommended that requirements for accountability for Government-provided software be deleted because FAR Part 27 covers software and FAR Part 45 does not. While it is true that software is expressly excluded from the FAR 45.101 definition of “Government property,” tracking of software provided by the Department to its contractors is required information for the Department's financial statement. Prescribing separate reporting of this information in a DOSAR supplement to FAR 27 would be burdensome and inefficient. Accordingly, that recommendation is not accepted.
The first commenter also recommended that “Accounting” be changed to “Accountability” in the proposed DOSAR §§ 652.245–70(a)(3) and 652.245–71, on the theory that Part 45 governs the management and accountability of Government-owned property, not “accounting,” which is a financial function. The Department accepts this recommendation insofar as the language in the provision, and has changed the title of the clause to “Special Reports of Government Property.”
The first commenter pointed out duplicate provisions in proposed § 652.245–71(d)(2)(iv) and (d)(2)(xiv). The Department agrees that these provisions are duplicative, and will delete subsection (d)(2)(xiv), renumber subsequent provisions, and move the parenthetical comment (“If from another DOS contract, or government agency, please specify”) to subsection (d)(2)(iv).
The first commenter recommended that the words “or their delegated representatives” be added to the end of the chapeau to § 652.245–71(f). The Department does not agree that delegating this responsibility would be appropriate, and does not accept this recommendation.
The second commenter advances several broad arguments involving the Department's authority to enact rules and to make findings with respect to various administrative laws and executive orders that apply to rulemaking. The Department disagrees with the comments.
The authority of agencies to regulate is well-established. The absolute “non-delegation” concept has been virtually abandoned since 1948.
“If Congress has explicitly left a gap for the agency to fill, there is an express delegation of authority to the agency to elucidate a specific provision of the statute by regulation. Such legislative regulations are given controlling weight unless they are arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute. Sometimes the legislative delegation to an agency on a particular question is implicit rather than explicit. In such a case, a court may not substitute its own construction of a statutory provision for a reasonable interpretation made by the administrator of an agency.”
In the case of the FAR and DOSAR, Congress explicitly delegated rulemaking authority to certain agencies, resulting in the FAR. 41 U.S.C. 1303. FAR 1.301 provides authority to agencies to supplement the FAR: “[A]n agency head may issue or authorize the issuance of agency acquisition regulations that implement or supplement the FAR and incorporate, together with the FAR, agency policies, procedures, contract clauses, solicitation provisions, and forms that govern the contracting process or otherwise control the relationship between the agency, including any of its suborganizations, and contractors or prospective contractors.” 48 CFR § 1.301. The Secretary of State has the general authority to issue regulations to carry out the functions of the Department; specifically, in this case, regulations to implement procurement statutes and the FAR. 22 U.S.C. 2651a. The Department of State's implementing regulations are the DOSAR, codified at 48 CFR parts 600–699.
The commenter further challenged the ability of a Department official to make findings with respect to compliance with applicable statutes and executive orders (contained in the “Regulatory Findings” section of the NPRM and in this Final Rule, below). Except for the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the statutes or executive orders cited in this section require agencies to consider certain factors prior to publishing a rule. (With respect to the APA, the Department's assertion was (and is) a simple statement of fact regarding how it has complied with that law.)
If a member of the public has information contrary to the assertion of the Department official (for example, proof that annual impact on the U.S. economy from the rulemaking would in fact exceed $100,000,000; or proof that the rule would have a significant impact
The rule published as part of the NPRM is hereby published in final, with the modifications described above.
In accordance with provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, the Department published this rule and provided 60 days for public comment.
The Department of State, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), has reviewed this regulation and, by approving it, certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This determination was based on the fact that the reporting requirements are targeted at a very narrow segment of government property and based on a determination that there are only 14 contractors who are currently subject to the reporting requirements of the clause. Only four of these are small business concerns. Thus, it was concluded that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any year and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995.
This rule is not a major rule as defined by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.). This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million 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 import markets. This determination was based on the fact that the reporting requirements are targeted at a very narrow segment of government property, and on a determination that there are only 14 contractors who are currently subject to the reporting requirements of the clause. The rule does not place new requirements on contract performance, but merely addresses reporting of existing information.
Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess 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). E.O. 13563 emphasized the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. The Department of State does not consider this rule to be a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), Regulatory Planning and Review.
In addition, the Department is exempt from Executive Order 12866 except to the extent that it is promulgating regulations in conjunction with a domestic agency that are significant regulatory actions. The Department has nevertheless reviewed the regulation to ensure its consistency with the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in the Executive Orders and finds that the benefits of the proposed rule outweigh any costs.
This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to require consultations or warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.
The Department has determined that this rulemaking will not have tribal implications, will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and will not pre-empt tribal law. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply to this rulemaking.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) applies, because the proposed rule imposes information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501,
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The total number of responses was increased by fourteen from 9,316 to 9,330. As a result of this change, the total estimated burden was increased from 275,970 hours to 275,984 hours. The increase in the responses and the burden is due to the impact of this DOSAR provision.
The proposed rule will update the Department of State Acquisition Regulation (DOSAR) to conform to recent Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) changes, and adds a new DOSAR provision, 652.245–70, regarding reporting on the status of offeror's property management systems. Respondents are offerors on solicitations for contracts under which specified government property will be provided. This is an existing IC, 1405–0050, Department of State Acquisition Regulation (DOSAR) 652.245–70, Status of Property Management System. This provision was inadvertently left out of the previously approved Information Collection package. The new provision is being inserted into the DOSAR and concurrently added into the current IC. The new DOSAR provision (and IC
The Department received two comments in response to the NPRM, but neither comment addressed the information collection specifically.
Legal Authorities are as follows:
Contracts, Electronic commerce, Government procurement.
Accordingly, for reasons set forth in the preamble, Title 48, chapter 6 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
40 U.S.C. 121; 22 U.S.C. 2651a; 48 CFR Subpart 1.3.
(a) The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 652.245–70, Status of Property Management System, in solicitations when any of the following conditions apply:
(1) Highway motor vehicles and aircraft, regardless of cost, are provided by the Government or acquired by the contractor for the account of the Government;
(2) Software exceeding $500,000 in value, including labor costs to develop, is provided by the Government or acquired by the contractor for the account of the Government; or
(3) Personal property greater than $25,000 (and not in paragraphs (a)(1) or (2) of this subsection) is provided by the Government or acquired by the contractor for the account of the Government. The personal property must be complete within itself; does not lose its identity or become a component part of other property when put into use; and is of a durable nature with an estimated useful life expectancy to exceed two years.
(b) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 652.245–71, Special Reports of Government Property, in all solicitations and contracts that contain the provision at 652.245–70.
40 U.S.C. 121; 22 U.S.C. 2651a; 48 CFR Subpart 1.3.
As prescribed in 645.107–70(a), insert the following provision:
(a) When used in this provision, government-furnished property, government property, and contractor-acquired property are as defined in FAR 45.101.
(b) Offerors shall include in their quote or offer:
(1) Whether the offeror's property management system that will be used on this contract to track government-furnished property and/or contractor-acquired property has been determined to be adequate by a Federal property manager;
(2) The name, address, telephone number and email address of both the–
(i) Cognizant Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO) responsible for review and determination of adequacy of the contractor's property system; and
(ii) The cognizant contractor government property manager;
(3) The voluntary consensus standard or industry leading practices and standards to be used in the management of government property, or existing property management plans, methods, practices or procedures for accountability of property.
(End of provision)
As prescribed in 645.107–70(b), insert the following clause:
(a)
(b) The Contractor shall establish and maintain a property management system that is in accordance with the clause at FAR 52.245–1, Government Property. This clause supplements these requirements by specifying the U.S. Department of State capitalized property reporting requirements.
(c) The Contractor shall submit electronically one report on an annual basis and three other reports on a quarterly basis for the following:
(1) Where highway motor vehicles and aircraft, regardless of cost, are provided by the Government or acquired by the Contractor for the account of the Government;
(2) Where software exceeding $500,000 in value, including labor cost to develop, is provided by the Government or acquired by the Contractor for the account of the Government; or
(3) Where personal property greater than $25,000 (not in paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) of this clause) is provided by the Government or acquired by the Contractor for the account of the Government. The personal property must be complete within itself; does not lose its identity or become a component part of other property when put into use; and is of a durable nature with an estimated useful life expectancy to exceed two years.
(d) The Contractor shall submit all annual and quarterly reports in the following format, except as stated in paragraph (e) of this clause:
(1) Property shall be grouped by the following property classifications:
(i) Highway motor vehicles;
(ii) Communications equipment;
(iii) Information technology (formerly called automated data processing) equipment;
(iv) Reproduction equipment;
(v) Security equipment;
(vi) Software;
(vii) Software-in-development;
(viii) Medical equipment;
(ix) Aircraft property; and
(x) Other depreciable personal property.
(2) Data elements for each unit of property shall include:
(i) Contract number: Federal Government contract or purchase order number;
(ii) Task Order number;
(iii) Property classification: From classification listed in paragraph (d)(1) of this clause;
(iv) Denotation as either government-furnished property (GFP) or contractor-acquired property (CAP) (If from another DOS contract, or government agency, please specify);
(v) Noun name of property (i.e. generator);
(vi) Description of property;
(vii) Manufacturer;
(viii) Model;
(ix) Serial number;
(x) National Stock Number if applicable
(xi) Unique-item identifier or equivalent: such as barcode label (tag number) or system-assigned number. For highway motor vehicles, this must be the vehicle identification number (VIN);
(xii) Date received: Date contractor took possession;
(xiii) Date placed in service;
(xiv) Acquisition cost (As defined in FAR clause 52.245–1(a)): Use estimated fair-market value for property transferred or donated, at the time acquired, if actual cost is unknown;
(xv) Estimated useful life in years: The period during which the property is expected to provide the service for which it was intended. This should normally be equivalent to the depreciation schedule;
(xvi) Current location of the property: Country and city;
(xvii) Disposal Date;
(xviii) Disposal Method;
(e) The Contractor shall submit a full property report, as described in this clause, including affirmation, for the report covering the first quarter of the base contract. Thereafter, submission of reports shall follow the time frames outlined in paragraph (h) below. Quarterly property reports, other than the annual report, may be either full property reports or only updates to the full property report. Quarterly reports do not require affirmations even when the Contractor chooses to submit a full property report. Affirmations are only required for the report covering the first quarter of the contract and the annual report for each subsequent option year of the contract. If the Contractor submits a full property report, dispositions subsequent to any previous report must also be identified in the report. If a Contractor submits a quarterly report in the form of an update, the update shall include acquisitions and dispositions.
(f) The Contractor shall provide any required affirmation in the following format. The affirmation shall be signed by the Contractor's managerial personnel (as defined in FAR clause 52.245–1):
“I hereby affirm that a physical inventory of the government property (as defined in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 45.101) of Department of State contract number (
(g) In addition to the information required above, the Contractor shall include in all property reports:
(1) The current degree to which properly qualified Government personnel have evaluated the Contractor's property management system as being an adequate property management system;
(2) The name, mailing address, telephone number, and email address of the qualified Government person(s) who performed the evaluation of the Contractor's property management system; and
(3) The cognizant contractor government property manager.
(h) Reports shall cover the following time periods and are due on the following dates:
(i) The Contractor shall send a copy of all reports to the individuals listed below. The Contractor shall submit reports in electronic format as an attachment to an email. The affirmation described in paragraph (f) of this clause shall be in Adobe Acrobat (.pdf) format (including the signature), while the inventories, both quarterly and annual, shall be in Microsoft Excel format (Adobe Acrobat and Microsoft Excel versions shall be compatible with versions used by DOS). Send all reports to:
(1) The contracting officer;
(2) The Property Administrator;
(3) The contracting officer's representative (COR);
(4)
(5)
(6) All individuals listed below (if any):
(j) The Contractor shall cooperate by responding timely to all follow up questions and requests for supporting documentation whether requested by the Department or external auditors.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Interim final rule.
This rule allows fishing access for Northeast multispecies sectors to two portions of the Southern New England Nantucket Lightship Closed Area for the remainder of the 2013 fishing year under specified conditions. Although NMFS considered and proposed exemption requests that would allow sector vessels access to portions of Georges Bank Closed Areas I and II, NMFS is not granting access to those areas at this time. The intent of this rule is to allow sector vessels increased opportunities to harvest non-groundfish stocks such as monkfish, dogfish, and skates while minimizing impacts to overfished groundfish stock such as Georges Bank cod and yellowtail flounder.
Effective December 31, 2013, through April 30, 2014. Comments on the interim monitoring coverage measure must be received by January 15, 2014.
A copy of the accompanying environmental assessment is available from the NMFS Northeast Regional Office: John K. Bullard, Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. These documents are also accessible via the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA–NMFS–2013–0084, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Once submitted to NMFS, copies of addenda to fishing year 2013 sector operations plans detailing industry-funded monitoring plans, and the environmental assessment (EA), will be available from the NMFS NE Regional Office at the mailing address above.
William Whitmore, Fishery Policy Analyst, phone (978) 281–9182, fax (978) 281–9135.
Amendment 16 to the Northeast Multispecies Fisheries Management Plan (groundfish plan) allows sectors to request regulatory exemptions in their annual sector operations plans. We review and approve or disapprove sector exemptions on an annual basis. Exemption requests are only approved after we determine that the exemption is consistent with the groundfish plan's goals and objectives. For additional information on sector exemptions, the process for approving sector exemptions, and a description of current sector exemptions, please see the final rule for fishing year 2013 sector operations plans (78 FR 25591, May 2, 2013).
On May 3, 2013, NMFS partially approved Framework Adjustment 48 to the groundfish plan, which includes a provision that allows sectors to request access to year-round mortality closure areas. For additional information on Framework 48, see 78 FR 26118; May 3, 2013. Anticipating that Framework 48 would be approved, sectors included exemption requests from year-round closure areas in their initial fishing year 2013 operations plan submissions in the fall of 2012. This interim final rule partially approves these exemption requests.
As explained in the proposed rule (78 FR 41772; July 11, 2013), recent analyses of these closed areas were undertaken by the New England Fishery Management Council's (Council) Closed Area Technical Team (CATT). Much of the work done by the CATT was incorporated into the environmental assessment that accompanies this action. In a separate action, the Council is also in the process of preparing Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Omnibus Amendment 2 (referred to as the Omnibus Habitat Amendment) to several fishery management plans, including the groundfish plan. It is anticipated that the Omnibus Habitat Amendment will be completed by May 2014, and potentially implemented by the end of 2014.
While the measures approved in this rule are only for the 2013 fishing year, the current closed areas could be modified sometime during the 2014 fishing year as a result of the Omnibus Habitat Amendment. The Omnibus Habitat Amendment is considering allowing access to the areas being opened in this action within the context of balancing the protections and opportunities provided by a broad array of potential essential fish habitat management areas. The balance will seek to minimize impacts to essential fish habitat to the extent practicable. This action involves access to portions of these specific closed areas, without balancing the potential protections or opportunities provided by other areas. The broader focus of the Omnibus Habitat Amendment may result in providing more or less restrictive access to the portions of the closed areas considered in this action. Additional information on the Omnibus Habitat Amendment, including a map and descriptions of the proposed closed area modifications, can be found on the Council's Web site at
We considered exemption requests from portions of the Nantucket Lightship Closed Area and Closed Areas I and II in a separate action from the final rule for fishing year 2013 sector operations plans for several reasons. First, proposing these exemption requests in a separate action gave us additional time to develop a more detailed and complete environmental analysis. Second, it provided a better opportunity to address specific concerns with the potential impact of actual sector proposals. Third, the public could provide additional comments to those already expressed in response to Framework 48. Fourth, because access to these closed areas was considered through sector exemptions, the NMFS Regional Administrator could include additional stipulations and constraints on specific exemptions to facilitate the monitoring and enforcement of sector operations or as mitigation measures to address specific potential impacts. The three proposed exemptions included additional constraints to mitigate impacts on groundfish stocks and protected resources to ensure that any approved exemptions are consistent with the goals and objectives of the groundfish plan.
Our consideration of these sector exemptions balanced factors specific to the protections of, and fishing opportunities for, fish stocks within small portions of these closed areas. The proposed exemptions were intended to provide economic opportunities to sector vessels to mitigate the impact of sharp reductions in catch limits. After considering over 81,100 comments submitted by the public, and after further review of the environmental assessment, we have elected not to grant sectors restricted access to Georges Bank Closed Areas I and II in fishing year 2013. This rule, however, does grant sector vessels access to portions of the Southern New England Nantucket Lightship Closed Area for the remainder of this fishing year. Further, we will use at least the standard federally funded sector at-sea monitoring and observer coverage level (22 percent of trips for the 2013 fishing year) for trips into the Eastern and Western Exemption Areas of Nantucket Lightship Closed Area (Figure A). Because this coverage level differs from what was initially proposed, we are soliciting additional comment on this issue. It is hoped that allowing carefully designed access to the Nantucket Lightship Closed Area will allow vessels to increase their catch of healthy non-groundfish stocks (such as monkfish, dogfish, and skates), while minimizing impacts to recovering groundfish stocks and protected resources.
Although we proposed to allow access to fish in portions of Closed Areas I and II in the proposed rule, we are not approving sector exemption requests that would allow sector vessels to fish in those areas. Comments submitted by the fishing industry indicated that they would be unable to participate in the exemption if they were required to pay for a monitor on every trip. We are also concerned about the current status of Georges Bank cod and yellowtail flounder stocks, which are found in Closed Areas I and II. Furthermore, the vast majority of comments submitted by members of the public and environmental organizations are opposed to reopening the closed areas.
Our proposal to allow access to these areas was based on a balance of potential economic opportunity and efficiency with cost-effective monitoring and fish stock protections. We have concluded that the utility of opening these areas is outweighed by the potential adverse impacts to overfished fish stocks and because comments from industry state that it is too costly for them to participate in these exemptions. Because of the combination of the industry's lack of participation in these exemptions and our concern about the status of these overfished stocks, we are disapproving these requests.
We continue to believe it is critical that every trip into Closed Area I and II have an at-sea monitor or observer on board the vessel to monitor total catch from these areas. These areas were originally closed to protect struggling fish stocks. Specifically, Closed Areas I and II were closed to protect Georges Bank cod and haddock, which spawn in these areas. Because we know Georges Bank cod and yellowtail flounder, which are both severely depleted, reside in these areas, we believe it is appropriate to require additional monitoring coverage, especially since there are very few historical catch data from these areas. We are also concerned that observing only 22 percent of the trips into the areas could be insufficient for us to promptly address changes in the discard rates for groundfish stocks. Monitoring every trip would allow us to respond more quickly, should there be an unanticipated impact to the area, such as increased harvests of juveniles, large adult spawners, or impacts on protected species. Additionally, if a large amount of haddock, cod, or yellowtail flounder is found in a re-opened area, then vessels may unintentionally catch more fish than they have an allocation for, because catch limits are relatively low for these stocks. Avoiding exceeding one's allocation could provide a strong incentive for illegal discarding. Requiring a monitor to be on each vessel fishing in a closed area would mitigate this concern. Also, if there is a large amount of haddock in the area, a vessel may be tempted to misreport or illegally discard limiting stocks of Georges Bank cod and yellowtail flounder so that it can continue to harvest haddock. These concerns are not unique to closure areas. Because the closure areas provide additional protection to depleted groundfish stocks, we believe it is vitally important to get good catch information from these areas. Further, this level of monitoring would provide greater chances to observe interactions with protected species, if they occur, as well as an ancillary benefit of gaining additional fishery dependent data from the trips into these areas.
We proposed that sector vessels pay for at-sea monitors on these trips because we do not have money to pay for these additional trips. Unfortunately, comments submitted by members of the fishing industry, fishing industry interest groups, and sector managers argued that no fishing vessel would utilize the exemption if it were required to pay for an at-sea monitor. Industry claims that the additional expenses offset any potential increase in profit, making the exemption useless.
We are seriously concerned about the sustainability of the Georges Bank cod and yellowtail flounder stocks. Both of these stocks, which are overfished and subject to overfishing, are found in Closed Areas I and II, with yellowtail flounder found predominantly in Closed Area II. Despite proposals to require selective gears and seasonality restrictions, without 100-percent coverage of these trips, we cannot approve access to Closed Areas I and II. There is no utility in providing access, however, if industry does not participate.
Lastly, we are hearing from fishermen that they are having a difficult time catching Georges Bank haddock. As of September 11, 2013, we are over one third of the way into the fishing year and sector vessels have harvested only 2.7 percent of the Georges Bank haddock east quota, and 2.5 percent of the Georges Bank west haddock quota. These drastically low catch amounts suggest that the closed areas alone are not the only limiting factor influencing fishermen's Georges Bank haddock catch. Fishermen were requesting that we open Closed Areas I and II so they could increase their haddock catch—these low catch amounts, along with comments from some fishermen, suggest that opening Closed Areas I and II would not lead to a significant increase in haddock catch.
Sector exemptions should provide fishermen with greater flexibility to enhance their efficiency and, ultimately, improve their profits, all while maintaining the goals and objectives of the groundfish plan. We proposed allowing sectors restricted access into Closed Areas I and II, believing that if there were a substantial chance of enhancing efficiency, the increased revenue associated with increases in catch would easily offset the costs associated with funding an at-sea monitor. The proposal sought to provide the industry an opportunity for increasing catch and mitigating the impact of lower catch limits, while balancing efficiency in utilizing fishery resources, minimizing costs, and minimizing bycatch to the extent practicable consistent with Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act National Standards. Comments submitted by industry indicate that the proposed exemptions for these areas would not meet those goals because industry perceived that the economic benefits of the potential catch from these areas would not outweigh the costs of monitoring and stated they would not participate. Because of this, and because we want to continue working to rebuild overfished groundfish stocks, we are not approving these exemptions at this time.
NMFS is interested in gathering data from Closed Areas I and II so that it may conduct analyses to determine whether fishing can be allowed at a level of observer coverage less than 100 percent. Sector vessels interested in assisting NMFS in obtaining additional fisheries-dependent data from year-round closed areas may submit a request to NMFS for an exempted fishing permit. Exempted fishing permits authorize a federally permitted fishing vessel (or vessels) to conduct fishing activities that would otherwise be prohibited—in this instance, to fish in a year-round closed area under conditions that would not harm stocks. Exempted fishing permit requests would be expeditiously reviewed and authorized based on their merit. Permits would not be approved if it is determined that the exempted activities could undermine measures that were established to conserve and manage fisheries or reduce interactions with protected species.
NMFS will also reassess whether groundfish sector vessels might be able to access these closed areas if they are assigned a random observer or at-sea monitor. However, NMFS must ensure that new information or analysis from this reassessment shows that such trips would not compromise the legally required monitoring coverage levels for other groundfish trips across the entire fishery, or the underlying analytical principles that support catch and discard monitoring. NMFS will complete this reanalysis in time to determine whether this is a viable option for sector exemptions for the next fishing year, which begins May 1, 2014.
This rule allows sector vessels access to the Eastern and Western Exemption Areas within the Nantucket Lightship Closed Area for the duration of fishing year 2013, as outlined in this preamble. Trawl vessels are restricted to using selective trawl gear, including the separator trawl, the Ruhle trawl, the mini-Ruhle trawl, rope trawl, and any other gear authorized by the Council in a management action. Flounder nets are prohibited in this area. Hook vessels are permitted. Gillnet vessels are restricted to fishing 10-inch (25.4-cm) diamond mesh or larger. Gillnet vessels are required to use pingers when fishing in the Western Exemption Area from December 1–May 31, because this area lies within the existing Southern New England Management Area of the Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction Plan.
Requiring selective gear in the Nantucket Lightship Closed Area allows vessels to target monkfish, dogfish, and skates while minimizing flounder bycatch. Although Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic yellowtail flounder is considered rebuilt, the requirement to use selective gear addresses concerns that vessels could harvest a large portion of yellowtail flounder allocation from this area, which is considered home to an important source population for yellowtail flounder. Catches of monkfish, dogfish, and skates could help mitigate the low fishing year 2013 allocations for several groundfish stocks.
After further review of the environmental assessment and after considering comments submitted by the public, we are reducing the necessary at-sea monitoring coverage level to the standard 22 percent. We will fund the at-sea monitors and observers and if any additional at-sea monitoring or Federal observer funding becomes available, we will consider increasing the coverage rate for trips into this area.
We have several reasons for modifying the at-sea monitoring coverage level in the Nantucket Lightship Closed Area. First, this exemption is designed to allow vessels to target non-groundfish stocks while reducing groundfish catch, and therefore groundfish discard rates. Second, there are not significant numbers of Georges Bank cod in the Nantucket Lightship Closed Area, and there are no Georges Bank yellowtail flounder in the area. Requiring selective gear in these areas reduces the likelihood that groundfish, including Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic yellowtail flounder, will be caught.
Second, the Western Exemption Area is surrounded by the Southern New England Monkfish, Skate, and Dogfish Exemption Area, where vessels fishing with extra-large mesh gillnets are already exempted from at-sea monitoring entirely (See Figure B). Gillnet vessels fishing under this exemption in the Western Exemption Area would be fishing in a similar area and with similar mesh size as those in the surrounding exempted fishery, but would have monitoring coverage. Vessels fishing just south of the areas are also exempt from monitoring coverage when fishing large mesh. Discard rates on trips in these two Exemption Areas are low, and we expect similar discard rates for this gear used in the Eastern and Western Exemption Areas. So while we have
This action becomes effective 15 days after the date of publication in the
If there is an increase in fishing effort as a result of allowing sector vessels into portions of the Nantucket Lightship Closed Area, and it is determined that the increased effort is reducing our ability to provide the necessary at-sea monitoring coverage to monitor other sector trips, we will discontinue the exemption. The Regional Administrator also reserves the authority to discontinue the exemption if it is determined that the exemption jeopardizes management measures, objectives, or rebuilding efforts.
A sector vessel intending to fish in the Eastern or Western Exemption Areas will be required to call the Northeast Fishery Observer Program at least 48 hr prior to departure. A separate number and call-in system is being developed and will be detailed in a bulletin to permit holders. Each vessel is also required to declare its intent through its Vessel Monitoring System prior to departing the dock. Unlike previously proposed, because we are using the same at-sea monitoring coverage rate as other sector trips, catch from these trips will be used for determining a sector's discard rate. We continue to work on additional implementation issues and will explain any additional reporting requirements (changes to trip start or end hail requirements, for example) to each sector that requests to utilize this exemption.
Because this level of monitoring coverage was not discussed in the proposed rule or the accompanying draft environmental assessment, we are specifically requesting public comment on the modification to reduce the monitoring coverage level (both at-sea monitors and observers) from 100 percent to some level that is at least 22 percent but less than 100 percent.
We have determined that this action is consistent with the goals and objective of Amendment 16 to the groundfish plan (for a complete list of the Amendment 16 goals and objectives, see page 67 of the Amendment 16 environmental impact statement). This rule allows sector vessels additional opportunities to increase their catch while constrained by an annual catch limit (Objectives 1 and 3). By restricting vessels to specific areas and gears, this rule minimizes vessel bycatch. Habitat impacts from fishing are minimized to the extent practicable because the areas were determined to have low vulnerability (Objectives 9 and 10). The exemptions granted to sector vessels through this rule increase the opportunity to meet optimum yield of several healthy fish stocks while constraining fishing mortality. Any increase in profits will benefit fishermen and fishing communities, while the gear restrictions will continue to allow overfished stocks to rebuild.
We received 90,263 comments in response to the proposed rule consisting of five petitions and numerous letters from individuals, organizations, and government entities. Three of the petitions including 74,943 signatures that were initially submitted in response to Framework 48, were resubmitted for this action. The remaining two petitions included 6,187 provided additional comments in response to this action. NMFS also received a petition that included another 9,082 additional comments, however this petition was submitted well after the comment period expired. The petitions, and
We also proposed 100-percent monitoring coverage so that we could have a very clear picture of catch and discards. We believed that this level of coverage would allow us to monitor the use and impacts of the exemption in near-real time and potentially close the area earlier if necessary, should the information warrant it. However, comments submitted by members of the fishing industry stated that they are unable to pay for this level of coverage and would not access these areas under this monitoring requirement. Given the importance of having a high level of coverage in these areas, the fact that we are unable to fund this level of coverage, and the industry's comments that the cost of coverage required for access is too high compared to the potential benefit from access to these areas, we are disapproving access to Closed Areas I and II.
The status of many key groundfish stocks is poor. Recent status reports from the Transboundary Resource Assessment Committee (TRAC), which conducts an annual stock assessment of Georges Bank cod, haddock, and yellowtail flounder, have several troubling findings. For example, the combined Canadian and U.S. catches of Georges Bank yellowtail flounder in 2012 were 722 mt. The report explains that this is the first time since 1940 that catch has been less than 1,000 mt. Further, recruitment of the three most recent yellowtail flounder cohorts is estimated to be the lowest in the time series. The TRAC also explained that the average weight at length of Georges Bank cod, used to reflect condition, has been stable in the past, but has started to decline in recent years. Lower weights at age in the population in recent years and poor recruitment have contributed to the lack of rebuilding, and the TRAC is recommending a reduction in allocation for the 2014 fishing year.
We believe that the proposed rule included restrictions that would limit fishing impacts on these stocks, and properly monitor fishing trips under this exemption. However, in light of our concern about the continually declining status of Georges Bank cod and yellowtail flounder, we believe that it is not appropriate to increase fishing activity in Closed Areas I and II at this time.
On the other hand, Georges Bank cod are rarely in the Nantucket Lightship Closed Area, and Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic yellowtail flounder has recently been declared to be rebuilt. Vessels fishing in this area will not be targeting cod, haddock, or yellowtail flounder. Acknowledging concerns that a source population for Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic yellowtail flounder exists in that area, we included selective gear requirements with the exemption. For example, in addition to prohibiting the use of flounder nets in these areas, gillnet vessels will be fishing with net mesh sizes consistent with the requirements of nearby Exempted Fisheries that experience little to no groundfish bycatch. These selective gear requirements are in addition to each sector also being restricted by an allocation. We believe that we can monitor this fishery with the standard coverage rate. For these reasons, we believe that the Nantucket Lightship Closed Area differs from Closed Areas I and II, which is why we are approving restricted access to and lower monitoring coverage for this area so sector vessels can target monkfish, skate, and dogfish.
The data indicate that Closed Area II likely contributed to the recovery of Georges Bank haddock. Some data indicate that Closed Area II is providing refuge to stocks of Georges Bank cod and yellowtail flounder. It appears that a significant portion of the Georges Bank yellowtail flounder population can be found in Closed Area II. Larger cod are found in the Western Gulf of Maine Closed Area, as well as the northern portion of Closed Area II. These stocks have not rebuilt despite these closed areas. The peer-reviewed literature reviewed by the CATT had different findings regarding a correlation between closed areas and stock health.
Our proposed rule attempted to provide a balanced approach to reopening the areas by allowing very restricted access. While we are not allowing vessels into Closed Areas I or II, we are allowing vessels into the Nantucket Lightship Closed Area. More importantly, we are not deeming any of these areas as effective or ineffective. Further, this action is for fishing year 2013 only. A full review of essential fish habitats and year-round closures will be undertaken in the Habitat Omnibus Amendment, in which the most effective closed areas will be identified and implemented.
Furthermore, we did not propose to open any of the year-round essential fish habitat closed areas any of the areas proposed to be closed in Omnibus Habitat Amendment 2.
Because the stocks in Nantucket Lightship Closed Area are healthier than stocks in Closed Areas I and II and because we have included the selective gear requirements, we can provide access to Nantucket Lightship Closed Area with federally funded coverage at the standard coverage rate of 22 percent. Therefore, this option could allow industry more fishing opportunities with no additional expenses.
Despite the fact that some argue that the proposed areas represent “de facto” habitat closed areas, and that discussing the two in the same Notice of Intent links them, they are in fact, two separate closures that are managed differently. Mobile bottom tending gear (bottom trawls and dredges) are prohibited from fishing in a habitat closed area. However, vessels can use bottom trawls and dredges in some groundfish year-round closed areas, for instance, through groundfish special access programs and scallop access areas. Because of this, we supported the ability for sectors to request exemptions from portions of groundfish closed areas that are not managed as essential fish habitat closed areas, and we are allowing vessels to fish in portions of the Nantucket Lightship Closed Area.
The regulations at § 648.90(c)(1)(i) state that changes to closed areas, management boundaries, essential fish habitat, sector administrative provisions, and sector specifications can be made in a framework. We believe that this action is consistent with the goals and objectives of the groundfish plan. For these reasons, we do not believe that an amendment is necessary.
While an ESA Section 7 consultation continues to be developed for the groundfish plan, we have determined that allowing these fisheries and associated research to continue during the reinitiation period will not violate
Specifically, based on public comment and our continuing goal of rebuilding fish stocks, we are not opening Closed Areas I and II. We are opening the portions of the Nantucket Lightship Closed Area because the area is not critical to stocks that are overfished or undergoing overfishing, such as Georges Bank cod or yellowtail flounder. Further, we have included additional restrictions with this exemption that will limit groundfish harvests while allowing vessels to target monkfish, skates, and dogfish.
To reduce potential impacts on harbor porpoises, we are requiring pingers in the Western Exemption Area of the Nantucket Lightship Closed Area as required by the Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction Plan.
Importantly, it is likely that vessels will only fish in this area if they can increase their catch per unit effort of whatever fish they are targeting. In other words, it is illogical for vessels to continually fish in an area where they catch less fish. We expect either this area will not be more productive and will not be utilized, or it will be utilized with greater catch per unit effort, which would reduce the overall effort and therefore reduce the potential for interactions between protected species and fishing gear.
Importantly, overall fishing effort has been decreasing as a result of the drastic reductions in allocations. There were 447 takes during fishing year 2011 compared to the established potential biological removal level of 706. Furthermore, if there is an unanticipated increase in observed interactions with protected species as a result of allowing vessels to fish in the Nantucket Lightship Closed Area, the Regional Administrator reserves the authority to revoke the exemption. In addition, both the Harbor Porpoise and Large Whale Take Reduction Plans include accountability measures that would be enacted if the potential biological removal level is exceeded.
Lastly, as previously stated, this action complies with and follows the requirements of the Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction Plan, including the use of pingers in the Western Exemption Area. One peer-reviewed study that was published in the journal
For these reasons, in addition to those included in the environmental assessment for this action, we do not believe that opening portions of the Nantucket Lightship Closed Area will have a significant impact on harbor porpoise or large whales.
We disagree with assertions that we are not providing mitigation to the fishing industry. We do not have enough Federal funds to cover this level of monitoring in these areas because we are already paying for 100 percent of the coverage on standard sector fishing trips. Arguably, we could fund trips into this area if we reduced our funding of other trips—but we do not believe this is a viable solution to provide coverage across the entire sector fishery. Amendment 16 stated that sectors would be required to fund all their monitoring coverage by fishing year 2012, yet we have provided funding for fishing years 2012, 2013, and are working to provide assistance for at least a portion of monitoring costs in fishing year 2014.
After reconsidering our initial proposal, we believe that we can allow vessels into portions of Nantucket Lightship Closed Areas with standard levels of monitoring coverage. Because we do not anticipate an increase in effort resulting from this decision, we believe that we can fund these trips.
The proposed rule for fishing year 2013 sector operations plans (78 FR 16220; March 14, 2013, see page 16236) explained that we would require 100-percent industry-funded at-sea monitoring for several exemptions, including access to year-round closed areas. The comment period for the sector operations plans proposed rule was from March 14, 2013, until March 29, 2013. The Framework 48 final rule explained that it was unlikely that we would open the Western Gulf of Maine or Cashes Ledge Year-Round Closed Areas (78 FR 26118; May 3, 2013, see page 26145). Also, the Framework 48 final rule and the final rule for fishing year 2013 sector operations plans responded to comments opposed to industry-funded at-sea monitoring (78 FR 26118; May 3, 2013, see page 26145 and 78 FR 25591; May 2, 2013, see page 25610). Despite these comments and responses, the issue was not discussed at either the June 12, 2013, Groundfish Committee meeting or the June Council meeting the following week. We believe that the Council had adequate opportunities to comment on this issue.
We must consider efficiency in the utilization of fishery resources and minimize costs to the extent practicable when we consider exemptions. For example, if opening these closed areas were to provide sector vessels with economic benefits, the economic benefits should at least outweigh the costs of the appropriate level of at-sea monitoring deemed necessary to properly account for catch. If the financial benefits do not outweigh the costs of carrying a monitor, we believe that there is likely not enough financial incentive (enough fish) to outweigh the potential resource risks. This conclusion is supported by our analyses, as well as analyses by the Council's Closed Area Technical Team and industry comments.
To be clear, we have modified sector exemptions in the past and will likely modify them in the future if we believe it could be beneficial to the sectors. We do not necessarily know the impact of an exemption request until we analyze it. We need to review the requests within an environmental assessment. If an exemption request could have a significant impact, it requires an EIS. Because an EIS requires a substantial amount of time to develop, it is not possible to develop an EIS in time to approve a sector exemption during the fishing year. Furthermore, any action that requires an EIS should likely be discussed and approved by the Council.
It should be noted that approved exemptions are completely voluntary. Exemption requests are not regulations that are required to be approved or implemented. We view exemptions as opportunities to provide additional flexibility that can be utilized by a sector vessel as they wish, as long as the exemption meets the goals and objectives of the groundfish plan. Despite frequent opposition by industry to our modifications of exemption requests, we propose revised exemptions as an effort to aid sectors by offering an approvable option instead of simply denying a request. As explained earlier, the proposed rule was our attempt at finding a sustainable solution to a controversial issue.
While SBRM may not indicate that 100-percent coverage is necessary to properly monitor protected species interactions, 100-percent coverage was proposed not only for protected species interactions, but also to monitor catch (including discards) in an area where we have very little fishery data.
We did consider a coverage level that was higher than that in an open area but less than 100 percent but decided, as stated in comment 18, that 100-percent monitoring would be necessary for this exemption. For additional information on why we proposed 100-percent industry-funded at-sea monitoring, see the proposed rule for fishing year 2013 sector operations plans (78 FR 16220; page 16236). Also, it appears from the comments submitted on behalf of industry members that industry is unwilling to pay for any level of at-sea monitoring, making the argument for an intermediate level of coverage moot.
Recognizing the concern of the Council though, we have modified our original proposal to allow vessels to fish in portions of the Nantucket Lightship Closed Area with at least the standard monitoring coverage rate.
We are going to fund the monitoring of trips into the Eastern and Western Exemption Areas in Nantucket Lightship Closed Area. If any additional at-sea monitoring or Northeast Fisheries Observer Program funding remains, we will increase our coverage as possible. We do not have adequate funding to pay for trips into Closed Areas I and II at the full coverage rate we believe is necessary.
Further, the at-sea monitoring coverage requirements for the herring fishery are very different. Unlike the groundfish fishery, there is no regulatory requirement for at-sea monitoring coverage to achieve a specified level of precision.
Response: We strongly disagree that managing effort, or input controls, including the use of closed areas and gear restrictions, are no longer necessary. Since Amendment 16 to the groundfish plan established annual catch limits and accountability measures and expanded the scope of sectors, not one sector has exceeded its allocation—this is important in a quota-managed fishery. Yet several key groundfish stocks, including Gulf of Maine cod, Gulf of Maine haddock, Georges Bank cod, and Georges Bank yellowtail flounder, are in worse condition than they were in fishing year 2010 when Amendment 16 was implemented. Despite our attempts at utilizing the best available science to develop annual quotas, and despite each sector adhering to its allocation each fishing year, many of our stocks continue to struggle to rebuild for a variety of reasons, including poor recruitment and possibly climate change. Simply put, quotas alone cannot manage this fishery.
Because of this, we do believe that additional measures, such as protection for juvenile and spawning fish, as well as essential fish habitats, are vital to helping the stocks rebuild. Furthermore, it is counter-productive to increase fishing pressure on stocks that are overfished and undergoing overfishing.
The Cape Cod Commercial Fishermen's Alliance comment focused on the fact that Closed Area I is not in a designated whale protection zone, harbor porpoise are not in the area, and pinger compliance could reduce any concern of increased interactions with protected species. We were prohibiting gillnets in the Closed Area I exemption area to protect Georges Bank cod because gillnets have relatively high bycatch rates; we were not prohibiting them in the area because of protected species interactions.
Lastly, the comment suggesting that hook gear should not be subject to the same restrictions as lobster and trawl gear as defined by the Addendum XX to the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Lobster Management Plan is moot since we are no longer opening Closed Area II as proposed.
However, as explained in our response to Comment 11, we are not denying access to Closed Areas I and II because of habitat concerns. In fact, we proposed to open the areas because we believe that the habitat in these areas is either already subject to fishing pressure or not vulnerable to fishing. We are not allowing access into these two areas because industry has stated that they are unable to pay for the monitoring coverage we see necessary, given our concern about the health of such groundfish as Georges Bank cod and yellowtail flounder.
We proposed opening the Nantucket Lightship Closed Area because we do not believe that it provides extensive habitat benefits and the benefits to the groundfish fishery of re-opening that area outweigh the potential impacts on fishery stocks. The Omnibus Habitat Amendment, if approved, is intended to minimize the adverse effects of fishing on EFH, to the extent practicable.
Regulations adding increased restrictions on offshore lobster vessels were included in the proposed rule, but because the exemption is not being approved, the regulations are not included in this final rule. If the exemption is requested in the future, similar regulations would be proposed and would be implemented if the exemption were approved.
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this final rule is consistent with the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.
This final rule has been determined to be significant for purposes of Executive Order E.O. 12866.
This final rule does not contain policies with federalism or “takings” implications as those terms are defined in E.O. 13132 and E.O. 12630.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries finds good cause to waive the 30-day delayed effectiveness of this action. Waiving the 30-day delay in the effective date balances the needs of different user groups who fish in the Eastern and Western Exemption Areas. This action reduces regulatory restrictions by allowing sector vessels access to areas previously closed to fishing. Failure to waive the 30-day delayed effectiveness would result in missed opportunities for sector vessels to increase profits by increasing their catch of healthy fish stocks that are underharvested. However, NMFS is allowing for 15 days before implementing this rule so that vessels fishing fixed gear, such as lobster pots, in the Eastern and Western Exemption Areas can remove their gear from the areas should they wish to do so. This shorter delay should provide sufficient time for vessels to remove gear and avoid potential gear conflicts while also providing sector vessels quick access to these fishing grounds. Implementing this plan quickly meets Objectives 1 and 3 of the groundfish plan by allowing sector vessels additional fishing opportunities. Selective gears used in these areas reduces bycatch, and minimizes habitat impacts (Objectives 9 and 10).
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, requires agencies to assess the economic impacts of their proposed regulations on small entities. The objective of the Regulatory Flexibility Act is to consider the impacts of a rulemaking on small entities, and the capacity of those affected by regulations to bear the direct and indirect costs of regulation. Size standards have been established for all for-profit economic activities or industries in the North American Industry Classification System. On June 20, 2013, the Small Business Administration (SBA) issued a final rule revising the small business size standards for several industries effective July 22, 2013 (78 FR 37398). The rule increased the size standard for Finfish Fishing from $4.0 to $19.0 million, Shellfish Fishing from $4.0 to $5.0 million, and Other Marine Fishing from $4.0 to $7.0 million.
Taking this change and public comment into consideration, NMFS has identified no additional significant alternatives that accomplish statutory objectives and minimize any significant economic impacts of the proposed rule on small entities. Because sector exemptions are voluntary and would likely only be utilized when economically beneficial to sector vessels, we do not see any difference between impacts to larger vessels or companies versus smaller. We also do not see any significant economic impacts in general. Further, the new size standards do not affect the decision to prepare a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis as opposed to a certification for this action. Because there are so few companies that were listed as large entities prior to the rule change, increasing the size standards would only further reduce the number of larger entities. In this instance we believe that preparing a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis was a more transparent, conservative, responsible approach that required additional analyses that provided the agency and the public with more information.
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and prior to Small Business Administration's June 20 final rule, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis was developed for this action using Small Business Administration's former size standards. NMFS has reviewed the analyses prepared for this action in light of the new size standards. The new standards could result in a few more entities being considered small.
The Small Business Act defines affiliation as: Affiliation may arise among two or more persons with an identity of interest. Individuals or firms that have identical or substantially identical business or economic interests (such as family members, individuals or firms with common investments, or firms that are economically dependent through contractual or other relationships) may be treated as one party with such interests aggregated (13 CFR 121.103(f)).
A Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis was prepared for this action, as required by section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis includes the
The flexibility afforded to sectors includes exemptions from certain specified regulations as well as the ability to request additional exemptions. Sector members no longer have groundfish catch limited by days-at-sea allocations and are instead limited by their allocations. In this manner, the economic incentive changes from a vessel maximizing its effective catch of all species on a day-at-sea to maximizing the value of its allocation, which places a premium on timing landings to market conditions, as well as changes in the selectivity and composition of species landed on fishing trips. Further description of the purpose and need for this action is contained in Section 2.0 of the EA.
This action grants sectors a regulatory exemption allowing sector vessels restricted access to fish in portions of Nantucket Lightship Closed Area. The legal basis for the proposed action is the NE Multispecies FMP and promulgating regulations at § 648.87. Regulations adding increased restrictions on offshore lobster vessels were included in the proposed rule, but because the exemption is not being approved, the regulations are not included in this final rule.
As explained above, the SBA size standard for commercial fin-fishing entities (North American Industry Classification System code 114111) is $19 million in annual sales and $5 million in annual sales for shellfish fishing entities. To determine an entity's size, we consider a vessel's affiliations. We have recently worked to identify ownership affiliations and incorporated those data into this analysis. Although work to more accurately identify ownership affiliations is ongoing, for the purposes of this analysis, ownership entities are defined as an association of fishing permits held by common ownership personnel as listed on permit application documentation. Only permits with identical ownership personnel are categorized as an ownership entity.
Using the Small Business Administration's size standard prior to its revision, NMFS determined that the maximum number of entities affected by this action is expected to be approximately 303. A total of 301 groundfish ownership entities are considered small entities, based on the Small Business Administration's prior size standard. It is likely that all 303 of the groundfish vessels ownership entities would be considered small entities following the Small Business Administration's revision. The economic impact resulting from this action on these small groundfish entities is positive, since the action provides additional operational flexibility to vessels participating in NE multispecies sectors for FY 2013. In addition, this action further mitigates negative impacts from the implementation of Amendment 16, Frameworks 44 and 45, which have placed additional restrictions on the NE multispecies fleet, as well as Frameworks 48 and 50.
This rule contains no collection-of-information requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. This action provides additional flexibility to sector vessels in fishing year 2013 by allowing them to fish in areas that were previously closed. Sector vessels are required to declare their intent to fish in these areas prior to departure. Exemptions implemented through this action will be documented in a letter of authorization issued to each vessel participating in an approved sector.
The final rule is authorized by the regulations implementing the NE Multispecies FMP. It does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with other Federal rules.
NMFS considered two alternatives for this action, the No Action Alternative and the Preferred Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, sector vessels would not be able to fish in year-round closed areas unless fishing within an existing, approved Special Access Program. The No Action Alternative is the disapproval of the exemption and addendum to any sector's operations plan. The No Action Alternative would result in sector vessels operating under the operations plans as approved for the start of the 2013 FY on May 1, 2013. Approving the No Action Alternative could contribute to continued under harvesting of Georges Bank haddock and would eliminate the potential for groundfish fishermen to increase their profits by limiting access to other stocks such as monkfish, dogfish, and skates.
The Preferred Alternative (the proposed action) would allow sector vessels to fish in portions of the Nantucket Lightship Closed Area, Closed Area I, and/or Closed Area II. The Preferred Alternative is expected to create a positive economic impact for the participating ownership entities that include sector vessels because it would mitigate the impacts from restrictive management measures implemented under the groundfish plan within certain groundfish closed areas. Few quantitative data on the precise economic impacts to individual ownership entities are available. The
The environmental impact statement for Amendment 16 compares economic impacts of sector vessels with common pool vessels and analyzes costs and benefits of the universal exemptions. The final rules for the approval of sector operations plans and contracts for fishing years 2010–2013 (75 FR 18113, April 9, 2010; 75 FR 80720, December 23, 2010; 76 FR 23076, April 25, 2011;
The EA prepared for this rule evaluates the impacts of each closed area alternative individually relative to the No Action Alternative (i.e., no sectors are approved), and the alternatives may be approved or disapproved individually or as a group. The impacts associated with the implementation of each of the exemptions proposed in this rule are analyzed as if each exemption would be implemented for all sectors. The EA analyses include all sectors because all sectors can request the exemption. Sectors can also add approved exemptions to the operations plans at any point during the fishing year. Further, attempting to limit the analyses to a specific number of sectors would be incorrect because any sector(s) could lease in all the remaining allocation and fish for that allocation under the exemption. Therefore, it is important to analyze the impacts as if the entire allocation could be harvested under the exemption. However, each exemption will only be implemented for the sector(s) that requested that exemption.
Approval of this rule would provide greater operational flexibility and increased fishing opportunities to sector vessels. Increased “operational flexibility” generally has positive impacts on human communities as sectors and their associated exemptions grant fishermen some measure of increased operational flexibility. By removing the limitations on vessel effort (amount of gear used, number of days declared out of fishery, trip limits and area closures), sectors help create a more simplified regulatory environment. This simplified regulatory environment grants fishers greater control over how, when, and where they fish, without working under increasingly complex fishing regulations with higher risk of inadvertently violating one of the many regulations. The increased control granted by the sectors and their associated exemptions may also allow fishermen to maximize the ex-vessel price of landings by timing them based on market prices and conditions. Generally, increased operational flexibility can result in reduced costs and/or increased revenues. All exemptions contained in the proposed fishing year 2013 sector operations plans are expected to generate positive social and economic effects for sector members and ports. In general, profits can be increased by increasing revenues or decreasing costs. Similarly, profits decrease when revenues decline or costs rise. The intent of this action is to allow fishermen to increase their revenues by increasing their catch, which would increase their revenue. Also, fishermen may potentially increase their catch per unit effort, which would also decrease their costs.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
This document contains proposed regulations under section 752 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) relating to recourse liabilities of a partnership and the special rules for related persons. The proposed regulations affect partnerships and their partners.
Written or electronic comments and request for a public hearing must be received by March 17, 2014.
Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG–136984–12), Room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG–136984–12), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC, or sent electronically, via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Concerning the proposed regulations, Caroline E. Hay or Deane M. Burke, at (202) 317–5279; concerning the submissions of comments and requests for a public hearing, Oluwafunmilayo (Funmi) Taylor at (202) 317–5179 (not toll-free numbers).
This document contains proposed amendments to the Income Tax Regulations (26 CFR part 1) under section 752 regarding a partner's share of recourse partnership liabilities.
Section 752(a) provides, in general, that any increase in a partner's share of partnership liabilities (or an increase in a partner's individual liabilities by reason of the assumption by the partner of partnership liabilities) will be considered a contribution of money by such partner to the partnership. Conversely, section 752(b) provides that any decrease in a partner's share of partnership liabilities (or a decrease in a partner's individual liabilities by reason of the assumption by the partnership of such individual liabilities) will be considered a distribution of money to the partner by the partnership.
When determining a partner's share of partnership liabilities, the regulations under section 752 distinguish between two categories of liabilities—recourse and nonrecourse. In general, a partnership liability is recourse to the extent that a partner or related person bears the economic risk of loss as provided in § 1.752–2 and nonrecourse to the extent that no partner or related person bears the economic risk of loss. See § 1.752–1(a)(1) and (2).
These proposed regulations provide guidance as to when and to what extent a partner is treated as bearing the economic risk of loss for a partnership liability when multiple partners bear the economic risk of loss for the same partnership liability (overlapping economic risk of loss). In addition, these proposed regulations provide guidance when a partner has a payment obligation with respect to a liability or makes a nonrecourse loan to the partnership (and no other partner bears the economic risk of loss for that liability) and such partner is related to another partner in the partnership.
Under § 1.752–2(a), a partner's share of a recourse partnership liability equals the portion of that liability, if any, for which the partner or related person bears the economic risk of loss. Section 1.752–2(b)(1) provides that a partner bears the economic risk of loss for a partnership liability to the extent that, if the partnership constructively liquidated, the partner or related person would be obligated to make a payment on the partnership obligation to any person or a contribution to the partnership (payment obligation) because the liability becomes due and payable and the partner or related person would not be entitled to reimbursement from another partner or a person that is related to another partner. Moreover, under § 1.752–2(c)(1), a partner bears the economic risk of loss for a partnership liability to the extent that the partner or a related person makes (or acquires an interest in) a nonrecourse loan to the partnership and the economic risk of loss for the liability is not borne by another partner. Section 1.752–4(c) provides that the amount of an indebtedness is taken into account only once.
The IRS and the Treasury Department are aware that there is uncertainty as to how partners should share a partnership liability if multiple partners bear the economic risk of loss with respect to the same liability. The temporary regulations under § 1.752–1T(d)(3)(i) that preceded the existing final regulations under section 752 addressed the issue of overlapping economic risk of loss by providing that “if the aggregate amount of the economic risk of loss that all partners are determined to bear with respect to a partnership liability (or portion thereof) . . . exceeds the amount of such liability (or portion thereof), then the economic risk of loss borne by each partner with respect to such liability shall equal the amount determined by multiplying the amount of such liability (or portion thereof) by the fraction obtained by dividing the amount of the economic risk of loss that such partner is determined to bear with respect to that liability (or portion thereof) by the sum of such amounts for all partners.” The rule in the temporary regulations, however, was not included in the final regulations in part in response to comments that the proposed regulations addressed too many topics generally and should be simplified to focus on more basic concepts. See 56 FR 36704–02 (1991–2 CB 1125).
The IRS and the Treasury Department have received comments requesting guidance in this area. The IRS and the Treasury Department continue to balance the importance of simplicity in regulations under section 752 against the utility of providing additional guidance on identified issues. In light of comments received, the IRS and the
The rules under section 752 regarding the allocation of liabilities in a tiered partnership structure also may result in overlapping economic risk of loss. Section 1.752–2(i) provides that if a partnership (the “upper-tier partnership”) owns (directly or indirectly through one or more partnerships) an interest in another partnership (the “lower-tier partnership”), the liabilities of the lower-tier partnership are allocated to the upper-tier partnership in an amount equal to the sum of the following: (1) The amount of the economic risk of loss that the upper-tier partnership bears with respect to the liabilities; and (2) the amount of any other liabilities with respect to which partners of the upper-tier partnership bear the economic risk of loss. Section 1.752–4(a) further provides that an upper-tier partnership's share of the liabilities of a lower-tier partnership (other than any liability of the lower-tier partnership that is owed to the upper-tier partnership) is treated as a liability of the upper-tier partnership for purposes of applying section 752 and the regulations thereunder to the partners of the upper-tier partnership.
The regulations therefore allocate a recourse liability of a lower-tier partnership to an upper-tier partnership if either that upper-tier partnership, or one of its partners, bears the economic risk of loss for the liability. When a partner of the upper-tier partnership is also a partner in the lower-tier partnership, and that partner bears the economic risk of loss with respect to a liability of the lower-tier partnership, the current regulations do not provide guidance as to how the lower-tier partnership should allocate the liability between the upper-tier partnership and the partner. The IRS and the Treasury Department believe that the lower-tier partnership should allocate the liability directly to the partner. The IRS and the Treasury Department believe that this approach is more administrable and ensures that the additional basis resulting from the liability is only for the benefit of the partner that bears the economic risk of loss for the liability. Thus, the proposed regulations modify the tiered-partnership rule in § 1.752–2(i)(2) to prevent a liability of a lower-tier partnership from being allocated to an upper-tier partnership when a partner of the lower-tier partnership and the upper-tier partnership bears the economic risk of loss for such liability.
Under § 1.752–4(b)(1), a person is related to a partner if the partner and the person bear a relationship to each other that is specified in sections 267(b) or 707(b)(1), except that 80 percent or more is substituted for 50 percent or more in each of those sections, a person's family is determined by excluding siblings, and sections 267(e)(1) and 267(f)(1)(A) are disregarded.
In determining whether a partner and a person bear a relationship to each other that is specified in section 267(b), the constructive stock ownership rules in section 267(c) are applicable. Specific to partnerships, section 267(c)(1) provides, in part, that stock owned directly or indirectly by or for a partnership is considered as being owned proportionately by or for its partners. Therefore, if a partnership owns all of the stock in a corporation, a partner that owns 80 percent or more of the interests in the partnership is considered to be related to the corporation under § 1.752–4(b)(1). If the corporation has a payment obligation with respect to a liability of its partnership owner, or the corporation lends to the partnership and the economic risk of loss for the liability is not borne by another partner, any partner that is treated as related to the corporation bears the economic risk of loss for the partnership liability under § 1.752–2. The IRS and the Treasury Department believe that partners in a partnership, where that partnership owns stock in a corporation that is a lender to the partnership or has a payment obligation with respect to a liability of its partnership owner, should not be treated as related, through ownership of the partnership, to the corporation. A partner's economic risk of loss that is limited to the partner's equity investment in the partnership should be treated differently than the risk of loss beyond that investment. Thus, for purposes of § 1.752–4(b)(1), the proposed regulations disregard section 267(c)(1) in determining whether a partner in a partnership is considered as owning stock in a corporation to the extent the corporation is a lender or has a payment obligation with respect to a liability of its partnership owner.
Section 1.752–4(b)(2)(i) provides that if a person is related to more than one partner in a partnership under § 1.752–4(b)(1), the related party rules in § 1.752–4(b)(1) are applied by treating the person as related only to the partner with whom there is the highest percentage of related ownership (greatest percentage rule). If, however, two or more partners have the same percentage of related ownership and no other partner has a greater percentage, the liability is allocated equally among the partners having the equal percentages of related ownership.
The IRS and the Treasury Department have recently received comments requesting that the greatest percentage rule be removed. The commenter explains that if a person is related to more than one partner under § 1.752–4(b)(1), the ultimate determination of a person's relatedness to a partner should not be based on which partner has the highest percentage of related ownership because differences in ownership percentages within a 20-percent range do not justify treating a person as related to one partner over another. After considering the comments, the IRS and the Treasury Department agree with the comments, especially given the administrative burden associated with determining precise ownership percentages above the 80-percent threshold in § 1.752–4(b)(1)(i). Therefore, the proposed regulations remove the greatest percentage rule and provide that if a person is a lender or has a payment obligation for a partnership liability and is related to more than one partner, those partners share the liability equally.
Section 1.752–4(b)(2)(iii) provides that persons owning interests directly or indirectly in the same partnership are not treated as related persons for purposes of determining the economic risk of loss borne by each of them for the liabilities of the partnership (the related partner exception). The IRS and the Treasury Department are aware that taxpayers are uncertain of the application of the related partner exception following the decision in
The IRS and Treasury Department believe the related partner exception should only apply where a partner has a payment obligation or is the lender with respect to a partnership liability.
The IRS and the Treasury Department are considering the proper treatment of liabilities when an upper-tier partnership (transferor) bears the economic risk of loss for a lower-tier partnership liability and distributes, in a liquidating distribution, its interest in the lower-tier partnership to one of its partners (transferee) but the partner does not bear the economic risk of loss for the lower-tier partnership's liability. The IRS and the Treasury Department request comments on the timing of the liability reallocation relative to the transaction that causes the liability to change from recourse to nonrecourse.
The regulations are proposed to apply to liabilities incurred or assumed by a partnership on or after the date these regulations are published as final regulations in the
It has been determined that this notice of proposed rulemaking is 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 Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these proposed regulations. Because these proposed regulations do 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, this notice of proposed rulemaking will be submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.
Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any comments that are submitted timely to the IRS as prescribed in this preamble under the “Addresses” heading. The IRS and the Treasury Department request comments on all aspects of the proposed rules. All comments will be available at www.regulations.gov or upon request. A public hearing will be scheduled if requested in writing by any person that timely submits written comments. If a public hearing is scheduled, notice of the date, time, and place for the public hearing will be published in the
The principal authors of these proposed regulations are Caroline E. Hay and Deane M. Burke, Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Passthroughs and Special Industries). However, other personnel from the IRS and Treasury Department participated in their development.
Income Taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is proposed to be amended as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a) Partner's share of recourse liabilities.
(1) In general.
(2) Overlapping economic risk of loss.
(b) * * *
(2) Related partner exception.
(3) Person related to more than one partner.
(4) Special rule where entity structured to avoid related person status.
(i) In general.
(ii) Ownership interest.
(5) Examples.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(a)
(2)
(i) The amount of such liability (or portion thereof) by
(ii) The fraction obtained by dividing the amount of the economic risk of loss that such partner is determined to bear with respect to that liability (or portion thereof) under paragraph (a)(1) of this section, by the sum of such amounts for all partners.
(f) * * *
(ii) Because the aggregate amount of A's and B's economic risk of loss under paragraph (a)(1) of this section ($1,500) exceeds the amount of AB's liability ($1,000), the economic risk of loss borne by A and B each is determined under paragraph (a)(2) of this section. Under paragraph (a)(2) of this section, A's economic risk of loss equals $1,000 multiplied by $1,000/$1,500 or $667, and B's economic risk of loss equals $1,000 multiplied by $500/$1,500 or $333.
(i) * * *
(1) The amount of liabilities with respect to which the upper-tier partnership has the payment obligation or is the lender as provided in paragraph (c) of this section; and
(2) The amount of any other liabilities with respect to which partners of the upper-tier partnership bear the economic risk of loss, provided the partner is not a partner in the lower-tier partnership.
(l) * * * Paragraphs (a)(2), (f)
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(iv) Disregard section 267(c)(1) in determining whether stock of a corporation owned, directly or indirectly, by or for a partnership is considered as being owned proportionately by or for its partners if the corporation is a lender as provided in § 1.752–2(c) or has a payment obligation with respect to a liability of the partnership.
(2)
(3)
(4)
(A) A partnership liability is owed to or guaranteed by another entity that is a partnership, an S corporation, a C corporation, or a trust;
(B) A partner or related person owns (directly or indirectly) a 20 percent or more ownership interest in the other entity; and
(C) A principal purpose of having the other entity act as a lender or guarantor of the liability was to avoid the determination that the partner that owns the interest bears the economic risk of loss for federal income tax purposes for all or part of the liability; then the partner is treated as holding the other entity's interest as a creditor or guarantor to the extent of the partner's or related person's ownership interest in the entity.
(ii)
(A) A partnership equals the partner's highest percentage interest in any item of partnership loss or deduction for any taxable year;
(B) An S corporation equals the percentage of the outstanding stock in the S corporation owned by the shareholder;
(C) A C corporation equals the percentage of the fair market value of the issued and outstanding stock owned by the shareholder; and
(D) A trust equals the percentage of the actuarial interests owned by the beneficial owner of the trust.
(5)
The addition reads as follows:
(a) * * * However, § 1.752–4(b)(1)(iv), (b)(2), (b)(3), and (b)(5)
Federal Communications Commission.
Petition of Reconditeration: request for comments.
In this document, the Commission seeks comment on an AT&T Services, Inc. (AT&T) petition requesting clarification or, in the alternative, expedited waiver of the requirement contained in the Commission's
Comments are due December 31, 2013 and reply comments are due January 10, 2014.
You may submit comments, identified by CG Docket Nos. 08–15 and 03–123, by any of the following methods:
•
• All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th Street SW., Room TW–A325, Washington, DC 20554. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of
• Commercial Mail sent by overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
• U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
In addition, parties must serve one copy of each pleading with the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street SW., Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554, or via email to
Caitlin Vogus, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Disability Rights Office, (202) 418–1264, email:
This is a summary of the Commission's Public Notice, document DA 13–2191, released on November 14, 2013. The full text of document DA 13–2191, and any subsequently filed documents in this matter will be available for public inspection and copying via ECFS, and during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554. It also may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone: (800) 378–3160, fax: (202) 488–5563, or Internet:
1. On September 26, 2013, AT&T filed a petition requesting clarification, or, in the alternative, expedited waiver of the requirement contained in the
2. Specifically, AT&T claims that it can meet this obligation for incoming calls to an STS user who has not pre-selected muting in his or her profile by “mut[ing] the user's voice only if the STS user drops off the call and the CA adds the user back to the call.” AT&T seeks clarification that this process complies with 47 CFR 64.604(a)(1)(viii) of the Commission's rules. In the alternative, AT&T seeks a twelve-month expedited waiver of the STS muting rules for calls where the STS user has not pre-selected muting in his or her profile.
AT&T claims that the waiver will allow it to continue offering STS users the call-back option while it modifies its platform to add a “hold” function during STS calls, to allow the CA to mute an STS user's voice at any time during a call without requiring a call-back.
Federal Communications Commission.
Petition of Reconditeration: request for comments.
In this document, the Commission seeks comment on a Sprint Corporation (Sprint) petition requesting reconsideration of certain rules adopted for Internet Protocol Captioned Telephone Service (IP CTS) in the
Comments are due December 31, 2013 and reply comments are due January 10, 2014.
You may submit comments, identified by CG Docket Nos. 13–24 and 03–123, by any of the following methods:
•
• All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th Street SW., Room TW–A325, Washington, DC 20554. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of
• Commercial Mail sent by overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
• U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
In addition, parties must serve one copy of each pleading with the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street SW., Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554, or via email to
Gregory Hlibok, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Disability Rights Office, (202) 559–5158, email:
This is a summary of the Commission's Public Notice, document DA 13–2190, released on November 14, 2013. The full text of document DA 13–2190, and any subsequently filed documents in this matter will be available for public inspection and copying via ECFS, and during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554. It also may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone: (800) 378–3160, fax: (202) 488–5563, or Internet:
1. On September 30, 2013, Sprint filed a petition (
Surface Transportation Board, DOT.
Request for Comments.
The Surface Transportation Board invites public comment on how to ensure the Board's rate complaint procedures are accessible to grain shippers and provide effective protection against unreasonable freight rail transportation rates.
Comments are due by March 12, 2014. Replies are due by May 12, 2014.
Comments may be submitted either via the Board's e-filing format or in the traditional paper format. Any person using e-filing should attach a document and otherwise comply with the instructions at the E-FILING link on the Board's Web site, at
Nathaniel Bawcombe at (202) 245–0376. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at (800) 877–8339.
On November 2, 2006, the Board held a hearing in
The Board recently concluded a proceeding to reform freight rail rate regulations generally.
We believe it is appropriate to consider what regulatory changes could be implemented to ensure that the Board's rate case procedures are fully accessible to grain shippers and provide effective relief from excessive freight
This action will not significantly affect either the quality of the human environment or the conservation of energy resources.
1. A proceeding is instituted. Notice of this decision will be published in the
2. Comments are due by March 12, 2014. Replies are due by May 12, 2014.
3. This decision is effective on the day of service.
By the Board, Chairman Elliott, Vice Chairman Begeman, and Commissioner Mulvey.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Black Hills National Forest Advisory Board (Board) will meet in Rapid City, South Dakota. The Board is established consistent with the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C. App. II), the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et.seq.), the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1612), and the Federal Public Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (Pub. L. 108–447). Additional information concerning the Board can be found by visiting the Board's Web site at:
The meeting will be held Wednesday, January 8, 2014, at 1:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Mystic Ranger District, 8221 South Highway 16, Rapid City, South Dakota. Written comments may be submitted as described under Supplementary Information. All comments, including names and addresses, when provided, are placed in the record and available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at the Black Hills National Forest Supervisor's Office. Please call ahead to facilitate entry into the building.
Scott Jacobson, Committee Coordinator, by phone at 605–673–9216, or by email at
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
The purpose of the meeting is to provide:
(1) An update on Cave Management, White Nose Syndrome, and Long Eared Bats;
(2) information regarding the Mountain Pine Beetle Response Monitoring Report;
(3) an update from the Motorized Travel Working Group; and
(4) a briefing on the Recreational Facility Plan.
The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should submit a request in writing by December 31, 2013 to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and time requests for oral comments must be sent to Scott Jacobson, Black Hills National Forest Supervisor's Office, 1019 North Fifth Street, Custer, South Dakota 57730; by email to
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice.
This notice provides the list of newspapers that Responsible Officials in the Pacific Northwest Region will use to publish legal notices for public comment and decisions subject to appeal under 36 CFR part 215 and predecisional objection on decisions under 36 CFR part 218 and 36 CFR part 219. The intended effect of this action is to inform interested members of the public which newspapers will be used to publish legal notices, thereby allowing the public to receive constructive notice of a decision, to provide clear evidence of timely notice, and to achieve consistency in administering appeal and objection processes.
Publication of legal notices in the listed newspapers begins on November 22, 2013. This list of newspapers will remain in effect until it is superceded by a new list, published in the
Jill A. Dufour, Regional Environmental Coordinator, Pacific Northwest Region, 1220 SW. Third Avenue, (P.O. Box 3623), Portland, Oregon 97204.
The newspapers to be used in the Pacific Northwest Region are as follows:
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board.
Notice of meetings.
The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board) plans to hold its regular committee and Board meetings in Washington, DC, Monday through Wednesday, January 13–15, 2014 at the times and location listed below.
The schedule of events is as follows:
Meetings will be held at the Access Board Conference Room, 1331 F Street NW., Suite 800, Washington, DC 20004.
For further information regarding the meetings, please contact David Capozzi, Executive Director, (202) 272–0010 (voice); (202) 272–0054 (TTY).
At the Board meeting scheduled on the morning of Wednesday, January 15, 2014 the Access Board will consider the following agenda items:
All meetings are accessible to persons with disabilities. An assistive listening system, Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART), and sign language interpreters will be available at the Board meeting and committee meetings. Persons attending Board meetings are requested to refrain from using perfume, cologne, and other fragrances for the comfort of other participants (see
Wednesday, December 18, 2013, 8:30 a.m.–12:30 p.m. EST.
Cohen Building, Room 3321, 330 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20237.
Notice of Meeting of the Broadcasting Board of Governors.
The Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) will be meeting at the time and location listed above. The Board will vote on a consent agenda consisting of the minutes of the October 23, 2013 meeting and the full set of amended By-Laws reflecting changes previously adopted by the Board and proposed technical amendments. The BBG will discuss and vote on an interim management structure for the International Broadcasting Bureau. Finally, the BBG will receive a presentation providing an overview of the Voice of America and convene a discussion panel on the transition of international media organizations in the digital age.
This meeting will also be available for public observation via streamed webcast, both live and on-demand, on the BBG's public Web site at
The public may also attend this meeting in person, unless the partial government shutdown persists, at the address listed above as seating capacity permits. Member of the public seeking to attend the meeting in person must register at
Persons interested in obtaining more information should contact Paul Kollmer-Dorsey at (202) 203–4545.
Via Teleconference. Public Dial-in 1–877–446–3914; Listen Line Code: 7017771.
Dial Federal Relay Service 1–800–977–8339 and give the operator the Public Dial-in number and Listen Line Code.
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 planning meetings of the New York Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene via conference call on the above-referenced dates and times. The purpose of the meetings is project planning to discuss the scope of the Advisory Committee's project on disparate treatment of youth in the New York correctional system.
The meetings will be conducted via conference call. In order to reserve a sufficient number of lines, members of the public, including persons with hearing impairments, who wish to listen to the conference call, are asked to either call (202–376–7533) or email the Eastern Regional Office, ERO, (
Members of the public who call-in can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charges for calls initiated over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number.
Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments. The
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.
On November 16, 2011, in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, Donald V. Bernardo, a/k/a Don Bernardo (“Bernardo”), was convicted of Section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778 (2006 & Supp. IV 2010)) (“AECA”). Specifically, Bernardo was convicted of knowingly and willfully engaging in the business of brokering activities involving Venezuela in negotiating and arranging contracts, purchases, sales, and transfers of defense articles, that is, C–130 Hercules military transport aircraft, in return for a fee, commission and other consideration, without first registering with the U.S. Department of State. Bernardo was sentenced to 12 months of imprisonment and two years of supervised release, and fined a $100 assessment. Bernardo was released from prison on February 28, 2013. Bernardo is also listed on the U.S. Department of State Debarred List.
Section 766.25 of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR” or “Regulations”)
I have received notice of Bernardo's conviction for violating the AECA, and have provided notice and an opportunity for Bernardo to make a written submission to BIS, as provided in Section 766.25 of the Regulations. I have not received a submission from Bernardo.
Based upon my review and consultations with BIS's Office of Export Enforcement, including its Director, and the facts available to BIS, I have decided to deny Bernardo's export privileges under the Regulations for a period of five years from the date of Bernardo's conviction. I have also decided to revoke all licenses issued pursuant to the Act or Regulations in which Bernardo had an interest at the time of his conviction.
Accordingly, it is hereby
I. Until November 16, 2016, Donald V. Bernardo, a/k/a Don Bernardo, with a last known address at: 701 Fredericksburg Road, Mathews, NC 28105, and when acting for or on behalf of Bernardo, his representatives, assigns, agents or employees (the “Denied Person”), may not, directly or indirectly, participate in any way in any transaction involving any commodity, software or technology (hereinafter collectively referred to as “item”) exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, including, but not limited to:
A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, License Exception, or export control document;
B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or
C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations.
II. No person may, directly or indirectly, do any of the following:
A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item subject to the Regulations;
B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby the Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;
C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from the Denied Person of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;
D. Obtain from the Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or
E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item
III. After notice and opportunity for comment as provided in Section 766.23 of the Regulations, any other person, firm, corporation, or business organization related to Bernardo by affiliation, ownership, control or position of responsibility in the conduct of trade or related services may also be subject to the provisions of this Order if necessary to prevent evasion of the Order.
IV. This Order is effective immediately and shall remain in effect until November 16, 2016.
V. In accordance with Part 756 of the Regulations, Bernardo may file an appeal of this Order with the Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security. The appeal must be filed within 45 days from the date of this Order and must comply with the provisions of Part 756 of the Regulations.
VI. A copy of this Order shall be delivered to the Bernardo. This Order shall be published in the
Enforcement and Compliance, formerly Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On July 15, 2011, pursuant to a decision of the Court of International Trade (CIT) that affirmed the International Trade Commission's (ITC's) negative injury determinations on remand in the second sunset review of the antidumping duty orders on bearings from Japan and the United Kingdom, the Department of Commerce (the Department) revoked the
Thomas Schauer or Minoo Hatten, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0410 or (202) 482–1690, respectively.
On May 15, 1989, the Department published the
On August 31, 2006, the ITC published its determination that, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, revocation of the
In its third and fourth remand determinations,
On June 17, 2011, in response to the CIT's entry of judgment in
On July 6, 2011, the Federal Circuit's stay lifted.
On May 16, 2013, the Federal Circuit issued a decision reversing and vacating the CIT's decision in
Therefore, pursuant to the CIT's November 18, 2013, order reinstating the ITC's affirmative material injury determination, the Department is reinstating the
The products covered by the
Imports of these products are classified under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 3926.90.45, 4016.93.10, 4016.93.50, 6909.19.50.10, 8414.90.41.75, 8431.20.00, 8431.39.00.10, 8482.10.10, 8482.10.50, 8482.80.00, 8482.91.00, 8482.99.05, 8482.99.35, 8482.99.25.80, 8482.99.65.95, 8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, 8483.30.40, 8483.30.80, 8483.50.90, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 8483.90.70, 8708.50.50, 8708.60.50, 8708.60.80, 8708.93.30, 8708.93.60.00, 8708.99.06, 8708.99.31.00, 8708.99.40.00, 8708.99.49.60, 8708.99.58, 8708.99.80.15, 8708.99.80.80, 8803.10.00, 8803.20.00, 8803.30.00, 8803.90.30, 8803.90.90, 8708.30.50.90, 8708.40.75.70, 8708.40.75.80, 8708.50.79.00, 8708.50.89.00, 8708.50.91.50, 8708.50.99.00, 8708.70.60.60, 8708.80.65.90, 8708.93.75.00, 8708.94.75, 8708.95.20.00, 8708.99.55.00, 8708.99.68, and 8708.99.81.80.
Although the HTSUS item numbers above are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written descriptions of the scope of the
The size or precision grade of a bearing does not influence whether the bearing is covered by one of the
Pursuant to the CIT's November 18, 2013, order reinstating the ITC's determination that the revocation of the
Furthermore, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to resume the collection of cash deposits for estimated antidumping duties at the rates in effect on July 15, 2011, the date on which the collection of cash deposits was discontinued.
As a result of the
We are hereby resuming the administrative reviews covering the period May 1, 2009, through April 30, 2010. At the time the
We are also hereby resuming the administrative reviews covering the period May 1, 2010 through April 30, 2011. At the time the
Furthermore,
Each year during the anniversary month of the publication of an antidumping or countervailing duty order, finding, or suspended investigation, an interested party, as defined in section 771(9) of the Act, may request, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213, that the Department conduct an administrative review of that antidumping or countervailing duty order, finding, or suspended investigation.
Subsequent to the
Every five years, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, the Department and the ITC automatically initiate and conduct a review to determine whether revocation of a countervailing or antidumping duty order or termination of an investigation suspended under section 704 or 734 of the Act would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping or a countervailable subsidy (as the case may be) and of material injury. The third sunset reviews of these orders were scheduled for initiation in August 2011 but were obviated by the
This notice is published consistent with section 777(i) of the Act.
Enforcement and Compliance, formerly Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (“Department”) has received information sufficient to warrant reconsideration of a completed changed circumstances review (“CCR”) of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) originally conducted in 2007.
Effective Date: December 16, 2013.
Kabir Archuletta, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–2593.
Yelin was formally dissolved on December 12, 2006.
On December 5, 2012, the Department reopened the record of this CCR to reconsider our determination in light of the evidence discovered in AR6 regarding Hilltop's affiliation with Ocean King (Cambodia) Co. Ltd.
As explained in the memorandum from the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, the Department has exercised its discretion to toll deadlines for the duration of the closure of the Federal Government from October 1, through October 16, 2013.
The merchandise that is subject to the order is certain frozen warmwater shrimp from the PRC. The products subject to the order at the time of this CCR was originally conducted
All issues raised in case and rebuttal briefs are addressed in the Final Reconsideration Memorandum.
For the reasons detailed in the Final Reconsideration Memorandum, we continue to find that Hilltop is not the successor-in-interest to Yelin and is considered part of the PRC-wide entity. In making this determination we have relied on adverse facts available, in accordance with section 776(a) and (b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”).
As a result of this determination, we reverse our previous successor-in-interest determination and find that Hilltop is not the successor-in-interest to Yelin. Although the reconsidered CCR precedes several administrative reviews in which Hilltop was involved, we note that this finding is consistent with the most recently completed seventh administrative review, in which Hilltop was determined to be part of the PRC-wide entity.
This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.306. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.216 and 351.221(c)(3).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting of the SAFMC and GMFMC Joint Council Committee on South Florida Management Issues and the Ad Hoc
The SAFMC and the GMFMC will hold a meeting of the Joint Council Committee on South Florida Management Issues and the Goliath Grouper Joint Council Steering Committee in Key Largo, FL.
The meeting will be held January 7–9, 2014.
Kim Iverson, Public Information Officer, SAFMC; telephone: (843) 571–4366 or toll free: (866) SAFMC–10; fax: (843) 769–4520; email:
The meeting will begin at 8:30 a.m. on Tuesday, January 7, 2014 and end at 12 noon on Thursday, January 9, 2014.
The items of discussion for the Joint Council Committee on South Florida Management Issues agenda are as follows:
1. Approval of the agenda, minutes, and election of a chairman for each committee;
2. Discuss the purpose and goal;
3. Receive an overview presentation on South Florida Issues Workshops and discuss results;
4. Receive an overview of status and trends for South Florida species and discuss species specific management concerns and next steps for: yellowtail snapper; mutton snapper; hogfish; mangrove snapper; shallow-water groupers; Nassau grouper; warsaw and speckled hind; and other species as necessary;
5. Management structure concerns, challenges, and possible solutions for South Florida;
6. Next steps for addressing South Florida issues; and other business.
The items of discussion for the Ad Hoc Goliath Grouper Joint Council Committee agenda are as follows:
1. Review the last stock assessment for goliath grouper;
2. Presentation on Goliath Grouper Stakeholder Workshops and survey;
3. Review of recommendations from Ad Hoc Goliath Grouper Joint Science Workshop;
4. Review of ongoing goliath grouper research;
5. Next steps for assessment;
6. Possible management options for moving beyond the moratorium, next steps, and other business.
Other items of discussion may arise as the result of the public comment received.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Wednesday, December 18, 2013, 10 a.m.–12 p.m.
Hearing Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland.
Commission Meeting—Open to the Public.
Briefing Matter: Bedside Sleepers (Section 104)—Final Rule.
A live webcast of the Meeting can be viewed at
For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, call (301) 504–7948.
Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504–7923.
The Board of Directors of the Corporation for National and Community Service gives notice of the following meeting:
Tuesday, December 17, 2013, 9:00–10:00 a.m. (ET).
Corporation for National and Community Service, 1201 New York Avenue NW., Suite 8312, Washington, DC 20525 (Please go to 10th floor reception area for escort).
This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888–790–1832 conference call access code number 4386716. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and CNCS will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Replays are generally available one hour after a call ends. The toll-free phone number for the replay is 888–566–0076, replay passcode 6617. The end replay date is December 24, 2013, 10:59 p.m. (CT).
Open.
Members of the public who would like to comment on the business of the Board may do so in writing or in person.
The Corporation for National and Community Service provides reasonable accommodations to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. Anyone who needs an interpreter or other accommodation should notify Ida Green at
Jenny Mauk, Special Assistant to the CEO, Corporation for National and Community Service, 1201 New York Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20525. Phone: 202–606–6615. Fax: 202–606–3460. TTY: 800–833–3722. Email:
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, DoD.
Notice.
In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by February 14, 2014.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Psychological Services Branch, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, Springfield, VA 22150.
Respondents are applicants who are applying for NGA police officer positions. NGA psychologists who interview and assess the mental health qualifications of the applicants record a summary of the assessments in Psychological Records Services system as part of the evaluation process to determine employment eligibility. Having qualified professionals provide psychological assessments is an essential element in the interview process and helps to ensure that qualified candidates are selected to fill the position of NGA police.
Notice.
The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Consideration will be given to all comments received by January 15, 2014.
Fred Licari, 571–372–0493.
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent to Mr. John Kraemer at the Office of Management and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
You may also submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by the following method:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Ms. Toppings at WHS/ESD Information Management Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, East Tower, Suite 02G09, Alexandria, VA 22350–3100.
Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.
Notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104–164 dated July 21, 1996.
Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601–3740.
The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittals 13–58 with attached transmittal and policy justification.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
The Government of Kuwait requests the continuation of contractor engineering technical services, contractor maintenance services, Hush House support services, and Liaison Office Support for the Kuwait's Air Force's F/A–18 C/D program, which will include spare and repair parts, publications and technical documentation, U.S. Government and contractor technical support services and other related elements of logistics support. The estimated cost is $150 million.
The proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a friendly country which has been and continues to be an important force for political stability and economic progress in the Middle East.
The proposed sale of support services will enable the Kuwait Air Force to ensure the reliability and performance of its F/A–18 C/D aircraft.
The proposed sale of support and services will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractors will be Kay and Associates Incorporated in Buffalo Grove, Illinois; The Boeing Company in St. Louis, Missouri; Industrial Acoustics Corporation in Winchester, England; and General Electric in Lynn, Massachusetts. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of this proposed sale will require 275 U.S. Government and contractor representatives to travel to Kuwait for a period of three years to provide support.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.
Notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104–164 dated July 21, 1996.
Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601–3740.
The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittals 13–63 with attached transmittal and policy justification.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of Switzerland has requested a possible sale of follow-on support for Switzerland's F/A–18 Hornet Upgrade Program to include: participation in the F/A–18 Engine Component Improvement Program (CIP), spare and repair parts, system integration and testing, classified and unclassified publications and technical documentation, flight testing, support and test equipment, transportation, personnel training and training equipment, software development, U.S. Government and contractor technical and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistics support. The estimated cost is $200 million.
The proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a friendly country which has been, and continues to be, an important force for political stability and economic progress in Europe.
The proposed sale of this follow on support will allow the Swiss Air Force to extend the useful life of its F/A–18 fighter aircraft and enhance their survivability. The defense articles and
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractors will be Excelis Inc. in Clifton, New Jersey; Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems in Linthicum, Maryland; The Boeing Company in St. Louis, Missouri; General Electric Aircraft Engines in Lynn, Massachusetts; General Dynamics Information Technology in Wildewood, Maryland; Wyle Laboratories in Lexington Park, Maryland; MacKee, Inc. in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Zenetex in California, Maryland. There are no offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representative's in-country. However, multiple trips to Switzerland involving U.S. Government and contractor representatives will be required for technical reviews/support, program management, and training.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.
Notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104–164 dated July 21, 1996.
Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601–3740.
The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 13–66 with attached transmittal, policy justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
Also included are mission equipment, communication and navigation equipment, ground support equipment, special tools and test equipment, spares, publications, Maintenance Work Orders/Engineering Change Proposals (MWO/ECP), technical support and training.
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of The Republic of Korea has requested a possible sale of:
Also included are mission equipment, communication and navigation equipment, ground support equipment, special tools and test equipment, spares, publications, Maintenance Work Orders/Engineering Change Proposals (MWO/ECP), technical support and training. The total estimated value for these articles and services is $151 million.
The CH–47Ds being considered for this sale are currently operated by U.S. Forces Korea (USFK) in the ROK. This proposed sale of CH–47D aircraft equipped with T55–GA–714A engines will be provided from U.S. Army inventory located at Camp Humphrey, South Korea. The T55–GA–714A Engines to be provided as spares will also be provided from U.S. Government inventory.
If this proposed sale is approved, the aircraft will be sold and transferred to the ROK incrementally once USFK begins taking receipt of new-production CH–47F model aircraft, a process currently estimated to begin in the January 2014 timeframe. The U.S. Army will not replace the CH–47D aircraft being proposed for sale and transfer to the ROK. This proposed sale will allow the U.S. Army to avoid transportation and/or demilitarization costs in the amount of approximately $13.4 million.
This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by meeting the legitimate security and defense needs of an ally and partner nation. The ROK continues to be an important force for peace, political stability and economic progress in North East Asia.
The proposed sale will improve the ROK's capability to meet current and future requirements for troop movement, medical evacuation, aircraft recovery, parachute drop, search and rescue, disaster relief, fire-fighting and heavy construction support. The ROK will use this enhanced capability to strengthen its homeland defense, deter regional threats, and improve humanitarian and disaster mobilization and response. These efforts support both ROK and U.S. interests and objectives, and are consistent with strategic and regional goals. This sale is also consistent with the U.S. strategic interests for stability in the Pacific Command Area of Operations.
The ROK is capable of absorbing and maintaining this additional equipment in its inventory. The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractor will be The Boeing Company in Ridley Park, Pennsylvania. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of this proposed sale will require the assignment of 18 U.S. Government or contractor representatives to the ROK to provide support, program management, and training for a period of up to 2 years.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The CH–47D Model Aircraft includes the following sensitive and/or classified (up to and including Secret) components:
a. The CH–47D is a medium lift aircraft, remanufactured from the CH–47A, B and C aircraft. The CH–47D aircraft, which includes two T55–GA–714A engines, has been identified as Major Defense Equipment (MDE). The avionic system in the CH–47D helicopter consists of the communications equipment providing HF (AN/ARC–220 without ECCM) and VHF AM/FM (AN/ARC–186) communications, VOR ILS Marker Beacon (AN/ARN–123), Tactical Air Navigation (TACAN) System AN/ARN–154(V), VHF FM Homing (AN/ARC–201E) is provided through the FM communication radio.
b. Use of the AN/APN–209D Radar altimeter provides accurate indication of the altitude of the aircraft over all types of terrain, and the AN/ASN–43 Gyro magnetic compass provides heading information to assist with navigation of the aircraft.
c. The command, control and communications equipment needed to operate in a secure communications environment will facilitate the performance of the CH–47D within the Republic of Korea and in combined operations with the U.S., where interoperability is paramount
d. The radios serve to modernize the command and control infrastructure to facilitate interoperability with U.S. forces. Moreover the equipment will
2. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures which might reduce weapon system effectiveness or could be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
DoD.
Renewal of Federal Advisory Committee.
The Department of Defense gives notice that it is renewing the charter for the Secretary of the Navy Advisory Panel (“the Panel”). The Panel has been determined to be in the public interest.
Jim Freeman, Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, 703–692–5952.
This Federal Advisory Committee is being renewed under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C. Appendix), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b), and 41 CFR 102–3.50(a).
The Panel shall provide independent advice and recommendations on critical matters concerning the Department of the Navy, as set forth in this notice.
The Panel's focus will include Department of the Navy administration and management, recruitment and training, equipment acquisition and maintenance, military and civilian manpower systems, basing and support infrastructure, and logistical support. The Panel will also focus on research and development matters confronting the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Marine Corps and on matters pertaining to preserving the history and heritage of the Naval Services.
The Panel shall be composed of no more than 15 members. The members will be eminent authorities in the fields of science, research, finance, history, engineering, business, and industry.
The Panel members will be appointed by the Secretary of Defense or the Deputy Secretary of Defense for a term of service of one-to-four years and their appointments will be renewed on an annual basis in accordance with DoD policies and procedures. Members of the Panel who are not full-time or permanent part-time Federal employees will be appointed as experts and consultants under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 3109 to serve as special government employee (SGE) members. Panel members who are full-time or permanent part-time Federal employees will serve as regular government employee members. All members of the Panel are appointed to provide advice on behalf of the Government on the basis of their best judgment without representing any particular point of view and in a manner that is free from conflict of interest.
Panel members, if appointed by the Secretary of Defense or the Deputy Secretary of Defense as SGE members, will serve without compensation. However, Panel members will be reimbursed for travel and per diem as it pertains to official business of the Panel.
No member, unless authorized by the Secretary of Defense, may serve more than two consecutive terms of service on the Panel, to include its subcommittees, or serve on two DoD federal advisory committees at one time.
The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of the Navy, shall appoint the Panel's chairperson from the total membership.
The Secretary of the Navy, pursuant to DoD policies and procedures, may appoint, as deemed necessary, non-voting subject matter experts (SMEs) to assist the Panel or its subcommittees on an ad hoc basis. These non-voting SMEs are not members of the Panel or its subcommittees, and will not engage or participate in any deliberations by the Panel or its subcommittees. These non-voting SMEs, if not full-time or part-time Government employees, will be appointed under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 3109 on an intermittent basis to address specific issues under consideration by the Panel.
DoD, as necessary and consistent with the Panel's mission and DoD policies and procedures, may establish subcommittees, task forces, or working groups to support the Panel.
Establishment of subcommittees will be based upon a written determination, to include terms of reference, by the Secretary of Defense, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, or the Secretary of the Navy, as the DoD Sponsor.
Such subcommittees shall not work independently of the chartered Panel, and shall report all their recommendations and advice solely to the Panel for full deliberation and discussion. Subcommittees, task forces, or working groups have no authority to make decisions and recommendations, verbally or in writing, on behalf of the chartered Panel. No subcommittee or any of its members can update or report, verbally or in writing, directly to the DoD or any Federal officers or employees.
All subcommittee members shall be appointed in the same manner as the Panel members; that is, the Secretary of Defense or the Deputy Secretary of Defense shall appoint subcommittee members even if the member in question is already a member of the Panel. Subcommittee members, with the approval of the Secretary of Defense, may serve a term of one-to-four years; however, no member shall serve more than two consecutive terms of service on the subcommittee.
Subcommittee members, if not full-time or part-time Federal employees, will be appointed as experts and consultants under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 3109 to serve as SGE members, whose appointments must be renewed on an annual basis. With the exception of reimbursement for travel and per diem as it pertains to official travel related to the Panel or its subcommittees, Panel subcommittee members shall serve without compensation.
Each subcommittee member is appointed to provide advice on behalf of the Government on the basis of his or her best judgment without representing any particular point of view and in a manner that is free from conflict of interest.
All subcommittees operate under the provisions of the FACA, the Sunshine Act, governing Federal statutes and regulations, and established DoD policies and procedures.
Currently, DoD has approved the following two permanent subcommittees to the Panel:
(a) The Naval Research Advisory Committee shall be composed of not more than seven members and shall provide independent advice and recommendations on scientific, technical, research, and development matters confronting the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Marine Corps. Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 5024(a), the subcommittee shall consist of civilians preeminent in the fields of science, research, and development work, and one member must be from the field of medicine.
The estimated number of meetings is four per year.
(b) The Secretary of the Navy's Advisory Subcommittee on Naval History shall be composed of not more than 15 members and shall provide independent advice and recommendations on matters pertaining to preserving the heritage and legacy of the Naval Services and disseminating their rich history to the Service and the American public. Advisory topics may include professional standards, methods, program priorities, cooperative relationships in Marine Corps and Navy's historical research and publication programs, museums, archives, archeology, libraries, manuscript collections, rare book collections, art collections, preservation, and curatorial activities. The subcommittee shall consist of civilians who have broad managerial experience, vision, and understanding in one or more of the following areas: military and maritime history, archives, museology, art, library science, and information technology.
The estimated number of meetings is one per year.
The Panel's Designated Federal Officer (DFO), pursuant to DoD policy, shall be a full-time or permanent part-time DoD employee, and will be appointed in accordance with established DoD policies and procedures.
The Panel's DFO is required to be in attendance at all Panel and subcommittee meetings for the duration of each and every meeting. However, in the absence of the Panel's DFO, a properly approved Alternate DFO, duly appointed to the Panel according to DoD policies and procedures, will attend the entire duration of all of the Panel or subcommittee meeting.
The DFO, or the Alternate DFO, will call all of the Panel and its subcommittee meetings; prepare and approve all meeting agendas; adjourn any meeting, when the DFO, or the Alternate DFO, determines adjournment to be in the public interest or required by governing regulations or DoD policies and procedures; and chair meetings when directed to do so by the official to whom the Panel reports.
Pursuant to 41 CFR 102–3.105(j) and 102–3.140, the public or interested organizations may submit written statements to the Secretary of the Navy Advisory Panel membership about the Panel's mission and functions. Written statements may be submitted at any time or in response to the stated agenda of planned meeting of Secretary of the Navy Advisory Panel.
All written statements shall be submitted to the Designated Federal Officer for the Secretary of the Navy Advisory Panel, and this individual will ensure that the written statements are provided to the membership for their consideration. Contact information for the Secretary of the Navy Advisory Panel's Designated Federal Officer can be obtained from the GSA's FACA Database—
The Designated Federal Officer, pursuant to 41 CFR 102–3.150, will announce planned meetings of the Secretary of the Navy Advisory Panel. The Designated Federal Officer, at that time, may provide additional guidance on the submission of written statements that are in response to the stated agenda for the planned meeting in question.
Director of Administration and Management, DoD.
Notice of Advisory Committee Meetings.
The Department of Defense is publishing this notice to announce a closed Federal advisory committee meeting of the National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force (“the Commission”).
2521 South Clark Street, Suite 525, Crystal City, VA 22202 and, as necessary, a secure video teleconferencing line.
Mrs. Marcia Moore, Designated Federal Officer, National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force, 1950 Defense Pentagon, Room 3A874, Washington, DC 20301–1950. Email:
Due to difficulties finalizing the meeting agenda for the scheduled meeting of the National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force for Tuesday, December 17, 2013, the requirements of 41 CFR 102–3.150(a) were not met. Accordingly, the Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, pursuant to 41 CFR 102–3.150(b), waives the 15-calendar day notification requirement.
The National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force was established by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Pub. L. 112–239). The Department of Defense sponsor for the Commission is the Director of Administration and Management, Mr. Michael L. Rhodes. The Commission is tasked to submit a report, containing a comprehensive study and recommendations, by February 1, 2014 to the President of the United States and the Congressional defense committees. The report will contain a detailed statement of the findings and conclusions of the Commission, together with its recommendations for such legislation and administrative actions it may consider appropriate in light of the results of the study. The comprehensive study of the structure of the U.S. Air Force will determine whether, and how, the structure should be modified to best fulfill current and anticipated mission requirements for the U.S. Air Force in a manner consistent with available resources.
The evaluation factors under consideration by the Commission are for a U.S. Air Force structure that—(a) meets current and anticipated requirements of the combatant commands; (b) achieves an appropriate balance between the regular and reserve components of the Air Force, taking advantage of the unique strengths and capabilities of each; (c) ensures that the regular and reserve components of the Air Force have the capacity needed to support current and anticipated homeland defense and disaster assistance missions in the United States; (d) provides for sufficient numbers of regular members of the Air Force to provide a base of trained personnel from
Director of Administration and Management, DoD.
Notice of Advisory Committee Meetings.
The Department of Defense is publishing this notice to announce a closed Federal advisory committee meeting of the National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force (“the Commission”).
2521 South Clark Street, Suite 525, Crystal City, VA 22202 and, as necessary, a secure video teleconferencing line.
Mrs. Marcia Moore, Designated Federal Officer, National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force, 1950 Defense Pentagon, Room 3A874, Washington, DC 20301–1950. Email:
Due to difficulties finalizing the meeting agenda for the scheduled meeting of the National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force for Tuesday, December 10, 2013, the requirements of 41 CFR 102–3.150(a) were not met. Accordingly, the Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, pursuant to 41 CFR 102–3.150(b), waives the 15-calendar day notification requirement.
The National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force was established by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Pub. L. 112–239). The Department of Defense sponsor for the Commission is the Director of Administration and Management, Mr. Michael L. Rhodes. The Commission is tasked to submit a report, containing a comprehensive study and recommendations, by February 1, 2014 to the President of the United States and the Congressional defense committees. The report will contain a detailed statement of the findings and conclusions of the Commission, together with its recommendations for such legislation and administrative actions it may consider appropriate in light of the results of the study. The comprehensive study of the structure of the U.S. Air Force will determine whether, and how, the structure should be modified to best fulfill current and anticipated mission requirements for the U.S. Air Force in a manner consistent with available resources.
The evaluation factors under consideration by the Commission are for a U.S. Air Force structure that—(a) meets current and anticipated requirements of the combatant commands; (b) achieves an appropriate balance between the regular and reserve components of the Air Force, taking advantage of the unique strengths and capabilities of each; (c) ensures that the regular and reserve components of the Air Force have the capacity needed to support current and anticipated homeland defense and disaster assistance missions in the United States; (d) provides for sufficient numbers of regular members of the Air Force to provide a base of trained personnel from which the personnel of the reserve components of the Air Force could be recruited; (e) maintains a peacetime rotation force to support operational tempo goals of 1:2 for regular members of the Air Forces and 1:5 for members of the reserve components of the Air Force; and (f) maximizes and appropriately balances affordability, efficiency, effectiveness, capability, and readiness.
Institute of Education Sciences/National Center for Education Statistics (IES), 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 January 15, 2014.
Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
For questions related to collection activities or burden, please call Kathy Axt, 540–776–7742 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
This study aims to fill the gap in information available to districts and policymakers on measures of student growth that do not use state standardized tests via qualitative case studies of up to nine districts that are using alternative measures of student achievement growth in teacher performance ratings. The studies will address what alternative measures of student achievement growth in teacher performance ratings. The case studies will address what alternative outcome measures are used, how the alternative growth measures are implemented, challenges and obstacles in implementation, how the measures are being used. Where possible, the Department will examine the extent of differentiation produced by the measures—specifically, the distribution of teacher performance on the measures, as compared with the distribution of teacher performance on conventional value added measures that are based on state assessments. The Department will conduct semi-structured interviews with district administrators leading teacher evaluation or effectiveness efforts, teacher representatives (such as union leaders), teachers (including both classroom teachers and instructional coaches), and principals. The data collected will be summarized and analyzed using a case study approach.
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), Department of Education.
Notice.
• Stimulate technological innovation in the private sector.
• Encourage participation in innovation and entrepreneurship by socially and economically disadvantaged persons.
• Strengthen the role of small business in meeting Federal research and development (R&D) needs.
• Increase private-sector commercialization of innovations derived from U.S. Department of Education (Department) R&D funding.
The Small Business Innovation Development Act of 1982 (Act), Pub. L. 97–219, established the SBIR program. The Act requires certain agencies, including the Department, to reserve a statutory percentage of their extramural R&D budgets for two phases of the three-phase SBIR program (see
Phase I awards are to determine, insofar as possible, the scientific or technical merit, feasibility, and commercial potential of R&D projects submitted under the SBIR program. Phase I awards are for amounts up to $75,000 and for a period of up to six months. Phase II projects continue the development of Phase I projects. Funding is based on the results achieved in Phase I and the scientific and technical merit and commercial potential of the proposed Phase II project. Only Phase I grantees are eligible to apply for Phase II funding. Phase II awards are for amounts up to $575,000 over a period of two years.
In Phase III, the small business grantee pursues commercial applications of the Phase I and II R&D. The SBIR program does not fund Phase III.
All SBIR projects funded by NIDRR must address the needs of individuals with disabilities. (See 29 U.S.C. 760.) Project activities may include:
• Conducting manufacturing-related R&D that encompasses improvements in existing methods or processes, or wholly new processes, machines, or systems, that benefit individuals with disabilities;
• Exploring the uses of technology to ensure equal access to education, employment, community environments, and information for individuals with disabilities; and
• Improving the quality and utility of disability and rehabilitation research.
Executive Order 13329 states that continued technological innovation is critical to a strong manufacturing sector in the United States economy and seeks to ensure that Federal agencies assist the private sector in its manufacturing innovation efforts. The Department's SBIR program encourages innovative R&D projects that are manufacturing-
Manufacturing-related R&D encompasses improvements in existing methods and processes, as well as wholly new processes, machines, and systems. The Department's SBIR program supports a range of manufacturing-related R&D projects, including projects relating to the manufacture of such items as artificial intelligence and information technology devices, software, and systems. For more information on Executive Order 13329, please visit the following Web site:
An applicant should consult NIDRR's Long-Range Plan for Fiscal Years 2013–2017 (78 FR 20299) (the Plan) when preparing its application. The Plan is organized around the following research domains: (1) Community Living and Participation; (2) Health and Function; and (3) Employment.
Each of the following invitational priorities relates to innovative research utilizing new technologies to address the needs of individuals with disabilities. These priorities are:
(1) Increased independence of individuals with disabilities in community settings, including educational settings, through the development of technology to support access to these settings and promote integration of individuals with disabilities.
(2) Enhanced sensory or motor function of individuals with disabilities through the development of technology to support improved functional capacity.
(3) Enhanced workforce participation through the development of technology to increase access to employment, promote sustained employment, and support employment advancement for individuals with disabilities.
(4) Enhanced community living and participation for individuals with disabilities through the development of accessible information technology including cloud computing, software, systems, and devices that promote access to information in educational, employment, and community settings, and voting technology that improves access for individuals with disabilities.
(5) Improved health-care interventions and increased use of related resources through the development of technology to support independent access to community health-care services for individuals with disabilities.
Applicants should describe the approaches they expect to use to collect empirical evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of the technology they are proposing. This empirical evidence should facilitate the assessment of the efficacy and usefulness of the technology.
In responding to all invitational priorities, NIDRR encourages applicants to adhere to universal design principles and guidelines. The term “universal design” is defined as “the design of products and environments to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design” (The Center for Universal Design, 1997). Universal design of consumer products minimizes or alleviates barriers that reduce the ability of individuals with disabilities to effectively or safely use standard consumer products. (For more information see:
The Small Business Innovation Development Act of 1982, Pub. L. 97–219, as amended (15 U.S.C. 631 and 638), and title II of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 760 et seq.).
The estimated amount of funds available for new Phase I awards is based upon the estimated SBIR allocation for OSERS, minus prior commitments for Phase II continuation awards.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2014 from the list of approved but unfunded applicants from this competition.
The maximum award amount includes direct and indirect costs and fees.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1.
If it appears that an applicant organization does not meet the eligibility requirements, we will request an evaluation by the SBA. Under circumstances in which eligibility is unclear, we will not make an SBIR award until the SBA makes a determination that the applicant is eligible under its definition of small business concern.
Technology, science, and engineering firms with strong research capabilities in any of the priority areas listed in this notice are encouraged to participate. Consultative or other arrangements between these firms and universities or other nonprofit organizations are permitted, but the small business concern must serve as the grantee. For Phase I projects, at least two-thirds of the research or analytic activities must be performed by the small business concern grantee.
2.
3.
1.
You can contact ED Pubs at its Web site, also:
If you request an application from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this competition as follows: CFDA number 84.133S–1.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) by contacting the team listed under
2. a.
• A “page” is 8.5″ × 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative. You are not required to double space titles, headings, footnotes, references, captions, or text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs.
• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).
• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial.
The page limit does not apply to the cover sheet; the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; the assurances and certifications; the one-page abstract, the resumes, the bibliography, or the letters of support; related applications or awards; or the documentation of previous Phase II awards (required only if the small business concern has received more than 15 Phase II awards in the prior five fiscal years). However, the page limit does apply to all of the application narrative section.
We will reject your application if you exceed the page limit or if you apply other standards and exceed the equivalent of the page limit.
b.
Because we plan to publicly highlight success stories on our Web site, you may wish to request confidentiality of business information.
Consistent with Executive Order 12600, please designate in your application any information that you feel is exempt from disclosure under Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act. In the appropriate Appendix section of your application, under “Other Attachments Form,” please list the page number or numbers on which we can find this information. For additional information please see 34 CFR 5.11(c).
3.
Applications for grants under this program must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov). For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, please refer to section IV.
We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.
Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under
5.
6.
7.
a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);
b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the System for Award Management (SAM) (formerly the Central Contractor Registry (CCR)), the Government's primary registrant database;
c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and
d. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period.
You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet. A DUNS number can be created within one-to-two business days.
If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow 2–5 weeks for your TIN to become active.
The SAM registration process can take approximately seven business days, but may take upwards of several weeks, depending on the completeness and accuracy of the data entered into the SAM database by an entity. Thus, if you think you might want to apply for Federal financial assistance under a program administered by the Department, please allow sufficient time to obtain and register your DUNS number and TIN. We strongly recommend that you register early.
Once your SAM registration is active, you will need to allow 24 to 48 hours for the information to be available in Grants.gov. and before you can submit an application through Grants.gov.
If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make any
Information about SAM is available at www.SAM.gov. To further assist you with obtaining and registering your DUNS number and TIN in SAM or updating your existing SAM account, we have prepared a SAM.gov Tip Sheet, which you can find at:
In addition, if you are submitting your application via Grants.gov, you must (1) be designated by your organization as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and (2) register yourself with Grants.gov as an AOR. Details on these steps are outlined at the following Grants.gov Web page:
8.
a.
Applications for grants under the SBIR Program, CFDA number 84.133S–1, must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at
We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement
You may access the electronic grant application for the SBIR Program at www.Grants.gov. You must search for the downloadable application package for this competition by the CFDA number. Do not include the CFDA number's alpha suffix in your search (e.g., search for 84.133, not 84.133S).
Please note the following:
• When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation.
• Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not accept your application if it is received—that is, date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system—after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date.
• The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov.
• You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for this program to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov under News and Events on the Department's G5 system home page at www.G5.gov.
• You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format.
• You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: the Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.
• You must upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to your application as files in a PDF (Portable Document) read-only, non-modifiable format. Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only, non-modifiable PDF or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material. Additional, detailed information on how to attach files is in the application instructions.
• Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice.
• After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. (This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department.) The Department then will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send a second notification to you by email. This second notification indicates that the Department has received your application and has assigned your application a PR/Award number (an ED-specified identifying number unique to your application).
• We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.
If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice.
If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed under
The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed to fully register to submit your application to Grants.gov before the application deadline date and time or if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov system.
• You do not have access to the Internet; or
• You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the Grants.gov system;
• No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevents you from using the Internet to submit your application.
If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.
Address and mail or fax your statement to: Patricia Barrett, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5142, PCP, Washington, DC 20202–2700. FAX: (202) 245–7323.
Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.
b.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.133S–1), LBJ Basement Level 1, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202–4260.
You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.
If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A private metered postmark.
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
If your application is postmarked after the application deadline date, we will not consider your application.
The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.
c.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.133S–1), 550 12th Street, SW., Room 7041, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202–4260,
The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.
If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—
(1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and
(2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245–6288.
1.
2.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary also requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
3.
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multi-year award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to
4.
• The number of products (e.g., new or improved tools, methods, discoveries, standards, interventions, programs, or devices developed or tested with NIDRR funding) that have been judged by expert panels to be of high quality and to advance the field.
Patricia Barrett, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5142, PCP, Washington, DC 20202–2700. Telephone: (202) 245–6211 or by email:
If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877–8339.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice.
High School Equivalency Program (HEP).
Notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2014.
This priority is:
For applicants with an expiring HEP project, the Secretary will consider the applicant's prior experience in implementing its expiring HEP project, based on information contained in documents previously provided to the Department, such as annual performance reports, project evaluation reports, site visit reports, and the previously approved HEP application.
Under this competition, we also are particularly interested in applications that address the following priorities.
These priorities are:
Projects that are designed to address one or more of the following priority areas:
(a) Providing students with increased access to rigorous and engaging coursework in STEM.
(b) Increasing the opportunities for high-quality preparation of, or professional development for, teachers or other educators of STEM subjects.
Applicants could consider activities to better prepare program participants to transition into postsecondary education, such
Applications that propose to engage faith-based and community organizations in the delivery of services under this program.
20 U.S.C. 1070d–2.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to IHEs only.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2015 from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1.
2.
3.
1.
The application package content also can be viewed electronically at the following address:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877–8339.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) by contacting the program contact person listed in this section.
2.
• A “page” is 8.5″ × 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions. However, you may single space all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs. Charts, tables, figures, and graphs presented in the application narrative count toward the page limit.
• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch) throughout the entire application package.
• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial. An application submitted in any other font (including Times Roman or Arial Narrow) will not be accepted.
The 25-page limit for the project narrative does not apply to the cover sheet; the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract. However, the page limit does apply to all of the application narrative section.
Our reviewers will not read any pages of your application narrative that exceed the 25-page limit.
Appendices must be limited to 20 pages and must include the following: resumes and job descriptions of key personnel. Job descriptions must include duties and minimum qualifications. Items in the appendices will only be used by the program office.
3.
Applications Available: December 19, 2013.
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: February 19, 2014.
Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov). For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, please refer to section IV. 7.
We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.
Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under
Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: April 20, 2014.
4.
5.
6.
a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);
b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the System for Award Management (SAM) (formerly the Central Contractor Registry (CCR)), the Government's primary registrant database;
c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and
d. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period.
You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet. A DUNS number can be created within one-to-two business days.
If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow 2–5 weeks for your TIN to become active.
The SAM registration process can take approximately seven business days, but may take upwards of several weeks, depending on the completeness and accuracy of the data entered into the SAM database by an entity. Thus, if you think you might want to apply for Federal financial assistance under a program administered by the Department, please allow sufficient time to obtain and register your DUNS number and TIN. We strongly recommend that you register early.
Once your SAM registration is active, you will need to allow 24 to 48 hours for the information to be available in Grants.gov and before you can submit an application through Grants.gov.
If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your registration annually. This may take three or more business days.
Information about SAM is available at
In addition, if you are submitting your application via Grants.gov, you must (1) be designated by your organization as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and (2) register yourself with Grants.gov as an AOR. Details on these steps are outlined at the following Grants.gov Web page:
7.
Applications for grants under the High School Equivalency Program, CFDA number 84.141A, must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at
We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement
You may access the electronic grant application for HEP at
Please note the following:
• When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation.
• Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not accept your application if it is received—that is, date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system—after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date.
• The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov.
• You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for this competition to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov under News and Events on the Department's G5 system home page at
• You will not receive additional point value because you submit your
• You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: the Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.
• You must upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to your application as files in a PDF (Portable Document) read-only, non-modifiable format. Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only, non-modifiable PDF or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material.
• Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice.
• After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. (This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department.) The Department then will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send a second notification to you by email. This second notification indicates that the Department has received your application and has assigned your application a PR/Award number (an ED-specified identifying number unique to your application).
• We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.
If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice.
If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed under
The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed to fully register to submit your application to Grants.gov before the application deadline date and time or if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov system.
• You do not have access to the Internet; or
• You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the Grants.gov system;
• No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevent you from using the Internet to submit your application.
If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.
Address and mail or fax your statement to: Tara Ramsey, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., room 3E309, Washington, DC 20202–6135. FAX: (202) 205–0089.
Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: CFDA Number 84.141A, LBJ Basement Level 1, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202–4260.
You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.
If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A private metered postmark.
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
If your application is postmarked after the application deadline date, we will not consider your application.
The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: CFDA Number 84.141A, 550 12th Street SW., Room 7041, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202–4260.
The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.
If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—
(1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and
(2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245–6288.
1.
2.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary also requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
3.
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multi-year award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to
4.
Applicants must propose annual targets for these measures in their applications. The national target for GPRA measure 1 for FY 2014 is that 69 percent of HEP program participants exiting the program having received a HSE credential. The national target for GPRA measure 2 for FY 2014 is that 80 percent of HEP HSE diploma recipients will enter postsecondary education or training programs, upgraded employment, or the military. The national targets for subsequent years may be adjusted based on additional baseline data. The panel readers will score related selection criteria on the basis of how well an applicant addresses these GPRA measures. Therefore, applicants will want to consider how to demonstrate a sound capacity to provide reliable data on the GPRA measures, including the project's annual performance targets for addressing the GPRA performance measures, as is required by the Office of Management and Budget approved annual performance report that is included in the application package. All grantees will be required to submit, as part of their annual performance report, information with respect to these GPRA performance measures.
5.
Tara Ramsey, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3E309, LBJ, Washington, DC 20202–6135. Telephone: (202) 260–2063 or by email:
If you use a TDD or TYY, call the FRS, toll free, at 1–800–877–8339.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education.
Notice.
Overview Information: National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR)—Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program—Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers (RERCs)—Information and Communication Technologies Access and Rehabilitation Strategies, Techniques, and Interventions Notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2014.
This notice invites applications for two separate competitions. For funding and other key information for each of the two competitions, see the chart in the
The purpose of the RERCs program, which is funded through the Program, is to improve the effectiveness of services authorized under the Rehabilitation Act. The RERCs program encourages advanced engineering research, develops and evaluates innovative technologies, facilitates service delivery system changes, stimulates the production and distribution of new technologies and equipment in the private sector, and provides training opportunities. RERCs seek to solve rehabilitation problems and remove environmental barriers to improvements in employment, community living and participation, and health and function outcomes of individuals with disabilities.
The general requirements for RERCs are set out in subpart D of 34 CFR part 350 (What Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers Does the Secretary Assist?).
Additional information on the RERCs program can be found at:
These priorities are:
The full text of these priorities is included in the notice of final priorities published in the
29 U.S.C. 762(g) and 764(b)(3)(A).
The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education (IHEs) only.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1.
2.
1.
You can contact ED Pubs at its Web site, also:
If you request an application from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this program as follows: CFDA number 84.133E–1 or 84.133E–3.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) by contacting the person or team listed under
2.
Each LOI should be limited to a maximum of four pages and include the following information: (1) The priority to which the potential applicant is responding; (2) the title of the proposed project, the name of the applicant, the name of the Project Director or Principal Investigator (PI), and the names of partner institutions and entities; (3) a brief statement of the vision, goals, and objectives of the proposed project and a description of its proposed activities at a sufficient level of detail to allow NIDRR to select potential peer reviewers; (4) a list of proposed project staff including the Project Director or PI and key personnel; (5) a list of individuals whose selection as a peer reviewer might constitute a conflict of interest due to involvement in proposal development, selection as an advisory board member, co-PI relationships, etc.; and (6) contact information for the Project Director or PI. Submission of an LOI is not a prerequisite for eligibility to submit an application.
NIDRR will accept the optional LOI via mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or commercial carrier) or email, by January 13, 2014. The LOI must be sent to: Patricia Barrett, U.S. Department of Education, 550 12th Street SW., Room 5142, Potomac Center Plaza (PCP), Washington, DC 20202; or by email to:
For further information regarding the LOI submission process, contact Patricia Barrett at (202) 245–6211.
• A “page” is 8.5″ × 11,″ on one side only, with 1” margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs.
• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).
• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial.
The recommended page limit does not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract, the resumes, the bibliography, or the letters of support. However, the recommended page limit does apply to all of the application narrative section (Part III).
An applicant should consult NIDRR's Long-Range Plan for Fiscal Years 2013–2017 (78 FR 20299) (Plan) when preparing its application. The Plan is organized around the following research domains: (1) Community Living and Participation; (2) Health and Function; and (3) Employment.
3.
Applications for grants under the competitions announced in this notice must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov). For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, please refer to section IV.
7.
We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.
Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under
4.
5.
6.
a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);
b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the System for Award Management (SAM) (formerly the Central Contractor Registry (CCR)), the Government's primary registrant database;
c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and
d. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period.
You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet. A DUNS number can be created within one to two business days.
If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow 2–5 weeks for your TIN to become active.
The SAM registration process can take approximately seven business days, but may take upwards of several weeks, depending on the completeness and accuracy of the data entered into the SAM database by an entity. Thus, if you think you might want to apply for Federal financial assistance under a program administered by the Department, please allow sufficient time to obtain and register your DUNS number and TIN. We strongly recommend that you register early.
Once your SAM registration is active, you will need to allow 24 to 48 hours for the information to be available in Grants.gov. and before you can submit an application through Grants.gov.
If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your registration annually. This may take three or more business days.
Information about SAM is available at
In addition, if you are submitting your application via Grants.gov, you must (1) be designated by your organization as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and (2) register yourself with Grants.gov as an AOR. Details on these steps are outlined at the following Grants.gov Web page:
7.
a.
We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement
You may access an electronic grant application for the RERC competitions (CFDA numbers 84.133E–1 and 84.133E–3) at
Please note the following:
• When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation.
• Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not accept your application if it is received—that is, date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system—after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date.
• The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors,
• You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for the competition under which you are applying to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov under News and Events on the Department's G5 system home page at
• You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format.
• You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: The Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.
• You must upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to your application as files in a PDF (Portable Document) read-only, non-modifiable format. Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only, non-modifiable PDF or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material. Additional, detailed information on how to attach files is in the application instructions.
• Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice.
• After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. (This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department.) The Department then will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send a second notification to you by email. This second notification indicates that the Department has received your application and has assigned your application a PR/Award number (an ED-specified identifying number unique to your application).
• We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.
If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice.
If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed under
The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed to fully register to submit your application to Grants.gov before the application deadline date and time or if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov system.
• You do not have access to the Internet; or
• You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the Grants.gov system;
• No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevents you from using the Internet to submit your application.
If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.
Address and mail or fax your statement to: Patricia Barrett, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5142, PCP, Washington, DC 20202–2700. FAX: (202) 245–7323.
Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.
b.
You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.
If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A private metered postmark.
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
If your application is postmarked after the application deadline date, we will not consider your application.
The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.
c.
If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—
(1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the program under which you are submitting your application; and
(2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245–6288.
1.
2.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary also requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
3.
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multi-year award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to
4.
• The number of accomplishments (e.g., new or improved tools, methods, discoveries, standards, interventions, programs, or devices developed or tested with NIDRR funding) that have been judged by expert panels to be of high quality and to advance the field.
• The average number of publications per award based on NIDRR-funded research and development activities in refereed journals.
• The percentage of new NIDRR grants that assess the effectiveness of interventions, programs, and devices using rigorous methods.
For these reviews, NIDRR uses information submitted by grantees as part of their Annual Performance Reports.
Department of Education program performance reports, which include information on NIDRR programs, are available on the Department's Web site:
5.
Patricia Barrett, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5142, PCP, Washington, DC 20202–2700. Telephone: (202) 245–6211 or by email:
If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877–8339.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice.
College Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP). Notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2014.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.149A.
This priority is:
For applicants with an expiring CAMP project, the Secretary will consider the applicant's prior experience in implementing its expiring CAMP project, based on information contained in documents previously provided to the Department, such as annual performance reports, project evaluation reports, site visit reports, and the previously approved CAMP application.
Under this competition, we also are particularly interested in applications that address the following priorities.
These priorities are:
Projects that are designed to address one or more of the following priority areas:
(a) Providing students with increased access to rigorous and engaging coursework in STEM.
(b) Increasing the number and proportion of students prepared for postsecondary or graduate study and careers in STEM, with a specific focus on an increase in the number and proportion of students so prepared who are from groups traditionally underrepresented in STEM careers, including minorities, individuals with disabilities, and women.
Applicants could consider increasing participants' access to studies in STEM through such activities as mentoring, counseling, and tutoring in ways that motivate participants to pursue postsecondary education in the areas of STEM. Similarly, applicants could consider increasing students' preparedness for study and careers in STEM through activities such as referrals to STEM-oriented work-based learning experiences, exposure to academic programs and careers in STEM-related fields, and providing support services. These could include services to improve participants' academic skills and knowledge so that they may pursue studies and careers in STEM-related fields.
Applications that propose to engage faith-based and community organizations in the delivery of services under this program.
20 U.S.C. 1070d–2.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education (IHEs) only.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2015 from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1.
2.
3.
1.
The application package content also can be viewed electronically at the following address:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877–8339.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) by contacting the program contact person listed in this section.
2.
• A “page” is 8.5″ × 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions. However, you may single space all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs. Charts, tables, figures, and graphs presented in the application narrative count toward the page limit.
• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch) throughout the entire application package.
• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial. An application submitted in any other font (including Times Roman or Arial Narrow) will not be accepted. The 25-page limit for the project narrative does not apply to the cover sheet; the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract. However, the page limit does apply to all of the application narrative section.
Our reviewers will not read any pages of your application narrative that exceed the 25-page limit.
Appendices must be limited to 20 pages and must include the following: Resumes and job descriptions of key personnel. Job descriptions must include duties and minimum qualifications. Items in the appendices will only be used by the program office.
3.
Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov). For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, please refer to section IV. 7.
We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.
Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under
4.
5.
6.
a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);
b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the System for Award Management (SAM) (formerly the Central Contractor Registry (CCR), the Government's primary registrant database;
c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and
d. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information while your application is under review
You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet. A DUNS number can be created within one-to-two business days.
If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow 2–5 weeks for your TIN to become active.
The SAM registration process can take approximately seven business days, but may take upwards of several weeks, depending on the completeness and accuracy of the data entered into the SAM database by an entity. Thus, if you think you might want to apply for Federal financial assistance under a program administered by the Department, please allow sufficient time to obtain and register your DUNS number and TIN. We strongly recommend that you register early.
Once your SAM registration is active, you will need to allow 24 to 48 hours for the information to be available in Grants.gov and before you can submit an application through Grants.gov.
If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your registration annually. This may take three or more business days.
Information about SAM is available at
In addition, if you are submitting your application via Grants.gov, you must (1) be designated by your organization as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and (2) register yourself with Grants.gov as an AOR. Details on these steps are outlined at the following Grants.gov Web page:
7.
Applications for grants under the CAMP, CFDA number 84.149A must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at
We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement
You may access the electronic grant application for the CAMP at
Please note the following:
• When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation.
• Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not accept your application if it is received—that is, date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system—after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date.
• The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov.
• You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for this competition to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov under News and Events on the Department's G5 system home page at
• You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format.
• You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: the Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.
• You must upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to your application as files in a PDF (Portable Document) read-only, non-modifiable format. Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only, non-modifiable PDF or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material.
• Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice.
• After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. (This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department.) The Department then will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send a second notification to you by email. This second notification indicates that the Department has received your application and has assigned your application a PR/Award number (an ED-specified identifying number unique to your application).
• We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.
If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice.
If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed under
The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed to fully register to submit your application to Grants.gov before the application deadline date and time or if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov system.
• You do not have access to the Internet; or
• You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the Grants.gov system;
• No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevent you from using the Internet to submit your application.
If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.
Address and mail or fax your statement to: Nathan Weiss, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3E321, LBJ, Washington, DC 20202–6135. FAX: (202) 205–0089.
Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: CFDA Number 84.149A, LBJ Basement Level 1, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202–4260.
You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.
If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A private metered postmark.
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
If your application is postmarked after the application deadline date, we will not consider your application.
The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: CFDA Number 84.149A, 550 12th Street, SW., Room 7041, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202–4260.
The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.
If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—
(1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and
(2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245–6288.
1.
2.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary also requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
3.
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multi-year award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to
4.
Applicants must propose annual targets for these measures in their applications. The national target for GPRA measure 1 for FY 2014 is that 86 percent of CAMP participants will complete the first academic year of their postsecondary program. The national target for GPRA measure 2 for FY 2014 is that 85 percent of CAMP participants continue their postsecondary education after completing the first academic year of college. The national targets for subsequent years may be adjusted based on additional baseline data. The panel readers will score related selection criteria on the basis of how well an applicant addresses these GPRA measures. Therefore, applicants will want to consider how to demonstrate a sound capacity to provide reliable data on GPRA measures, including the project's annual performance targets for addressing the GPRA performance measures, as is required by the Office of Management and Budget approved annual performance report that is included in the application package. All grantees will be required to submit, as part of their annual performance report, information with respect to these GPRA performance measures.
5.
Nathan Weiss, U.S. Department of Education, Office of Migrant Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3E321, Washington, DC 20202–6135. Telephone Number: (202) 260–7496, or by email:
If you use a TDD or a TYY, call the FRS, toll free, at 1–800–877–8339.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Department of Energy.
Extension of the public comment period.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is extending the public comment period for
The ongoing public comment period which opened on November 1, 2013, will remain open until January 15, 2014, an extension of 30 days.
Written comments on the Draft EIS may be provided on the CHPE EIS Web site at
The Draft EIS is also available on the EIS Web site at
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
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 exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of adequacy.
In this notice, EPA is notifying the public that EPA has found that the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets (MVEBs) in the Delaware portion of the Philadelphia-Wilmington-New Jersey 1997 fine particulate matter (PM
This final rule is effective on December 31, 2013.
Gregory Becoat, Environmental Scientist, Office of Air Program Planning (3AP30), United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, (215) 814–2036;
Today's notice is simply an announcement of a finding that EPA has already made. EPA Region III sent a letter to the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control on November 7, 2013 stating that EPA has found that the MVEBs in the Attainment Plan for budget year 2009 and out-year 2012, submitted on April 25, 2012 by DNREC, are adequate for transportation conformity purposes. As a result of EPA's finding, the State of Delaware
Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA's conformity rule requires that transportation plans, transportation improvement programs, and projects conform to SIPs and establishes the criteria and procedures for determining whether or not they do. Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the national ambient air quality standards.
The criteria by which we determine whether a SIP's MVEBs are adequate for conformity purposes are outlined in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). EPA described the process for determining the adequacy of submitted SIP budgets in a July 1, 2004 preamble starting at 69 FR 40038 and used the information in these resources in making this adequacy determination. Delaware did not provide emission budgets for sulfur dioxide (SO
Please note that an adequacy review is separate from EPA's completeness review, and should not be used to prejudge EPA's ultimate approval action for the SIP. Even if EPA finds a budget adequate, the SIP could later be disapproved. The finding and the response to comments are available at EPA's conformity Web site:
42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice of proposed administrative settlement and opportunity for public comment.
In accordance with Section 122(i) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (“CERCLA”), notice is hereby given by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), Region 2, of a proposed Administrative Settlement Agreement for Recovery of Past and Future Response Costs (“Agreement”) pursuant to Section 122(h)(1) of CERCLA, with SKF USA, Inc. (“Settling Party”). The Settling Party is a potentially responsible party, pursuant to Section 107(a) of CERCLA, and thus is potentially liable for response costs incurred at or in connection Paul's Tank Cleaning Service Superfund Site (“Site”), located in Burlington County, New Jersey. Under the Agreement, the Settling Party agrees to pay a total of $100,000.00 to EPA for past and future response costs. EPA will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent to the Agreement if comments received disclose facts or considerations that indicate that the proposed Agreements are inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. EPA's response to any comments received will be available for public inspection at EPA Region 2 offices, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007–1866.
Comments must be provided by January 15, 2014.
The Agreement is available for public inspection at EPA Region 2 offices at 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007–1866. Comments should reference the Paul's Tank Cleaning Service Superfund Site, located in Burlington County, New Jersey, Index No. CERCLA–02–2013–2022. To request a copy of the Agreements, please contact the EPA employee identified below.
William J. Reilly, Jr., Assistant Regional Counsel, New Jersey Superfund Branch, Office of Regional Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway—17th Floor, New York, New York 10007–1866. Telephone: 212–637–3154, email at
The Federal Communications Commission will hold an Open Meeting on the subjects listed below on Thursday, December 12, 2013. The meeting is scheduled to commence at 2:30 p.m. in Room TW–C305, at 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC.
The meeting site is fully accessible to people using wheelchairs or other mobility aids. Sign language interpreters, open captioning, and assistive listening devices will be provided on site. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. In your request, include a description of the accommodation you will need and a way we can contact you if we need more information. Last minute requests will be accepted, but may be impossible to fill. Send an email to:
Additional information concerning this meeting may be obtained from Meribeth McCarrick, Office of Media Relations, (202) 418–0500; TTY 1–888–835–5322. Audio/Video coverage of the meeting will be broadcast live with open captioning over the Internet from the FCC Live Web page at
For a fee this meeting can be viewed live over George Mason University's Capitol Connection. The Capitol Connection also will carry the meeting live via the Internet. To purchase these services call (703) 993–3100 or go to
Copies of materials adopted at this meeting can be purchased from the FCC's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (202) 488–5300; Fax (202) 488–5563; TTY (202) 488–5562. These copies are available in paper format and alternative media, including large print/type; digital disk; and audio and video tape. Best Copy and Printing, Inc. may be reached by email at
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Notice is hereby given of the final approval of a proposed information collection by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) under OMB delegated authority, pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.16 (OMB Regulations on Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public). Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. Copies of the Paperwork Reduction Act Submission, supporting statement and approved collection of information instruments are placed into OMB's public docket files. The Federal Reserve may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Final approval under OMB delegated authority of the implementation of the following information collection:
One U.S. agency of a foreign bank expressed concern that foreign banking organizations already provide the Federal Reserve with daily transaction level detail on all short-term financing transactions through a liquidity collection submitted to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (4G templates). This commenter suggested avoiding unnecessary burden by sharing data among the different disciplines within the Federal Reserve System. The Federal Reserve compared these data collections and determined that there is no meaningful overlap or duplicative data between the proposed FR 2420 and the 4G templates or the Liquidity Monitoring Reports (FR 2052a; OMB No. 7100—to be assigned), which have been proposed to replace the 4G templates.
The trade organizations stated that the 4G templates require daily submissions of similar data by certain large banks, but such submissions are made on a two-day lag, which allows reporting banks to ensure the accuracy of the data submitted. Since the 4G templates already collect (from certain large banks) amount and maturity information related to federal funds, Eurodollars, and Wholesale CDs, the trade organization strongly recommended making slight enhancements to the 4G templates, rather than requiring reporting entities to develop an entirely new reporting system to capture essentially the same information. These data collections have different data elements and are collected for different purposes—money market monitoring versus banking supervision. Moreover, the panel for the FR 2420 is a larger respondent panel than the panel for the 4G templates. Consequently, the Federal Reserve believes the 4G templates could not be revised effectively to meet the FR 2420 needs.
One U.S. agency of a foreign bank noted that reporting would take 1 hour each day to prepare each day's data, not 0.825 hour as estimated in the FR 2420 proposal. The Federal Reserve reviewed the burden estimates and will revise the estimate to reflect this feedback.
Most commenters noted the 7:00 a.m. EST deadline would be difficult to meet and requested the Board consider a later deadline and a two-day lag. After considering these comments, the Federal Reserve determined that federal funds and Eurodollar data are needed by 7 a.m. each business day for the preceding day's reportable transactions to support the implementation of monetary policy and daily market monitoring and thus will retain those deadlines. However, upon further investigation, the Federal Reserve will extend the CD section deadline to a two day lag with a submission deadline of 2 p.m.
Several commenters noted that additional time would be needed to implement and validate data as well as update their systems. The Federal Reserve recognizes challenges associated with implementing the FR 2420. To provide the necessary lead time, the implementation date would be extended to April 1, 2014. However, with this extension, the transition periods outlined in the initial proposal regarding the submission deadline times would be eliminated.
One commercial bank requested that the Federal Reserve consider an exemption on CDs since the rates rarely change from one day to the next. Another commercial bank requested that the threshold be raised to $1 million. To reduce reporting burden, therefore, the Federal Reserve will raise the threshold on all CDs to $1 million; however, there will not be a minimum threshold for the amounts reported on the federal funds and Eurodollar transactions.
The trade organization requested that derivative `market-linked' CDs be excluded from the report since (1) the actual embedded floating rate may not be easily obtained, (2) calculating such information would require significant changes to systems, and (3) these CDs are only a small subset of reported CDs. Since, as commenters noted, these CDs represent a small amount of reported CDs and excluding them would reduce reporting burden, the Federal Reserve will exclude derivative `market-linked' CDs from the report.
The trade organization noted that it was not clear how an institution incorporates a new filer into the proposal's reporting requirements. Also, the trade organization requested that the final proposal include a 12-month transition period for all newly-acquired lines of business before such new acquisitions are required to be included in the FR 2420. The Federal Reserve will consider these types of requests on a case-by-case basis. However, the Federal Reserve believes that data from mergers and acquisitions should be
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 January 10, 2014.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198–0001:
1.
B. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (E. Ann Worthy, Vice President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201–2272:
1.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Home Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 1461
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1467a(e)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 10(c)(4)(B) of the HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1467a(c)(4)(B)). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than January 10, 2014.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Yvonne Sparks, Community Development Officer) P.O. Box 442, St. Louis, Missouri 63166–2034:
1.
Section 7A of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a, as added by Title II of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, requires persons contemplating certain mergers or acquisitions to give the Federal Trade Commission and the Assistant Attorney General advance notice and to wait designated periods before consummation of such plans. Section 7A(b)(2) of the Act permits the agencies, in individual cases, to terminate this waiting period prior to its expiration and requires that notice of this action be published in the
The following transactions were granted early termination—on the dates indicated—of the waiting period provided by law and the premerger notification rules. The listing for each transaction includes the transaction number and the parties to the transaction. The grants were made by the Federal Trade Commission and the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice. Neither agency intends to take any action with respect to these proposed acquisitions during the applicable waiting period.
Renee Chapman, Contact Representative, or Theresa Kingsberry, Legal Assistant, Federal Trade Commission, Premerger Notification Office, Bureau of Competition, Room H–303, Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326–3100.
By Direction of the Commission.
Office of Government Ethics (OGE).
Notice.
Notice is hereby given of the appointment of members of the updated OGE Senior Executive Service (SES) Performance Review Board.
Shelley K. Finlayson, Program Counsel, Office of Government Ethics, Suite 500, 1201 New York Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20005–3917; Telephone: 202–482–9300; TYY: 800–877–8339; FAX: 202–482–9237.
5 U.S.C. 4314(c) requires each agency to establish, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management at 5 CFR part 430, subpart C and § 430.310 thereof in particular, one or more Senior Executive Service performance review boards. As a small executive branch agency, OGE
The following officials have been appointed members of the SES Performance Review Board of the Office of Government Ethics:
Shelley K. Finlayson, [Chair], Program Counsel, Office of Government Ethics;
Rochelle Granat, Assistant General Counsel for General Law, Ethics and Regulation, Department of the Treasury;
Judith S. Kaleta, Deputy General Counsel, Department of Transportation; and
Shira Pavis Minton, Ethics Counsel, Office of the Ethics Counsel, Securities and Exchange Commission.
In compliance with the requirements of Section 506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing
The Department specifically requests comments on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.
The PPR will continue to be administered to all active grantees of the CED program. Grantees will be required to use this reporting tool for their semi-annual reports to be submitted twice a year. The current PPR replaced both the annual questionnaire and other semi-annual reporting formats, which resulted in an overall reduction in burden for the grantees while significantly improving the quality of the data collected by OCS. OCS seeks to renew this PPR to continue to collect quality data from grantees. To ensure the burden on grantees is not increased, all questions on the current PPR will remain the same—we propose adding only one question to the PPR regarding the total number of jobs grantees are creating with grant funds. Many grantees have asked about this element on the current PPR and currently do not have a place to report that information. This is information that most grantees are already collecting. Adding this field will allow grantees to provide this information in a consistent format and allow OCS to more accurately reflect the total number of jobs created through the CED program. Since grantees are already familiar with the current format and elements, and all questions on the PPR will remain the same (with one added question based on grantee feedback), there will be no additional burden on grantees.
Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. Email address:
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget
Fax written comments on the collection of information by January 15, 2014.
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.
The draft guidance suggests that applicants who submit certain medical device applications include, if readily available, pediatric use information for diseases or conditions that the device is being used to treat, diagnose, or cure that are outside the device's approved or proposed indications for use, as well as an estimate of the number of pediatric patients with such diseases or conditions. The information submitted will allow FDA to identify pediatric uses of devices outside their approved or proposed indication for use in order to determine areas where further pediatric device development could be useful. This recommendation applies to applicants who submit the following applications:
1. Any request for a humanitarian device exemption submitted under section 520(m) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360j(m));
2. Any premarket approval application (PMA) or supplement to a PMA submitted under section 515 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360e);
3. Any product development protocol submitted under section 515 of the FD&C Act.
In the
One comment stated that FDA should not require all readily available information on pediatric uses of devices because it is unduly burdensome, but rather applicants should be required to perform a reasonable search. FDA disagrees with the comment. In order for FDA to be provided useful, comprehensive information and to fulfill the statutory mandate, all readily available information should be submitted to FDA. Moreover, the requirement is not unduly burdensome because FDA is only requiring all information that is readily available, not all information in general.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Respondents are permitted to submit information relating to uses of the device outside the approved or proposed indication if such uses are described or acknowledged in acceptable sources of readily available information. We estimate that 20 percent of respondents submitting information required by section 515A of the FD&C Act will choose to submit this information and that it will take 30 minutes for them to do so.
This draft guidance also refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. The collections of information in part 814 (21 CFR part 814), subpart B have been approved under OMB control number 0910–0231, and the collections of information in part 814, subpart H have been approved under OMB control number 0910–0332.
In compliance with section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 concerning opportunity for public comment on proposed collections of information, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the information collection plans, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276–1243.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
The National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) is a survey of the U.S. civilian, non-institutionalized population aged 12 years old or older. The data are used to determine the prevalence of use of tobacco products, alcohol, illicit substances, and illicit use of prescription drugs. The results are used by SAMHSA, the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), Federal government agencies, and other organizations and researchers to establish policy, direct program activities, and better allocate resources.
Methodological tests will continue to be designed to examine the feasibility, quality, and efficiency of new procedures or revisions to existing survey protocol. Specifically, the tests will measure the reliability and validity of certain questionnaire sections and items through multiple measurements on a set of respondents; assess new methods for gaining cooperation and participation of respondents with the goal of increasing response and decreasing potential bias in the survey estimates; and assess the impact of new sampling techniques and technologies on respondent behavior and reporting. Research will involve focus groups, cognitive laboratory testing, customer satisfaction surveys, and field tests.
These methodological tests will continue to examine ways to increase data quality, lower operating costs, and gain a better understanding of sources and effects of nonsampling error on the NSDUH estimates. Particular attention will be given to minimizing the impact of design changes so that survey data continue to remain comparable over time. If these tests provide successful results, current procedures or data collection instruments may be revised.
The number of respondents to be included in each field test will vary, depending on the nature of the subject being tested and the target population. However, the total estimated response burden is 8,225 hours. The exact number of subjects and burden hours for each test are unknown at this time, but will be clearly outlined in each individual submission. These estimated burden hours are distributed over three years as follows:
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice and request for comments; Extension of an existing information collection: 1651–0003.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) of the Department of Homeland Security will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act: Transportation Entry and Manifest of Goods Subject to CBP Inspection and Permit. This is a proposed extension of an information collection that was previously approved. CBP is proposing that this information collection be extended with no change to the burden hours. This document is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. This information collection was previously published in the
Written comments should be received on or before January 15, 2014 to be assured of consideration.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the OMB Desk Officer for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, and sent via electronic mail to
Requests for additional information should be directed to Tracey Denning, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229–1177, at 202–325–0265.
CBP invites the general public and affected Federal agencies to submit written comments and suggestions on proposed and/or continuing information collection requests pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act (Pub. L. 104–13; 44 U.S.C. 3507). Your comments should address one of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency/component, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies/components estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collections of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological techniques or other forms of information.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice and request for comments; Extension of an existing Information Collection: 1651–0013.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) of the Department of Homeland Security will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act: Entry and Manifest of Merchandise Free of Duty, Carrier's Certificate and Release (CBP Form 7523). This is a proposed extension of an information collection that was previously approved. CBP is proposing that this information collection be extended with no change to the burden hours. This document is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. This information collection was previously published in the
Written comments should be received on or before January 15, 2014 to be assured of consideration.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the OMB Desk Officer for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, and sent via electronic mail to
Requests for additional information should be directed to Tracey Denning, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229–1177, at 202–325–0265.
CBP invites the general public and affected Federal agencies to submit written comments and suggestions on proposed and/or continuing information collection requests pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act (Pub. L. 104–13; 44 U.S.C. 3507). Your comments should address one of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency/component, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies/components estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collections of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological techniques or other forms of information.
60-Day Notice of Information Collection for review; Electronic Bonds Online (eBonds) Access; OMB Control No. 1653–0046.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (USICE), is submitting the following information collection request for review and clearance in accordance
Written comments and suggestions regarding items contained in this notice and especially with regard to the estimated public burden and associated response time should be directed to the Office of Chief Information Office, Forms Management Office, U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, 801 I Street NW., Mailstop 5800, Washington, DC 20536–5800.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice.
This Notice advises the public of a $128,500,000 allocation for the purpose of assisting recovery in the most impacted and distressed areas in Colorado, Illinois and Oklahoma declared a major disaster in 2013. This is the fourth allocation of Community Development Block Grant disaster recovery (CDBG–DR) funds under the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013 (Pub. L. 113–2). Prior allocations addressed the areas most impacted by Hurricane Sandy, as well as the areas most impacted by disasters occurring in 2011 or 2012. In
For grantees receiving an allocation under this Notice, many of the requirements described in the Prior Notices will apply, with some minor modifications.
Stan Gimont, Director, Office of Block Grant Assistance, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 7286, Washington, DC 20410, telephone number 202–708–3587. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at 800–877–8339. Facsimile inquiries may be sent to Mr. Gimont at 202–401–2044. (Except for the “800” number, these telephone numbers are not toll-free.) Email inquiries may be sent to
The Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013 (Pub. L. 113–2, approved January 29, 2013) (Appropriations Act) made available $16 billion in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for necessary expenses related to disaster relief, long-term
On March 1, 2013, the President issued a sequestration order pursuant to section 251A of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act, as amended (2 U.S.C. 901a), and reduced funding for CDBG–DR grants under the Appropriations Act to $15.18 billion. A total of $10.5 billion has been allocated for the areas most impacted by Hurricane Sandy. This Notice advises the public of a $128,500,000 allocation for the purpose of assisting recovery in the most impacted and distressed areas in Colorado, Illinois and Oklahoma declared a major disaster in 2013. As the Appropriations Act requires funds to be awarded directly to a State, or unit of general local government (hereinafter, local government), at the discretion of the Secretary, the term “grantee” refers to any jurisdiction receiving a direct award from HUD under this Notice.
To comply with statutory direction that funds be used for disaster recovery-related expenses in the most impacted and distressed areas, HUD computes allocations based on the best available data that cover all of the eligible affected areas. Based on a review of the impacts from Presidentially-declared disasters that have occurred in 2013, and estimates of remaining unmet need, this Notice provides the following awards:
As outlined in Table 2, to ensure that funds provided under this Notice address unmet needs within the “most impacted and distressed” counties, each local government receiving a direct award under this Notice must expend its entire CDBG–DR award within its jurisdiction (e.g., Cook County must expend its entire award within Cook County, excluding the city of Chicago; the city of Chicago must expend all funds in the city of Chicago including the portions of Cook and DuPage counties located within the city's jurisdiction). The State of Oklahoma may expend funds in any county that was declared a major disaster in 2013, but must spend at least $3,220,000 within Cleveland County. The State of Illinois may expend funds in any county that was declared a major disaster in 2013. The State of Colorado must expend at least 80% of its funds in the most impacted counties of Boulder, Weld and Larimer but may expend up to $12,560,000 in other counties having a declared major disaster in 2013. A detailed explanation of HUD's allocation methodology is provided at Appendix A.
The Appropriations Act requires funds to be used only for specific disaster recovery-related purposes. The law also requires that prior to the obligation of funds, a grantee shall submit a plan detailing the proposed use of funds, including criteria for eligibility and how the use of these funds will address disaster relief, long-term recovery, restoration of infrastructure and housing and economic revitalization in the most impacted and distressed areas. In its Action Plan for Disaster Recovery each grantee must describe uses and activities that: (1) Are authorized under title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5301
Each grantee receiving an allocation under this Notice must submit an initial Action Plan no later than 90 days after the effective date of this Notice HUD will only approve Action Plans that meet the specific criteria identified in the March 5, 2013, Notice, as modified by the April 19, 2013, Notice (
CDBG–DR funds may be used as a matching requirement, share, or contribution for any other Federal program when used to carry out an eligible CDBG–DR activity. This includes programs or activities administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) (as provided at 42 U.S.C. 5305). Note, the amount of CDBG–DR as matching funds for USACE-funded projects may not exceed $250,000. However, the Appropriations Act prohibits CDBG–DR funds being used for expenses reimbursable by, or for which funds are made available by, either FEMA or USACE.
Section 904(c) under Title IX of the Appropriations Act requires that all funds be expended within two years of the date HUD obligates funds to a grantee (funds are obligated to a grantee upon HUD's signing of the grantee's CDBG–DR grant agreement). Action Plans must demonstrate how funds will be fully expended within two years of obligation. HUD must obligate all funds not later than September 30, 2017. For any funds that the grantee believes will not be expended by the deadline and that it desires to retain, the grantee must submit a letter to HUD not less than 30 days in advance justifying why it is necessary to extend the deadline for a specific portion of funds. The letter must detail the compelling legal, policy, or operational challenges for any such waiver, and must also identify the date by when the specified portion of funds will be expended. The Office of Management and Budget has provided HUD with authority to act on grantee waiver requests but grantees are cautioned that such waivers may not be approved. Approved waivers will be published in the
The Appropriations Act requires the Secretary to certify, in advance of signing a grant agreement, that the grantee has in place proficient financial controls and procurement processes and has established adequate procedures to prevent any duplication of benefits as defined by section 312 of the Stafford Act, ensure timely expenditure of funds, maintain comprehensive Web sites regarding all disaster recovery activities assisted with these funds, and detect and prevent waste, fraud, and abuse of funds. Departmental guidance to assist in preventing a duplication of benefits is provided in a notice published in the
All grantees must comply with the reporting, procedural, and monitoring requirements described in section VI. A. Grant Administration, in the March 5, 2013, Notice. HUD requires grantees to submit a projection of expenditures and outcomes to ensure funds are expended in a timely manner, and to track proposed versus actual performance (guidance on the preparation of the projections is available on HUD's CPD Disaster Recovery Web site). Grantees are also required to ensure all contracts (with subrecipients, recipients, and contractors) clearly stipulate the period of performance or the date of completion. Finally, grantees must enter expected completion dates for each activity in HUD's Disaster Recovery Grant Reporting (DRGR) system. When target dates are not met, grantees are required to explain why in the activity narrative. The Department will institute risk analysis and on-site monitoring of grantee management as well as collaborate with the HUD Office of Inspector General to plan and implement oversight of these funds.
To begin expenditure of CDBG–DR funds, the following expedited steps are necessary:
• Grantee adopts citizen participation plan for disaster recovery in accordance with the requirements of this Notice and the March 5, 2013, Notice;
• Grantee consults with stakeholders, including required consultation with affected local governments and public housing authorities;
• Within 30 days of the effective date of this Notice (or when the grantee submits its Action Plan, whichever is sooner), grantee submits evidence that it has in place proficient financial controls and procurement processes and has established adequate procedures to prevent any duplication of benefits as defined by section 312 of the Stafford Act, ensure timely expenditure of funds, maintain comprehensive Web sites regarding all disaster recovery activities assisted with these funds, and detect and prevent waste, fraud, and abuse of funds;
• Grantee publishes its Action Plan for Disaster Recovery on the grantee's official Web site for no less than 7 calendar days to solicit public comment;
• Grantee responds to public comment and submits its Action Plan (which includes Standard Form 424 (SF–424) and certifications) to HUD no later than 90 days after the effective date of this Notice;
• HUD expedites review of Action Plan (allotted 45 days from date of receipt; however, completion of review is anticipated much sooner) and approves the Plan according to criteria identified in the March 5, 2013, Notice;
• HUD sends an Action Plan approval letter, grant conditions, and unsigned grant agreement to the grantee. If the Action Plan is not approved, a letter will be sent identifying its deficiencies; the grantee must then re-submit the
• Grantee ensures that the HUD-approved Action Plan is posted on its official Web site;
• Grantee signs and returns the fully executed grant agreement;
• HUD signs the grant agreement and establishes the proper amount in a line of credit for the grantee;
• Grantee requests and receives DRGR system access (if the grantee does not already have it);
• If it has not already done so, grantee enters the activities from its published Action Plan into DRGR and submits it to HUD within the system (funds can be drawn from the line of credit only for activities that are established in DRGR);
• The grantee may draw down funds from the line of credit after the Responsible Entity completes applicable environmental review(s) pursuant to 24 CFR part 58 and, as applicable, under the clarifying note in paragraph 20 in the March 5, 2013, Notice, receives from HUD or the State an approved Request for Release of Funds and certification;
• Grantee begins to draw down funds within 60 days of obligation (funds are obligated when HUD signs the grant agreement);
• Grantee amends its published Action Plan to include its projection of expenditures and outcomes within 90 days of the Action Plan approval; and
• Grantee updates its full consolidated plan to reflect disaster-related needs no later than its Fiscal Year 2015 consolidated plan update.
The Appropriations Act authorizes the Secretary to waive, or specify alternative requirements for, any provision of any statute or regulation that the Secretary administers in connection with the obligation by the Secretary or the use by the recipient of these funds (except for requirements related to fair housing, nondiscrimination, labor standards, and the environment). Waivers and alternative requirements are based upon a determination by the Secretary that good cause exists and that the waiver or alternative requirement is not inconsistent with the overall purposes of title I of the HCD Act. Regulatory waiver authority is also provided by 24 CFR 5.110, 91.600, and 570.5.
This section describes the rules, statutes, waivers, and alternative requirements that apply to grantees receiving an allocation under this Notice. Grantees may request additional waivers and alternative requirements from the Department as needed to address specific needs related to their recovery activities. The Appropriations Act requires that regulatory waivers be published in the
1.
a. All submission deadlines regarding the Secretary's certification or the Action Plan, referenced in this Notice or previous notices, are triggered by the effective date of this Notice.
b. Paragraph VI.A.1.a.(1) of the March 5, 2013, Notice is hereby amended by striking the contacts listed for other Federal agencies at 78 FR 14333. Grantees seeking updated information about assistance provided by other Federal agencies or remaining unmet needs should contact their CPD Representative.
c. Paragraph VI.A.1.a.(6) of the March 5, 2013, Notice, at 78 FR 14334, is hereby amended by deleting that paragraph and replacing it in its entirety with the following: A description of how the grantee will identify and address (if needed) the rehabilitation (as defined at 24 CFR 570.202), reconstruction, and replacement of the following types of housing affected by the disaster: public housing (including administrative offices), HUD-assisted housing (defined at subparagraph (1) of the March 5, 2013, Notice, at 78 FR 14332), McKinney-Vento-funded shelters and housing for the homeless—including emergency shelters and transitional and permanent housing for the homeless, and private market units receiving project-based assistance or with tenants that participate in the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program. As part of this requirement, each grantee must work with any impacted Public Housing Authority (PHA), located within its jurisdiction, to identify the unmet needs of damaged public housing. If unmet needs exist once funding under this Notice becomes available to the grantee, the grantee must work directly with the impacted PHA(s) to identify necessary costs, and ensure adequate funding is dedicated to the recovery of the damaged public housing. Grantees are reminded that public housing is eligible for FEMA Public Assistance; thus, they must ensure that there is no duplication of benefits when using CDBG–DR funds to assist public housing.
d. Paragraph VI.A.1.(j) of the March 5, 2013, Notice, at 78 FR 14337, is hereby amended. The disbursement of grant funds must begin within 60 days after funds have been obligated. Funds are obligated the day HUD signs the grant agreement.
e. Any waiver or alternative requirement (described in the March 5, 2013, or April 19, 2013, Notices) that is restricted to one or more grantees cited by the waiver or alternative requirement, is only applicable to the cited grantee(s).
2.
a. In regards to Table 2—Counties and Parishes Eligible for CDBG–DR Assistance, Wyoming County is added as a most impacted and distressed county within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The reference to Newton County is deleted.
b. In regards to Table 1—Allocations for Disasters Occurring in 2011 or 2012, the State of Louisiana's grant is reduced to $64,379,084, while the award to St. Tammany Parish is increased to $10,914,916. As a result, Table 2—Counties and Parishes Eligible for CDBG–DR Assistance, is modified to require the State to spend a minimum of $43,023,484 in the parishes determined to be the most impacted and distressed.
The Appropriations Act requires that HUD obligate all funds provided under Chapter 9, Community Development Fund, not later than September 30, 2017. Concurrently, section 904(c) of the Appropriations Act requires that all funds be expended within two years of the date HUD obligates funds. Therefore, each grantee must expend all funds within two years of the date HUD signs the grant agreement with the grantee. Note that if a grantee amends its Action Plan to program additional funds that HUD has allocated to it, the grant agreement must also be revised. The requirement for each grantee to expend funds within two years is triggered by each amendment to the grant agreement
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number for the disaster recovery grants under this Notice is as follows: 14.269.
A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) with respect to the environment has been made in accordance with HUD regulations at 24 CFR part 50, which implement section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). The FONSI is available for public inspection between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays in the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410–0500. Due to security measures at the HUD Headquarters building, an advance appointment to review the docket file must be scheduled by calling the Regulations Division at 202–708–3055 (this is not a toll-free number). Hearing or speech-impaired individuals may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800–877–8339.
Provided,
Provided further,
Provided further,
The legislation further specifies that the funds are not to be used for activities reimbursable by or for which funds are made available by FEMA or the Corps of Engineers.
The language also calls for HUD to use “best available” data to make its allocation. For this allocation, similar to prior allocations, HUD made a determination of unmet needs by estimating unmet needs related to the main intended uses of the funds:
• “restoration of . . . housing”. HUD made an estimate with best available data on the amount of housing damage not likely to be covered by insurance, SBA disaster loans, or FEMA housing assistance (see below for more details).
• “economic revitalization”. HUD made an estimate with best available data on the amount of damage to businesses declined for an SBA loan, usually because of inadequate credit or income to support the needed loan amount (see below for more details).
• “restoration of infrastructure”. HUD calculated infrastructure need as the match required to address the FEMA estimates for repair of permanent infrastructure in the FEMA Public Assistance program (see below for more details).
• “in the most impacted and distressed areas”. To target the funds to the most impacted and distressed areas, HUD limited its calculation to “severe needs in areas of concentrated damage”:
HUD's calculates the CDBG–DR grants in this Notice by summing an estimate of severe unmet needs in the most impacted and distressed communities using “best available data”. The final allocation is equal to 70% of the grantee's total estimate of severe “unmet needs,” a proportion similar to other grantees funded through PL 113–2.
The “best available” data HUD staff have identified as being available to calculate unmet needs at this time for the targeted disasters come from the following data sources:
• FEMA Individual Assistance program data on housing unit damage;
• SBA for management of its disaster assistance loan program for housing repair and replacement;
• SBA for management of its disaster assistance loan program for business real estate repair and replacement as well as content loss;
• FEMA Public Assistance data and preliminary infrastructure assessments for Oklahoma by HUD staff.
The core data on housing damage for both the unmet housing needs calculation and the concentrated damage are based on home inspection data for FEMA's Individual Assistance program. For unmet housing needs, the FEMA data are supplemented by Small Business Administration data from its Disaster Loan Program. HUD calculates “unmet housing needs” as the number of housing units with unmet needs times the estimated cost to repair those units less repair funds already provided by FEMA, where:
• Each of the FEMA-inspected owner units are categorized by HUD into one of five categories:
To meet the statutory requirement of “most impacted” in this legislative language, homes are determined to have a high level of damage if they have damage of “major-high” or ”severe”. That is, the homeowner has real property FEMA-inspected damage of $15,000 or flooding over 4 feet. Furthermore, a homeowner is determined to have unmet needs if s/he has received a FEMA grant to make home repairs. For homeowners with a FEMA grant and insurance for the covered event, HUD assumes that the unmet need “gap” is 20 percent of the difference between total damage and the FEMA grant.
Since data for the Colorado disaster was preliminary at the time of this allocation, assumptions are made about the likely percent of damage not covered by insurance for homeowners with pending FEMA applications. This is assumed to increase by severity of damage to the home. The assumptions applied to ascertain the range of allocations were 50 percent for homes with major-high damage; and 70 percent for homes with severe damage in Colorado.
• FEMA does not inspect rental units for real property damage so personal property damage is used as a proxy for unit damage. Each of the FEMA-inspected renter units are categorized by HUD into one of five categories:
For rental properties, to meet the statutory requirement of “most impacted” in this legislative language, homes are determined to have a high level of damage if they have damage of “major-high” or “severe”. That is, they have a FEMA personal property damage assessment of $3,500 or greater or flooding over 4 feet. Furthermore, landlords are presumed to have adequate insurance coverage unless the unit is occupied by a renter with income of $30,000 or less. Units that are occupied by a tenant with income less than $30,000 are used to calculate likely unmet needs for affordable rental housing. For those units occupied by tenants with incomes under $30,000, HUD estimates unmet needs as 75 percent of the estimated repair cost.
• The average cost to fully repair a home for a specific disaster
• To best proxy unmet infrastructure needs, HUD uses data from FEMA's Public Assistance program on the state match requirement (usually 25 percent of the estimated public assistance needs). This allocation uses only a subset of the Public Assistance damage estimates reflecting the categories of activities most likely to require CDBG funding above the Public Assistance and state match requirement. Those activities are categories: C—Roads and Bridges; D—Water Control Facilities; E—Public Buildings; F—Public Utilities; and G—Recreational—Other. Categories A (Debris Removal) and B (Protective Measures) are largely expended immediately after a disaster and reflect interim recovery measures rather than the long-term recovery measures for which CDBG funds are generally used.
• Because Public Assistance damage estimates are available only statewide (and not at the county level), estimates of unmet infrastructure needs were sub-allocated to counties and local jurisdictions based on each jurisdiction's proportion of unmet housing and business needs.
• At the time of this allocation, data from the FEMA Public Assistance program were not yet available for Oklahoma. Therefore, this allocation relies on early HUD field staff estimates for total damages to infrastructure, equipment, parks, and public buildings. We then assume insurance coverage of 60% (roughly the same coverage as seen in FEMA assisted owner-occupants in this disaster) and a state match requirement of 25% from the FEMA Public Assistance program.
• Based on SBA disaster loans to businesses, HUD used the sum of real property and real content loss of small businesses not receiving an SBA disaster loan. Because applications denied for poor credit or income are the most likely measure of requiring the type of assistance available with CDBG recovery funds, the calculated unmet business needs for each state are adjusted upwards by the proportion of applications that were received for a disaster for which SBA did not calculate content and real property loss because the applicant had inadequate credit or income. For example, if a state had 160 applications for assistance, 150 had calculated needs and 10 were denied in the pre-processing stage for not enough income or poor credit, the estimated unmet need calculation would be increased as (1 + 10/160) * calculated unmet real content loss.
• Similar to housing, estimated damage is used to determine what unmet needs will be counted as severe unmet needs. Only properties with total real estate and content loss in excess of $65,000 are considered severe damage for purposes of identifying the most impacted areas.
• Since SBA business needs are best measured at the county level, HUD estimates the distribution of needs to local entitlement jurisdictions based on the distribution of unmet housing needs, when necessary.
• Since data for the Colorado disaster was preliminary at the time of this allocation, HUD deflates the estimate of unmet business needs by 15% to account for expected SBA denial rates.
To ensure that funds are dedicated to the most impacted and distressed areas, 80 percent of the combined total of all the funds awarded within a state (this includes funds awarded directly to a State as well as those funds awarded directly to local governments) must be spent in the “most impacted and distressed” counties (i.e., those identified by HUD as having more than $10 million in estimated unmet severe housing and business needs). Since a local government receiving a direct grant allocation must spend the entirety of its grant within its jurisdiction, HUD has identified the remaining amount of each grant awarded directly to a State that must be expended within its “most impacted” counties in order to reach the 80 percent threshold. Oklahoma must spend a minimum of $3,220,000 within Cleveland County to ensure 80 percent of the combined total of all the funds awarded within the state is spent in the “most impacted” county. The State of Colorado must spend a minimum of $50,240,000 within Boulder, Weld, and Larimer Counties to meet this requirement. Because of the large grant to entitlement communities in Illinois relative to the State grant, there is no minimum requirement for the State of Illinois.
The principle behind the 80 percent rule is that each State received its allocation based on the estimated unmet needs in the most impacted counties (i.e., those counties with more than $10 million in severe unmet housing and business needs) and, thus, HUD is requiring that each State direct these limited resources toward those most impacted counties. Nonetheless, HUD recognizes that there may be circumstances where data regarding damage estimates are subsequently revised, highly localized damage may occur outside of the most impacted counties, or overall recovery would otherwise benefit from expenditures outside of those most impacted counties. As a result, HUD is permitting States to spend the portion of its award in excess of the 80 percent threshold to address recovery needs outside of its “most impacted” counties. However, these funds must still be spent within counties that received a Presidential disaster declaration in 2013. See the below table for further explanation:
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, HUD.
Notice.
This notice advises public housing agencies (PHAs), as well as members of the public, that HUD intends to reinstitute, temporarily, the award of 5 points for the occupancy sub-indicator of the Capital Fund Program Indicator to all PHAs for the PHAS Capital Fund Program Indicator. This award of points is provided as regulatory relief from a non-statutory element of PHAS and intended to help lessen the impact of decreases in funding in recent appropriations acts. Adding automatic points for the occupancy sub-indicator will allow PHAs to focus on the statutory criteria for assessing performance under the Capital Fund Indicator, which is timely obligation of the Capital Funds and will in no way limit HUD's oversight and monitoring of PHAs.
HUD welcomes public comment on the scoring adjustment HUD intends to make as provided in this notice.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this notice to the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410–0500. Communications must refer to the above docket number and title. There are two methods for submitting public comments. All submissions must refer to the above docket number and title.
1.
2.
To receive consideration as public comments, comments must be submitted through one of the two methods specified above. Again, all submissions must refer to the docket number and title of the rule.
Claudia J. Yarus, Real Estate Assessment Center (REAC), Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 550 12th Street SW., Suite 100, Washington, DC 20410, telephone 202–475–8830 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800–877–8339. Additional information is available from the REAC Internet site at
The purpose of PHAS is to provide a management tool for measuring the performance of a PHA in essential housing operations of projects, on a program-wide basis and individual project basis. PHAS measures a PHA's performance through four indicators: physical condition, financial condition, management operations and performance under the Capital Fund Program. Each of these indicators contains subindicators, and the scores for the subindicators are used to determine a single score for each of these PHAS indicators. The PHAS regulations, codified at 24 CFR part 902, were revised and updated by an interim rule published on February 23, 2011, at 76 FR 10136.
The Capital Fund Program Indicator consists of two subindicators. One subindicator required by statute focuses on the time taken by a PHA to obligate Capital Funds (see 42 U.S.C. 1437g(j)). The other subindicator, which is regulatory, focuses on a PHA's occupancy rate as of the end of a PHA's fiscal year. Each subindicator is worth up to 5 points for a total possible score of 10 points for the Capital Fund Program Indicator. (See 24 CFR 902.50.) In addition to measuring a PHA's occupancy rate under the Capital Fund Program Indicator, a PHA's occupancy
Scoring for this indicator as originally implemented is described in the Capital Fund Scoring Notice, also published on February 23, 2011, at 76 FR 10053. Under this indicator, PHAs can receive up to 5 points for the timeliness of fund obligation and up to 5 points for the occupancy rate. That scoring notice was modified to award an automatic 5 points for the occupancy sub-indicator of the Capital Fund by an interim notice for public comment, 77 FR 34399 (Monday, June 11, 2012), which was, after consideration of the public comments, made final at 78 FR 21623 (April 11, 2013). At that time, this action was done to give PHAs time to adjust their systems and procedures to the new scoring regime.
As a result of automatic across-the-board funding cuts required under the Budget Control Act of 2011, Public Law 112–15 (approved August 2, 2011), which became effect in January 2013, funding for public housing was significantly cut. HUD recognizes PHAs' resources are more severely strained and they need the flexibility to make choices about how Capital Funds are expended in accord with statutory requirements.
Given the current funding environment and the fact that the occupancy rate is also addressed under the management operations indicator, HUD believes that reinstating and extending the automatic 5 points for the occupancy sub-indicator of the Capital Fund Program Indicator is appropriate, and will provide some relief to PHAs as they weigh options for expenditure of limited Capital Funds and will result in no PHA losing any Capital Funds as the result of the non-statutory portion of the regulatory PHAS Capital Fund Program indicator.
This notice advises that HUD will award an automatic 5 points for the Capital Fund occupancy sub-indicator for PHAs with fiscal years ending March 31, 2014, June 30, 2014, September 30, 2014, December 31, 2014, March 31, 2015, June 30, 2015, September 30, 2015, and December 31, 2015.
HUD welcomes public comment on this interim notice, and will consider all significant and relevant issues raised in issuing a final notice.
Office of the General Counsel, HUD.
Notice.
Section 106 of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (the HUD Reform Act) requires HUD to publish quarterly
For general information about this notice, contact Camille E. Acevedo, Associate General Counsel for Legislation and Regulations, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10282, Washington, DC 20410–0500, telephone 202–708–1793 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing- or speech-impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800–877–8339.
For information concerning a particular waiver that was granted and for which public notice is provided in this document, contact the person whose name and address follow the description of the waiver granted in the accompanying list of waivers that have been granted in the third quarter of calendar year 2013.
Section 106 of the HUD Reform Act added a new section 7(q) to the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act (42 U.S.C. 3535(q)), which provides that:
1. Any waiver of a regulation must be in writing and must specify the grounds for approving the waiver;
2. Authority to approve a waiver of a regulation may be delegated by the Secretary only to an individual of Assistant Secretary or equivalent rank, and the person to whom authority to waive is delegated must also have authority to issue the particular regulation to be waived;
3. Not less than quarterly, the Secretary must notify the public of all waivers of regulations that HUD has approved, by publishing a notice in the
a. Identify the project, activity, or undertaking involved;
b. Describe the nature of the provision waived and the designation of the provision;
c. Indicate the name and title of the person who granted the waiver request;
d. Describe briefly the grounds for approval of the request; and
e. State how additional information about a particular waiver may be obtained.
Section 106 of the HUD Reform Act also contains requirements applicable to waivers of HUD handbook provisions that are not relevant to the purpose of this notice.
This notice follows procedures provided in HUD's Statement of Policy on Waiver of Regulations and Directives issued on April 22, 1991 (56 FR 16337). In accordance with those procedures and with the requirements of section 106 of the HUD Reform Act, waivers of regulations are granted by the Assistant Secretary with jurisdiction over the regulations for which a waiver was requested. In those cases in which a General Deputy Assistant Secretary granted the waiver, the General Deputy Assistant Secretary was serving in the absence of the Assistant Secretary in accordance with the office's Order of Succession.
This notice covers waivers of regulations granted by HUD from July 1, 2013 through September 30, 2013. For ease of reference, the waivers granted by HUD are listed by HUD program office (for example, the Office of Community Planning and Development, the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, the Office of Housing, and the Office of Public and Indian Housing, etc.). Within each program office grouping, the waivers are listed sequentially by the regulatory section of title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) that is being waived. For example, a waiver of a provision in 24 CFR part 58 would be listed before a waiver of a provision in 24 CFR part 570.
Where more than one regulatory provision is involved in the grant of a particular waiver request, the action is listed under the section number of the first regulatory requirement that appears in 24 CFR and that is being waived. For example, a waiver of both § 58.73 and § 58.74 would appear sequentially in the listing under § 58.73.
Waiver of regulations that involve the same initial regulatory citation are in
Should HUD receive additional information about waivers granted during the period covered by this report (the third quarter of calendar year 2013) before the next report is published (the fourth quarter of calendar year 2013), HUD will include any additional waivers granted for the third quarter in the next report.
Accordingly, information about approved waiver requests pertaining to HUD regulations is provided in the Appendix that follows this notice.
More information about the granting of these waivers, including a copy of the waiver request and approval, may be obtained by contacting the person whose name is listed as the contact person directly after each set of regulatory waivers granted.
The regulatory waivers granted appear in the following order:
For further information about the following regulatory waivers, please see the name of the contact person that immediately follows the description of the waiver granted.
For further information about the following regulatory waivers, please see the name of the contact person that immediately follows the description of the waiver granted.
For further information about the following regulatory waivers, please see the name of the contact person that immediately follows the description of the waiver granted.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the availability of the final comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) and finding of no significant impact (FONSI) for Patuxent Research Refuge (Patuxent RR, refuge), located in Prince George's and Anne Arundel Counties, Maryland. In this final CCP, we describe how we will manage the refuge for the next 15 years.
You may view or obtain copies of the final CCP and FONSI by any of the following methods. You may request a hard copy or a CD–ROM.
Brad Knudsen, Refuge Manager, 301–437–5580 (phone) or Bill Perry, Planning Team Leader, 413–253–8688 (phone);
With this notice, we finalize the CCP process for Patuxent RR. We started this process through a notice of intent in the
Patuxent RR was established in 1936 by Executive Order by President Franklin D. Roosevelt “to effectuate further the purposes of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act” and “as a wildlife experiment and research refuge.” The total approved acquisition boundary encompasses 12,841 acres between Baltimore, Maryland, and Washington, DC, an area with one of the highest densities of development in the United States. Currently, about 10,000 of Patuxent RR's 12,841 acres are forest, but the refuge also contains grasslands, freshwater marshes, shrub and early successional forest, and open water. It provides important habitat for a variety of migratory birds of conservation concern. The refuge also offers unique opportunities for environmental education and interpretation in an urban setting. It is home to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, a leading international research institute for wildlife and applied environmental research.
We announce our decision and the availability of the FONSI for the final CCP for Patuxent RR in accordance with National Environmental Policy Act
The CCP will guide us in managing and administering Patuxent RR for the next 15 years. Alternative B, as described for the refuge in the draft CCP/EA, and with minor modifications described below, is the foundation for the final CCP.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd–668ee) (Refuge Administration Act), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, requires us to develop a CCP for each refuge. The purpose for developing a CCP is to provide refuge managers with a 15-year plan for achieving refuge purposes and contributing to the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS), consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife management, conservation, legal mandates, and our policies. In addition to outlining broad management direction on conserving wildlife and their habitats, CCPs identify wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities available to the public, including opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, environmental education and interpretation. We will review and update the CCP at least every 15 years in accordance with the Refuge Administration Act.
Our draft CCP/EA (77 FR 24929) addressed several key issues, including:
• Evaluating reforestation of the refuge.
• Better understanding the implications and trade-offs of habitat management on refuge wildlife.
• Identifying and addressing climate change concerns impacting the refuge.
• Providing more public use opportunities on the refuge.
• Inventorying historic resources on the refuge, providing public access to these resources, and highlighting the historical significance of the refuge.
• Expanding and strengthening partnerships.
To address these issues and develop a plan based on the refuge's establishing purposes, vision, and goals, we evaluated three management alternatives for Patuxent RR in the draft CCP/EA. The alternatives have several actions in common. All alternatives include measures to control invasive species, monitor and abate diseases affecting wildlife and plant health, coordinate with USGS to house and support research efforts, protect cultural resources, continue existing projects managed by outside programs, and minimize impacts from the shooting ranges located on the refuge. There are also several actions that are common to both alternatives B and C. These include using green technology to update refuge buildings and grounds, constructing additional space for environmental education and interpretation classes, and collaborating with stakeholders on a redesign of the shooting ranges. There are other actions that differ among the alternatives. The draft CCP/EA provides a full description of each alternative and relates each to the issues and concerns that arose during the planning process. Below, we provide summaries of the three alternatives.
Alternative A (current management) satisfies the NEPA requirement of a “no action” alternative, which we define as “continuing current management.” It describes our existing management priorities and activities, and serves as a baseline for comparing and contrasting alternatives B and C. It would maintain our present levels of approved refuge staffing and the biological and visitor programs now in place. We would continue to manage for and maintain a diversity of habitats, including forests, forested wetlands, pine-oak savannah, grasslands, and scrub-shrub on the refuge. The refuge would continue to provide an active visitor use program that supports environmental education and interpretation, hunting, fishing, and wildlife observation and photography.
This alternative is the Service-preferred alternative. It combines the actions we believe would most effectively achieve the refuge's purposes, vision, and goals, and respond to the issues raised during the scoping period. It emphasizes the management of specific refuge habitats to support species of conservation concern in the Chesapeake Bay region. In particular, it emphasizes forest biodiversity and ecosystem function. This includes the restoration of a number of impoundments and grasslands to forested areas to support forest interior-dwelling bird species and other forest-dependent species. In addition, alternative B strives to promote wildlife-dependent public uses, while allowing for nonwildlife-dependent public uses. In particular, it promotes higher quality hunting and fishing programs, expands wildlife observation and photography opportunities, and initiates new interpretive and environmental education opportunities.
Alternative C would focus on maximizing interior forest habitat. This would require active management to restore a majority of impoundments and grasslands into forested areas that would support forest interior-dwelling species, in addition to other species of conservation concern. Alternative C also focuses on accommodating wildlife-dependent public uses while minimizing nonwildlife-dependent uses, particularly by expanding wildlife observation and photography opportunities, and reducing the number of special events and interpretive programming.
We solicited comments on the draft CCP/EA for Patuxent RR from October 10 to November 26, 2012 (77 FR 24929). During the comment period, we received 73 written responses. We evaluated all of the substantive comments we received, and include a summary of those comments, and our responses to them, as appendix I in the final CCP.
After considering the comments we received on our draft CCP/EA, we made several minor changes to alternative B, including correcting minor editorial, formatting, and typographical errors. These changes are described in the FONSI (appendix H in the final CCP) and in our response to public comments (appendix I in the final CCP).
We have selected alternative B to implement for Patuxent RR, with these minor changes, for several reasons. Alternative B comprises a mix of actions that, in our professional judgment, work best towards achieving the refuge's purposes, vision, and goals, NWRS policies, and the goals of other State and regional conservation plans. We also believe that alternative B most effectively addresses key issues raised during the planning process. The basis of our decision is detailed in the FONSI (appendix H in the final CCP).
You can view or obtain the final CCP, including the FONSI, as indicated under
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. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) prohibits activities with listed species unless Federal authorization is acquired that allows such activities.
We must receive comments or requests for documents on or before January 15, 2014.
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 amendment of their captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) to include Cuban ground iguana (
The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for golden parakeet (
The applicant requests a permit to import biological samples from chimpanzee (
The applicant requests renewal of their captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for the following families and species, to enhance the species' propagation or survival. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a 5-year period.
The applicant requests renewal and amendment of their captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for the following families and species, to enhance the species' propagation or survival. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a 5-year period.
The applicant requests renewal and amendment of their captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) to include the following species: Grevy's zebra (
The applicant requests renewal and amendment of their captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for the following species: golden parakeet (
The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for African dwarf crocodile (
The applicant requests amendment of their captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) to include the following families and species: Crocodilidae and spotted pond turtle (
The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for addax (
The applicant requests a permit authorizing interstate and foreign commerce, export, and cull of excess addax (
The applicant requests a permit to export the sport-hunted trophy/trophies of one Scimitar-horned oryx
The applicant requests renewal and amendment of their captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for the following species, to enhance the species' propagation or survival. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a 5-year period.
The applicant requests a renewal of their permit to export and re-import non-living museum specimens of endangered and threatened species of plants and animals previously accessioned into the applicant's collection, for scientific research. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a 5-year period.
The following applicants each request a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok (
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability of permit applications; request for comments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), invite the public to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act (Act) prohibits activities with endangered and threatened species unless a Federal permit allows such activity. The Act requires that we invite public comment before issuing these permits.
We must receive any written comments on or before January 15, 2014.
Send written comments by U.S. mail to the Regional Director, Attn: Karl Tinsley, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, 5600 American Blvd. West, Suite 990, Bloomington, MN 55437–1458; or by electronic mail to
Karl Tinsley, (612) 713–5330.
We invite public comment on the following permit applications for certain activities with endangered species authorized by section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
The applicant requests a permit to take (capture and release, with additional authorization for: (a) hibernacula or maternity roost cave entry; (b) salvage dead specimens; (c) capture with harp traps; (d) collection of hair, fecal samples, and wing biopsy punches; and (e) light-tagging) Indiana bats (
The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (capture and release, with additional authorization for: (a) Capture with harp trap, and (b) collection of hair, wing biopsy punches, and fungal lift tape and/or swab samples) Indiana bats within the States of Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Tennessee. The proposed activity is for the recovery and enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.
The applicant requests a permit to take (capture and release, with additional authorization for: (a) Collection of hair, wing biopsy punches and fungal lift tape and/or swab samples; and (b) salvage dead specimens) Indiana bats and Northern long-eared bats (
The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (capture and release) Indiana bats, gray bats, Virginia big-eared bats, Ozark big-eared bats, and Northern flying squirrel (
The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (capture and release; salvage dead specimens) Indiana bats and gray bats on federal lands within the States of Illinois, Indiana, Missouri and Ohio. Proposed activities are aimed at enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.
The applicant requests a permit to take (capture and release) pallid sturgeon (
The applicant requests authorization to renew and amend an existing permit to take (capture, handle, conduct tissue sampling, release, and collect dead shells for identification) species of freshwater mussels for the purpose of conducting presence/absence/population surveys and assisting in species recovery efforts. The applicant is requesting authorization to conduct activities within the States of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Wisconsin for the following species: clubshell (
The applicant requests a permit renewal, with amendments, to take (capture and release; temporary holding) the following mussel species: snuffbox, rayed bean, clubshell, and Northern riffleshell. Proposed activities may occur within Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin for the purpose of research and enhancement of propagation and survival of the species in the wild.
The applicant requests a permit renewal with amendments to take (capture and release) Indiana bats at Fowler Ridge Wind Farm LCC, Fowler Ridge II Wind Farm LLC, and Fowler Ridge III Wind Farm LCC in Benton County, IN. Proposed activities are aimed at enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.
The applicant requests a permit to take (capture and release) Indiana bats and gray bats throughout the States of Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia. Proposed activities are for the enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.
The applicant requests a permit renewal with amendments to take (capture and release) the following mussel species: Clubshell, cracking pearlymussel (
The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (capture and release) Indiana bats throughout the States of Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio. Proposed activities are for the enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.
The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (capture, sample, and release) Indiana bats, gray bats, Ozark big-eared bats, and Northern long-eared bats throughout the range of the species in the States of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia. Proposed activities are for scientific research, documentation of presence/probable absence of the species, and documentation of habitat use to enhance the recovery and survival of the species in the wild.
We seek public review and comments on these permit applications. Please refer to the permit number when you submit comments. Comments and materials we receive are available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the address shown in the
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of decision approving lands for conveyance.
As required by 43 CFR 2650.7(d), notice is hereby given that an
Surface estate to be conveyed to Paimiut Corporation; subsurface estate to be reserved to the United States
T. 18 N., R. 90 W.,
Secs. 12 and 13.
Containing 791.32 acres.
Surface estate to be conveyed to Paimiut Corporation subsurface to be conveyed to Calista Corporation
Containing 21.36 acres.
Notice of the decision will also be published once a week for four consecutive weeks in
Any party claiming a property interest in the lands affected by the decision may appeal the decision in accordance with the requirements of 43 CFR Part 4 within the following time limits:
1. Unknown parties, parties unable to be located after reasonable efforts have been expended to locate, parties who fail or refuse to sign their return receipt, and parties who receive a copy of the decision by regular mail which is not certified, return receipt requested, shall have until January 15, 2014 to file an appeal.
2. Parties receiving service of the decision by certified mail shall have 30 days from the date of receipt to file an appeal.
Parties who do not file an appeal in accordance with the requirements of 43 CFR Part 4 shall be deemed to have waived their rights. Notices of appeal transmitted by electronic means, such as facsimile or email, will not be accepted as timely filed.
A copy of the decision may be obtained from: Bureau of Land Management, Alaska State Office, 222 West Seventh Avenue, # 13, Anchorage, AK 99513–7504.
The BLM by phone at 907–271–5960 or by email at
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice; cancellation.
The Bureau of Land Management, Oregon/Washington, published a document in the
Lisa Clark, Public Affairs Specialist, BLM Prineville District Office, 3050 NE. 3rd St., Prineville, Oregon 97754, (541) 416–6864, or email
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, and the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the John Day-Snake Resource Advisory Council (RAC) will meet as indicated below:
The John Day-Snake RAC will hold a public meeting Thursday and Friday, January 9 and 10, 2014. The meeting will run from 12:00–5:00 on Thursday, January 9, 2014, and will continue from 8:00–12:00 on Friday January 10, 2014. The meeting will be held at the Umatilla National Forest office in Pendleton, Oregon. An agenda will be posted at
The meeting will be held at the Umatilla National Forest office in Pendleton, Oregon at 72510 Coyote Road, Pendleton, Oregon. An agenda will be posted at
Lisa Clark, Public Affairs Specialist, BLM Prineville District Office, 3050 NE. 3rd St., Prineville, Oregon 97754, (541) 416–6864, or email
The John Day-Snake RAC consists of 15 members chartered and appointed by the Secretary of the Interior. Their diverse perspectives are represented in commodity, conservation, and general interests. They provide advice to BLM and Forest Service resource managers regarding management plans and proposed resource actions on public land in central and eastern Oregon. Tentative agenda items for the January 9 and 10, 2013, meeting include: Fee
A public comment period will be available on January 10 at 10:30 a.m. Unless otherwise approved by the John Day-Snake RAC Chair, the public comment period will last no longer than 30 minutes, and each speaker may address the John Day-Snake RAC for a maximum of 5 minutes. Meeting times and the duration scheduled for public comment periods may be extended or altered when the authorized representative considers it necessary to accommodate necessary business and all who seek to be heard regarding matters before the John Day-Snake RAC.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comments, please 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.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of filing of plats of survey.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will file the plat of survey of the lands described below in the BLM Montana State Office, Billings, Montana, on January 15, 2014.
Protests of the survey must be filed before January 15, 2014 to be considered.
Protests of the survey should be sent to the Branch of Cadastral Survey, Bureau of Land Management, 5001 Southgate Drive, Billings, Montana 59101–4669.
Blaise Lodermeier, Cadastral Surveyor, Branch of Cadastral Survey, Bureau of Land Management, 5001 Southgate Drive, Billings, Montana 59101–4669, telephone (406) 896–5128 or (406) 896–5009,
This survey was executed at the request of the BLM Montana State Office, Division of Resources, and was necessary to determine federal leasable mineral lands.
The lands we surveyed are:
The plat, in two sheets, representing the supplemental plat of secs. 2, 3, 4, 5, and 10, showing the amended lottings, Township 152 North, Range 100 West, Fifth Principal Meridian, North Dakota, was accepted November 26, 2013.
We will place a copy of the plat, in two sheets in the open files. They will be available to the public as a matter of information. If the BLM receives a protest against this survey, as shown on this plat, in two sheets, prior to the date of the official filing, we will stay the filing pending our consideration of the protest. We will not officially file this plat, in two sheets, until the day after we have accepted or dismissed all protests and they have become final, including decisions or appeals.
43 U.S.C. Chap. 3.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice of availability.
The National Park Service (NPS) announces the availability of the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Final Trail Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (Plan/EIS), Cuyahoga Valley National Park (Park), Ohio.
Copies of the ROD may be picked up in person or obtained by request in writing to Cuyahoga Valley National Park, 15610 Vaughn Road, Brecksville, Ohio 44141; or by telephone at (440) 546–5903. Copies of the ROD are also available at the NPS Planning, Environment, and Public Comment Web site:
Outdoor Recreation Planner Lynn Garrity, at the address above or by telephone at (330) 342–0764.
The NPS has issued a ROD for the Final Plan/EIS for Cuyahoga Valley. On August 8, 2013, the Midwest Regional Director signed the ROD for the Plan/EIS. As soon as practicable, the NPS will begin to implement the selected alternative by developing a special regulation.
Under Alternative 1, the no-action alternative, the trails, authorized uses, and facilities addressed in this Plan/EIS would have remained as they currently exist and the Park would have continued to implement the 1985 Trail Plan.
Actions common to all action alternatives included the restoration of the existing trail system, adoption of the Sustainable Trail Guidelines, and the consideration of trail facilities. Trail facilities evaluated included a water trail system with paddle launch sites along the portion of the Cuyahoga River within the Park boundary; trailside and riverside campsites accessible by hiking, biking, or paddling; and improved parking facilities.
Alternative 2A emphasized the importance of enhancing the existing trail system's sustainability for future generations with limited expansion. Alternative 2B was the same as
Alternative 5, the selected alternative, combines trail elements from all of the Alternatives and proposed trail facilities. The approach for Alternative 5 will include all common elements and an increase of 37 miles of trails from existing conditions, if fully implemented. This alternative will include a new 10-mile off-road single track bicycle trail, trail facilities including expanded and new parking areas, introduction of launch sites for water trail access, and expansion of hike/bike-in and paddle-in campsites. Alternative 5 will best meet the mission of the Park, its resource conditions and visitor use, and the Plan/EIS purpose, goals and objectives.
United States International Trade Commission.
December 10, 2013 at 11:00 a.m.
December 11, 2013 at 12:00 p.m.
Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205–2000.
Open to the public.
In accordance with 19 CFR 201.35(d)(1), the Commission hereby gives notice that the meeting originally scheduled for December 10, 2013 at 11:00 a.m. has been rescheduled for December 11, 2013 at 12:00 p.m.
In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting. Earlier notification of this change was not possible.
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
December 13, 2013.
9:30 a.m.
Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205–2000.
Open to the public.
In accordance with 19 CFR § 201.35(d)(1), the Commission hereby gives notice that the meeting of December 13, 2013 will be held at 9:30 a.m.
In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting. Earlier notification of this change was not possible.
By order of the Commission.
Judicial Conference of the United States Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Notice of open meeting.
The Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure will hold a two-day meeting. The meeting will be open to public observation but not participation.
January 9–10, 2014
January 9, 2014: 1:30 p.m.–5:00 p.m., January 10, 2014: 8:30 a.m.–5:00 p.m.
Arizona Biltmore Hotel, 2400 East Missouri Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85016.
Jonathan C. Rose, Rules Committee Secretary, Rules Committee Support Office, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Washington, DC 20544, telephone (202) 502–1820.
Judicial Conference of the United States Advisory Committee on Rules of Civil Procedure.
Notice of Public Hearing.
On January 9, 2014, the Advisory Committee on Rules of Civil Procedure will hold a one-day public hearing on the proposed amendments to Civil Rules 1, 4, 6, 16, 26, 30, 31, 33, 34, 36, 37, 55, 84, and Appendix of Forms.
January 9, 2014.
Sandra Day O'Connor U.S. Courthouse, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85003.
Jonathan C. Rose, Secretary and Chief Rules Officer, Rules Committee Support Office, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Washington, DC 20544, telephone (202) 502–1820.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Schedule 14N (17 CFR 240.14n–101) requires the filing of certain information with the Commission by shareholders who submit a nominee or nominees for director pursuant to applicable state law, or a company's governing documents. Schedule 14N provides notice to the company of the shareholder's or shareholder group's intent to have the company include the shareholder's or shareholder group's nominee or nominees for director in the company's proxy materials. This information is intended to assist shareholders in making an informed voting decision with regards to any nominee or nominees put forth by a nominating shareholder or group, by allowing shareholders to gauge the nominating shareholder's interest in the company, longevity of ownership, and intent with regard to continued ownership in the company. We estimate that Schedule 14N takes approximately 64.77 hours per response and will be filed by approximately 162 issuers annually. In addition, we estimate that 75% of the 64.77 hours per response (48.58 hours) is prepared by the issuer for an annual reporting burden of 7,870 hours (48.58 hours per response × 162 responses).
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 control number.
The public may view the background documentation for this information collection at the following Web site,
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995(44 U.S.C. 3501
Schedules 13D and 13G (17 CFR 240.13d–101 and 240.13d–102) are filed pursuant to Sections 13(d) and 13(g) (15 U.S.C. 78m(d) and 78m(g)) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Regulations 13D and 13G (17 CFR 240.13d–1–240.13d–7) thereunder to report beneficial ownership of equity securities registered under Section 12 of the Exchange Act. Regulations 13D and 13G provide investors, and the subject issuer with information about accumulations of equity securities that may have the potential to change or influence control of the issuer. Schedule 13D and Schedule 13G are filed by persons, including small entities, to report their ownership of more than 5% of a class of equity securities registered under Section 12. We estimate that Schedule 13D takes approximately 14.5 hours to prepare and is filed by approximately 1,777 filers. We estimate that 25% of the 14.5 hours (3.625 hours per response) is prepared by the filer for a total annual reporting burden of 6,422 hours (3.625 hours per response × 1,777 responses).
We estimate that Schedule 13G takes approximately 12.4 hours to prepare and is filed by approximately 6,882 filers. We estimate that 25% of the 12.4 hours (3.10 hours per response) is prepared by the filer for a total annual reporting burden of 21,334 hours (3.10 hours per response × 6,882 responses).
The information provided by respondents is mandatory. Schedule 13D or Schedule 13G is filed by a respondent only when necessary. All information provided to the Commission is public. However, Rules 0–6 and 24b–2 (17 CFR 240.06 and 240.24b–2) under the Exchange Act do permit reporting persons to request confidential treatment for certain sensitive information concerning national security, trade secrets, or privileged commercial or financial information.
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 control number.
The public may view the background documentation for this information collection at the following Web site,
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 an Open Meeting on December 16, 2013, at 2:00 p.m., in the Auditorium (L–002) at the Commission's headquarters building, to
On February 15, 2012, the law judge found that Absolute Potential, Inc., an issuer whose common stock is registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, violated Exchange Act Section 13(a) and Exchange Act Rules 13a–1 and 13a–13 by failing to file timely quarterly and annual reports for any period after June 30, 2006. The law judge revoked the registration of the company's stock pursuant to Exchange Act Section 12(j). Absolute filed certain annual and quarterly reports prior to, as well as after, the issuance of the law judge's decision.
Absolute Potential does not appeal the law judge's findings of violation but, rather, the law judge's determination to revoke its registration. Exchange Act Section 12(j) authorizes sanctions, including revocation, for reporting violations where it is “necessary or appropriate for the protection of investors.” Issues likely to be considered at oral argument include the extent to which, under the circumstances, sanctions are warranted.
The duty officer has determined that no earlier notice was practicable.
For further information, 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 amend its listing rules on compensation committee composition. Specifically, Nasdaq proposes to amend Nasdaq Listing Rule 5605(d)(2)(A) and IM–5605–6 to replace the prohibition on the receipt of compensatory fees by compensation committee members with a requirement that a board of directors instead consider the receipt of such fees when determining eligibility for compensation committee membership.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
As required by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (the “Dodd-Frank Act”)
During the rulemaking process, Nasdaq received limited comment on the prohibition on the receipt of compensatory fees by compensation committee members.
After weighing these comments, Nasdaq proposes to remove the prohibition on the receipt of compensatory fees by compensation committee members. Nasdaq proposes to state instead that in affirmatively determining the independence of any director who will serve on the compensation committee, a company's board must consider the source of compensation of the director, including any consulting, advisory or other compensatory fee paid by the company to the director.
Nasdaq proposes to remove the exception in the current rule that states that compensatory fees do not include: (i) fees received as a member of the compensation committee, the board of directors or any other board committee; or (ii) the receipt of fixed amounts of compensation under a retirement plan (including deferred compensation) for prior service with the company (provided that such compensation is not contingent in any way on continued service).
Nasdaq's overall proposal is consistent with the Dodd-Frank Act and Rule 10C–1, which required Nasdaq to consider compensatory fees when determining eligibility for compensation committee membership, but did not require a prohibition on such fees. Even with the proposed change, a compensation committee member will not be allowed to receive unlimited fees from a company since such a member must continue to be an Independent Director as defined under Nasdaq Listing Rule 5605(a)(2).
In addition, the proposal is consistent with Nasdaq's approach to affiliation, which is the other specific factor enumerated in Rule 10C–1 that Nasdaq was required to consider in determining eligibility for compensation committee membership. The Amended Rules require that boards of directors consider affiliation in determining compensation committee membership, but they do not include any outright prohibitions in this regard.
Nasdaq also proposes to add language to Rule 5605(d)(2)(A) to clarify that in affirmatively determining the independence of any director who will serve on the compensation committee, the board of directors must consider all factors specifically relevant to determining whether a director has a relationship to the company which is material to that director's ability to be independent from management in connection with the duties of a compensation committee member. Nasdaq does not believe this is a substantive change since the existing rule requires compensation committee members to be Independent Directors as defined under Rule 5605(a)(2). This definition requires, among other things, that a company's board make an affirmative determination that the director has no relationship which
Finally, Nasdaq proposes a minor edit to the first sentence of Rule 5605(d)(2)(A) to split it into two sentences in light of the revisions to the rule described above.
Companies are required to comply with the compensation committee composition aspects of the Amended Rules by the earlier of their first annual meeting after January 15, 2014, or October 31, 2014.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
In addition, Nasdaq proposes other changes in the rule to clarify its interpretation of the additional independence test for compensation committee members in light of the change discussed above. Specifically, Nasdaq proposes to: (i) Delete an exception for certain types of compensatory fees that may be received by a compensation committee member; (ii) clarify the standard a board must use when considering certain affiliate relationships of a compensation committee member; (iii) explicitly state that as part of the independence test, a board of directors must consider all factors specifically relevant to determining whether a director has a relationship to the company which is material to that director's ability to be independent from management in connection with the duties of a compensation committee member; (iv) reiterate the definition of the term “Company” for purposes of the independence test; and (v) clarify that each compensation committee must be an Independent Director as defined under Rule 5605(a)(2). These changes will make Nasdaq's compensation committee composition requirements more transparent and easier to understand. As a result, the changes will protect investors and the public interest.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Dodd-Frank Act and Rule 10C–1 under the Act required each national securities exchange to adopt similar rules to Nasdaq's Amended Rules. Like Nasdaq, each other exchange was required to consider compensatory fees when determining eligibility requirements for compensation committee membership. Other than Nasdaq and NASDAQ OMX BX,
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
• 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”)
This proposed rule change by The Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) concerns the charter of the Governance Committee (“GC Charter”) of OCC's Board of Directors (“Board”).
In its filing with the Commission, OCC 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. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B) and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.
This proposed rule change concerns the GC Charter. The Board authorized formation of the Governance Committee (“GC”) at its May 21, 2013, meeting and approved the GC Charter at its September 24, 2013, meeting. As set forth in the GC Charter, the purpose of the GC is to review the overall corporate governance of OCC and recommend improvements to OCC's Board. The GC Charter describes the role the GC plays in assisting the Board in fulfilling its responsibilities, as described in OCC's By-Laws and Rules, as well as specifying the policies and procedures governing the membership and organization, scope of authority, and specific functions and responsibilities of the GC. In addition, the guidelines for the composition of the GC as well as the policies regarding its meeting schedule, quorum rules, minute-keeping and reporting requirements are set forth in the GC Charter and conform to applicable requirements specified in OCC's By-Laws and Rules.
The GC is composed of not fewer than five Directors with at least one Public Director, one Exchange Director and one Member Director. Management Directors will not be members of the GC. The Board will designate a GC Chair and if the Chair is not present at a meeting, the members who are present will designate a member to serve as the Acting Chair. The GC will meet at least four times a year and a majority of the GC members constitutes a quorum. The GC is permitted to call executive sessions from which guests of the GC may be excluded, and GC members are permitted to participate in all meetings by conference telephone call or other means of communication that permit all meeting participants to hear each other. The GC Chair, or the Chair's designee, will report regularly to the Board on the GC's activities.
The GC Charter sets forth certain functions and responsibilities for the GC including, but not limited to, the following: review the composition of the Board as a whole, including the Board's balance of participant and non-participant directors, business specialization, technical skills, diversity and other desired qualifications; review the Board's Charter for consistency with regulatory requirements, transparency of the governance process and other sound governance practice and recommend changes to the Board, where appropriate; review the committee structure of the Board, including the GC, and recommend changes to the Board, where appropriate; review OCC's policies and procedures for identifying and reviewing Board nominee candidates, including the criteria for Board nominees; develop and recommend to the Board a periodic process of self-evaluation of the role and performance of the Board, its committees and management in the governance of OCC; review OCC's policies on conflicts of interest of directors, including the OCC Directors Code of Conduct and recommend changes, where appropriate; and, review OCC's new director orientation program as well as OCC's training and education
OCC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
OCC does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Written comments on the proposed rule change were not and are not intended to be solicited with respect to the proposed rule change and none have been received.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR–OCC–2013–18 and should be submitted on or before January 6, 2014.
For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
The Department of State (“the Department”) requests written information to assist in reporting on the degree to which the United States and foreign governments comply with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking in persons (“minimum standards”) that are prescribed by the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, (Div. A, Pub. L. 106–386) as amended (“TVPA”). This information will assist in the preparation of the
Submissions must be received by the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons by 5 p.m. on January 30, 2014.
•
•
•
Submissions may include written narratives that answer the questions presented in this Notice, research, studies, statistics, fieldwork, training materials, evaluations, assessments, and other relevant evidence of local, state, and federal government efforts. To the extent possible, precise dates should be included.
Where applicable, written narratives providing factual information should provide citations to sources and copies of the source material should be provided. If possible, send electronic copies of the entire submission, including source material. If primary sources are utilized, such as research studies, interviews, direct observations, or other sources of quantitative or qualitative data, details on the research or data-gathering methodology should be provided. The Department does not include in the
The Department prepares the
The TVPA creates a four tier ranking system. Tier placement is based more on the extent of government action to combat trafficking than on the size of the problem, although that is a consideration. The Department first evaluates whether the government fully complies with the TVPA's minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking. Governments that fully comply are placed on Tier 1. For other governments, the Department considers the extent of efforts to reach compliance. Governments that are making significant efforts to meet the minimum standards are placed on Tier 2. Governments that do not fully comply with the minimum standards and are not making significant efforts to do so are placed on Tier 3. Finally, the Department considers Special Watch List criteria and, when applicable, moves Tier 2 countries to Tier 2 Watch List. For more information, the 2013
Since the inception of the
Since 2003, the primary reporting on the United States' anti-trafficking activities has been through the annual Attorney General's Report to Congress and Assessment of U.S. Government Activities to Combat Human Trafficking (“AG Report”) mandated by section 105 of the TVPA (22 U.S.C. 7103(d)(7)). In addition, the United States, through a collaborative interagency process, includes in the
The TVPA sets forth the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking in persons as follows:
(1) The government of the country should prohibit severe forms of trafficking in persons and punish acts of such trafficking.
(2) For the knowing commission of any act of sex trafficking involving force, fraud, coercion, or in which the victim of sex trafficking is a child incapable of giving meaningful consent, or of trafficking which includes rape or kidnapping or which causes a death, the government of the country should prescribe punishment commensurate with that for grave crimes, such as forcible sexual assault.
(3) For the knowing commission of any act of a severe form of trafficking in persons, the government of the country should prescribe punishment that is sufficiently stringent to deter and that adequately reflects the heinous nature of the offense.
(4) The government of the country should make serious and sustained efforts to eliminate severe forms of trafficking in persons.
The following factors should be considered as indicia of serious and sustained efforts to eliminate severe forms of trafficking in persons:
(1) Whether the government of the country vigorously investigates and prosecutes acts of severe forms of trafficking in persons, and convicts and sentences persons responsible for such acts, that take place wholly or partly within the territory of the country, including, as appropriate, requiring incarceration of individuals convicted of such acts. For purposes of the preceding sentence, suspended or significantly reduced sentences for convictions of principal actors in cases of severe forms of trafficking in persons shall be considered, on a case-by-case basis, whether to be considered as an indicator of serious and sustained efforts to eliminate severe forms of trafficking in persons. After reasonable requests from the Department of State for data regarding investigations, prosecutions, convictions, and sentences, a government which does not provide such data, consistent with the capacity of such government to obtain such data, shall be presumed not to have vigorously investigated, prosecuted, convicted, or sentenced such acts. The Secretary of State may disregard the presumption contained in the preceding sentence if the government has provided some data to the Department of State regarding such acts and the Secretary has determined that the government is making a good faith effort to collect such data.
(2) Whether the government of the country protects victims of severe forms of trafficking in persons and encourages their assistance in the investigation and prosecution of such trafficking, including provisions for legal alternatives to their removal to countries in which they would face retribution or hardship, and ensures that victims are not inappropriately incarcerated, fined, or otherwise penalized solely for unlawful acts as a direct result of being trafficked, including by providing training to law enforcement and immigration officials regarding the identification and treatment of trafficking victims using approaches that focus on the needs of the victims.
(3) Whether the government of the country has adopted measures to prevent severe forms of trafficking in persons, such as measures to inform and educate the public, including potential victims, about the causes and consequences of severe forms of trafficking in persons; measures to establish the identity of local populations, including birth registration, citizenship, and nationality; measures to ensure that its nationals who are deployed abroad as part of a diplomatic, peacekeeping, or other similar mission do not engage in or facilitate severe forms of trafficking in persons or exploit victims of such trafficking; a transparent system for remediating or punishing such public officials as a deterrent; measures to prevent the use of forced labor or child labor in violation of international standards; effective bilateral, multilateral, or regional information-sharing and cooperation arrangements with other countries; and effective policies or laws regulating foreign labor recruiters and holding them civilly and criminally liable for fraudulent recruiting.
(4) Whether the government of the country cooperates with other governments in the investigation and prosecution of severe forms of trafficking in persons and has entered into bilateral, multilateral, or regional law enforcement cooperation and coordination arrangements with other countries.
(5) Whether the government of the country extradites persons charged with acts of severe forms of trafficking in persons on substantially the same terms and to substantially the same extent as persons charged with other serious crimes (or, to the extent such extradition would be inconsistent with the laws of such country or with international agreements to which the country is a party, whether the government is taking all appropriate measures to modify or replace such laws and treaties so as to permit such extradition).
(6) Whether the government of the country monitors immigration and emigration patterns for evidence of severe forms of trafficking in persons and whether law enforcement agencies of the country respond to any such evidence in a manner that is consistent with the vigorous investigation and prosecution of acts of such trafficking, as well as with the protection of human rights of victims and the internationally recognized human right to leave any country, including one's own, and to return to one's own country.
(7) Whether the government of the country vigorously investigates, prosecutes, convicts, and sentences public officials, including diplomats and soldiers, who participate in or facilitate severe forms of trafficking in persons, including nationals of the country who are deployed abroad as part of a diplomatic, peacekeeping, or other similar mission who engage in or facilitate severe forms of trafficking in persons or exploit victims of such trafficking, and takes all appropriate measures against officials who condone such trafficking. A government's failure to appropriately address public allegations against such public officials, especially once such officials have returned to their home countries, shall be considered inaction under these criteria. After reasonable requests from the Department of State for data regarding such investigations, prosecutions, convictions, and sentences, a government which does not provide such data consistent with its resources shall be presumed not to have vigorously investigated, prosecuted, convicted, or sentenced such acts. The Secretary of State may disregard the presumption contained in the preceding sentence if the government has provided some data to the Department of State regarding such acts and the Secretary has determined that the government is making a good faith effort to collect such data.
(8) Whether the percentage of victims of severe forms of trafficking in the country that are non-citizens of such countries is insignificant.
(9) Whether the government has entered into effective, transparent partnerships, cooperative agreements, or agreements that have resulted in concrete and measureable outcomes with—
(A) domestic civil society organizations, private sector entities, or international non-governmental
(B) the United States toward agreed goals and objectives in the collective fight against trafficking.
(10) Whether the government of the country, consistent with the capacity of such government, systematically monitors its efforts to satisfy the criteria described in paragraphs (1) through (8) and makes available publicly a periodic assessment of such efforts.
(11) Whether the government of the country achieves appreciable progress in eliminating severe forms of trafficking when compared to the assessment in the previous year.
(12) Whether the government of the country has made serious and sustained efforts to reduce the demand for (A) commercial sex acts; and (B) participation in international sex tourism by nationals of the country.
Submissions should include, but need not be limited to, answers to relevant questions below for which the submitter has direct professional experience and that experience should be noted. Citations to source material should also be provided. Note the country or countries that are the focus of the submission. Please see the
1. How have trafficking methods changed in the past 12 months? For example, are there victims from new countries of origin? Is internal trafficking or child trafficking increasing? Has sex trafficking changed from brothels to private apartments? Is labor trafficking now occurring in additional types of industries or agricultural operations? Is forced begging a problem?
2. In what ways has the government's efforts to combat trafficking in persons changed in the past year? What new laws, regulations, policies, and implementation strategies exist (e.g., substantive criminal laws and procedures, mechanisms for civil remedies, and victim-witness security, generally, and in relation to court proceedings)?
3. Please provide observations regarding the implementation of existing laws and procedures.
4. Is the government equally vigorous in pursuing labor trafficking and sex trafficking?
5. Are the anti-trafficking laws and sentences strict enough to reflect the nature of the crime? Are sex trafficking sentences commensurate with rape sentences?
6. Do government officials understand the nature of trafficking? If not, please provide examples of misconceptions or misunderstandings.
7. Do judges appear appropriately knowledgeable and sensitized to trafficking cases? What sentences have courts imposed upon traffickers? How common are suspended sentences and prison time of less than one year for convicted traffickers?
8. Please provide observations regarding the efforts of police and prosecutors to pursue trafficking cases.
9. Are government officials (including law enforcement, diplomats, and soldiers/peacekeepers) complicit in human trafficking by, for example, profiting from, taking bribes, or receiving sexual services for allowing it to continue? Are government officials operating trafficking rings or activities? If so, have these government officials been subject to an investigation and/or prosecution? What punishments have been imposed?
10. Has the government vigorously investigated, prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced nationals of the country deployed abroad as part of a diplomatic, peacekeeping, or other similar mission who engage in or facilitate trafficking?
11. Has the government investigated, prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced organized crime groups that are involved in trafficking?
12. Is the country a source of sex tourists and, if so, what are their destination countries? Is the country a destination for sex tourists and, if so, what are their source countries?
13. Please provide observations regarding government efforts to address the issue of unlawful child soldiering.
14. Does the government make a coordinated, proactive effort to identify victims? Is there any screening conducted before deportation to determine whether individuals were trafficked?
15. What victim services are provided (legal, medical, food, shelter, interpretation, mental health care, health care, employment, training, etc.)? Who provides these services? If nongovernment organizations provide the services, does the government support their work either financially or otherwise?
16. How could victim services be improved?
17. Are services provided equally and adequately to victims of labor and sex trafficking? Men, women, and children? Citizen and noncitizen? Members of the LGBT community?
18. Do service providers and law enforcement work together cooperatively, for instance, to share information about trafficking trends or to plan for services after a raid? What is the level of cooperation, communication, and trust between service providers and law enforcement?
19. May victims file civil suits or seek legal action against their trafficker? Do victims avail themselves of those remedies?
20. Does the government repatriate victims who wish to return home? Does the government assist with third country resettlement? Does the government engage in any analysis of whether victims may face retribution or hardship upon repatriation to their country of origin? Are victims awaiting repatriation or third country resettlement offered services? Are victims indeed repatriated or are they deported?
21. Does the government inappropriately detain or imprison identified trafficking victims?
22. Does the government punish trafficking victims for forgery of documents, illegal immigration, unauthorized employment, or participation in illegal activities directed by the trafficker?
23. What efforts has the government made to prevent human trafficking?
24. Has the government entered into effective bilateral, multilateral, or regional information-sharing and cooperation arrangements that have resulted in concrete and measureable outcomes?
25. Does the country have effective policies or laws regulating foreign labor recruiters?
26. Does the government undertake activities that could prevent or reduce vulnerability to trafficking, such as registering births of indigenous populations?
27. Does the government provide financial support to NGOs working to promote public awareness or does the government implement such campaigns itself? Have public awareness campaigns proven to be effective?
28. Please provide additional recommendations to improve the government's anti-trafficking efforts.
29. Please highlight effective strategies and practices that other governments could consider adopting.
Notice of request for public comment and submission to OMB of proposed collection of information.
The Department of State has submitted the information collection described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval. 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 30 days for public comment.
Submit comments directly to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) up to January 15, 2014.
Direct comments to the Department of State Desk Officer in the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). You may submit comments by the following methods:
•
•
Direct requests for additional information regarding the collection listed in this notice, including requests for copies of the proposed collection instrument and supporting documents, to Chang Suh, Alumni Outreach Specialist, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs; U.S. Department of State; SA–5, Room C2–C20; Washington, DC 20522–0503, who may be reached on 202–632–6183 or 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.
Respondents to this information collection are U.S. government-sponsored exchange program participants and alumni. Alumni Affairs collects data from users to not only verify their status or participation in a program, but to help alumni network with one another and aid embassy staff in their alumni outreach.
Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST), DOT.
The Department of Transportation (DOT) received no public comments following the publication of its 60-day notice of proposed information collection. As identified in the 60-day notice, the information is currently being collected under an approved Information Collection Request. OST requests that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) renew an Information Collection Request (OMB Control Number 2105–0569) in accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13, 44 U.S.C. 3501
On July 6, 2012, the President of the United States signed the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act of 2012 (MAP–21). MAP–21 authorized $750 million in FY 2013 and $1 billion in FY 2014 for the Transportation Infrastructure Financing and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program to pay the subsidy cost of supporting Federal credit. The TIFIA program will provide Federal credit assistance in the form of direct loans, loan guarantees, and standby lines of credit to eligible surface transportation projects. This information collection relates to the collection of information from entities interested in TIFIA credit assistance and assists DOT in evaluating projects and project sponsors for program eligibility and creditworthiness.
A 60-day
Written comments should be submitted by January 15, 2014.
Written comments should be submitted by January 15, 2014 and submitted to the attention of the DOT/OST Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503 or by email at
The TIFIA program manager via email at
MAP–21 establishes a multi-step application process for TIFIA credit assistance. This process begins with the submission of a letter of interest and determination of eligibility. Only after a project sponsor has submitted a letter of interest and met all statutory eligibility requirements will the project sponsor be invited to submit an application.
The letter of interest must (i) describe the project and the location, purpose, and cost of the project, (ii) outline the proposed financial plan, including the requested credit assistance and the proposed obligor; (iii) provide a status of environmental review; and (iv) provide information regarding satisfaction of other eligibility requirements of the TIFIA credit program. Letters of Interest will be submitted using the form on the TIFIA Web site:
If a project sponsor is invited to submit an application, DOT estimates that each application will require approximately 100 hours to complete. DOT uses the application to seek a project sponsor's contact information for the applicant entity; project information including name, location, description, rural project description (if applicable), purpose (quantitative/qualitative details), cost and TIFIA credit assistance request, project management and compliance monitoring plan, maintenance and operations plan. DOT also expects project sponsors to submit information confirming that the project satisfies eligibility requirements including creditworthiness (rate covenant, coverage requirements, investment grade rating(s)), fosters partnerships that attract public and private investment, demonstrates that TIFIA assistance would enable the project to proceed at an earlier date or with reduced lifecycle costs and that TIFIA assistance would reduce the contribution of Federal grant assistance.
Sponsors also must report in the application the status of project environmental review (NEPA), permits and approvals, transportation planning and programming process approvals (STIP and TIP), construction contracting process readiness, and expected project schedule. Project sponsors are required to produce a financial plan including estimated capital project cost, amount and type of credit assistance requested, amount of TIFIA assistance requested, a summary table detailing sources and uses of funds, cash flow pro forma, a supplementary narrative detailing other borrowed funds and revenue sources (including pledged repayment source).
Finally, a project sponsor must indicate in the application the proposed terms for the requested TIFIA credit instrument, reasons for selecting the proposed type(s) of credit instrument, flexibility in financial plan to support a reduced percentage-share of TIFIA credit assistance, risks and mitigation strategies, details on the applicant's organizational structure, including background information and legal authority, organization and management, identity of the entity that will serve as the applicant (public-sector agency or private-sector firm),whether the applicant the same entity as the borrower (detail project team members), prior experience, financial condition, and litigation and/or conflicts.
Federal Highway Administration, DOT.
Notice of Intent to prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the United States Department of the Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), as joint lead federal agencies and in cooperation with the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) will prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) to evaluate the Route 460 Location Study Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and a Department of the Army Individual Permit (IP) Application. The purpose of this SEIS is to evaluate new information regarding the aquatic resource impacts to the preferred alternative described in the June 2008 FEIS and approved in the September 2008 Record of Decision (ROD). In addition, FHWA is evaluating proposed changes to the termini of the selected alternative and the proposed interchange at Route 620, and proposed changes to the selected alignment to avoid and minimize aquatic resource impacts. The USACE is preparing the document as part of its evaluation of the IP application submitted by U.S. Route 460 Mobility Partners (the Applicant) for the discharge of fill material into waters of the United States in conjunction with the construction of the Route 460 Corridor Improvements Project (Project).
Submit comments on or before January 15, 2014.
Ed Sundra, Federal Highway Administration, 400 North 8th Street, Suite 750, Richmond, VA 23219; email:
1.
Upon determining that the submitted permit application is complete, the USACE will issue a public notice and continue processing the permit application.
An FEIS for the Route 460 Location Study was approved by FHWA in June 2008, and a ROD was issued in September 2008. In November 2012, based upon the information before them at the time, FHWA completed a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Re-evaluation of the FEIS concluding that a SEIS was not needed. Based on new information bearing on the environmental impacts, including the aquatic impacts, it was later decided that an SEIS is required.
The SEIS will review information from the Route 460 Location Study FEIS/ROD, incorporate new information, update the alternatives and impacts analyses, and assess impacts not previously evaluated in the FEIS/ROD. To streamline federal processes, the SEIS will also include the USACE's NEPA evaluation.
2.
Actions available to the USACE for the proposed project are to issue the IP, issue the IP with special conditions, or deny the IP.
3.
To ensure that a full range of issues related to the Project are addressed and all significant issues identified, comments and suggestions are invited from all interested parties via letter or email. Comments and suggestions concerning the range of issues to be evaluated under the SEIS should be submitted to FHWA and the Corps (see
Based on the extensive public involvement to date on the proposed Project, no public input on the scope of the SEIS will be requested beyond the solicitation by this notice for comments on the range of issues to be evaluated. No formal scoping meetings will be held.
The Draft SEIS is expected to be published and circulated in the Spring of 2014. Notification of the availability of the draft SEIS for public and agency review will be made in the
For the draft SEIS, public meetings will be held after the publication of the Draft SEIS and a 45-day comment period will be provided. The public meetings will be conducted by VDOT and announced a minimum of 15 days in advance of the meetings. VDOT will provide information for the public meetings, including date, time and location through a variety of means including their Web site (
4.
5.
23 U.S.C. 315; 49 CFR 1.48; 33 CFR Part 325.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), United States Department of Transportation (USDOT).
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and its implementing regulations, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) hereby announces that it is seeking renewal of the following currently approved information collection activities. Before submitting these information collection requirements for clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), FRA is soliciting public comment on specific aspects of the activities identified below.
Comments must be received no later than February 14, 2014.
Submit written comments on any or all of the following proposed activities by mail to either: Ms. Janet Wylie or Ms. Kimberly Toone, Office of Information Technology, RAD–20, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Mail Stop 35, Washington, DC 20590. Commenters requesting FRA acknowledge receipt of their respective comments must include a self-addressed stamped postcard stating, “Comments on OMB control number 2130–0580.” Alternatively, comments may be transmitted via facsimile to (202) 493–6170, or via email to Ms. Wylie at
Ms. Janet Wylie, Office of Information and Technology, RAD–20, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Mail Stop 35, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: (202) 493–6353) or Ms. Kimberly Toone, Office of Information Technology, RAD–20, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Mail Stop 35, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: (202) 493–6132). (These telephone numbers are not toll-free.)
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104–13, § 2, 109 Stat. 163 (1995) (codified as revised at 44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to provide 60-days notice to the public for comment on information collection activities before seeking approval for reinstatement or renewal by OMB. 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A); 5 CFR §§ 1320.8(d)(1), 1320.10(e)(1), 1320.12(a). Specifically, FRA invites interested respondents to comment on the following summary of proposed information collection activities regarding (i) whether the information collection activities are necessary for FRA to properly execute its functions, including whether the activities will have practical utility; (ii) the accuracy of FRA's estimates of the burden of the information collection activities, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used to determine the estimates; (iii) ways for FRA to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information being collected; and (iv) ways for FRA to minimize the burden of information collection activities on the public by automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology (
Below is a brief summary of currently approved information collection activities that FRA will submit for clearance by OMB as required under the PRA:
FRA recently revised this Information Collection Request (ICR) to allow for the
Due to the nature of these disaster assistance funds, current economic conditions, and the various States need for immediate assistance to vital freight transportation pathways and the important role these sectors of transportation play in the overall national economy, FRA is requesting OMB to extend this ICR in order to manage the current grants obligated under this program until the remaining grants have properly closed-out and are completed.
Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3507(a) and 5 CFR 1320.5(b), 1320.8(b)(3)(vi), FRA informs all interested parties that it may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
44 U.S.C. 3501–3520.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of safety advisory; Operational tests and inspections for compliance with maximum authorized train speeds and other speed restrictions.
FRA is issuing Safety Advisory 2013–08 to stress to railroads and their employees the importance of compliance with Federal regulations and applicable railroad operating rules regarding maximum authorized train speed limits and any relevant speed restrictions. This safety advisory contains five recommendations to railroads to ensure that compliance with maximum authorized speeds and other speed restrictions are addressed by appropriate railroad operating policies and procedures and to ensure that those policies and procedures are effectively implemented.
Thomas Herrmann, Acting Director, Office of Safety Assurance and Compliance, Office of Railroad Safety, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, telephone (202) 493–6037.
The overall safety of railroad operations has improved in recent years. However, the recent fatal accident in Spuyten Duyvil, Bronx, New York, which is the subject of FRA's Emergency Order No. 29, highlights the need to ensure that speed restrictions mandated by Federal regulation and those imposed by a railroad's own operating rules are adhered to. That accident also demonstrates the importance of operational testing that pertains to ensuring employee compliance with applicable speed limitations and restrictions.
On Sunday, December 1, 2013, Metro-North passenger train 8808 (Train 8808) was traveling south from Poughkeepsie, New York, to Grand Central Terminal in New York City when, at approximately 7:20 a.m., the train derailed as it approached the Spuyten Duyvil Station. The train consisted of seven passenger coach cars, including a control cab locomotive in the lead position, and a conventional locomotive at the rear of the train, operating in a push-pull configuration (a control cab locomotive is both a passenger car, in that it has seats for passengers, and a locomotive, in that it has a control cab from which the engineer can operate the train). Each of the seven cars derailed along with the trailing locomotive. As of December 6, the derailment has resulted in four fatalities and more than 60 reported injuries.
As is customary, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has taken the lead role in conducting the investigation of this accident pursuant to its legal authority. 49 U.S.C. 1101
FRA's accident statistics reveal that the railroad industry's recent safety record with regard to this area of compliance on main tracks is good, but FRA believes the December 1 accident highlights the need to remain vigilant in ensuring employee compliance with operational speed limits and restrictions for trains and locomotives. As such, FRA intends to focus its inspections on railroad operational testing activity over the next several months on compliance with maximum authorized train speeds and relevant speed restrictions. FRA strongly encourages railroads and other industry members to re-emphasize the importance of compliance with maximum authorized train speeds and any applicable speed restrictions, and to conduct operational testing at a level that will ensure compliance with all posted speed restrictions.
(1) Review the circumstances of the December 1, 2013, Spuyten Duyvil derailment with each of their operating employees.
(2) Provide instruction to their employees during training classes and safety briefings on the importance of compliance with maximum authorized train speed limits and other speed restrictions. This training should
(3) Remind their employees that Federal railroad safety regulation, at 49 CFR 240.305(a)(2) and 242.403(e)(2), prohibits the operation of a locomotive or train at a speed which exceeds the maximum authorized speed by at least 10 mph.
(4) Evaluate quarterly and 6-month reviews of operational testing data as required by 49 CFR 217.9. A railroad should consider increasing the frequency of operational testing where its reviews show any non-compliance with maximum authorized train speeds. A significant number of operational tests should be conducted on trains that are required to reduce speed by more than 20 mph from the maximum authorized train speed. Operational tests should use the reliable methods available, such as reviewing locomotive event recorder data and testing by radar to verify compliance with maximum authorized speeds.
(5) Reinforce the importance of communication between train crewmembers located in the controlling locomotive, particularly during safety critical periods when multiple tasks are occurring (e.g., copying mandatory directives, closely approaching or passing fixed signals and/or cab signals at a reduced speed, approaching locations where the train's movement authority is being restricted, during radio conversations with other employees or job briefings about track characteristics) and during extended periods of inactivity.
FRA encourages all railroad industry members to take actions consistent with the preceding recommendations. FRA may modify this Safety Advisory 2013–08, issue additional safety advisories, or take other appropriate action necessary to ensure the highest level of safety on the Nation's railroads, including pursing other corrective measures under its rail safety authority.
On November 26, 2013, Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NSR) filed with the Surface Transportation Board (Board) a petition under 49 U.S.C. 10502 for exemption from the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 10903 to discontinue service over approximately 53.2 miles of rail line, extending from milepost FD 37.0 near Franklin to the end of the line at milepost FD 90.2 at Edgerton, in Isle of Wight, Southampton (including the independent City of Franklin), Greensville (including the independent City of Emporia), and Brunswick Counties, Va. (the Line). The Line traverses United States Postal Service Zip Codes 23829, 23837, 23844, 23847, 23851, 23856, and 23868, and includes the stations of Lawrenceville, Edgerton, Kingsberry, Emporia, Green Plain, Drewryville, Capron, and Courtland. According to the petition, the Line is stub-ended and therefore not capable of handling overhead traffic.
NSR states that, based on information in its possession, the Line does not contain federally granted rights-of-way. Any documentation in NSR's possession will be made available promptly to those requesting it.
The interest of railroad employees will be protected by the conditions set forth in
By issuance of this notice, the Board is instituting an exemption proceeding pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10502(b). A final decision will be issued by March 14, 2014.
Because this is a discontinuance proceeding and not an abandonment proceeding, interim trail use/rail banking and public use conditions are not appropriate. Similarly, no environmental or historic documentation is required under 49 CFR 1105.6(c)(2) and 1105.8(b).
Any offer of financial assistance under 49 CFR 1152.27(b)(2) to subsidize continued rail service will be due no later than March 24, 2014, or 10 days after service of a decision granting the petition for exemption, whichever occurs sooner. Each offer must be accompanied by a $1,600 filing fee.
All filings in response to this notice must refer to Docket No. AB 290 (Sub-No. 359X) and must be sent to: (1) Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20423–0001; and (2) Robert A. Wimbish, Baker & Miller PLLC, 2401 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 300, Washington, DC 20037. Replies to the petition are due on or before January 6, 2014.
Persons seeking further information concerning discontinuance procedures may contact the Board's Office of Public Assistance, Governmental Affairs, and Compliance at (202) 245–0238 or refer to the full abandonment and discontinuance regulations at 49 C.F.R. pt. 1152. Questions concerning environmental issues may be directed to the Board's Office of Environmental Analysis (OEA) at (202) 245–0305. [Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339.]
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at “
By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Veterans Health 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 Health Administration (VHA), 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 and includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before January 15, 2014.
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.
National Cemetery Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice; correction.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) published a collection of information notice in a
Crystal Rennie, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, at (202) 632–7492.
In FR Doc. 2900–0567, published on November 18, 2013, at 7, make the following corrections.
On page 69175, in the title, please correct to read: Proposed Information Collection Activity: (The Presidential Memorial Certificate) Proposed Collection; Comment Request
On page 69176, under
On page 69176, under
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice; correction.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) published a collection of information notice in a
Crystal Rennie, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, at (202) 632–7492.
In FR Doc. 2013–27396, published on November 15, 2013, at 78FR68908, make the following corrections.
On page 68908, in the first column, under the
“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
Comments must be submitted on or before January 15, 2014.
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.