Agricultural Marketing Service
Forest Service
Engineers Corps
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled
Economic Analysis Bureau
Economics and Statistics Administration
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Defense Acquisition Regulations System
Engineers Corps
Navy Department
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight Office
Fish and Wildlife Service
Geological Survey
Indian Affairs Bureau
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight Office
Federal Aviation Administration
Maritime Administration
Surface Transportation Board
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund
Comptroller of the Currency
Internal Revenue Service
United States Mint
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.
Interim rule with request for comments.
This rule relaxes the minimum size and grade requirements currently prescribed for grapefruit under the marketing order for oranges and grapefruit grown in Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas (order). The order is administered locally by the Texas Valley Citrus Committee (Committee). This rule relaxes the minimum size requirement for grapefruit from 3
Effective March 1, 2014; comments received by April 29, 2014 will be considered prior to issuance of a final rule.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this rule. Comments must be sent to the Docket Clerk, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250–0237; Fax: (202) 720–8938; or Internet:
Doris Jamieson, Marketing Specialist, or Christian D. Nissen, Regional Director, Southeast Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (863) 324–3375, Fax: (863) 325–8793, or Email:
Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Jeffrey Smutny, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250–0237; Telephone: (202) 720–2491, Fax: (202) 720–8938, or Email:
This rule is issued under Marketing Agreement and Order No. 906, as amended (7 CFR part 906), regulating the handling of oranges and grapefruit grown in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, 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, 13175, and 13563.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
This rule relaxes the minimum size and grade requirements for grapefruit prescribed under the order. This rule relaxes the minimum size requirement for grapefruit from 3
Section 906.40 of the order provides, in part, authority to establish minimum grade and size requirements for Texas citrus. Section 906.340 of the rules and regulations includes Table II that specifies the numerical size designations and diameters used to delineate the available pack sizes for grapefruit. Section 906.365 specifies the minimum grade and size requirements for fresh shipments of Texas grapefruit.
At its meeting, the Committee discussed the impact the recent freeze in California had on the citrus crop and agreed the freeze had reduced the amount of fruit available for shipment to the fresh market. They also discussed the decline in citrus production in Florida caused by citrus greening and other diseases. The Committee believes this creates a shortage of fruit available to supply the fresh fruit market, which the Texas citrus growers and handlers should fill. The Committee noted that additional fruit was available from the Texas citrus industry. However, the fruit is smaller in size and would not meet the order's current size and grade requirements. The Committee also recognized that consumers are now showing a preference for smaller-sized fruit. The Committee believes relaxing the requirements would make more fruit available to fill the market shortfall caused by the decline in production from other growing regions and provide smaller-sized fruit to meet consumer demand.
Consequently, to make more fruit available for shipment to the fresh market and to meet consumer demand, the Committee recommended a relaxation of the size and grade requirements for grapefruit. This rule changes the minimum size requirement for grapefruit from 3
Currently, fruit sized 48 (3
The Committee believes relaxing these size and grade requirements will make more fruit available to meet market demand, helping to maximize fresh shipments and increasing returns to growers and handlers.
The Committee also recommended a relaxation in the minimum size requirement for oranges covered under the order. This change is being considered under a separate action.
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 action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this initial 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 13 registered handlers of Texas citrus who are subject to regulation under the marketing order and approximately 150 producers of grapefruit in the regulated area. Small agricultural service firms, which include handlers, are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) 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 (13 CFR 121.201).
According to National Agricultural Statistics Service data, the average f.o.b. price for Texas grapefruit during the 2012–13 season was $24.10 per box, and total fresh shipments were approximately 3 million boxes. Using the average f.o.b. price and shipment data, and considering a normal distribution, the majority of Texas grapefruit handlers could be considered small businesses under SBA's definition. In addition, based on production data, grower prices, and the total number of Texas citrus growers, the average annual grower revenue is below $750,000. Thus, the majority of handlers and producers of grapefruit may be classified as small entities.
This rule relaxes the size and grade requirements for grapefruit prescribed under the order. This rule relaxes the minimum size requirement for grapefruit from 3
This rule is not expected to increase costs associated with the order's requirements. Rather, it is anticipated that this action will have a beneficial impact. Reducing size and grade requirements will make additional fruit available for shipment to the fresh market. The Committee believes this will provide additional fruit to fill the shortage caused by the reduced amount of fruit available from other growing regions and will provide the opportunity to fulfill growing consumer demand for smaller-sized fruit. This action will also provide an outlet for fruit that may otherwise go unharvested, maximizing fresh shipments and increasing returns to handlers and growers. The benefits of this rule are expected to be equally available to all fresh grapefruit growers and handlers, regardless of their size.
An alternative to this action would be to maintain the current minimum requirements for domestic shipments of grapefruit. However, leaving the requirements unchanged would not make any additional fruit available nor would it provide smaller-sized fruit to meet consumer demand. Therefore, this alternative was rejected.
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 necessary. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.
This rule will not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large Texas citrus 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.
AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
In addition, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or conflict with this rule.
Further, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the Texas citrus industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations. Like all Committee meetings, the December 11, 2013, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express their views on this issue. Finally, interested persons are invited to submit comments on this interim rule, including the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small businesses.
A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at:
This rule invites comments on changes to size and grade requirements currently prescribed for grapefruit under the marketing order for oranges and grapefruit grown in Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas. Any comments received will be considered prior to finalization of this rule.
After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the Committee's recommendation, and other information, it is found that this interim rule, as hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is also found and determined upon good cause that it is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest to give preliminary notice prior to putting this rule into effect and that good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the
Grapefruit, Marketing agreements, Oranges, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 906 is amended as follows:
7 U.S.C. 601–674.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) Grapefruit, when packed in any carton, bag, or other container, shall be sized in accordance with the sizes in the following Table II, except as otherwise provided in the regulations issued pursuant to this part, and meet the requirements of standard pack; and, when in containers not packed according to a definite pattern, shall be sized in accordance with the sizes in Table II: Provided, That the packing tolerances in the U.S. Standards for Grades of Grapefruit (Texas and States other than Florida, California, and Arizona), shall apply to fruit so packed. All fruit packed to size 64 in the following Table II shall be sized in accordance with the sizes in Table II but need not otherwise meet the requirements of standard pack: Provided, That they meet the same tolerances for off-size and pack as defined in the U.S. Standards for Grades of Grapefruit (Texas and States other than Florida, California, and Arizona).
(a) * * *
(4) Such grapefruit are at least pack size 64 with a minimum diameter of 3 inches.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Interim rule with request for comments.
This rule relaxes the minimum size currently prescribed for oranges under the marketing order for oranges and grapefruit grown in Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas (order). The order is administered locally by the Texas Valley Citrus Committee (Committee). The corresponding change in the orange import regulation is required under section 8e of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937. This rule relaxes the minimum size requirement for oranges from 2–6/16 inches to 2–3/16 inches in diameter. This rule will provide additional oranges to meet market demand, helping to maximize fresh shipments.
Effective March 1, 2014; comments received by April 29, 2014 will be considered prior to issuance of a final rule.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this rule. Comments must be sent to the Docket Clerk, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250–0237; Fax: (202) 720–8938; or Internet:
Doris Jamieson, Marketing Specialist, or Christian D. Nissen, Regional Director, Southeast Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (863) 324–3375, Fax: (863) 325–8793, or Email:
Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Jeffrey Smutny, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250–0237; Telephone: (202) 720–2491, Fax: (202) 720–8938, or Email:
This rule is issued under Marketing Agreement and Order No. 906, as amended (7 CFR Part 906), regulating the handling of oranges and grapefruit grown in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act
This rule is also issued under section 8e of the Act, which provides that whenever certain specified commodities, including oranges, are regulated under a Federal marketing order, imports of these commodities into the United States are prohibited unless they meet the same or comparable grade, size, quality, or maturity requirements as those in effect for the domestically produced commodities.
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Orders 12866, 13175, and 13563.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
There are no administrative procedures which must be exhausted prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of import regulations issued under section 8e of the Act.
This rule relaxes the minimum size requirement for oranges prescribed under the order. This rule relaxes the minimum size requirement for oranges from 2–6/16 inches to 2–3/16 inches in diameter. This rule will provide additional oranges to meet market demand and will help maximize fresh shipments. This change was unanimously recommended by the Committee at a meeting on December 11, 2013.
Section 906.40 of the order provides, in part, authority to establish minimum size requirements for Texas citrus. Section 906.340 of the rules and regulations includes Table I that specifies the numerical size designations and diameters used to delineate the available pack sizes for oranges. Section 906.365 specifies the minimum size requirement for fresh shipments of Texas oranges. Minimum grade and size requirements for oranges imported into the United States are currently in effect under § 944.312.
At its meeting, the Committee discussed the impact the recent freeze in California had on the orange crop and agreed the freeze had reduced the amount of fruit available for shipment to the fresh market. They also discussed the decline in citrus production in Florida caused by citrus greening and other diseases. The Committee believes this creates a shortage of fruit available to supply the fresh fruit market, which the Texas citrus growers and handlers should fill. The Committee noted that additional fruit was available from the Texas citrus industry. However, the fruit is smaller in size and would not meet the order's current size requirements. The Committee also recognized that consumers are now showing a preference for smaller-sized fruit. The Committee believes relaxing the requirements would make more fruit available to fill the market shortfall caused by the decline in production of oranges from other growing regions and provide smaller-sized fruit to meet consumer demand.
Consequently, to make more fruit available for shipment to the fresh market and to meet consumer demand, the Committee recommended a relaxation of the size requirements for oranges. This rule changes the minimum size requirement for oranges from 2–6/16 inches (size 138) to 2–3/16 inches (size 163) in diameter. This rule also adds size 163 to the available pack sizes for oranges listed under Table I in § 906.340, as well as adding language concerning pack and sizing requirements as appropriate.
The Committee believes relaxing the size requirement will make more fruit available to meet market demand, helping to maximize fresh shipments and increasing returns to growers and handlers.
Section 8e of the Act provides that when certain domestically produced commodities, including oranges, are regulated under a Federal marketing order, imports of that commodity must meet the same or comparable grade, size, quality, and maturity requirements. Since this rule changes the minimum size requirement under the domestic handling regulations for oranges, a corresponding change to the import regulations must also be considered.
Minimum grade and size requirements for oranges imported into the United States are currently in effect under § 944.312. Section 944.312(i) of the Fruit Import Regulations specifies that oranges imported into the United States are in most direct competition with oranges produced in the area covered by Marketing Order No. 906. This change relaxes the minimum size requirement for imported oranges from 2–6/16 inches to 2–3/16 inches. The relaxation in the minimum size requirement also has a beneficial impact for importers of oranges. This change allows a smaller-sized orange to be shipped to the United States, thereby increasing the amount of fruit available for shipment to the fresh market, thus benefiting importers.
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 action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this initial 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. Import regulations issued under the Act are based on those established under Federal marketing orders.
There are 13 registered handlers of Texas citrus who are subject to regulation under the marketing order and approximately 150 producers of oranges in the regulated area. There are approximately 220 importers of oranges. Small agricultural service firms, which include handlers and importers, are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) 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 (13 CFR 121.201).
According to data from the National Agricultural Statistics Service and the industry and Committee, the average f.o.b. price for Texas oranges during the 2012–13 season was $25.30 per box, and total fresh orange shipments were approximately 1.5 million boxes. Using the average f.o.b. price and shipment data, the majority of Texas orange handlers could be considered small businesses under SBA's definition. In addition, based on production data, grower prices, and the total number of Texas citrus growers, the average annual grower revenue is below $750,000. Information from the Foreign
Chile, South Africa, Mexico, and Australia are the major orange-producing countries exporting oranges to the United States. In 2012, shipments of oranges imported into the United States totaled around 119,000 metric tons. Of that amount, 51,510 metric tons were imported from Chile, 35,960 metric tons were imported from South Africa, 17,421 metric tons were imported from Mexico, and 11,100 metric tons arrived from Australia.
This rule relaxes the minimum size requirement for oranges covered under the order from 2–6/16 inches (size 138) to 2–3/16 inches (size 163) and makes a corresponding change to the orange import regulation. This change is expected to make additional fruit available for shipment to the fresh market, maximize shipments, provide additional returns to handlers and growers, and respond to consumer demand for small-sized fruit. Authority for this change is provided in § 906.40. This rule amends the provisions in §§ 906.340, 906.365, and 944.312. The Committee unanimously recommended this change at its December 11, 2013, meeting. The change in the import regulation is required under section 8e of the Act.
This action is not expected to increase the costs associated with the order's requirements or the orange import regulation. Rather, it is anticipated that this action will have a beneficial impact. Reducing the size requirement will make additional fruit available for shipment to the fresh market. The Committee believes that this will provide additional fruit to fill the shortage caused by the reduced amount of fruit available from other growing regions and will provide the opportunity to fulfill growing consumer demand for smaller sized fruit. This action will also provide an outlet for fruit that may otherwise go unharvested, maximizing fresh shipments and increasing returns to handlers and growers. The benefits of this rule are expected to be equally available to all fresh orange growers, handlers, and importers, regardless of their size.
An alternative to this action would be to maintain the current minimum requirements for domestic shipments of oranges. However, leaving the requirements unchanged would not make any additional fruit available nor would it provide smaller-sized fruit to meet consumer demand. Therefore, this alternative was rejected.
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 necessary. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.
This rule will not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large citrus 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.
AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
In addition, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or conflict with this rule.
Further, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the Texas citrus industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations. Like all Committee meetings, the December 11, 2013, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express their views on this issue. Finally, interested persons are invited to submit comments on this interim rule, including the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small businesses.
A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at:
This rule invites comments on changes to the size requirements for oranges currently prescribed under the marketing order for oranges and grapefruit grown in Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas and imported oranges. Any comments received will be considered prior to finalization of this rule.
After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the Committee's recommendation, and other information, it is found that this interim rule, as hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.
In accordance with section 8e of the Act, the United States Trade Representative has concurred with the issuance of this interim rule.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is also found and determined upon good cause that it is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest to give preliminary notice prior to putting this rule into effect and that good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the
Grapefruit, Marketing agreements, Oranges, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Avocados, Food grades and standards, Grapefruit, Grapes, Imports, Kiwifruit, Limes, Olives, Oranges.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR Parts 906 and 944 are amended as follows:
7 U.S.C. 601–674.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) Oranges, when packed in any carton, bag, or other container, shall be sized in accordance with the sizes in the following Table I, and meet the
(a) * * *
(2) Such oranges are at least pack size 163 with a minimum diameter of 2–3/16 inches;
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Treasury.
Interim final rule and request for comments.
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) is making technical and conforming amendments to its regulations governing national banks and Federal savings associations to make those regulations consistent with the recently adopted Basel III Capital Framework. As part of these technical amendments, the OCC is revising and clarifying its regulations governing subordinated debt applicable to national banks and Federal savings associations.
This interim final rule is effective March 31, 2014. Comments must be received by March 31, 2014.
Because paper mail in the Washington, DC area and at the OCC is subject to delay, commenters are encouraged to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal or email, if possible. Please use the title “Basel III Conforming Amendments Related to Cross-References, Subordinated Debt and Limits Based on Regulatory Capital” to facilitate the organization and distribution of the comments. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
• Click on the “Help” tab on the Regulations.gov home page to get information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for submitting public comments.
•
•
•
•
You may review comments and other related materials that pertain to this rulemaking action by any of the following methods:
•
• Click on the “Help” tab on the Regulations.gov home page to get information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for viewing public comments, viewing other supporting and related materials, and viewing the docket after the close of the comment period.
•
•
Jean Campbell, Senior Attorney, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, (202) 649–5490; and Patricia D. Goings, Senior Licensing Analyst, or Patricia Roberts, Senior Licensing Analyst, Licensing Division, (202) 649–6260.
On October 11, 2013, the OCC published in the
As part of the process of implementing the Basel III Capital Framework, the OCC restructured the regulatory capital rules in part 3, which included redesignation of the risk-based capital rules, market risk requirements, and the advanced approaches, codified at appendixes A, B and C, as new subparts to part 3. Accordingly, this interim final rule makes technical, clarifying, and conforming amendments to the OCC's rules applicable to national banks and Federal savings associations, by providing new cross-references to parts 3 and 6, where necessary, and by deleting obsolete references to tier 3 capital, which was eliminated in the market risk rule.
The mandatory compliance date for the Basel III Capital Framework is January 1, 2014, for advanced approaches national banks and Federal savings associations,
1. Has consolidated total assets, as reported on its most recent year-end Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income (Call Report) equal to $250 billion or more;
2. Has consolidated total on-balance sheet foreign exposure on its most recent year-end Call Report equal to $10 billion or more (where total on-balance sheet foreign exposure equals total cross-border claims less claims with a head office or guarantor located in another country plus redistributed guaranteed amounts to the country of head office or guarantor plus local country claims on local residents plus revaluation gains on foreign exchange and derivative products, calculated in accordance with the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) 009 Country Exposure Report);
3. Is a subsidiary of a depository institution that uses the advanced approaches pursuant to subpart E of 12 CFR part 3 (OCC), 12 CFR part 217 (Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System) (Board), or 12 CFR part 325 (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) (FDIC) to calculate its total risk-weighted assets;
4. Is a subsidiary of a bank holding company or savings and loan holding company that uses the advanced approaches pursuant to 12 CFR part 217 to calculate its total risk-weighted assets; or
5. Elects to use subpart E of 12 CFR part 3 to calculate its total risk-weighted assets.
The Basel III Capital Framework includes major revisions to the capital adequacy rules applicable to national banks and Federal savings associations. Apart from its role in establishing minimum regulatory capital requirements for the purposes of capital adequacy, regulatory capital historically also has served as a useful measure for numerous statutory and regulatory limits used as supervisory tools for safety and soundness purposes. Examples of such measures are the legal lending limits (12 CFR part 32) and limits on investment securities (12 CFR part 1).
While conforming amendments typically are straightforward, the Basel III Capital Framework introduced an additional level of complexity. As described above, the Basel III Capital Framework provided different mandatory compliance dates for advanced approaches national banks and Federal savings associations and non-advanced approaches national banks and Federal savings associations. As a result, from January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014, the current regulatory capital rules at 12 CFR part 3, appendixes A and B and 12 CFR part 167 will apply to non-advanced approaches national banks and Federal savings associations, respectively. Accordingly, this interim final rule amends the OCC's rules to replace cross-references to the current regulatory capital rules with cross-references to both the Basel III final rule and the current regulatory capital rules, where appropriate.
The Basel III Capital Framework also integrated Federal savings associations into part 6, “Prompt Corrective Action.” Accordingly, this interim final rule replaces cross-references in various regulations to part 165, the Prompt Corrective Action rule formerly applicable to Federal savings associations, with cross-references to part 6, which applies to both national banks and Federal savings associations effective January 1, 2014. Finally, this interim final rule makes other non-substantive technical corrections.
This interim final rule clarifies and revises the OCC's rules governing subordinated debt to make those rules consistent with the Basel III Capital Framework. Unlike the current
• The instrument is issued and paid-in;
• The instrument is subordinated to depositors and general creditors of the national bank or Federal savings association;
• The instrument is not secured, not covered by a guarantee of the national bank or Federal savings association or of an affiliate of the national bank or Federal savings association, and not subject to any other arrangement that legally or economically enhances the seniority of the instrument in relation to more senior claims;
• The instrument has a minimum original maturity of at least five years. At the beginning of each of the last five years of the life of the instrument, the amount that is eligible to be included in tier 2 capital is reduced by 20 percent of the original amount of the instrument (net of redemptions) and is excluded from regulatory capital when the remaining maturity is less than one year. In addition, the instrument must not have any terms or features that require, or create significant incentives for, the national bank or Federal savings association to redeem the instrument prior to maturity; and
• The instrument, by its terms, may be called by the national bank or Federal savings association only after a minimum of five years following issuance, except that the terms of the instrument may allow it to be called sooner upon the occurrence of an event that would preclude the instrument from being included in tier 2 capital, a tax event, or if the issuing entity is required to register as an investment company pursuant to the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a–1
○ The national bank or Federal savings association must receive the prior approval of the OCC to exercise a call option on the instrument.
○ The national bank or Federal savings association does not create at issuance, through action or communication, an expectation the call option will be exercised.
○ Prior to exercising the call option, or immediately thereafter, the national bank or Federal savings association must either: Replace any amount called with an equivalent amount of an instrument that meets the criteria for regulatory capital under § 3.20; or demonstrate to the satisfaction of the OCC that following redemption, the national bank or Federal savings association would continue to hold an amount of capital that is commensurate with its risk.
• The holder of the instrument must have no contractual right to accelerate payment of principal or interest on the instrument, except in the event of a receivership, insolvency, liquidation, or similar proceeding of the national bank or Federal savings association.
• The instrument has no credit-sensitive feature, such as a dividend or interest rate that is reset periodically based in whole or in part on the national bank's or Federal savings association's credit standing, but may have a dividend rate that is adjusted periodically independent of the national bank's or Federal savings association's credit standing, in relation to general market interest rates or similar adjustments.
• The national bank or Federal savings association, or an entity that the national bank or Federal savings association controls, has not purchased and has not directly or indirectly funded the purchase of the instrument.
• If the instrument is not issued directly by the national bank or Federal savings association or by a subsidiary of the national bank or Federal savings association that is an operating entity, the only asset of the issuing entity is its investment in the capital of the national bank or Federal savings association, and proceeds must be immediately available without limitation to the national bank or Federal savings association or the national bank's or Federal savings association's top-tier holding company in a form that meets or exceeds all the other criteria for tier 2 capital instruments under this section.
• Redemption of the instrument prior to maturity or repurchase requires the prior approval of the OCC.
• For an advanced approaches national bank or Federal savings association, the governing agreement, offering circular, or prospectus of an instrument issued after the date on which the advanced approaches national bank or Federal savings association becomes subject to 12 CFR part 3 under § 3.1(f) must disclose that the holders of the instrument may be fully subordinated to interests held by the U.S. government in the event that the national bank or Federal savings association enters into a receivership, insolvency, liquidation, or similar proceeding.
The OCC currently has separate rules for subordinated debt issued by national banks and Federal savings associations (12 CFR 5.47 and 12 CFR 163.81, respectively). In order to minimize confusion, this interim final rule does not integrate those rules. Instead, integration of those rules into a single subordinated debt rule applicable to both national banks and Federal savings associations may occur as part of a future rulemaking.
A national bank's issuance and prepayment of subordinated debt and inclusion of subordinated debt in tier 2 capital is governed by 12 CFR 5.47, Subordinated debt as capital. Section 5.47 provides procedural and substantive requirements applicable to subordinated debt. Under paragraph (b) of the current rule, an eligible national bank
Paragraph (e) provides that in order to qualify for inclusion in tier 2 capital, subordinated debt must meet the requirements in the OCC's regulatory capital rules (12 CFR part 3, appendix A, section 2(b)(4)) and must comply with the “OCC Guidelines for Subordinated Debt” in the OCC's Licensing Manual.
The regulatory capital rules in 12 CFR part 3, appendix A, limit the amount of subordinated debt that a bank may include in tier 2 capital, provide that in each of the last five years of the life of the instrument the amount eligible to be included in tier 2 capital is reduced by 20 percent of the original amount of that instrument, and require that subordinated debt included in tier 2 capital must meet the requirements of 12 CFR 3.100(f)(1) (2013).
Paragraphs (f), (g), and (i) generally address automatic approval, information requested to be included in the after-the-fact notice, and compliance with securities offering disclosure rules.
In order to accommodate the different compliance dates for an advanced approaches bank and a non-advanced approaches bank, this interim final rule retains the current provisions of § 5.47 and makes amendments to clarify that the current rules will continue to apply to a non-advanced approaches bank prior to January 1, 2015. In addition, this interim final rule adds new paragraphs (j) through (p) that are based on the Basel III Capital Framework and provides that those paragraphs will be applicable to an advanced approaches bank beginning on the effective date of this interim final rule and to a non-advanced approaches bank on January 1, 2015. The OCC notes that these changes will apply to an advanced approaches bank when it files the Call Report for the first quarter of 2014. The OCC further notes that while paragraphs (b) through (i) and paragraphs (j) through (p) seem duplicative, this structure is intended to be temporary. Section 5.47 has been designed so that the paragraph numbering in the current rules remains unchanged until January 1, 2015. After January 1, 2015, when paragraphs (b) through (i) are no longer necessary, the OCC intends to delete them, along with all references to advanced approaches banks and non-advanced approaches banks.
Because the Basel III Capital Framework requires prior OCC approval for prepayment of subordinated debt, the interim final rule reorganizes paragraphs (j) through (p) by transaction type. As described in more detail below, the interim final rule retains current procedures for the issuance of subordinated debt, including the distinction between eligible and non-eligible banks, while the OCC adds new procedures for prepayment of subordinated debt included in tier 2 capital and prepayment in the form of a call option.
As mentioned above, paragraphs (b) through (j) represent the current version of § 5.47, which needs to be retained until January 1, 2015. With respect to those provisions, the OCC makes minimal technical and clarifying changes.
A new paragraph (a)(2), “Applicability,” explains which banks are subject to which set of rules, and when they are subject to the rules. Specifically, an advanced approaches bank will be required to use the new set of rules reflecting the new Basel III Capital Framework for tier 2 capital beginning as of the effective date of this interim final rule. Non-advanced approaches banks (generally speaking, standardized approach banks) will not be subject to the new rules until January 1, 2015. In the meantime, standardized approach banks will continue to use the current rules (in paragraphs (b) through (i)).
Consistent with the Basel III Capital Framework, an advanced approaches bank is defined as a national bank that is subject to 12 CFR part 3, subpart E; a non-advanced approaches bank is defined as a national bank that is not subject to 12 CFR part 3, subpart E.
Based on a review of §§ 5.47 and 3.100(f) (2013), the OCC believes the current rules will benefit from clarifications regarding what, if any, requirements apply to subordinated debt that is
Finally, the OCC notes that this interim final rule also carries over, in new paragraph (l)(1), the requirement in paragraph (i) of the current rule that a national bank must comply with the Securities Offering Disclosures Rules in 12 CFR part 16 when issuing subordinated debt.
New paragraph (l) clarifies the substantive requirements for subordinated debt to qualify as tier 2 capital. Specifically, paragraph (l)(2)(i) requires subordinated debt included in tier 2 capital to meet the requirements set forth in 12 CFR 3.20(d) of the Basel III Capital Framework and comply with applicable OCC guidance for subordinated debt. The requirements in 12 CFR 3.20(d) are described in II.B.1. of this Supplementary Information.
By virtue of the cross-reference to 12 CFR 3.20(d), the interim final rule makes clear that any subordinated debt intended to count as tier 2 capital must satisfy the Basel III Capital Framework. While the interim final rule does not enumerate each and every requirement, the new requirements related to acceleration and prepayment are worth noting. Under the tier 2 capital requirements in the Basel III Capital Framework, the holder of a subordinated debt instrument must have no contractual right to accelerate principal or interest on the instrument, except in the event of a receivership, insolvency, liquidation, or other similar proceeding of the bank. Thus, the interim final rule makes clear that subordinated debt that the bank does
With respect to call options, the Basel III Capital Framework provides that any exercise of a call option in the first five years following issuance is limited to: (1) A change in the applicable regulatory capital rules or policies that would preclude the instrument from being included in tier 2 capital; (2) the occurrence of a tax event; or (3) if the issuing entity is required to register as an investment company pursuant to the Investment Company Act of 1940. A bank may exercise a call option at any time after five years following issuance of the instrument. In addition, under the Basel III Capital Framework, prior to exercising a call option, or immediately thereafter, the bank must either: (1) Replace any amount called with an equivalent amount of an instrument that meets the criteria for tier 1 or tier 2 capital under 12 CFR 3.20; or (2) demonstrate to the satisfaction of the OCC that following redemption, the bank would continue to hold an amount of capital commensurate with its risk. The Basel III Capital Framework further clarifies in a footnote that a bank may replace tier 2 capital instruments concurrent with the redemption of existing tier 2 capital instruments.
Assuming that the subordinated debt satisfies the substantive requirements in paragraph (l), paragraph (m) sets out the procedural requirements that a bank must follow in order to issue or prepay subordinated debt. Specifically, as to prior OCC approval, these procedural requirements reflect, to a large extent, the requirements of the current subordinated debt rule and the approval requirements in the Basel III Capital Framework.
Under the current subordinated debt rule, prior OCC approval generally is required for the issuance and prepayment of all subordinated debt, except in limited instances where the bank qualifies as an “eligible bank.” The Basel III Capital Framework also explicitly requires prior OCC approval for the exercise of a call option, redemption prior to maturity, and repurchase of subordinated debt.
This interim final rule attempts to reconcile these varying approval requirements while carrying forward the existing exception for eligible banks. Consequently, this interim final rule clarifies that, while prior approval generally is required for the issuance and prepayment of all subordinated debt, in certain areas where the bank is an eligible bank, this requirement may be satisfied by an after-the-fact notice. One important qualification to the eligible bank exception, however, concerns the prepayment of subordinated debt. The prior approval requirements for such prepayments are set out in paragraph (m)(2), which distinguishes between prepayments on subordinated debt
With respect to prepayment of subordinated debt that is
With respect to prepayment of subordinated debt that
New paragraph (n)(1)(iii) provides that the OCC retains the right to request additional relevant information as appropriate. Although there is no similar provision in the current rule, this right to request additional relevant
New paragraph (n)(2)(i) carries over the current automatic 30-day approval provisions which provide that an application is deemed approved by the OCC as of the 30th day after the filing is received by the OCC, unless the OCC notifies the bank prior to that date that the filing presents a significant supervisory or compliance concern, or raises a significant legal or policy issue. This is identical to the procedure in the current rule, with the addition of procedures to address call options set out in new paragraph (n)(2)(ii). A special procedure is required because, as described above, the Basel III Capital Framework requires a bank exercising a call option either to replace the instrument or satisfy the OCC that following redemption the bank would continue to hold an amount of capital commensurate with its risk. Therefore, the “deemed approved” procedure in paragraph (n)(2)(i) applicable for all other applications for prepayment is not consistent with the Basel III Capital Framework when call options are involved. Accordingly, new paragraph (n)(2)(ii) states that the bank must receive affirmative approval to exercise the call option and, if the OCC requires the bank to replace the subordinated debt, requires the bank to receive affirmative approval that the replacement capital instrument meets the criteria for tier 1 or tier 2 capital under 12 CFR 3.20. In addition, consistent with the Basel III Capital Framework, paragraph (n)(2)(ii) further requires that the bank must issue the replacement instrument prior to exercising the call option, or immediately thereafter, and clarifies in footnote 1 that a bank may replace tier 2 capital instruments concurrent with the redemption of existing tier 2 capital instruments.
New paragraph (n)(2)(iv) carries over the current transaction timing requirements, which provide that approval expires if a national bank does not complete the sale of the subordinated debt within one year of approval. This provision is generally the same as the current rule, with the addition of clarifying language necessary to address the issuance of replacement capital instruments.
The OCC notes that, consistent with longstanding practice, this interim final rule does not require the bank to notify the OCC or receive OCC prior approval to redeem subordinated debt in accordance with the stated maturity in the instrument.
A Federal savings association's issuance of subordinated debt and mandatorily redeemable preferred stock (collectively referred to as “covered securities”) to be included in supplementary (tier 2) capital is governed by § 163.81, “Inclusion of subordinated debt securities and mandatorily redeemable preferred stock as supplementary capital.” This interim final rule amends § 163.81 to make it consistent with the Basel III Capital Framework and to make other non-substantive technical amendments. The Basel III Capital Framework's requirements for tier 2 capital are set forth at 12 CFR 3.20(d) and listed above in Section II.B.1. of the
To comply with the Basel III Capital Framework, this interim final rule makes structural changes to § 163.81 that mirror the structural changes to the national bank rules for subordinated debt in § 5.47 described in Section II.B.3.ii. of the
Because the Basel III Capital Framework requires prior OCC approval for prepayment of subordinated debt and imposes additional requirements when the prepayment is in the form of a call option, neither of which are included in the current § 163.81, this interim final rule adds new provisions requiring prior approval for prepayment of covered securities included in tier 2 capital. As described in more detail below, the interim final rule retains current procedures for the issuance of covered securities included in tier 2 capital and the distinction between expedited and standard processing, while new procedures are being added for prepayment of subordinated debt included in tier 2 capital and prepayment in the form of a call option.
For a non-advanced approaches savings association prior to January 1, 2015, the OCC retains the current rule with no substantive changes. The interim final rule revises paragraph (a) by renaming it “Applicability and scope” and adding a new paragraph (a)(1), “Applicability.” New paragraph (a)(1)(i) defines an advances approaches savings association as a Federal savings association that is subject to 12 CFR part 3, subpart E, and a non-advanced approaches savings association as a Federal savings association that is not subject to 12 CFR part 3, subpart E. New paragraph (a)(1)(ii) provides that an advanced approaches savings association must comply with new paragraphs (h) through (q) of this section beginning on March 31, 2014. New paragraph (a)(1)(iii) provides that a non-advanced approaches savings
To comply with the requirements of the Basel III Capital Framework, this interim final rule adds new paragraphs (h) through (q), which are applicable to an advanced approaches savings association beginning on March 31, 2014, and a non-advanced approaches savings association beginning on January 1, 2015. Under new paragraph (h), “Scope,” a new paragraph (h)(1) provides the relevant dates on which advanced approaches and non-advanced approaches savings associations must comply with paragraphs (h) through (q) and, in order to comply with the Basel III Capital Framework, adds that those paragraphs also apply to the prepayment of covered securities included in tier 2 capital. In addition, this interim final rule adds the identical sentence described in Section II.B.4.iii.a. of the Supplementary Information, at the end of paragraph (h)(2) clarifying that covered securities not included in tier 2 capital are subject to the requirements of § 163.80, “Borrowing limitations.” This interim final rule adds new paragraph (h)(3) that carries over the definition of mandatorily redeemable preferred stock from the current regulatory capital rules for savings associations.
To comply with the Basel III requirement that Federal savings associations must obtain prior OCC approval to prepay instruments included in tier 2 capital, this interim final rule adds new paragraph (i). Paragraph (i) provides that a savings association must obtain prior OCC approval to prepay covered securities included in tier 2 capital. Consistent with Basel III, paragraph (i) further provides that, for the purposes of this requirement, the term “prepayment” includes acceleration of a covered security, repurchase of a covered security, redemption of a covered security prior to maturity, and exercise of a call option in connection with a covered security.
New paragraph (j), “Application and notice procedures,” is divided into two parts: (1) An application or notice to include covered securities in tier 2 capital, and (2) an application to prepay covered securities included in tier 2 capital. The requirements for an application to prepay covered securities included in tier 2 capital contain general rules, and rules that apply if the prepayment is in the form of a call option. The requirements in paragraph (j)(1) for an application or notice to include covered securities in tier 2 capital remain the same as the requirements in the current rule. The final rule adds a new paragraph (j)(2), “Application to prepay covered securities included in tier 2 capital.” Because the Basel III Capital Framework requires OCC prior approval to prepay all instruments included in tier 2 capital, paragraph (j)(2)(i), “General,” provides that such a filing is subject to standard treatment under 12 CFR part 116, subpart E. Paragraph (j)(2)(ii)(A) implements the Basel III Capital Framework requirement that, prior to exercising a call option, or immediately thereafter, a Federal savings association must either: Replace any amount called with an equivalent amount of an instrument that meets the criteria for regulatory capital under 12 CFR 3.20, or demonstrate to the satisfaction of the OCC that following redemption, the savings association would continue to hold an amount of capital that is commensurate with its risk. The language in this provision mirrors the new language in the subordinated debt rule applicable to national banks. When the prepayment is in the form of a call option, paragraph (j)(2)(ii)(B) provides a special requirement that, if the OCC conditions its approval of repayment in the form of a call option on a requirement that a savings association must replace the covered security with a covered security of an equivalent amount that satisfies the requirements for a tier 1 or tier 2 instrument, the savings association must file an application to issue the replacement covered security and must receive prior OCC approval.
This interim final rule adds a new paragraph (k), “General requirements,” which provides that a covered security issued under this § 163.81 must satisfy the requirements for tier 2 capital in 12 CFR 3.20(d).
This interim final rule adds new paragraph (l), “Securities requirements for inclusion in tier 2 capital,” which addresses the form of a certificate evidencing a covered security and the disclosure of certain information. This interim final rule carries forward the disclosures required under the current rule, with an amendment to the requirement that a certificate must disclose that the savings association is required to obtain OCC approval before the acceleration of payment of principal on subordinated debt securities. In addition to acceleration, the Basel III Capital Framework requires prior OCC approval in the case of redemption prior to maturity, repurchase, or exercising a call option. Accordingly, this interim final rule adds those transactions to the disclosure. Also, since not all subordinated debt may include the ability to prepay in those circumstances, this interim final rule also adds the phrase, “where applicable” to clarify that the disclosure should include only those transactions that are provided for in the subordinated debt security.
New paragraph (l) carries over two provisions under the securities requirements of the current rule in paragraph (c)(2) and (3). The first requirement that is being removed is a requirement that covered securities must have an original weighted average maturity or original weighted average period to required redemption of at least five years. The OCC is removing this requirement because the Basel III Capital Framework already requires that an instrument included in tier 2 capital must have a minimum original maturity of at least five years. The second requirement we are removing addresses mandatory prepayment and provides the circumstances under which covered securities may provide for events of default or contain other provisions that could result in a mandatory prepayment of principal. This provision is being removed because it is inconsistent with the requirement in the Basel III Capital
This interim final rule carries over with no substantive changes the provisions that address review by the OCC, amendments, sale of covered securities, and reports as new paragraphs (m), (n), (o), and (q), respectively.
In order to comply with the Basel III Capital Framework, this interim final rule adds new paragraph (p), “Issuance of a replacement regulatory capital instrument in connection with exercising a call option.” Paragraph (p) provides that when a Federal savings association seeks prior approval to exercise a call option in connection with a covered security included in tier 2 capital, the OCC may require the savings association to issue a replacement covered security of an equivalent amount that qualifies as tier 1 or tier 2 capital under 12 CFR 3.20. If the OCC imposes such a requirement, paragraph (p) requires the savings association to complete the sale of the covered security prior to, or immediately after, the prepayment. As discussed in Section II.B.3.iv. of the Supplemental Information, consistent with the Basel III Capital Framework and amendments to the subordinated debt rule for national banks, the interim final rule adds a footnote clarifying that a savings association may replace tier 2 capital instruments concurrent with the redemption of existing tier 2 capital instruments.
The OCC's rules currently cross-reference the part 3 definitions of tier 1 and tier 2 regulatory capital as the basis for limits in other regulations that are based on capital. Examples of such limits are the lending limit and the limit applicable to investment securities. One consequence of this final rule, which revises cross-references to the definitions of tier 1 and tier 2 capital to pick up the definitions in the new Basel III Capital Framework, is that the new definitions of tier 1 and tier 2 capital will be applicable with respect to the calculation of these other regulatory limits for advanced approaches banks and advanced approaches savings associations on the effective date of this interin final rule and for non-advanced approaches banks and savings associations on January 1, 2015. In determining to revise the cross-references, the OCC looked at the potential effect of the changes in capital on numerical limits that are based on regulatory capital.
The OCC has reviewed the effect of cross-referencing the Basel III Capital Framework on other OCC limits based on the amount of a bank's or savings association's capital and surplus.
Even with respect to national banks and Federal savings associations that experience decreasing capital-linked limits because of the Basel III changes, the OCC does not expect this to be a problem for most institutions. First, based on our analysis, most banks and savings associations will experience little change in capital and surplus under the Basel III Capital Framework relative to current rules. Second, most banks and Federal savings associations typically hold capital in excess of regulatory minimums. The Basel III changes could cause capital amounts to decrease or increase for these institutions.
In addition, we note that, due to differing compliance dates in the Basel III Capital Framework, non-advanced approaches banks and savings associations will not experience any impact on the limits based on capital until January 1, 2015. Furthermore, the Basel III Capital Framework provides various transitions for the capital conservation and countercyclical capital buffers, regulatory capital adjustments and deductions, and non-qualifying capital instruments, which provides institutions an opportunity to adjust their capital and surplus levels to accommodate desired levels of any capital-linked activities. Nevertheless, we advise any banks or savings associations that have concerns about the potential negative impact of these conforming amendments, particularly advanced approaches banks during 2014, to discuss those concerns with their supervisors.
While the OCC does not anticipate that the definitional changes to capital in the Basel III Capital Framework will have a material impact on a significant number of national banks and Federal savings associations, the OCC is sensitive to potential concerns about the impact of these changes on limitations based on capital. To address these concerns, the OCC intends to closely monitor and assess the impact of the implementation of the Basel III Capital
In addition to the specifically enumerated questions in the preamble, the OCC requests comment on all aspects of this interim final rule. The OCC requests that, for the specifically enumerated questions, commenters include the number of the question in their response to make review of the comments more efficient.
Pursuant to sections 553(b) and (d) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA),
This interim final rule revises §§ 5.47 and 163.81 to be consistent with those rules and makes other necessary clarifying and technical amendments to various regulations that impose regulatory limits based on capital. Because the mandatory compliance date for the Basel III Capital Framework is January 1, 2014, for advanced approaches nationals banks and Federal savings associations, such institutions will be required to comply with the Basel III Capital Framework when they file their Call Report for the first quarter of 2014. It is necessary to publish this interim final rule in order to clarify for banks and savings associations which capital rules are applicable with respect to subordinated debt and the various limits based on capital. For these reasons, the OCC has determined that issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking would be impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. Accordingly, the OCC finds good cause to issue this interim final rule.
The Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 requires that the effective date of new regulations and amendments to regulations that impose additional reporting, disclosures, or other new requirements on insured depository institutions shall be the first day of a calendar quarter that begins on or after the date the regulations are published in final form.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1532, requires that an agency prepare a budgetary impact statement before promulgating any rule likely to result in a Federal mandate 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, as adjusted for inflation, in any one year. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act only applies when an agency issues a general notice of proposed rulemaking. Because the OCC is not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking, this final rule is not subject to section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501,
This interim final rule amends a number of regulatory provisions that have currently approved collections of information under the PRA.
One new collection of information is introduced by the interim final rule. In order to prepay subordinated debt in the form of a call option, in addition to the general information required to be submitted by a national bank under § 5.47(n)(1)(ii)(A) and by a Federal savings association under 12 CFR part 116, subpart A, a bank or savings association must submit either a statement explaining why it believes that, following the proposed prepayment, it would continue to hold an amount of capital commensurate with its risk, or a description of the replacement capital instrument that meets the criteria for tier 1 or tier 2 capital under § 3.20, including the amount of such instrument and the time frame for issuance.
The OCC requests comment on:
a. Whether the information collection is necessary for the proper performance of the OCC's functions, and how the instructions can be clarified so that information gathered has more practical utility;
b. The accuracy of the OCC's estimates of the burdens of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
c. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
d. Ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
e. Estimates of capital or startup costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Banks, banking, National banks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.
Administrative practice and procedure, Freedom of information, Individuals with disabilities, Minority businesses, Organization and functions (Government agencies), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Women.
Administrative practice and procedure, National banks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.
National banks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.
National banks.
Community development, Credit, Investments, Low and moderate income housing, National banks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rural areas, Small businesses.
Foreign banking, National banks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
National banks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Mortgages, National banks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Banking, Banks, Capital, Disclosures, National banks, Recordkeeping, Reporting, Risk, Stress test.
Administrative practice and procedure, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations.
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations.
Consumer protection, Credit, Electronic funds transfers, Investments, Manufactured homes, Mortgages, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations.
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations, Subsidiaries.
Consumer protection, Investments, Manufactured homes, Mortgages, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations, Securities.
Administrative practice and procedure, Savings associations.
Accounting, Administrative practice and procedure, Advertising, Conflict of interests, Crime, Currency, Investments, Mortgages, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations, Securities, Surety bonds.
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations, Securities.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency amends 12 CFR Chapter I as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1
The revision is set forth below.
(a) * * *
(1) A bank's tier 1 and tier 2 capital calculated under the OCC's risk-based capital standards set forth in 12 CFR part 3, as applicable (or comparable capital guidelines of the appropriate Federal banking agency), as reported in the bank's Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income (Call Report) filed under 12 U.S.C. 161 (or under 12 U.S.C. 1817 in the case of a state member bank); plus
12 U.S.C. 1, 12 U.S.C. 93a, 12 U.S.C. 5321, 12 U.S.C. 5412, and 12 U.S.C. 5414. Subpart A also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552. Subpart B also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552; E.O. 12600 (3 CFR 1987 Comp., p. 235). Subpart C also issued under 5 U.S.C. 301, 552; 12 U.S.C. 161, 481, 482, 484(a), 1442, 1462a, 1463, 1464, 1817(a)(2) and (3), 1818(u) and (v), 1820(d)(6), 1820(k), 1821(c), 1821(o), 1821(t), 1831m, 1831p–1, 1831o, 1867, 1951
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) * * *
(A) The foreign bank's most recently reported capital adequacy position consists of, or is equivalent to, common equity tier 1, tier 1 and total risk-based capital ratios that satisfy the definition of “well capitalized” set forth at 12 CFR 6.4, respectively, on a consolidated basis; or
12 U.S.C. 1
The revision is set forth below.
(d) * * *
(1) A bank's tier 1 and tier 2 capital calculated under the OCC's risk-based capital standards set forth in 12 CFR part 3, as applicable, as reported in the bank's Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income (Call Report) filed under 12 U.S.C. 161; plus
(a)
(2)
(ii) An advanced approaches bank, beginning on March 31, 2014, must comply with paragraphs (j) through (p) of this section.
(iii) A non-advanced approaches bank, prior to January 1, 2015, must comply with paragraphs (b) through (i) of this section. Beginning on January 1, 2015, a non-advanced approaches bank must comply with paragraphs (j) through (p) of this section.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(2)
(e)
(2) [Reserved]
(3) If the OCC notifies a national bank that it must obtain OCC approval before issuing subordinated debt, the subordinated debt will not qualify as tier 2 until the bank obtains OCC approval for its inclusion in capital.
(f)
(i) A description of the terms and amount of the proposed issuance or prepayment;
(ii) A statement of whether the bank is subject to a capital plan or required to file a capital plan with the OCC and, if so, how the proposed change conforms to the capital plan;
(iii) A copy of the proposed subordinated note format and note agreement; and
(iv) A statement of whether the subordinated debt issue complies with all laws, regulations, and the “OCC Guidelines for Subordinated Debt” (see Comptroller's Licensing Manual, Subordinated Debt booklet, Appendix A).
(2)
(ii)
(iii)
(g)
(1) The terms of the issuance;
(2) The amount and date of receipt of funds;
(3) A copy of the final subordinated note format and note agreement; and
(4) A statement that the issue complies with all laws, regulations, and the “OCC Guidelines for Subordinated Debt Instruments” (see Comptroller's Licensing Manual, Subordinated Debt booklet, Appendix A).
(h)
(i)
(j)
(k)
(l)
(i) Have a minimum original maturity of at least five years;
(ii) Not be a deposit and not insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation;
(iii) Be subordinated to the claims of depositors;
(iv) Be unsecured;
(v) Be ineligible as collateral for a loan by the issuing bank;
(vi) Provide that once any scheduled payments of principal begin, all scheduled payments shall be made at least annually and the amount repaid in each year shall be no less than in the prior year;
(vii) Where applicable, provide that no prepayment (including payment pursuant to an acceleration clause, redemption prior to maturity, repurchase, or exercising a call option) shall be made without prior OCC approval; and
(viii) Comply with the Securities Offering Disclosure Rules in 12 CFR part 16.
(2)
(m)
(
(
(
(B)
(ii)
(2)
(
(
(
(
(B)
(ii)
(A)
(B)
(n)
(1)
(i)
(A) A description of the terms and amount of the proposed issuance;
(B) A statement of whether the bank is subject to a capital plan or required to file a capital plan with the OCC and, if so, how the proposed change conforms to the capital plan;
(C) A copy of the proposed subordinated note format and note agreement; and
(D) A statement that the subordinated debt issue complies with all laws, regulations, and applicable OCC guidance for subordinated debt.
(ii)
(
(
(
(B)
(
(
(
(iii)
(2)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(o)
(2) The notice must include:
(i) The terms of the issuance;
(ii) The amount and date of receipt of funds;
(iii) A copy of the final subordinated note format and note agreement; and
(iv) A statement that the issuance complies with all laws, regulations, and applicable OCC guidance for subordinated debt.
(p)
12 U.S.C. 1
12 U.S.C. 1
(b) * * *
(1) A bank's tier 1 and tier 2 capital calculated under the OCC's risk-based capital standards set forth in 12 CFR part 3, as applicable, as reported in the bank's Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income (Call Report) filed under 12 U.S.C. 161; plus
12 U.S.C. 24(Eleventh), 93a, 481 and 1818.
(b) * * *
(1) A bank's tier 1 and tier 2 capital calculated under the OCC's risk-based capital standards set forth in 12 CFR part 3, as applicable, as reported in the bank's Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income (Call Report) as filed under 12 U.S.C. 161; plus
(2) The balance of a bank's allowance for loan and lease losses not included in the bank's tier 2 capital, for purposes of the calculation of risk-based capital described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, as reported in the bank's Call Report as filed under 12 U.S.C. 161.
12 U.S.C. 1
12 U.S.C. 1
12 U.S.C. 1
The cross-references in the first paragraph of this footnote were originally adopted in an interagency rulemaking and are out of date as a result of revisions to capital rules implementing the Basel III Capital Framework.
(a) * * *
(1) A bank's tier 1 and tier 2 capital calculated under the OCC's risk-based capital standards set forth in 12 CFR part 3, as applicable, as reported in the bank's Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income (Call Report) as filed under 12 U.S.C. 161; plus
(2) The balance of a bank's allowance for loan and lease losses not included in the bank's tier 2 capital, for purposes of the calculation of risk-based capital described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, as reported in the bank's Call Report.
12 U.S.C. 93a; 12 U.S.C. 1463(a)(2); 12 U.S.C. 5365(i)(2); 12 U.S.C. 5412(b)(2)(B).
5 U.S.C. 552, 559; 12 U.S.C. 1462a, 1463, 1464, 2901
12 U.S.C. 1462, 1462a, 1463, 1464, 1467a, 2901
12 U.S.C. 1462a, 1463, 1464, 1828, 5412(b)(2)(B).
12 U.S.C. 1462, 1462a, 1463, 1464, 1828, 5412(b)(2)(B).
12 U.S.C. 1462, 1462a, 1463, 1464, 1467a, 1701j–3, 1828, 3803, 3806, 5412(b)(2)(B); 42 U.S.C. 4106.
The cross-references in the first paragraph of this footnote were originally adopted in an interagency rulemaking and are out of date as a result of revisions to capital rules implementing the Basel III Capital Framework.
12 U.S.C. 1462, 1462a, 1463, 1464, 1467a, 5412(b)(2)(B).
12 U.S.C. 1462, 1462a, 1463, 1464, 1467a, 1817, 1820, 1828, 1831o, 3806, 5101
(a)
(ii) An advanced approaches savings association, beginning on March 31, 2014, must comply with paragraphs (h) through (q) of this section.
(iii) A non-advanced approaches savings association, prior to January 1, 2015, must comply with paragraphs (a) through (g) of this section. Beginning on January 1, 2015, a non-advanced approaches savings association must comply with paragraphs (h) through (q) of this section.
(2)
(b)
(2) A savings association must also comply with the securities offering rules at 12 CFR part 197 by filing an offering circular for a proposed issuance of covered securities, unless the offering qualifies for an exemption under that part.
(c)
(1)
(A) Bear the following legend on its face, in bold type: “This security is
(B) State that the security is subordinated on liquidation, as to principal, interest, and premium, to all claims against the savings association that have the same priority as savings accounts or a higher priority;
(C) State that the security is not secured by the savings association's assets or the assets of any affiliate of the savings association. An affiliate means any person or company which controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with the savings association;
(D) State that the security is not eligible collateral for a loan by the savings association;
(E) State the prohibition on the payment of dividends or interest at 12 U.S.C. 1828(b) and, in the case of subordinated debt securities, state the prohibition on the payment of principal and interest at 12 U.S.C. 1831o(h), 12 CFR 3.11, and any other relevant restrictions;
(F) For subordinated debt securities, state or refer to a document stating the terms under which the savings association may prepay the obligation; and
(G) State or refer to a document stating that the savings association must obtain OCC's approval before the voluntary prepayment of principal on subordinated debt securities, the acceleration of payment of principal on subordinated debt securities, or the voluntary redemption of mandatorily redeemable preferred stock (other than scheduled redemptions), if the savings association is undercapitalized, significantly undercapitalized, or critically undercapitalized as described in § 6.4 of this chapter, fails to meet the regulatory capital requirements at 12 CFR part 167, or would fail to meet any of these standards following the payment.
(ii) A Federal savings association must include such additional statements as the OCC may prescribe for certificates, purchase agreements, indentures, and other related documents.
(2)
(3)
(i) Arise from the Federal savings association's failure to make timely payment of interest or principal;
(ii) Arise from its failure to comply with reasonable financial, operating, and maintenance covenants of a type that are customarily included in indentures for publicly offered debt securities; or
(iii) Relate to bankruptcy, insolvency, receivership, or similar events.
(4)
(ii) A Federal savings association is not required to use an indenture if the subordinated debt securities are sold only to accredited investors, as that term is defined in 15 U.S.C. 77d(6). A savings association must have an indenture that meets the requirements of paragraph (c)(4)(i) of this section in place before any debt securities for which an exemption from the indenture requirement is claimed, are transferred to any non-accredited investor. If a savings association relies on this exemption from the indenture requirement, it must place a legend on the debt securities indicating that an indenture must be in place before the debt securities are transferred to any non-accredited investor.
(d)
(2) In reviewing notices and applications under this section, the OCC will consider whether:
(i) The issuance of the covered securities is authorized under applicable laws and regulations and is consistent with the savings association's charter and bylaws.
(ii) The savings association is at least adequately capitalized under § 6.4 of this chapter and meets the regulatory capital requirements at part 167 of this chapter.
(iii) The savings association is or will be able to service the covered securities.
(iv) The covered securities are consistent with the requirements of this section.
(v) The covered securities and related transactions sufficiently transfer risk from the Deposit Insurance Fund.
(vi) The OCC has no objection to the issuance based on the savings association's overall policies, condition, and operations.
(3) The OCC's approval or non-objection is conditioned upon no material changes to the information disclosed in the application or notice submitted to the OCC. The OCC may impose such additional requirements or conditions as it may deem necessary to protect purchasers, the savings association, the OCC, or the Deposit Insurance Fund.
(e)
(f)
(g)
(1) A written report indicating the number of purchasers, the total dollar amount of securities sold, the net proceeds received by the savings association from the issuance, and the amount of covered securities, net of all expenses, to be included as supplementary capital;
(2) Three copies of an executed form of the securities and a copy of any related documents governing the issuance or administration of the securities; and
(3) A certification by the appropriate executive officer indicating that the savings association complied with all applicable laws and regulations in connection with the offering, issuance, and sale of the securities.
(h)
(2) Beginning January 1, 2015, a non-advanced approaches savings association must comply with paragraphs (h) through (q) of this section in order to include covered securities in tier 2 capital under 12 CFR 3.20(d) and to prepay covered securities included in tier 2 capital. A Federal savings association that does not include covered securities in tier 2 capital is not required to comply with this section. Covered securities not included in tier 2 capital are subject to the requirements of § 163.80.
(3) For purposes of this section, mandatorily redeemable preferred stock means mandatorily redeemable preferred stock that was issued before July 23, 1985 or issued pursuant to regulations and memoranda of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board and approved in writing by the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation for inclusion as regulatory capital before or after issuance.
(i)
(j)
(ii) A savings association also must comply with the securities offering rules at 12 CFR part 197 by filing an offering circular for a proposed issuance of covered securities, unless the offering qualifies for an exemption under that part.
(2)
(ii)
(1) A statement explaining why the Federal savings association believes that following the proposed prepayment the
(2) A description of the replacement capital instrument that meets the criteria for tier 1 or tier 2 capital under 12 CFR 3.20, including the amount of such instrument, and the time frame for issuance.
(B) Notwithstanding paragraph (j)(1)(i) of this section, if the OCC conditions approval of prepayment in the form of a call option on a requirement that a Federal savings association must replace the covered security with a covered security of an equivalent amount that satisfies the requirements for a tier 1 or tier 2 instrument, the savings association must file an application to issue the replacement covered security and must receive prior OCC approval.
(k)
(l)
(1)
(A) Bear the following legend on its face, in bold type: “This security is
(B) State that the security is subordinated on liquidation, as to principal, interest, and premium, to all claims against the savings association that have the same priority as savings accounts or a higher priority;
(C) State that the security is not secured by the savings association's assets or the assets of any affiliate of the savings association. An affiliate means any person or company which controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with the savings association;
(D) State that the security is not eligible collateral for a loan by the savings association;
(E) State the prohibition on the payment of dividends or interest at 12 U.S.C. 1828(b) and, in the case of subordinated debt securities, state the prohibition on the payment of principal and interest at 12 U.S.C. 1831o(h), 12 CFR 3.11, and any other relevant restrictions;
(F) For subordinated debt securities, state or refer to a document stating the terms under which the savings association may prepay the obligation; and
(G) Where applicable, state or refer to a document stating that the savings association must obtain OCC's prior approval before the acceleration of payment of principal or interest on subordinated debt securities, redemption of subordinated debt securities prior to maturity, repurchase of subordinated debt securities, or exercising a call option in connection with a subordinated debt security.
(ii) A Federal savings association must include such additional statements as the OCC may prescribe for certificates, purchase agreements, indentures, and other related documents.
(2)
(ii) A Federal savings association is not required to use an indenture if the subordinated debt securities are sold only to accredited investors, as that term is defined in 15 U.S.C. 77d(6). A savings association must have an indenture that meets the requirements of paragraph (c)(4)(i) of this section in place before any debt securities for which an exemption from the indenture requirement is claimed, are transferred to any non-accredited investor. If a savings association relies on this exemption from the indenture requirement, it must place a legend on the debt securities indicating that an indenture must be in place before the debt securities are transferred to any non-accredited investor.
(m)
(2) In reviewing notices and applications under this section, the OCC will consider whether:
(i) The issuance of the covered securities is authorized under applicable laws and regulations and is consistent with the savings association's charter and bylaws;
(ii) The savings association is at least adequately capitalized under § 6.4 of this chapter and meets the regulatory capital requirements at 12 CFR 3.10;
(iii) The savings association is or will be able to service the covered securities;
(iv) The covered securities are consistent with the requirements of this section;
(v) The covered securities and related transactions sufficiently transfer risk from the Deposit Insurance Fund; and
(vi) The OCC has no objection to the issuance based on the savings association's overall policies, condition, and operations.
(3) The OCC's approval or non-objection is conditioned upon no material changes to the information disclosed in the application or notice submitted to the OCC. The OCC may impose such additional requirements or conditions as it may deem necessary to protect purchasers, the savings association, the OCC, or the Deposit Insurance Fund.
(n)
(o)
(p)
(q)
(1) A written report indicating the number of purchasers, the total dollar amount of securities sold, the net proceeds received by the savings association from the issuance, and the amount of covered securities, net of all expenses, to be included as tier 2 capital;
(2) Three copies of an executed form of the securities and a copy of any related documents governing the issuance or administration of the securities; and
(3) A certification by the appropriate executive officer indicating that the savings association complied with all applicable laws and regulations in connection with the offering, issuance, and sale of the securities.
12 U.S.C. 1462, 1462a, 1463, 1464, 1467a, 2901, 5412(b)(2)(B); 15 U.S.C. 78c, 78
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action establishes Class E airspace at Eagle Airport, Eagle, AK. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate aircraft using the new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures at the airport. This action enhances the safety and management of aircraft operations at the airport. This action also makes a minor correction to the airspace's vertical dimensions, and corrects the Docket Numbers in the Addresses section.
Effective date, 0901 UTC, May 29, 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.
Richard Roberts, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203–4517.
On October 31, 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 surface within a 2.5-mile radius of Eagle Airport, Eagle, AK, with a segment extending from the 2.5-mile radius to 8.5 miles west of the airport. Controlled airspace is needed to accommodate the new RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approaches and departures developed
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 Eagle Airport, Eagle, 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 2.5-mile radius of Eagle, Airport and within 2.5 miles each side of the 290° radial extending from the 2.5-mile radius to 8.5 miles west of the airport.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Direct final rule.
This direct final rule makes nonsubstantive changes to correct citations and titles throughout. The revisions to this rule are part of NASA's retrospective plan under EO 13563 completed in August 2011. NASA's full plan can be accessed on the Agency's open Government Web site at
This direct final rule is effective on April 29, 2014. Comments due on or before March 31, 2014. If adverse comments are received, NASA will publish a timely withdrawal of the rule in the
Comments must be identified with RINs 2700–AD95 and may be sent to NASA via the
Calvin Williams, 202–358–2322.
NASA has determined that this rulemaking meets the criteria for a direct final rule because it makes nonsubstantive changes to correct citations and titles. No opposition to the changes and no significant adverse comments are expected. However, if NASA receives significant adverse comments, it will withdraw this direct final rule by publishing a notice in the
Subpart 5 of part 1204, promulgated March 13, 1995 [30 FR 3378], establishes delegations and designations for NASA officials and other Government agencies acting on behalf of the Agency to carry out functions related to real estate and related matters, granting easements, leaseholds, permits, and licenses in real property, executing certificates of full faith and credit, and taking actions on liquidated damage. Sections 1204.501, 1204.503–1204.504, 1204.509 will be amended to correct citations and titles.
The National Aeronautics and Space Act (the Space Act), 51 U.S.C. 20113 (a), authorizes the Administrator of 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). EO 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 EO 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
EO 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 EO. Therefore, no Federalism assessment is required.
Authority delegation.
Accordingly, under the authority of the National Aeronautics and Space Act, as amended, U.S.C. 20113, NASA amends 14 CFR part 1204 as follows:
42 U.S.C. 2473(c)(5); 42 U.S.C. 2473b; Pub. L. 101–507, the VA/HUD/Indep. Agencies Appropriation Act for FY 1991, at 104 Stat. 1380 (Nov. 5, 1990); and 15 U.S.C. 631–650.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.
The Commander, First Coast Guard District, has issued a temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the Wantagh State Parkway Bridge across the Sloop Channel, mile 15.4, at Jones Beach, New York. The deviation is necessary to facilitate public safety during the annual Jones Beach Air Show over Memorial Day weekend. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed position for an hour and a half on Saturday and Sunday afternoon.
This deviation is effective from 2:30 p.m. on May 24, 2014 through 4 p.m. on May 25, 2014.
The docket for this deviation, [USCG–2013–1055] is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Ms. Judy Leung-Yee, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District,
The Wantagh State Parkway Bridge has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 16 feet at mean high water and 20 feet at mean low water. The existing drawbridge operation regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.5.
The waterway has seasonal recreational vessels and fishing vessels of various sizes. We contacted the New York Marine Trades Association and no objections were received.
The New York Department of Transportation requested a temporary deviation to facilitate public safety by allowing the anticipated large volume of vehicular traffic to safely evacuate the area following the annual Jones Beach Air Show on Saturday, May 24, 2014 and Sunday, May 25, 2014, over Memorial Day weekend.
Under this temporary deviation the Wantagh State Parkway Bridge at mile 15.4, across Sloop Channel, may remain in the closed position between 2:30 p.m. and 4 p.m. on Saturday, May 24, 2014 and Sunday, May 25, 2014.
Vessels that can pass under the bridge during the closed periods without a bridge opening may do so at all times. There are no alternate routes for vessel traffic.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the bridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the State Route 23 (SR 23) vertical lift span bridge, also known as the Judge Perez Bridge, across the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (Algiers Alternate Route), mile 3.8, at Belle Chasse, Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana. This deviation is necessary to provide
This deviation is effective from 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday, March 5, 2014 through 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday, April 30, 2014.
The docket for this deviation, [USCG–2014–0065] is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email David Frank, Bridge Administration Branch, Coast Guard; telephone 504–671–2128, email
A member of the Louisiana State Legislature requested a temporary deviation from the operating schedule on the SR 23 vertical lift span bridge, also known as the Judge Perez Bridge, across the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (Algiers Alternate Route), mile 3.8, at Belle Chasse, Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana. The deviation requested allows the bridge to remain closed to navigation for an additional one hour in the evening, Monday through Friday, for two months.
The Louisiana Legislature makes this request to support and assist in the safe movement of increased vehicular traffic across the bridge during the evening hours, resulting from a change in the work schedule and increased work force related to a major plant reconstruction at the Conoco/Phillips Refinery in Alliance. This temporary deviation will also help to minimize the effects of the additional traffic on local residents.
Presently, in accordance with 33 CFR 117.451(b), the draw shall open on signal; except that, from 6 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and from 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, the draw need not open for the passage of vessels.
This temporary deviation allows the vertical lift bridge to remain closed to navigation for one additional hour in the afternoon to extend the afternoon curfew hours from 3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday from Wednesday, March 5, 2014 through Wednesday, April 30, 2014. In case of an emergency, the bridge will be able to open for the passage of vessels.
The SR 23 vertical lift span drawbridge across the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (Algiers Alternate Route), mile 3.8, at Belle Chasse, Louisiana has a vertical clearance of 40 feet above mean high water in the closed-to-navigation position and 100 feet above mean high water in the open-to-navigation position. Navigation on the waterway consists primarily of tugs with tows, commercial fishing vessels, and occasional recreational craft. Mariners may use the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (Harvey Canal) to avoid unnecessary delays. The Coast Guard has coordinated this closure with the Gulf Intracoastal Canal Association (GICA). The GICA representative indicated that the vessel operators will be able to schedule transits through the bridge such that operations will not significantly be hindered. Thus, it has been determined that this closure will not have a significant effect on these vessels.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35, the draw bridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation.
This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.
The Commander, First Coast Guard District, has issued a temporary deviation from the regulations governing the operation of the Greenpoint Avenue Bridge, across Newtown Creek, mile 1.3, at New York City, New York. The deviation is necessary to facilitate bridge painting operations at the bridge. This temporary deviation authorizes the Greenpoint Avenue Bridge to remain in the closed position for up to six consecutive days followed by four consecutive days of full operation at various times during the effective period of this deviation.
This deviation is effective from May 1, 2014 through September 30, 2014.
The docket for this deviation, [USCG–2014–0024] is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Ms. Judy Leung-Yee, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District,
The Greenpoint Avenue Bridge, across Newtown Creek, mile 1.3, at New York City, New York, has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 26 feet at mean high water and 31 feet at mean low water. The existing drawbridge operation regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.801(g).
The waterway is transited by commercial and seasonal recreational vessels of various sizes.
The bridge owner, New York City Department of Transportation, requested approval to allow the Greenpoint Avenue Bridge to remain in the closed position for up to six consecutive days followed by four days of full operation to facilitate bridge sandblasting and painting operations. The bridge painting closures can only be implemented between May and September in order to minimize impacts to commercial barge
Under this temporary deviation the draw of the Greenpoint Avenue Bridge may remain in the closed position at various times during this deviation for up to six consecutive days followed by four days of full bridge operation.
Each six day closure will be announced two weeks in advance in the Local Notice to Mariners (LNTM) along with a Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNTM) to help facilitate marine transportation system planning.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the bridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a permanent regulated navigation area (RNA) in the waters off Southern Oahu, Hawaii, enforcement of which will take place only when a tsunami warning is issued for the Hawaiian Islands by the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center. Tsunami warnings require the evacuation of a large number of vessels from their respective harbors. Following the evacuation, these vessels must remain offshore until the emergency situation has passed and the harbors have been deemed safe for reentry. Past tsunami warnings have created potentially dangerous offshore traffic congestion between commercial and recreational vessel traffic. Because of this, designated vessel traffic staging areas are necessary for a safe and orderly evacuation of Southern Oahu ports.
This rule is effective March 31, 2014.
Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket USCG–2012–0080. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Lieutenant Commander Scott Whaley of the United States Coast Guard Sector Honolulu at 808–522–8264 ext. 3352 or
The Coast Guard collaborated with the Hawaii Ocean Safety Team, the Industry Advisory Board and other industry partners in the initial development of this rule. On May 14, 2013, the Coast Guard published an NPRM in the
The purpose of this rule is to provide vessels with an off-shore area to loiter in the event of a tsunami warning for Southern Oahu. In the event of a tsunami threat, both recreational vessels and commercial vessels may desire or be mandated to leave port to avoid potential damage to their vessel and the port. The creation of an off-shore area for vessels to loiter in an organized fashion is important to decrease confusion and unsafe conditions during the tsunami threat. This regulated navigation area is also crafted to decrease potentially dangerous off-shore traffic congestion between commercial and recreational vessel traffic by separating these classes of vessels.
The Coast Guard has met with industry partners, commercial mariners, and recreational boaters in the creation of this rule.
The statutory basis for this rulemaking is 33 U.S.C. 1231, which gives the Coast Guard, under a delegation from the Secretary of Homeland Security, regulatory authority to enforce the Ports and Waterways Safety Act. A regulated navigation area is a water area within a defined boundary for which regulations for vessels navigating within the area have been established to mitigate potentially hazardous conditions, such as vessel congestion, deemed to exist in that area. The purpose of this rulemaking is to provide greater safety for vessels and maritime commerce in the event of a tsunami threat.
The Coast Guard received a total of one comment on the SNPRM published on October 3, 2013, in the
The commenter suggested changes to the rule to more accurately reflect use of the 50-fathom curve as a point of reference. The coordinates of the RNA and staging areas have been modified to reflect a more accurate use of the 50-fathom line as the northern-most border for the RNA. Other non-substantive edits, intending only to simplify the language, were made to the final rule.
Honolulu Harbor has only one entrance for large commercial vessels and is the principle harbor of Hawaii's hub and spoke maritime commerce
Earthquakes off Chile and Japan in February 2010 and March 2011, respectively, resulted in tsunami threats to the Main Hawaiian Islands. These incidents emphasized the need to establish heightened safety measures, to ensure an orderly and organized evacuation plan, in order to protect the infrastructure of the southern coast of Oahu, Hawaii, including Honolulu Harbor.
In response to this risk, the Coast Guard is establishing a regulated navigation area designated as the Southern Oahu Tsunami Evacuation zone.
In the event of a tsunami warning, the Coast Guard Captain of the Port (COTP) for Honolulu will notify the public that an enforcement period is in effect for the duration of the emergency. At the conclusion of the threat, the COTP will notify the public when the RNA enforcement period is suspended or terminated. The COTP will use all available means to notify the public about the enforcement and suspension of the RNA. Methods of communication include, but are not limited to, radio broadcasts via VHF–HF, Marine Safety Information Broadcasts (MSIB's), telephone and email.
During the enforcement period, the COTP intends to deploy Coast Guard assets, if feasible, to ensure participating commercial and recreational vessels move to and stay within separate staging areas. Paragraph (b)(5) of § 165.1413 identifies an exclusionary area that will separate staging areas. This exclusionary area will measure 3.7 nautical miles long by one (1) nautical mile wide, centering lengthwise and along a line running seaward at 208 degrees southwest of the Honolulu Harbor Range light. When the RNA is being enforced, all vessels are required to remain outside the exclusionary area except for during transiting.
Three staging areas, outside of the exclusionary area, will be established. There will be one recreational vessel staging area to the west of the exclusionary area. This recreational staging area is intended for recreational vessels departing from and returning to the Keehi Lagoon area or other areas to the west of Honolulu Harbor. The staging area east of the exclusionary area is divided into two areas; a commercial staging area and a second recreational vessel staging area. This eastern recreational vessel staging area is intended for use by recreational vessels departing from and returning to the Ala Wai Small Boat harbor and Kewalo Basin. Recreational vessels can use either the east or west staging area. The mariner's decision for which staging area to use should be based on which staging area is the easiest to transit to so as to avoid crossing the path of other vessels. The commercial vessel staging area is intended for use by all commercial vessels departing from and returning to Kewalo Basin and Honolulu Harbor.
All vessels wishing to remain within this RNA while it is being enforced must stage in accordance with this rule. However, there is no requirement that any vessel, commercial or recreational, must remain in the RNA.
A graphic of the regulated navigation area is posted on the United States Coast Guard Sector Honolulu Homeport Web page (
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes or executive orders.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, because it would have an effect on the regulated public only in the rare circumstances of a tsunami threat, while at other times vessels will be able to transit the area freely. Therefore, it does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit and remain in the exclusionary zone during a tsunami threat, or owners or operators of vessels otherwise intending to operate in a fashion not compatible with this rule. This rule would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because the RNA would only be activated, and thus subject to enforcement, when a tsunami warning has been issued by the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1–888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the
A final rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule would not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023–01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph (34)(g) of Figure 2–1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are available in this docket.
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(1) No person or vessel may enter into an exclusionary area 3.7 nautical miles long by 1 nautical mile wide, centered lengthwise and along a line running seaward at 208 degrees southwest of Honolulu Harbor Front Range Light, except to transit to or from the staging areas or other areas outside the zone. Loitering or lingering in the exclusionary zone is prohibited.
(2) The Western Recreational Vessel Staging area is bound by the following points: 21°17′14″ N, 157°55′34″ W; 21°13′30″ N, 157°55′34″ W; 21°13′30″ N, 157°55′17″ W; 21°16′46″ N, 157°53′23″ W and then along the 50-fathom line to the beginning point. This staging area is intended for recreational vessels departing from and returning to the Keehi Lagoon area.
(3) The Commercial Vessel Staging Area is bound by a line connecting the following points: 21°16′48″ N, 157°52′10″ W; 21°13′30″ N, 157°54′05″ W; 21°13′30″ N, 157°51′36″ W; 21°15′55″ N, 157°50′58″ W and then along the 50-fathom line to the beginning point. This staging area is intended for use by all commercial vessels intended to remain in the RNA during a tsunami treat.
(4) The Eastern Recreational Vessel Staging Area is bound by the following points: 21°15′55″ N, 157°50′58″ W; 21°13′30″ N, 157°51′36″ W; 21°13′30″ N, 157°48′20″ W; 21°14′14″ N, 157°48′20″ W and then along the 50-fathom line to the beginning point. The Commercial Vessel Staging Area borders this staging area's western edge. The dividing line between the Commercial Vessel Staging Area and the Eastern Recreational Vessel Staging Area can be determined
(5) Located between the Western Recreational Vessel Staging Area and the Commercial Vessel Staging Area is an Exclusion Area. This area is bound by the following points: 21°16′46″ N, 157°53′23″ W; 21°13′30″ N, 157°55′17″ W; 21°13′30″ N, 157°54′05″ W; 21°16′48″ N, 157°52′10″ W and then along the 50-fathom line to the beginning point.
(6) All vessels staging in the RNA must be seaward of the 50-fathom (300 foot) line.
(c)
(d)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is partially approving and partially disapproving State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of Utah on September 20, 1999. The September 20, 1999 submittal revised the numbering and format of the Utah Administrative Code (UAC) rules within Utah's SIP. In this action, EPA is acting on those rules from the September 20, 1999 submittal that still require EPA action. Specifically, EPA is approving R307–110–16, “Section IX, Control Measures for Area and Point Sources, Part G, Fluoride,” and disapproving R307–110–29, “Section XXI, Diesel Inspection and Maintenance Program.” In conjunction with our disapproval of R307–110–29, we are also disapproving the Utah Diesel Inspection and Maintenance Program, which Utah submitted as a revision to the SIP on February 6, 1996, and which was incorporated by reference in R307–110–29 as part of the September 20, 1999 submittal. This action is being taken under section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
This final rule is effective March 31, 2014.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA–R08–OAR–2013–0474. All documents in the docket are listed in the
Jody Ostendorf, Air Program, Mailcode 8P–AR, Environmental Protection Agency Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202–1129, (303) 312–7814, or
For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain words or initials as follows:
(i) The words or initials
(ii) The words
(iii) The initials
(iv) The initials
(v) The initials
(vi) The words
(vii) The initials
Utah's September 20, 1999 submittal revised the numbering and format of the UAC rules within Utah's SIP. The purpose was to provide for a more consistent numbering system and a coherent structure allowing provisions to be located more easily within Utah's rules.
On February 14, 2006 (71 FR 7679), we approved many of the re-numbered rules from the September 20, 1999 submittal, but we deferred action on others or explained why no action on the rules was necessary.
On August 14, 2013, we proposed to act on those rules from the September 20, 1999 submittal that still required EPA action. See 78 FR 49400. Specifically, we proposed to approve R307–110–16, “Section IX, Control Measures for Area and Point Sources, Part G, Fluoride,” and we proposed to disapprove R307–110–29, “Section XXI, Diesel Inspection and Maintenance Program.” In conjunction with our proposed disapproval of R307–110–29, we also proposed to disapprove the Utah Diesel Inspection and Maintenance Program (Section XXI of the Utah SIP), which Utah submitted to EPA as a SIP revision on February 6, 1996 and which R307–110–29 of the September 20, 1999 submittal incorporated by reference.
Our August 14, 2013 notice of proposed rulemaking invited comment on our proposal and provided a 30-day comment period. The comment period ended on September 13, 2013. We received no comments. Accordingly, we are finalizing our actions as proposed.
In the docket for this final rule we have included a table that lists the rules from the September 20, 1999 submittal that are not addressed by today's action and explains why no action on such rules is required.
We are approving the renumbering of R307–110–16, “Section IX, Control Measures for Area and Point Sources, Part G, Fluoride.” This provision incorporates by reference Utah SIP Section IX, Part G, as amended by the Utah Air Quality Board on December 18, 1992, into the UAC.
In our October 13, 2005 proposed rule on Utah's September 20, 1999 submittal (70 FR 59681), we did not propose to act on the renumbering of R307–110–16. As our reason, we stated: “Utah repealed this rule from the federally approved SIP in their June 17, 1998 SIP submittal that EPA approved on May 20, 2002 (67 FR 35442).” (70 FR 59687) That statement was incorrect. The May 20, 2002 action did not remove R307–110–16 (under its previous numbering) or associated Utah SIP section IX, Part G from the SIP. Instead, that action removed R307–1–4.11, “Regulation for the Control of Fluorides from Existing Plants” from the SIP, in part based on the dismantling of the only facility to which the provision applied. In fact, on June 25, 2003 (68 FR 37744), we approved the renumbering of Utah SIP Section IX, Part G, and this section remains in the SIP. However, we have not acted on the corresponding renumbering of R307–110–16 in the September 20, 1999 submittal. As R307–110–16 merely incorporates by reference SIP Section IX, Part G, which itself is currently in the SIP, we are approving the renumbering of R307–110–16.
We are disapproving R307–110–29, “Section XXI, Diesel Inspection and Maintenance Program.” R307–110–29 incorporated by reference the Utah Diesel Inspection and Maintenance Program (Section XXI of the SIP), as adopted by the Utah Air Quality Board on July 12, 1995 (and submitted to EPA on February 6, 1996), which we have not acted on previously. In our October 13, 2005 notice of proposed rulemaking (70 FR 59681), we stated that we would not act to approve R307–110–29 because the rule incorporated by reference Utah's February 6, 1996 SIP submittal. We noted that we would address the February 6, 1996 SIP submittal at a later date (70 FR 59687). We restated our intentions in our final rule of February 14, 2006 (71 FR 7679) in which we noted that we would act on R307–110–29 when we acted on Utah's February 6, 1996 SIP submittal (71 FR 7681). With this final rule, we are disapproving the State's February 6, 1996 submittal of its Diesel Inspection and Maintenance Program (see section II.C. below). Therefore, EPA is also disapproving R307–110–29 because it incorporates by reference the State's Diesel Inspection and Maintenance Program that we are disapproving.
We are disapproving Utah's Diesel Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Program contained in Section XXI of the Utah SIP, which Utah submitted on February 6, 1996 (hereafter, the “I/M Program”). The Program requires the inspection of diesel-powered vehicles by means of an emissions opacity test. The opacity of vehicle emissions is measured, using what is known as a snap-idle opacity test, to determine the need for vehicle repair and maintenance. Utah adopted the Program with the goal of reducing particulate emissions from diesel vehicles in the PM
Our disapproval is based on several issues. First, relevant literature and studies indicate that there is not an accepted correlation between opacity and particulate matter mass emissions in diesel vehicles. Given this lack of correlation between opacity and PM mass emissions, it is unlikely that the snap-opacity test is a good predictor of PM emissions, and the State has not provided data to support a different conclusion. Second, the Governor's February 6, 1996 submittal of the Program did not specify a number of critical parameters, such as the relevant opacity limits or specifications for test equipment. While many of the missing parameters were included in revisions to Davis, Salt Lake, and Utah Counties' inspection and maintenance ordinances that the Utah Division of Air Quality forwarded to us on April 12, 2006, the State did not amend Section XXI of the SIP to include the revised ordinances, and the Governor did not submit such an amendment to us to replace the version submitted on February 6, 1996. Therefore, the Program as submitted is not enforceable as a practical matter. Finally, relevant literature and studies suggest that adjusting diesel vehicles to reduce the opacity of emissions may result in an increase in emissions of nitrogen oxides (NO
We are unable to conclude that approval of the I/M Program would strengthen the SIP or would be consistent with the requirements of CAA section 110(l). Section 110(1) states that a SIP revision cannot be federally-approved if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress towards attainment of a NAAQS or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. The potential increase in NO
For the foregoing reasons, we are disapproving Section XXI of the SIP,
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law that meets federal requirements and disapproves state law that does not meet federal requirements; this action 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).
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 April 29, 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 CAA section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, and Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
(c) * * *
(77) On February 6, 1996, Utah submitted as a revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP) a “Diesel Inspection and Maintenance Program,” Section XXI of the Utah SIP. EPA is disapproving the Utah Diesel Inspection and Maintenance Program as submitted on February 6, 1996. On September 20, 1999 the State of Utah submitted revisions to its SIP that revised the numbering and format of the Utah Administrative Code rules within Utah's SIP. From the September 20, 1999 submittal, EPA is approving R307–110–16, “Section IX, Control Measures for Area and Point Sources, Part G, Fluoride,” and disapproving R307–110–29, “Section XXI, Diesel Inspection and Maintenance Program,” which incorporated Utah's Diesel Inspection and Maintenance Program by reference into Utah's rules. EPA has previously acted on other provisions from the September 20, 1999 submittal.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Title R307 of the Utah Administrative Code,
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) adopts an experiment to test how tailored economic incentives can advance the deployment of next generation networks, both wireline and wireless, in rural, high-cost areas of the country, including Tribal lands. In this experiment, Connect America funding will be available to entities to deploy high-speed, scalable, IP-based networks.
Effective March 31, 2014, except for § 54.313(e)(1) through (3) which contain new or modified information collection requirements that will not be effective until approved by the Office of Management and Budget. The Federal Communications Commission will publish a document in the
Alexander Minard, Wireline Competition Bureau, (202) 418–0428 or TTY: (202) 418–0484.
This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order in WC Docket No. 10–90; FCC 14–5, adopted on January 30, 2014 and released on January 31, 2014. The full text of this document is available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY–A257, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. Or at the following Internet address:
1. The Commission's Orders, Report and Orders, Further Notices of Proposed Rulemaking, and Proposal for Ongoing Data Initiative (Order) kickstarts the process for a diverse set of experiments and data collection initiatives that will allow the Commission and the public to evaluate how customers are affected by the historic technology transitions that are transforming our nation's voice communications services—from a network based on time-division multiplexed (TDM) circuit-switched voice services running on copper loops to an all-Internet Protocol (IP) network using copper, co-axial cable, wireless, and fiber as physical infrastructure. Americans have come to expect secure, reliable, and innovative communications services. The purpose of these experiments is to speed market-driven technological transitions and innovations by preserving the core statutory values as codified by Congress—public safety, ubiquitous and affordable access, competition, and consumer protection—that exist today. The experiments and initiatives will collect data that will permit service providers and their customers, and independent analysts and commentators—as well as the federal, State, local, and Tribal officials charged with oversight—to make data-driven decisions about these technology transitions. By using an open and deliberative process to identify and address challenges, all stakeholders will benefit as we together learn how we may ensure that our values flourish as providers implement new technologies at scale and, ultimately, seek to discontinue legacy services and facilities.
2. The Commission adopts a targeted experiment in it which will solicit proposals to bring advanced services to rural Americans, including residents of Tribal lands, with support from the Connect America Fund, which will allow the Commission to examine different approaches to ensuring universal access to these advanced services in an all-IP world.
3. These targeted experiments will be guided by basic principles. They are not intended to resolve legal or policy questions arising from the transition. Rather, they are intended to help the Commission gather a factual record of information to inform such decisions. As the Commission pursues these initiatives, the Commission will work collaboratively with other governmental and non-governmental entities to leverage expertise and experience where appropriate. These processes will be transparent, open, and responsive. They will allow for broad public input from all interested parties and yield data and information that will be publicly available, subject to appropriate privacy protections.
4. These efforts are not exhaustive. The Commission welcomes ideas from other interested parties on ways the Commission can engage in targeted experiments and cooperative research to learn about and anticipate the impacts of transitioning technologies.
5. Preserving universal access to communications during these historic technology transitions is one of the Commission's core values. In the last several years, the Commission has undertaken major reforms to each of its universal service programs to modernize those programs in light of marketplace changes and technological advancements.
6. The Commission recognizes that such reforms, along with ongoing efforts of existing providers in rural, high-cost areas, have already resulted in the deployment of new technologies and IP-based networks in some areas, and the Commission expects technology transitions will continue to occur organically. At the same time, consistent with the statutory principles set forth in section 254 of the Act, it is critical that the Commission takes steps to ensure that all Americans benefit from the technology transitions, and that the Commission gain data on the impact of technology transitions in rural areas, including Tribal lands, where residential consumers, small businesses and anchor institutions, including schools, libraries and health care providers, may not have access to advanced broadband services. As networks transition, the Commission needs to make sure that rural Americans are not left behind.
7. The Commission recognizes that rural America poses particular challenges for the deployment of next generation communications services. By definition, rural areas are geographically dispersed, with lower population density. Often they are in areas with geological and topographical challenges; in addition, some rural areas experience particularly extreme seasonal and meteorological conditions. For various reasons, rural areas have lower broadband adoption rates than urban areas. For instance, rural areas have a higher percentage of elderly residents, who tend to have lower broadband adoption. Since the 1960's, when poverty rates were first officially recorded, rural areas have been home to a disproportionate number of low-income Americans. In 2012, 17.7 percent of the population, or about 8.5 million people, living in nonmetropolitan (nonmetro) areas were poor as compared to a poverty rate of 14.5 percent in metro areas. And this gap between nonmetro and metro poverty rates has widened in recent years, from 2.4 percentage points in 2011 to 3.2 percentage points in 2012. All of these factors, taken together, can make the economics of building out broadband-capable infrastructure in rural areas more challenging.
8. In addition, the circumstances described above are frequently exacerbated on Tribal lands. Tribal Nations face unique problems in acquiring communications services, with substantial barriers to deployment prevalent throughout Tribal lands. The resulting digital divide that persists between Tribal Nations and the rest of the country is well-documented.
9. The Commission understands that some providers have proposed wireless products as the only service offering for some rural areas following the retirement of legacy PSTN services and facilities. The Commission notes that
10. The Commission welcomes ideas about how to structure experiments that will inform its policy decisions regarding the deployment of next generation networks in rural, high-cost areas. To this end, we plan to hold a workshop on rural broadband experiments in March 2014. The Commission welcomes innovative ideas that would coordinate actions across its various support programs, consistent with the statutory framework set forth in section 254. The Commission looks forward to an ongoing dialogue with a diverse group of interested stakeholders.
11. The Commission adopted one possible experiment to test how tailored economic incentives can advance the deployment of next generation networks, both wireline and wireless, in rural, high-cost areas of the country, including Tribal lands. In this experiment, Connect America funding will be available to entities to deploy high-speed, scalable, IP-based networks. The Connect America Fund is a key element of the Commission's universal service reforms to ensure that rural consumers, businesses, and anchor institutions have access to next generation networks. Consistent with the Commission's goals of bringing robust, scalable broadband networks to rural, high-cost communities across America, and gaining experience and data on how to ensure universal access as networks transition, this experiment is designed to help inform our policy decisions in various proceedings pending before the Commission. For example, it is important to understand what providers would be willing to offer what type of service in price cap areas in the event that a current incumbent Eligible Telecommunications Carrier (ETC) chooses not to participate in Connect America Phase II.
12. Below, the Commission invites expressions of interest for such experiments in areas served by price cap carriers and areas served by rate-of-return carriers. The Commission's focus is on proposals to build robust last-mile broadband to offer service to a wide range of end users in rural communities, rather than proposals for middle mile projects. The Commission also is focused on conducting these experiments in rural areas lacking Internet access service that delivers 3 Mbps downstream/768 kbps upstream. For both types of territories, funding could be made available in 2014 for discrete technology transition experiments within the existing Connect America budget. In the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) that accompanies this R&O, the Commission seeks comment on making available unallocated Connect America funding to support these structured technology transition experiments across a diverse cross section of rural America. The Commission could make a limited amount of funding available for such experiments without increasing the overall size of the Connect America Fund, and without increasing the contribution burden on consumers.
13. Useful information that could be developed through such experiments will help address four sets of interrelated questions. First, from these experiments, the Commission seeks to test the assumption among certain providers that the geographic and demographic characteristics of certain rural areas, including Tribal lands, economically preclude the deployment of high-capacity fiber-based services that deliver higher speeds to those communities, absent some level of governmental support. The Commission seeks to address the extent of interest among non-incumbent service providers to deploy high-speed, scalable, IP-based networks to serve consumers, businesses, and community-based institutions such as schools, libraries and healthcare providers in rural areas where broadband is lacking, potentially with assistance from the Connect America Fund, and to learn what specific measures to streamline the ETC designation process will encourage such entry by non-incumbent providers. Likewise, the Commission seeks to learn whether providers are willing and able to deliver services with performance characteristics well in excess of the minimum standards that price cap carriers accepting model-based support are required to offer to all locations in funded areas, for the same amount or less support than that calculated by the forward-looking cost model. The Commission hopes these experiments will generate “best practices” that will allow others to replicate experimental successes in other rural areas. The Commission will explore how they can maximize the deployment of robust, future-proof networks most efficiently within our finite $4.5 billion Connect America budget.
14. Second, based on the proposals submitted, the Commission seeks to develop a greater understanding of the geographic and demographic characteristics of areas where service providers (both incumbents and non-incumbents) would choose to offer wireless services at pricing reasonably comparable to urban wireline offerings. The Commission seeks to identify the likely features of such wireless services and the characteristics of wireless services that residential consumers would find to be an acceptable substitute for fiber-based broadband service.
15. Third, the Commission seeks to develop a greater understanding through these targeted experiments of how these transitions will impact anchor institutions and the people they serve. The Commission is interested in learning more about the types of services that will be offered to schools, libraries, health care providers, and other anchor institutions that are served by next generation networks financed in part with Connect America support, and at what price. The Commission seeks to explore how the transitions will best ensure the provision of high quality broadband connectivity appropriate to the needs of rural health care providers and enable remote health monitoring at home, which is critical to consumers in rural areas who otherwise would have to travel great distances to have access to health care. The Commission seeks to examine whether and how the business case for deployment in rural areas, including Tribal lands, can be improved by securing the participation of anchor institutions to serve as key customers of the next generation networks. Through these experiments, the Commission hopes to identify strategies to ensure that community-based institutions in rural areas, such as schools, libraries and health care providers, have access to next generation services.
16. Finally, the Commission seeks to work cooperatively with other governmental agencies to advance our shared objectives of ensuring that consumers, businesses and anchor institutions have access to next generation services. Under section 254, universal service is a joint federal and
17. The Commission's intention here is not to delay any decisions regarding implementation of any universal service reforms, but rather to leverage whatever knowledge can be developed quickly through such experiments to inform our judgment on an ongoing basis as the Commission addresses critically important policy issues in several of our pending universal service rulemaking dockets. Implementation of Phase II of the Connect America Fund will not be delayed by these experiments. Work on the forward-looking cost model that will be used to determine Phase II support amounts to be offered to price cap carriers is nearing completion, and the Commission expects the Wireline Competition Bureau will be in a position to implement the Phase II challenge process and finalize the list of eligible census blocks in the months ahead. The Commission expects to implement the offer of model-based support to price cap carriers before the end of 2014. The Commission also is committed to resolving by the end of 2014 how the Connect America Fund will address the challenges of providing service to the most remote, difficult to serve areas of the country.
18. One critical step to advancing technology transitions in rural America, including on Tribal lands, is to implement Phase II of the Connect America Fund. In the
19. The Commission reaffirms its commitment to using competitive bidding to award support to the extent the price cap carriers decline to accept the offer of model-based support. That bi-partisan decision was the culmination of efforts over a decade to reform universal service, and the Commission remains firmly committed to completing implementation of the universal service reform framework previously adopted by the Commission.
20. One of the key questions remaining in the Connect America proceeding, however, is the specific form of the competitive bidding mechanism that will occur to the extent price cap carriers decline to elect model-based support: A reverse auction or some other form of competitive bidding. The Commission does not resolve that question in the
21. The Commission concluded that it would be desirable to test, on a limited scale, the use of an application-based competitive bidding process with objective selection criteria on a limited scale before finalizing decisions regarding the competitive bidding mechanism for full-scale implementation in WC Docket No. 10–90 to award support in price cap territories where the incumbent declines the offer of model-based support. The Commission fully recognizes that conducting nationwide competitive bidding—whatever form it ultimately takes—to award recurring support to preserve voice service and expand broadband service is a significant undertaking that has never been implemented in this country. The Commission takes seriously its fundamental obligation to preserve and advance universal service. Even though the Commission has solicited multiple rounds of comment on issues relating to competitive bidding mechanisms, there is no substitute for real world experience to inform our policy decisions. Service to potentially millions of consumers, businesses and anchor institutions may be impacted by the particular design of the competitive bidding process. For that reason, the Commission wishes to gain experience and data by experimenting with an application-based competitive bidding process with defined selection criteria that could inform our judgment regarding how to structure the Phase II competitive bidding mechanism. The Commission therefore adopted a Phase II experiment and describes below the application process for this experiment.
22. The Commission concluded that soliciting and reviewing applications in the near term as a part of this Phase II experiment will assist it in making critical decisions in a future order regarding the objective evaluative criteria that should be applied more broadly in the competitive bidding process for Connect America Phase II, such as whether funding should be awarded solely based on cost per location, or whether the Commission should give additional weight or bidding credits in defined circumstances. The Commission agreed with commenters that a competitive bidding process will be most successful if it is focused on clear goals, is transparent, and is based on objective, relatively straightforward, well-defined, and measurable criteria. In short, the Commission expects this experiment will help it design a more effective nationwide competitive bidding mechanism, whether that ultimately takes the form of a reverse auction or some other form of competitive bidding with a limited number of objective, defined selection criteria. This experiment also will provide an opportunity to consider how better to ensure that all of universal service programs are working together effectively to ensure that residential consumers, small businesses, and anchor institutions have access to evolving services delivered over scalable networks.
23. To assist entities willing to conduct experiments to deploy high-speed, scalable, IP-based networks, using either wireline or wireless technologies, or a combination of technologies, in rural, high-cost areas (including on Tribal lands) with Connect America funding, the Commission describes in further detail elements of proposals that would assist the Commission in learning from these experiments. The technology transitions proposals that invited in the R&O are not limited to proposals from incumbent providers. The Commission encourages proposals from a wide range of entities and consortia of entities, including State and regional authorities, research and education networks, municipalities, Tribal governments, cable operators, competitive local exchange carriers, incumbent local exchange carriers, fixed and mobile wireless providers, wireless Internet service providers, utilities, and others.
24. The Commission's invitation for Phase II experiment proposals will be conducted in two stages: A non-binding expression of interest stage and a formal proposal stage. The Commission requests expressions of interest to be
• The nature of the submitting entity or entities (e.g., incumbent LEC, municipality, utility, cable operator, wireless provider)
• Identification of the proposed service area for the experiment, including census block number, with any relevant information regarding the number of locations that could be served, including schools, libraries, and other anchor institutions
• The broadband technology or technologies to be deployed
• Contemplated service offerings (e.g., description of voice service, broadband speed tiers, nature of video service, if any) and pricing of such offerings
• If known, expected State and/or local or Tribal governmental participation in and/or support for the project (e.g., expedited permitting, access to rights of way, matching funds, etc.)
• Whether the proposal is expected to require one-time or continuing funding and a high-level estimate of the amount of funding requested
25. The formal proposal stage will follow the expression of interest stage. Submitting an expression of interest is not a precondition for submitting a formal proposal in the second stage.
26. The
27. The Commission is particularly interested in projects that achieve the goals of the
28. The Commission plans to adopt a budget for these rural broadband experiments and will announce the selection criteria prior to the solicitation of formal proposals. In the
29. In the
30. The Commission concluded that proposals in this rural broadband experiment in price cap territories will be entertained at the census tract level. Making a county the minimum geographic area for an experimental proposal potentially could deter participation in this experiment from smaller providers. The Commission therefore concludes that the minimum geographic area to be made available in the Phase II experiment is the census tract, with funding provided only for locations in eligible census blocks within that census tract. The Commission concludes any census blocks lacking broadband where the average cost per location is equal to or exceeds the likely funding threshold in the forward-looking cost model should be eligible for the rural broadband experiment. The Commission thus does not exclude from eligibility those census blocks where the average cost, as calculated by the model, exceeds the likely extremely high cost threshold. In other words, potential applicants should be free to seek funding to serve census tracts that contain census blocks where the average cost per location, as determined by the forward-looking cost model, exceeds the extremely high-cost threshold. The Commission makes this decision recognizing that the actual cost for a particular provider to serve the area may vary from the cost estimated by the cost model. To the extent parties can economically serve areas that fall above the extremely high-cost threshold with terrestrial voice and broadband with the assistance of support, the Commission does not want to preclude those areas from being eligible in the Phase II experiment. The Commission hopes that this experiment will provide the Commission with useful data that could inform future decisions regarding the treatment of hard-to-serve remote areas of the country.
31. As noted above, one of the Commission's objectives in conducting this experiment is to determine how the Commission can use targeted funding most efficiently to expand the availability of voice and broadband-capable infrastructure within the defined $4.5 billion budget for the Connect America Fund. For purposes of the experiment, the Commission expects that the amount of funding to be made available for any applicant will not exceed the amount of model-calculated support associated with the relevant geographic area, either a census tract or aggregation of census tracts. This will enable us to test in the experiment the use of the cost model for purposes of
32. The Commission is focused on using this experiment to deploy robust, scalable networks in rural areas lacking Internet access that delivers 3 Mbps downstream/768 kbps upstream. In the
33. The Commission recognizes that there may be situations where the extent of competitive overlap for broadband services in a proposed project is de minimis. If a particular applicant proposes to serve an area where a current recipient of high cost support already provides broadband, the Commission would need to understand specifically why a deviation from its general policy of not supporting two or more providers in an area is justified and in the public interest. Likewise, to the extent an applicant proposes to include in its project locations that are served by an unsubsidized competitor, the Commission would be interested in why deviation from its policy is justified and in the public interest. The Commission seeks comment in the FNPRM on how to define a de minimis overlap and what measures the Commission should implement in the experiment to ensure that funds in the experiment are focused on unserved areas.
34. In the
35. The Commission seeks to encourage the participation in this experiment from as many different entities as possible. The Commission emphasizes that they welcome applications from a wide range of entities, including cable operators, incumbent price cap carriers, competitive local exchange carriers, affiliates of neighboring incumbent providers, utilities, fixed and mobile wireless providers, wireless Internet service providers, State and regional authorities, research and education networks, municipalities, Tribal governments, and others.
36.
37. The Commission concludes that potential applicants in this rural broadband experiment need not be ETCs at the time they initially
38. The Commission recognizes that the Commission declined to take that approach for the Mobility Fund Phase I and Tribal Mobility Fund Phase I, instead requiring entities to have obtained an ETC designation prior to filing the short form application, with an exception for Tribally-owned or controlled entities if they had an ETC application pending. Those requirements were adopted in part to ensure that applicants filing to participate in the auction were serious bidders. Based on our experience with the Mobility Fund Phase I and our review of the record, the Commission now concludes that it would be appropriate to allow Connect America Phase II experiment applicants to obtain ETC designation after a preliminary determination has been made to award funding, rather than before filing an application with the Commission. The Commission assumes that applicants that submit formal proposals would seek to demonstrate their financial and technical capabilities throughout their application and will submit well-developed proposals that could be implemented quickly if selected. Based on the Commission's experience with the experiment, it can revisit this decision if necessary before implementing a competitive bidding process for Connect America Phase II more generally.
39. In the Mobility Fund Phase I, the Commission expressly permitted potential bidders to obtain conditional ETC designation prior to filing the short-form application. Given the Commission's decision to permit entities to seek ETC designation after notification of tentative selection for funding award, the Commission does not anticipate many parties would seek conditional ETC designation prior to applying for funding through this experiment. To the extent a party chooses to do so, however, and a State or this Commission issues a conditional ETC designation prior to selection for funding, the Commission expects that the ETC designation in such situations will be finalized quickly as a pro forma
40. The Commission also addresses the role of ETC designation in situations where there is a multi-stakeholder group working together to bring broadband-capable infrastructure to unserved communities. The Commission welcomes participation in the Connect America Phase II experiment from a wide variety of entities, including partnerships or consortia of entities that may include service providers, vendors, governmental agencies, and others. Indeed, in other contexts, the Commission has recognized the value of consortia bulk purchasing in driving down service rates, increasing bandwidth, and reducing administrative overhead.
41. For the Connect America Phase II experiment, the Commission concludes that the requirement to be an ETC is met if one entity that is part of the group, partnership or consortia obtains ETC designation from the relevant State or this Commission. Thus, for instance, the entity that is designated as the ETC could be a competitive local exchange carrier that offers the telecommunications services eligible for support pursuant to section 254(c)(1) of the Act in partnership with another entity that constructs and operates the broadband-capable network. Comparable to the requirements adopted by the Commission for consortia leaders in the Healthcare Connect Fund, the Commission requires that the ETC be legally and financially responsible for providing the section 254(c)(1) supported telecommunications service; serve as the point of contact for the Commission, USAC, the relevant State, and Tribal governments, as appropriate; be responsible for submitting required forms and certifications to the Commission, USAC, the relevant State, and Tribal governments, as appropriate; receive funding disbursements; and be responsible for recordkeeping and coordinating any audits for members of the group.
42. In the
43. The Commission solicits proposals in this Phase II experiment from entities seeking either one-time support or recurring support. The Commission previously offered two rounds of Phase I incremental support to price cap carriers to extend broadband-capable infrastructure in unserved areas. The Commission now wishes to explore the possibility of providing one-time support on a competitive basis to extend broadband-capable networks in areas where providers expect to cover their ongoing operating costs with end user and other sources of revenue. The experiment will help the Commission determine the extent to which parties may be willing to build out broadband in certain areas with one-time rather than recurring support.
44. The Commission concludes that support provided through the Phase II experiment may be provided for up to ten years, subject to existing requirements and the availability of funds. The Commission is persuaded that it is appropriate to provide support for up to ten years to those providers that commit to deploy high-speed, scalable, IP-based networks that will provide residential consumers, small businesses and anchor institutions with an evolving level of service. The Commission acknowledges the possibility that over time marketplaces may change, and it is possible that some funded areas may see new competitors at some point in the future. At the same time, the Commission also recognizes that some entities may be unwilling to make the necessary long-term investments to build robust future-proof networks in areas that are uneconomic to serve absent continued support beyond a five-year term.
45. The Commission is not persuaded by those who argue that the term of support should be the same for all recipients of Connect America support, regardless of whether they receive support based on the forward-looking cost model or through competitive bidding. There is no inherent reason that the terms of the competitive offer need to be identical to the offer of model-based support. Indeed, having different terms of support in different areas may provide us with valuable information regarding the impact of different rules that will help inform future policy decisions regarding universal service reforms. In particular, in those areas where price cap carriers elect model-based support for a term of five years, the Commission will need to decide whether and if so how recurring support should be provided after the end of the five-year period. By allowing parties submitting proposals for the rural broadband experiment to indicate the length of time (up to ten years) for which they seek, the Commission hopes to gain real world experience that will enable the Commission to evaluate whether providers are more willing to deploy future-proof infrastructure when assured of a funding stream over a ten-year period as opposed to a five-year period. As is true for all high-cost recipients, ETCs that receive Phase II support for ten years will be subject to annual reporting, including updates on their progress towards meeting their planned targets, as well as audits, allowing the Commission to monitor the projects during the term. Balancing these considerations, the Commission concludes that providing a longer term of support in the experiment could provide the Commission with valuable information regarding how to elicit greater participation in the Connect America Phase II competitive bidding process in price cap territories, which will help ensure that funding is targeted efficiently to expand broadband-capable infrastructure throughout the country.
46. The Commission remains committed to the principle of not providing duplicative funding in a given geographic area. In the
47. The availability of Connect America funding for technology transition experiments is subject to the applicable requirements of sections 214 and 254 of the Act and will be conditioned on complying with all relevant universal service rules that the Commission has adopted or may adopt in the future in the relevant rulemaking proceedings, including but not limited to ETC requirements to the extent that they apply to recipients of high-cost and Lifeline support, reporting requirements, audits, and enforcement mechanisms for non-compliance with rules. In the
48. To the extent applicants believe compliance with a specific requirement is not necessary in the context of an experiment, they should identify with specificity those rules that should be waived or modified. Funding also may be conditioned on compliance with any additional commitments made by the applicant in conjunction with its application to participate in the Phase II experiment.
49. The Commission welcomes experiments regarding technology transitions in areas served by incumbent rate-of-return carriers as well as price cap carriers, as such experiments would provide us with valuable information from a variety of geographic areas. As a complement to experiments in price cap territories, the Commission therefore invites proposals on a competitive basis in geographic areas where the incumbent provider is a rate-of-return carrier. The Commission intends to implement rural broadband experiments in areas served by rate-of-return carriers before the end of 2014, which will provide a potential pathway to longer term reforms regarding support for broadband-capable infrastructure in such areas.
50. The Commission recognizes that historically the Commission has implemented different universal service mechanisms for the larger price cap carriers than for the smaller companies, which are typically rate-of-return regulated carriers. In the
51. At the same time, the Commission also concluded that “all universal service high-cost support should ultimately be distributed through [Connect America Fund] for all recipients.” A number of parties have specifically urged the Commission to adopt a Connect America Fund to support the expansion of broadband in areas served by rate-of-return carriers. The Commission wishes to explore the possibility of making funding available in such areas in a way that would assist the Commission in deciding how to provide targeted and efficient support over the longer term. Such a mechanism could functionally replace a high-cost mechanism that the Commission decided to eliminate and phase out in the
52. In implementing any experiments in areas served by rate-of-return carriers, the Commission recognizes the statute expressly contemplates a different process for ETC designation in areas served by rate-of-return carriers than it does in areas served by incumbent price cap carriers. Section 214(e)(2) specifies that before designating an additional eligible telecommunications carrier for an area served by a rural telephone company, the State commission shall find that the designation is in the public interest. The relevant State and the Commission must agree on any service area redefinition that would create a service territory for a new ETC that is different than the incumbent's service area. In implementing Phase I of the Mobility Fund, the Commission adopted a limited forbearance from requiring that the service area of an ETC conform to the service area of any rural telephone company serving the same area, but only with respect to conditional ETC designations for participating in the Mobility Fund Phase I auction. The Commission concluded that forbearance in that situation advanced “the Act's and the Commission's goals of promoting access to mobile service over current and next generation wireless networks in areas currently without such service by reducing barriers to participation in Phase I of the Mobility Fund.”
53. The Commission is interested in assessing the level of interest among rate-of-return carriers in participating in a rural broadband experiment, but also are interested in expressions of interest from others as well. As with the Phase II experiment, interested parties may file a letter in WC Docket No. 10–90 no later than March 7, 2014, expressing their interest in conducting a rural broadband experiment in rate-of-return territories with Connect America funding. The Commission also will consider additional expressions of interest on a rolling basis after that date. All expressions of interest must be filed electronically. Consistent with the approach adopted for experiments in price cap territories, experimental funding would only be provided to entities in rate-of-return areas that are ETCs, and therefore to the extent a non-ETC is tentatively selected for the award of funding, it would then need to obtain ETC designation. As an ETC, it would be required to provide the supported service—voice telephony—at rates reasonably comparable to rates for similar services in urban areas.
54. The Commission emphasizes that participation in this experiment will not alter existing universal service obligations and receipt of support by current rate-of-return ETCs, regardless of whether a competitive ETC receives experimental support in the same service area. Any Connect America funding awarded in such a rural broadband experiment would be additive to current support for ETCs.
55. The Commission seeks comment in the
56. The Commission now amends the Code of Federal Regulations to eliminate current section 54.309 (which described the non-rural support mechanism that the Commission eliminated in the
57. The Report and Order contains modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104–13. It will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget
58. In this present document, the Commission has assessed the effects of modifying reporting rules, and find that doing so does not change the burden on small businesses with fewer than 25 employees.
59. The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.
60. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires that agencies prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice-and-comment rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” The RFA generally defines “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
61. This
62. Accordingly,
63.
64.
65.
Communications common carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telecommunications, Telephone.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 54 as follows:
Sections 1, 4(i), 5, 201, 205, 214, 219, 220, 254, 303(r), and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 706 of the Communications Act of 1996, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 155, 201, 205, 214, 219, 220, 254, 303(r), 403, and 1302 unless otherwise noted.
(a) A price cap carrier electing Phase II model-based support is required to provide broadband service at actual speeds of at least 4 Mbps downstream/1 Mbps upstream, with latency suitable for real-time applications, including Voice over Internet Protocol, and usage capacity that is reasonably comparable to comparable offerings in urban areas, at rates that are reasonable comparable to rates for comparable offerings in urban areas.
(b) In addition, a price cap carrier electing Phase II model-based support is required to provide broadband service with actual speeds of at least 6 Mbps downstream to a specified number of locations, and upstream speeds of at least 1.5 Mbps to a specified number of locations, as determined by the Wireline Competition Bureau.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e) * * *
(1)
(2)
(3)
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Final rule.
DoD has adopted as final, with changes, an interim rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement statutory amendments to whistleblower protections for contractor and subcontractor employees.
Effective February 28, 2014.
Amy Williams, telephone 571–372–6106.
This final rule finalizes an interim rule that revised the DFARS to implement section 827 (except paragraph (g)) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Pub. L. 112–239, enacted January 2, 2013). Section 827, entitled “Enhancement of Whistleblower Protections for Contractor Employees,” made extensive changes to 10 U.S.C. 2409, entitled “Contractor employees: Protection from reprisal or disclosure.” Paragraph (g) of section 827, which amended paragraph (k) of 10 U.S.C. 2324, entitled “Allowable costs under defense contracts,” is addressed under a separate DFARS case, 2013–D022, Allowability of Legal Costs for Whistleblower Proceedings.
Section 827 of the NDAA for FY 2013 created a standalone statute for DoD that is independent of the FAR coverage.
DoD published an interim rule in the
DoD reviewed the public comment in the development of the final rule. A discussion of the comment is provided below.
DoD has incorporated other non-substantive editorial changes in the final rule. In addition to redesignation of some paragraphs to conform to DFARS numbering conventions and minor wording changes for clarity, DoD has relocated DFARS 203.907, Classified information, to DFARS 203.903(2), because section 3.907 in the FAR is titled “Whistleblower Protections Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the Recovery Act).” DoD cannot assign a new title to the corresponding section in the DFARS.
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.
A final regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared consistent with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
The Department of Defense (DoD) is amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations Supplement (DFARS) to implement changes to existing protections for contractor whistleblower employees in accordance with section 827 of the National Defense
The rule applies to all entities, small as well as large, at the prime contract and subcontract level. However, not all entities will have a situation that requires an employee to use the whistleblower provisions, and there is no way to predict the potential number of whistleblowers in advance. However, a small entity could be impacted by a whistleblower employee either as a Government prime contractor or subcontractor. In addition, the impact on an entity is directly related to the seriousness of the alleged wrongdoing.
No comments were received from the public on the Regulatory Flexibility analysis. No comments were received from the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
There are no reporting requirements associated with this rule. However, a firm accused of retaliating against an employee whistleblower is likely to be required to furnish human resources documentation to disprove the accusation. This documentation, however, would only be required in the course of an investigation of the accusation, not as a result of a contract clause.
There are no alternatives to this rule. Because of the terms used in the statute, DoD is unable to exempt small entities or establish a dollar threshold for coverage. Regardless of the size of the business, a whistleblower employee must be protected from retaliation by his/her employer.
The rule does not contain any 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).
Government procurement.
Accordingly, the interim rule amending 48 CFR parts 203 and 252, which was published in the
41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.
The addition reads as follows:
This subpart applies to DoD instead of FAR subpart 3.9.
The revision and addition read as follows:
(1)
(2)
(2) If the DoD Inspector General investigates the complaint, the DoD Inspector General will—
(i) Notify the complainant, the contractor alleged to have committed the violation, and the head of the agency; and
(ii) Provide a written report of findings to the complainant, the contractor alleged to have committed the violation, and the head of the agency.
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Interim rule.
DoD is amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement authority for DoD to allow its litigation support contractors to have access to “sensitive information,” provided that the litigation support contractor is subject to certain restrictions on using and disclosing such information.
You may submit comments, identified by DFARS Case 2012–D029, using any of the following methods:
Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by inserting “DFARS Case 2012–D029” under the heading “Enter keyword or ID” and selecting “Search.” Select the link “Submit a Comment” that corresponds with “DFARS Case 2012–D029.” Follow the instructions provided at the “Submit a Comment” screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “DFARS Case 2012–D029” on your attached document. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Comments received generally will be posted without change to
Mr. Mark Gomersall, 703–602–0302.
Section 802 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 is a successor to section 801 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Pub. L. 111–383), which amended 10 U.S.C. section 2320 to authorize DoD “covered litigation support contractors” to have access to and use of any technical, proprietary, or confidential data delivered under a contract for the sole purpose of providing litigation support. Section 802 amended 10 U.S.C. to add section 129d, repealed section 801 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, and expanded the basic coverage first established in section 801 to cover a significantly broader class of “sensitive information,” which is defined as “confidential commercial, financial, or proprietary information, technical data, or other privileged information.”
The basic objective of the rule is to expressly authorize DoD to provide its litigation support contractors with access to certain types of non-public information, provided that the litigation support contractors are required to protect that information from any unauthorized disclosure, and are prohibited from using that information for any purpose other than providing litigation support services to DoD.
New DFARS subpart 204.74, Disclosure of Information to Litigation Support Contractors, along with its associated new clauses, provides the policy governing the new subpart in a two pronged implementation approach:
• DoD is authorized to release litigation information, including sensitive information, to its litigation support contractors provided that the litigation support contractors are subject to appropriate requirements and restrictions that comply with the requirements of 10 U.S.C. section 129d.
• Although not required by the statute, DoD will, to the maximum extent practicable, ensure that offerors and contractors submitting information to DoD under solicitations and contracts will be notified that the submitted information may be disclosed to DoD's litigation support contractors under the aforementioned conditions.
The new clause at 252.204–7014, Limitations on the Use or Disclosure of Information by Litigation Support Contractors, is the mechanism through which the requirements and restrictions of 10 U.S.C. section 129d are applied to litigation support contractors. Furthermore, new DFARS clause 252.204–7015, Disclosure of Information to Litigation support Contractors, requires litigation support contractors to treat any and all information provided to, or obtained by, the litigation support contractor as sensitive information, regardless of whether that information is marked with a restrictive legend. While not obviating the need, desire, or value of using restrictive legends on sensitive information, this approach ensures the protection of all sensitive information, even when inadvertent error or oversight results in a restrictive legend being omitted from the information.
The new solicitation provision at 252.204–7013, Limitations on the Use or Disclosure of Information by Litigation Support Solicitation Offerors, sets forth the same limitations and notifications in 252.204–7014 for litigation support solicitation offerors.
The new clause at 252.204–7015, Disclosure of Information to Litigation Support Contractors, implements the second of the two-prong policy approach by providing notice to all offerors and contractors that information they may submit to DoD may be disclosed to litigation support contractors. The notice clarifies that such releases to litigation support contractors are authorized notwithstanding any other provision of the contract. This notice is not required by the statute, nor is it otherwise required as a condition of DoD being authorized to make the disclosures covered by 10 U.S.C. section 129d. The notice is provided as a desired best practice when DoD will be receiving potentially sensitive information from its offerors or contractors, to ensure that the submitters are aware of this potential, statutorily authorized release in connection with litigation support services.
The term “litigation information” is created to capture all information that is generated or obtained by the litigation support contractor in providing the litigation support services to DoD, including but not limited to sensitive information. The creation of the new term “litigation information” was particularly important for the implementation of this approach. The foundation of litigation support services is based in large part on the understanding that any or all information involved in providing these services must be treated as sensitive, official use only information, which cannot be shared with any unauthorized persons or used for any other purpose without careful review and approval by the appropriate Government officials.
To avoid any potential confusion regarding the application of requirements for “covered Government support contractors” to “litigation support contractors,” a parenthetical exclusion of litigation support contractors from such requirements is added at: 227.7103–6(c) and 227.7203–6(d); and 252.227–7013(a)(5), 252.227–7014(a)(6), 252.227–7015(a)(2), and 252.227–7018(a)(6).
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 has prepared an initial regulatory flexibility analysis consistent with 5 U.S.C. 603. A copy of the analysis may be obtained from the point of contact specified herein. The analysis is summarized as follows:
The objective of the rule is to implement authority for DoD to allow its litigation support contractors to have access to sensitive information, provided that the litigation support contractor is subject to certain restrictions on using and disclosing such information.
DoD does not expect this interim 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,
DoD will also consider comments from small entities concerning the existing regulations in subparts affected by this rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 (DFARS Case 2012–D029) in correspondence.
The rule contains no 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).
A determination has been made under the authority of the Secretary of Defense that urgent and compelling reasons exist to publish an interim rule prior to affording the public an opportunity to comment. Section 802 amends title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.), by adding section 129d to authorize an exception to the statutory scheme that would otherwise prohibit Government litigation support contractors from accessing or using sensitive information, defined as “confidential commercial, financial, or proprietary information, technical data, or other privileged information,” belonging to prime contractors and other third parties, provided that the support contractor is subject to appropriate non-disclosure and use restrictions. Additionally, 10 U.S.C. 129d mandates specific restrictions for the litigation support contractors that will receive the sensitive information, to ensure that this use does not threaten the data owner's competitive advantage due to the proprietary information, and to provide the data owner with a legal remedies against the support contractor for any breach of those use restrictions. Failure to issue this rule as an interim rule will severely impact the Government's ability to obtain administrative, technical or professional services, including expert or technical consultation, in support of the Government during or in anticipation of litigation, thereby adversely affecting the Government's ability to successfully engage in legal proceedings. However, pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 1707 and FAR 1.501–3(b), DoD will consider public comments received in response to this interim rule in the formation of the final rule.
Government procurement.
Therefore, 48 CFR parts 204, 212, 227, 237, and 252 are amended as follows:
41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.
This subpart prescribes policies and procedures for the release and safeguarding of information to litigation support contractors. It implements the requirements at 10 U.S.C. 129d.
“Litigation support,” “litigation support contractor,” and “sensitive information,” as used in this subpart, are defined in the clause at 252.204–7014, Limitations on the Use or Disclosure of Information by Litigation Support Contractors.
(a) Any release or disclosure of litigation information that includes sensitive information to a litigation support contractor, and the litigation support contractor's use and handling of such information, shall comply with the requirements of 10 U.S.C. 129d.
(b) To the maximum extent practicable, DoD will provide notice to an offeror or contractor submitting, delivering, or otherwise providing information to DoD in connection with an offer or performance of a contract that such information may be released or disclosed to litigation support contractors.
(a) Use the provision at 252.204–7013, Limitations on the Use or Disclosure of Information by Litigation Support Solicitation Offerors, in all solicitations, including solicitations using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial items, that involve litigation support services.
(b) Use the clause at 252.204–7014, Limitations on the Use or Disclosure of Information by Litigation Support Contractors, in all solicitations and contracts, including solicitations and contracts using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial items, that involve litigation support services.
(c) Use the clause at 252.204–7015, Disclosure of Information to Litigation Support Contractors, in all solicitations and contracts, including solicitations and contracts using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial items, that involve litigation support services and do not include the clause at 252.204–7014, Limitations on the Use or Disclosure of Information by Litigation Support Contractors.
(f) * * *
(vii) Use the provision at 252.204–7013, Limitations on the Use or Disclosure of Information by Litigation Support Solicitation Offerors, as prescribed in 204.7403(a), to comply with 10 U.S.C. 129d.
(viii) Use the clause at 252.204–7014, Limitations on the Use or Disclosure of Information by Litigation Support Contractors, as prescribed in 204.7403(b), to comply with 10 U.S.C. 129d.
(ix) Use the clause at 252.204–7015, Disclosure of Information to Litigation Support Contractors, as prescribed in 204.7403(c), to comply with 10 U.S.C. 129d.
(b) Does not apply to—
(1) Computer software or technical data that is computer software documentation (see subpart 227.72); or
(2) Releases of technical data to litigation support contractors (see subpart 204.74).
(b) Does not apply to—
(1) Computer software or computer software documentation acquired under GSA schedule contracts; or
(2) Releases of computer software or computer software documentation to litigation support contractors (see subpart 204.74).
See 204.74 for disclosure of information to litigation support contractors.
As prescribed in 204.7403(a), use the following provision. If the solicitation is a request for quotations, the terms “quotation” and “Quoter” may be substituted for “offer” and “Offeror”.
(a)
(b)
(1) That all litigation information will be accessed and used for the sole purpose of providing litigation support;
(2) That the Offeror will take all precautions necessary to prevent unauthorized disclosure of litigation information; and
(3) That litigation information shall not be used by the Offeror to compete against a third party for Government or nongovernment contracts.
(c)
(1) To indemnify and hold harmless the Government, its agents, and employees from any claim or liability, including attorneys' fees, court costs, and expenses, arising out of, or in any way related to, the misuse or unauthorized modification, reproduction, release, performance, display, or disclosure of any litigation information; and
(2) That any third party holding proprietary rights or any other legally protectable interest in any litigation information, in addition to any other rights it may have, is a third party beneficiary who shall have a right of direct action against the Offeror, and against any person to whom the Offeror has released or disclosed such data or software, for the unauthorized duplication, release, or disclosure of such information.
(d)
As prescribed in 204.7403(b), use the following clause:
(a)
(b)
(1) That all litigation information will be accessed and used for the sole purpose of providing litigation support;
(2) That the Contractor will take all precautions necessary to prevent unauthorized disclosure of litigation information;
(3) That litigation information shall not be used by the Contractor to compete against a third party for Government or nongovernment contracts; and
(4) That violation of paragraph (b)(1), (b)(2), or (b)(3), of this section, is a basis for the Government to terminate this contract.
(c)
(1) To indemnify and hold harmless the Government, its agents, and employees from any claim or liability, including attorneys' fees, court costs, and expenses, arising out of, or in any way related to, the misuse or unauthorized modification, reproduction, release, performance, display, or disclosure of any litigation information; and
(2) That any third party holding proprietary rights or any other legally protectable interest in any litigation information, in addition to any other rights it may have, is a third party beneficiary under this contract who shall have a right of direct action against the Contractor, and against any person to whom the Contractor has released or disclosed such data or software, for the unauthorized duplication, release, or disclosure of such information.
(d)
(e)
As prescribed in 204.7403(c), use the following clause:
(a)
(b)
(1) Within or in connection with a quotation or offer; or
(2) In the performance of or in connection with a contract.
(c)
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Final rule.
DoD is making technical amendments to the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to provide needed editorial changes.
Effective February 28, 2014.
Mr. Manuel Quinones, Defense Acquisition Regulations System, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP(DARS), Room 3B855, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301–3060. Telephone 571–372–6088; facsimile 571–372–6094.
This final rule amends the DFARS as follows:
1. Correct 204.1105 and 252.204–7004 to conform to the FAR by changing “clause” to “provision”.
2. Correct a cross reference at 204.7103–1(d).
3. Redesignate 225.004 as 225.070 and revise the text.
4. Correct 252.225–7029 clause title in the eCFR.
Government procurement.
Therefore, 48 CFR parts 204, 225, and 252 is amended as follows:
41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.
Follow the procedures at PGI 225.070 for entering the data on the acquisition of end products manufactured outside the United States.
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Final rule.
DoD has adopted as final, with changes, an interim rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement two sections of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 that require compliance with domestic source restrictions in the case of any textile components supplied by DoD to the Afghan National Army or the Afghan National Police for purposes of production of uniforms, and eliminate the application of the enhanced authority to acquire products and services from Iraq.
Effective February 28, 2014.
Ms. Amy G. Williams, telephone 571–372–6106.
DoD published an interim rule to implement sections 826 and 842 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 (Pub. L. 112–239).
Section 826 requires compliance with 10 U.S.C. 2533a (the Berry Amendment) in the case of any textile components supplied by DoD to the Afghan National Army or the Afghan National Police for purposes of production of uniforms. The law further states that no exception or exemptions under that section shall apply.
Section 842 modifies section 886 of the NDAA for FY 2008 (Pub. L. 110–181), which provided enhanced authority to acquire products and services from Iraq and Afghanistan in support of operations in Iraq or Afghanistan. Section 842 eliminates application of the enhanced authority to acquisition of products and services from Iraq.
One respondent submitted a public comment in response to the interim rule.
DoD reviewed the public comment in the development of the final rule. A discussion of the comment is provided below. No changes are made to the final based on this comment, however, one change is being made to correct the electronic Code of Federal Regulations.
• 252.225–7000 is prescribed at 225.1101(1) for use only when the clause at 252.225–7001 is used.
• 252.225–7001 is prescribed at 225.1101(2). Paragraph (i)(C) of the prescription provides an exception if all line items will be acquired using a procedure specified in 225.7703–1(a). Use of the procedures at 225.7703–1(a) requires use of provisions and clauses 252.225–7023, 252.225–7024, or 252.225–7024.
• 252.225–7002 is prescribed at 225.1101(3) for use only when 252.225–7001, 252.225–7021, or 252.225–7036 are used. Since an exception is provided for the use of 252.225–7001 and 252.225–7036 when using the procedures at 225.7703–1(a), and 252.225–7021 is not included if 252.225–7026 is included, these exceptions also apply to the use of 252.225–7002.
• 252.225–7020 is prescribed at 225.1101((5) for use only when 252.225–7021 is used.
• 252.225–7021 is prescribed for use at 225.1101(6). Paragraph (iii)(B) of the prescription provides an exception if the clause at 252.225–7026 is included in the solicitation and contract.
• 252.225–7035 is prescribed at 225.1101((9) for use only when 252.225–7036 is used.
• 252.225–7036 is prescribed for use at 225.1101(10). Paragraph (iii)(C) of the prescription provides an exception if
• 252.225–7045 and 252.225–7046 are prescribed for use at 225.7503, unless the entire acquisition is exempt from the Balance of Payments program. The policy at 225.7501(a)(5) exempts acquisitions when use of a procedure specified in 225.7703–1(a) is authorized for an acquisition in support of operations in Afghanistan.
Section 225.1101(6)(i) is being revised to correct the electronic Code of Federal Regulations. In the prescription for clause 252.225–7021, the phrase “instead of the clause at FAR 52.225–5, Trade Agreements,” which had been inadvertently omitted, is reinstated.
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.
A final regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared consistent with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
This rule implements sections 826 and 842 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Pub. L. 112–239). The objective of the rule is to (1) require compliance with domestic source restrictions in the case of any textile components supplied by DoD to the Afghan National Army or the Afghan National Police for purposes of production of uniforms, and (2) eliminate the application of the enhanced authority to acquire products and services from Iraq. The legal basis is the above-cited statutes.
The number of small entities to be affected by the rule is not known. The rule has the potential to impact entities that manufacture textile components, if purchased by DoD to supply to the Afghan National Army or the Afghan National Police for purposes of production of uniforms. Any impact is expected to be beneficial, because it will require purchase from a domestic source.
No comments were received from the public on the Regulatory Flexibility analysis. No comments were received from the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
There are no projected reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements.
DoD was unable to identify any significant alternatives consistent with the stated objectives of the statute. DoD does not anticipate any significant economic impact on small entities. Any impact is expected to be beneficial.
The rule contains 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); however, these changes to the DFARS do not impose additional information collection requirements to the paperwork burden previously approved under OMB Control Number 0704–0229, entitled Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Part 225 and Related Clauses (Total approved burden hours—57,135).
Government procurement.
Therefore, DoD amends 48 CFR parts 206, 212, 225, and 252 as follows:
41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR Chapter 1.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
NMFS issues this final rule to change the starting date of the annual Pacific sardine fishery from January 1 to July 1. This changes the annual fishing season from one based on the calendar year to one based on a July 1 through the following June 30th schedule. No other changes to the annual allocation structure are being made and the existing seasonal allocation percentages will remain as specified in the FMP, as would the current quota roll-over provisions. This rule also establishes a one-time interim harvest allocation period from January 1, 2014 through June 30, 2014 to allow for continued fishing during the transition from a January to July start of the fishing season. The purpose of this final rule is to better align the timing of the research and science that is used in the annual stock assessments with the annual management schedule. To enable this transition in fishing years, this action also establishes a one-time interim harvest period for the 6 months from January 1, 2014, through June 30, 2014.
Effective March 31, 2014.
Joshua Lindsay, West Coast Region, NMFS, (562) 980–4034.
This final rule changes the start date of the 12-month Pacific sardine fishery from January 1 to July 1, thus changing the fishing season for Pacific sardine from one based on the calendar year to one beginning on July 1 and continuing through June 30th of the following year. The purpose of this change is to better align the timing of the research and science used in the annual stock assessments with the annual management schedule, as the present schedule imposes substantial challenges in terms of survey data availability relative to the timing of stock assessments.
Because the 2013 fishing season ended on December 31, 2013, this rule also establishes a one-time interim harvest allocation period from January 1, 2014 through June 30, 2014 to allow for continued fishing during the transition from a January to July start of the fishing season. At the November 2013 Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) meeting, the Council took action on setting the quota for the January 2014 through June 2014 period. The harvest specifications for this interim allocation period are being implemented through a separate rulemaking action, for which a proposed rule published on February 4, 2014. (79 FR 6527) Although the interim harvest specifications will include an Overfishing Limit (OFL), Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) and Annual Catch Limit (ACL) for calendar year 2014, those specifications are expected to be replaced based on the new stock assessment and Council action in April 2014.
On December 23, 2013, a proposed rule was published for this action and public comments solicited (78 FR 77413). NMFS received no comments on the proposed rule. For further background about this rule, please refer to the proposed rule.
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Assistant Administrator, NMFS, has determined that this final rule is consistent with the CPS FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and other applicable laws.
This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration during the proposed rule stage that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. No comments were received regarding this certification. As a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis was not required and none was prepared.
This action does not contain a collection-of-information requirement for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Fisheries, Fishing, Indians.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS amends 50 CFR part 660 as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(a)
(f) On July 1, 40 percent of the initial harvest guideline for Pacific sardine is allocated coastwide within the fishery management area.
(g) On September 15, 25 percent of the initial harvest guideline for Pacific sardine plus the remaining unharvested portion of the July 1 allocation in paragraph (f) of this section is allocated coastwide within the fishery management area.
(h) On January 1, 35 percent of the initial harvest guideline for Pacific sardine plus the remaining unharvested portion of the September 15 allocation is allocated coastwide within the fishery management area.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Proposed determination.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE or the “Department”) has determined tentatively that computer and battery backup systems (hereafter referred to as “computer systems”) qualify as a covered product under Part A of Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), as amended. This notice supersedes DOE's previous proposed determination of coverage relating to computers, and expands the scope of coverage to include computer systems. DOE has determined that computer systems meet the criteria for covered products because classifying products of such type as covered products is necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of EPCA, and the average U.S. household energy use for computer systems is likely to exceed 100 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year.
DOE will accept written comments, data, and information on this notice, but no later than March 31, 2014.
Interested persons may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE–2013–BT–DET–0035, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
On July 12, 2013, DOE published a proposed determination (July 2013 Notice) in the
Title III of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6291,
(1) Classifying the product as a covered product is necessary for the purposes of EPCA; and
(2) The average annual per-household energy use by products of such type is likely to exceed 100 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year. (42 U.S.C. 6292(b)(1))
For the Secretary to prescribe an energy conservation standard pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) and (p) for covered products added pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6292(b)(1), he must also determine that:
(1) The average household energy use of the products has exceeded 150 kWh per household for a 12-month period;
(2) The aggregate 12-month energy use of the products has exceeded 4.2 TWh;
(3) Substantial improvement in energy efficiency is technologically feasible; and
(4) Application of a labeling rule under 42 U.S.C. 6294 is unlikely to be sufficient to induce manufacturers to produce, and consumers and other persons to purchase, covered products of such type (or class) that achieve the maximum energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(1)).
If DOE issues a final determination that computer systems are a covered product, DOE will consider test procedures and energy conservation standards for them. DOE will determine if computer systems satisfy the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(1) during the course of any energy conservation standards rulemaking.
In the July 2013 Notice, DOE tentatively determined that computers qualify as a covered product. DOE further proposed that a definition for computers be added to the Code of Federal Regulations to clarify coverage
A consumer product which performs logical operations and processes data. A computer is composed of, at a minimum: (a) A central processing unit (CPU) to perform operations, or the ability to function as a client gateway to a server which acts as a computational CPU; (b) user input devices such as a keyboard, mouse, or touchpad; and (c) an integrated display screen and/or the ability to support an external display screen to output information. 78 FR 41874.
DOE also proposed a notice to tentatively cover computer servers (servers) as a covered product. 78 FR 41868 (July 12, 2013). In that notice, DOE proposed that servers be defined as:
A computer that provides services and manages networked resources for client devices (e.g., desktop computers, notebook computers, thin clients, wireless devices, PDAs, IP telephones, other computer servers, or other network devices). A computer server is primarily accessed via network connections, versus directly connected user input devices such as a keyboard or mouse. 78 FR 41870.
By separate action published elsewhere in today's
A consumer product whose primary function is to perform logical operations and process data, or equipment whose primary function is to maintain continuity of load power for such products in case of input power failure.
While DOE recognizes that this revised definition further broadens the scope of the covered product that this notice relates, DOE believes that is necessary given the increasingly networked environment in which these products operate. For example, the increased use of tablets, smart phones and cloud services has shifted energy use from personal computers like desktop and notebook computers to servers (e.g. more disc storage in servers, less disc storage in desktop computers). Consumers commonly use battery backups for their computers to allow users to save all data in the event of power loss. Some servers integrate these backup batteries within the server itself, and notebook computers contain their own battery systems to run when either not connected to mains power or in the event of a power loss. This revised definition would allow DOE to account for shifts in energy use between products, and also help to ensure that the covered product remains relevant as technology trends in computer systems advance. Based on DOE's revised definition for computer systems, DOE would consider consumer products, such as computers, servers, and UPSs, to be within the scope of coverage.
While all of these consumer products are related, DOE recognizes that different test methods and efficiency metrics would be necessary to measure the energy consumption and energy efficiency of such products. As such, DOE is considering dividing computer systems into separate product classes based on the type of energy used, the capacity, and any other performance-related feature that justifies different standard levels, such as features affecting consumer utility. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) DOE will propose specific definitions for product classes as part of the efficiency standards rulemaking. As suggested by the Information Technology Industry Council (ITI), DOE will look to harmonize the definitions of each potential product class with already established industry terms and definitions (ITI, No. 0035 at p.1).
DOE notes that the scope for the test procedure and standards rulemakings that DOE initiates may not cover all products that would otherwise meet the definition of computer systems. DOE further clarifies that the proposed definition of computer systems only covers those products whose primary function is to perform logical operations and process data, or whose primary function is to maintain continuity of load power in case of input power failure.
DOE received comment from Cisco Systems, Inc. (Cisco), ITI, the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA), and Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) on DOE's proposed definition of “server” in its July 12, 2013 proposed rule to determine servers as a covered product (78 FR 41868). Specifically, these parties commented that the proposal improperly attempts to combine a variety of consumer products, which DOE has authority to regulate, with entirely dissimilar commercial products that DOE does not currently have the authority to regulate. (EERE–2013–BT–DET–0034, Cisco, No. 0017 at p. 3) (EERE–2013–BT–DET–0034, ITI, No. 0018 at p. 1) (EERE–2013–BT–DET–0034, CEA, No. 0015 at p. 3) (EERE–2013–BT–DET–0034, TIA, No. 0019 at p. 2) In light of these comments, DOE clarifies that the proposed scope of coverage for this rulemaking relates only to consumer products. Thus, this rule applies to those computer systems that are of a type which, to any significant extent, are distributed into commerce for personal use or consumption.
The following sections describe DOE's evaluation of whether computer systems fulfill the criteria for being added as a covered product pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6292(b)(1). As stated previously, DOE may classify a consumer product as a covered product if (1) classifying products of such type as covered products is necessary and appropriate to carry out the purposes of EPCA; and (2) the average annual per-household energy use by products of such type is likely to exceed 100 kWh (or its Btu equivalent) per year.
Coverage of computer systems is necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of EPCA, which include: (1) To conserve energy supplies through energy conservation programs, and, where necessary, the regulation of certain energy uses; and (2) to provide for improved energy efficiency of motor vehicles, major appliances, and certain other consumer products. (42 U.S.C. 6201) The aggregate energy use of computer systems is significant. For example, recent estimates of national electricity usage for computers alone are 30.3 billion kWh in the residential sector, and 31.3 billion kWh in the
DOE calculated average household energy use for computer systems, in households that use the product, based on data from published literature and under the assumption that computer systems contain at least one computer or server, and possibly a UPS as well. The average annual energy use for a desktop computer was estimated to be 220 kWh/yr, and the average annual energy use for a portable computer was estimated to be 62 kWh/yr, resulting in a weighted average of 130 kWh/yr per computer.
Based on the above, DOE has determined tentatively that computer systems qualify as a covered product under Part A of Title III of the EPCA, as amended.
DOE has reviewed its proposed determination of computer systems under the following Executive orders and Acts.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that coverage determination rulemakings do not constitute “significant regulatory actions” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this proposed action was not subject to review under the Executive Order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in OMB.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
DOE reviewed today's proposed determination under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the policies and procedures published on February 19, 2003. If adopted, today's proposed determination would set no standards; it would only positively determine that future standards may be warranted and should be explored in an energy conservation standards and test procedure rulemaking. Economic impacts on small entities would be considered in the context of such rulemakings. On the basis of the foregoing, DOE certifies that the proposed determination, if adopted, would have no significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis for this proposed determination. DOE will transmit this certification and supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
This proposed determination, which proposes to determine that computer systems meet the criteria for a covered product for which the Secretary may prescribe an energy conservation standard pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) and (p), will impose no new information or record-keeping requirements. Accordingly, OMB clearance is not
In this notice, DOE proposes to positively determine that future standards may be warranted and that environmental impacts should be explored in an energy conservation standards rulemaking. DOE has determined that review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), Public Law 91–190, codified at 42 U.S.C. 4321
Executive Order (E.O.) 13132, “Federalism” 64 FR 43255 (August 10, 1999), imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have Federalism implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to assess carefully the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in developing regulatory policies that have Federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental consultation process that it will follow in developing such regulations. 65 FR 13735 (March 14, 2000). DOE has examined today's proposed determination and concludes that it would not preempt State law or have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the Federal government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to energy conservation for the product that is the subject of today's proposed determination. States can petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the extent permitted, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297) No further action is required by E.O. 13132.
With respect to the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 12988, “Civil Justice Reform” 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996), imposes on Federal agencies the duty to: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize litigation; (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard; and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation specifies the following: (1) The preemptive effect, if any; (2) any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) the retroactive effect, if any; (5) definitions of key terms; and (6) other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of E.O. 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine whether these standards are met, or whether it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, this proposed determination meets the relevant standards of E.O. 12988.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104–4, codified at 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. For regulatory actions likely to result in a rule that may cause expenditures by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any 1 year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a) and (b)) UMRA requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and tribal governments on a proposed “significant intergovernmental mandate.” UMRA also requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to small governments that may be potentially affected before establishing any requirement that might significantly or uniquely affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820 (March 18, 1997). (This policy also is available at
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. This proposed determination would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.
Pursuant to E.O. 12630, “Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights” 53 FR 8859 (March 15, 1988), DOE determined that this proposed determination would not result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The Treasury and General Government Appropriation Act of 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) requires agencies to review most disseminations of information they make to the public under guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. The OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (February 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (October 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed today's proposed determination under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded
E.O. 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency that promulgates a final rule or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use if the proposal is implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the proposed action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
DOE has concluded that today's regulatory action proposing to determine that computer systems meet the criteria for a covered product for which the Secretary may prescribe an energy conservation standard pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) and (p) would not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. This action is also not a significant regulatory action for purposes of E.O. 12866, and the OIRA Administrator has not designated this proposed determination as a significant energy action under E.O. 12866 or any successor order. Therefore, this proposed determination is not a significant energy action. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects for this proposed determination.
On December 16, 2004, OMB, in consultation with the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), issued its Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (the Bulletin). 70 FR 2664 (January 14, 2005). The Bulletin establishes that certain scientific information shall be peer reviewed by qualified specialists before it is disseminated by the Federal government, including influential scientific information related to agency regulatory actions. The purpose of the Bulletin is to enhance the quality and credibility of the Government's scientific information. DOE has determined that the analyses conducted for this rulemaking do not constitute “influential scientific information,” which the Bulletin defines as “scientific information the agency reasonably can determine will have or does have a clear and substantial impact on important public policies or private sector decisions.” 70 FR 2667 (January 14, 2005). The analyses were subject to pre-dissemination review prior to issuance of this rulemaking.
DOE will determine the appropriate level of review that would be applicable to any future rulemaking to establish energy conservation standards for computer systems.
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this notice of proposed determination no later than the date provided at the beginning of this notice. After the close of the comment period, DOE will review the comments received and determine whether computer systems are a covered product under EPCA.
Comments, data, and information submitted to DOE's email address for this proposed determination should be provided in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file format. Submissions should avoid the use of special characters or any form of encryption, and wherever possible comments should include the electronic signature of the author. No telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.
According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit two copies: one copy of the document should have all the information believed to be confidential deleted. DOE will make its own determination as to the confidential status of the information and treat it according to its determination.
Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat submitted information as confidential include (1) A description of the items; (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as confidential within the industry; (3) whether the information is generally known or available from public sources; (4) whether the information has previously been made available to others without obligations concerning its confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the competitive injury to the submitting persons which would result from public disclosure; (6) a date after which such information might no longer be considered confidential; and (7) why disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.
DOE welcomes comments on all aspects of this proposed determination. DOE is particularly interested in receiving comments from interested parties on the following issues related to the proposed determination for computer systems:
• Definition of computer and battery backup systems;
• Whether classifying computer systems as a covered product is necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of EPCA;
• Scope of this proposed determination;
• Identifying those computer systems that are of a type that make them a consumer product as distinguished from those computer systems that are objectively commercial;
• Calculations and values for average household energy consumption; and
• Availability or lack of availability of technologies for improving energy efficiency of computer systems.
The Department is interested in receiving views concerning other relevant issues that participants believe would affect DOE's ability to establish test procedures and energy conservation standards for computer systems. The Department invites all interested parties to submit in writing by March 31, 2014, comments and information on matters addressed in this notice and on other matters relevant to consideration of a determination for computer systems.
After the expiration of the period for submitting written statements, the Department will consider all comments and additional information that is obtained from interested parties or through further analyses, and it will prepare a final determination. If DOE determines that computer systems qualify as a covered product, DOE will consider a test procedure and energy conservation standards for computer systems. Members of the public will be given an opportunity to submit written and oral comments on any proposed test procedure and standards.
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this revised proposed determination.
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy conservation,
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Proposed determination; withdrawal.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) withdraws for further consideration a proposed determination that computer servers (servers) qualify as a covered product under Part A of Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), as amended.
The proposed determination is withdrawn February 28, 2014.
Title III of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6291,
On July 12, 2013, DOE published a notice of proposed determination (Notice) that tentatively determined that servers qualify as a covered product. 78 FR 41868. In light of public comments received from interested parties addressing the nature and use of servers, DOE is withdrawing the Notice. DOE's current approach with regard to the coverage of servers can be found in its updated coverage proposal for computers, published elsewhere in today's
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this withdrawal.
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Small businesses.
Federal Housing Finance Board; Federal Housing Finance Agency; Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, HUD.
Notice of proposed rulemaking; extension of comment period.
On January 28, 2014, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) published in the
The comment period for the proposed rule published January 28, 2014, at 79 FR 4414, is extended. Written comments must be received on or before May 15, 2014. For additional information, see the
You may submit your comments, identified by regulatory information number (RIN) 2590–AA59, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Amy Bogdon,
On January 28, 2014, FHFA published for comment in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2000–17–03 that applies to all Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 0100 airplanes. AD 2000–17–03 currently requires a one-time visual inspection and repetitive eddy current and dye penetrant inspections of the nose landing gear (NLG) main fitting to detect cracking of the NLG main fitting subassembly, and corrective actions if necessary. Since we issued AD 2000–17–03, we were advised that replacement of certain nose landing gear (NLG) units eliminates the need for repetitive inspections. This proposed AD would retain existing requirements, require installation a new part number NLG unit that would terminate the repetitive inspections, and add airplanes to the applicability. We are proposing this AD to prevent cracking of the NLG main fitting, which could lead to collapse of the NLG during takeoff and landing, and possible injury to the flight crew and passengers.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 14, 2014.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 1357, 2130 EL Hoofddorp, the Netherlands; telephone +31 (0)88–6280–350; fax +31 (0)88–6280–111; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; telephone 425–227–1137; fax 425–227–1149.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
On August 17, 2000, we issued AD 2000–17–03, Amendment 39–11876 (65 FR 52298, August 29, 2000). AD 2000–17–03 requires actions intended to address an unsafe condition on Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 0100 airplanes.
Since we issued AD 2000–17–03, Amendment 39–11876 (65 FR 52298, August 29, 2000), we received a report of a NLG main fitting failure. The European Aviation Safety Agency
In 1997, a report was received concerning a Fokker 100 (F28 Mark 0100) aeroplane, where during landing following nose wheel touch-down, the nose landing gear (NLG) broke off just below the pintle pins. Subsequent inspection by the affected operator of other aeroplanes in the fleet identified three more suspect NLG main fittings. Eddy current (EC) and/or dye penetrant inspections of these units later confirmed that cracks were present on the inner side of the downlock plunger support web. The total number of flight cycles (FC) accumulated by the cracked NLG main fittings at the time of detection were between 9,300 FC and 17,600 FC.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could result in further incidents of NLG collapse, possibly resulting in damage to the aeroplane and/or injury to the occupants. To address this potential unsafe condition, (Civil Aviation Authority —Netherlands] CAA–NL issued AD (BLA) 1997–116 (currently at issue 2) to require repetitive inspections of the NLG main fitting and, depending on findings, rework or replacement of the NLG main fitting.
Since AD (BLA) 1997–116/2 was issued, it was determined that replacement of a Messier-Dowty (M–D, formerly Dowty Rotol) Part Number (P/N) 201071001 or P/N 201071002 NLG with, respectively, a P/N 201071003 or P/N 201071004 (which have a so-called `heavy weight' main fitting installed) or, respectively, with a P/N 201456001 or P/N 201461001 (which are so-called `heavy weight' NLG units) cancels the need for repetitive inspection and/or rework. The `heavy weight' main fitting was originally developed for an increased weight version (101,000 lbs. maximum take-off weight) of the Fokker 100, as well as for the Fokker 70 (F28 Mark 0070), and introduced on the production line.
M–D issued Service Bulletin (SB) F100–32–94 and Fokker Services issued SBF100–32–119, which provide instructions to install the P/N 201071003 or P/N 201071004 NLG on aeroplanes in service. In addition, Fokker Services issued optional SBF100–32–149 to introduce the P/N 201456001 or P/N 201461001 NLG units on aeroplanes in service.
In January 2010, a second NLG main fitting failure occurred. The results of the investigation showed that the fracture started from small fatigue cracks in the affected area. Prompted by this new occurrence, combined with the NLG certification methodology (safe life principle), EASA has decided that the existing terminating action, installation of a P/N 201071003 or P/N 201071004 NLG should be made mandatory. Alternatively, a P/N 201456001 or P/N 201461001 NLG can be installed, which meets the same requirement.
For the reasons described above, EASA issued AD 2012–0002, retaining the requirements of CAA–NL AD (BLA) 1997–116/2, which was superseded, and to require the replacement of all P/N 201071001 and P/N 201071002 NLG units with, respectively, P/N 201071003 and P/N 201071004 NLG units, or alternatively with, respectively, P/N 201456001 or P/N 201461001 NLG units.
Replacement of a NLG main fitting or of a NLG unit on an aeroplane constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections for that aeroplane.
EASA AD 2012–0002 also prohibits, after modification of an aeroplane, installation of a P/N 201071001 or P/N 201071002 NLG unit on that aeroplane.
Fokker Services B.V. has issued the following service bulletins:
• Fokker Services B.V. Service Bulletin SBF 100–32–119, Revision 1, dated November 15, 2011, which refers to Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin F100–32–92, Revision 1, dated October 8, 1999, as an additional source of service information for accomplishing the inspections and rework of the NLG main fitting subassembly.
• Fokker Services B.V. Service Bulletin Change Notification SBF 100–32–119/1, dated January 31, 2000.
• Fokker Services B.V. Proforma Service Bulletin SBF 100–32–149, Revision 1, dated October 25, 2007, including Appendix 1, dated December 12, 2006.
• Fokker Services B.V. Service Bulletin SBF 100–53–074, dated November 1, 1999.
The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
In many FAA transport ADs, when the service information specifies to contact the manufacturer for further instructions if certain discrepancies are found, we typically include in the AD a requirement to accomplish the action using a method approved by either the FAA or the State of Design Authority (or its delegated agent).
We have recently been notified that certain laws in other countries do not allow such delegation of authority, but some countries do recognize design approval organizations. In addition, we have become aware that some U.S. operators have used repair instructions that were previously approved by a State of Design Authority or a Design Approval Holder (DAH) as a method of compliance with this provision in FAA ADs. Frequently, in these cases, the previously approved repair instructions come from the airplane structural repair manual or the DAH repair approval statements that were not specifically developed to address the unsafe condition corrected by the AD. Using repair instructions that were not specifically approved for a particular AD creates the potential for doing repairs that were not developed to address the unsafe condition identified by the MCAI AD, the FAA AD, or the applicable service information, which could result in the unsafe condition not being fully corrected.
To prevent the use of repairs that were not specifically developed to correct the unsafe condition, certain requirements of this proposed AD specify that the repair approval specifically refer to the FAA AD. This change is intended to clarify the method of compliance and to provide operators with better visibility of repairs that are specifically developed and approved to correct the unsafe condition. In addition, we use the phrase “its delegated agent, or the DAH with State of Design Authority design organization approval, as applicable” in this proposed AD to refer to a DAH authorized to approve certain required repairs for this proposed AD.
On July 10, 2002, the FAA issued a new version of 14 CFR part 39 (67 FR 47997, July 22, 2002), which governs the FAA's airworthiness directives system. The regulation now includes material that relates to altered products, special flight permits, and alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs). Because we have now included this material in 14 CFR part 39, only the office authorized
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 4 airplanes of U.S. registry.
The actions that are required by AD 2000–17–03, Amendment 39–11876 (65 FR 52298, August 29, 2000), and retained in this proposed AD take about 2 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Required parts cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that were required by AD 2000–17–03 is $170 per product.
We also estimate that it would take about 8 work-hours per product to comply with the new basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $525,000 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed there will be no charge for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $2,102,720, or $526,680 per product.
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide a cost estimate for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed AD.
A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control number for the collection of information required by this AD is 2120–0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with this AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, ATTN: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES–200.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by April 14, 2014.
This AD supersedes AD 2000–17–03, Amendment 39–11876 (65 FR 52298, August 29, 2000).
This AD applies to Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 0100 airplanes; certificated in any category; all serial numbers.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing Gear.
This AD was prompted by reports of nose landing gear (NLG) main fitting failures. We are issuing this AD to prevent cracking of the NLG main fitting, which could lead to collapse of the NLG during takeoff and landing, and possible injury to the flight crew and passengers.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the actions required by paragraph (a) of AD 2000–17–03, Amendment 39–11876 (65 FR 52298, August 29, 2000). For airplanes equipped with Messier-Dowty nose landing gear (NLG) having part number (P/N) 201071001 or 201071002, on which a main fitting subassembly (MFSA) having P/N 201071200, 201071228, 201071248, or 201071249 is installed: Prior to the accumulation of 7,500 total flight cycles or within 50 flight cycles after October 3, 2000 (the effective date of AD 2000–17–03), whichever occurs later, perform a one-time detailed visual inspection of the NLG main fitting subassembly to detect cracking, in accordance with Part 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100–32–118, dated October 8, 1999.
(1) If no cracking is detected, no further action is required by this paragraph.
(2) If any cracking is detected, prior to further flight, accomplish the actions required by paragraph (i) of this AD.
For the purposes of this AD, a detailed visual inspection is defined as: An intensive visual examination of a specific structural area, system, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at intensity deemed appropriate by the inspector. Inspection aids such as mirrors, magnifying lenses, etc., may be used. Surface cleaning and elaborate access procedures may be required.
This paragraph restates the actions required by paragraph (b) of AD 2000–17–03, Amendment 39–11876 (65 FR 52298, August 29, 2000), with a new exception. For airplanes equipped with Messier-Dowty nose landing gear (NLG) having part number (P/N) 201071001 or 201071002, on which a main fitting subassembly (MFSA) having P/N 201071200, 201071228, 201071248, or 201071249 is installed: Except as required by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD, prior to the accumulation of 7,875 total flight cycles, or within 375 flight cycles after October 3, 2000 (the effective date of AD 2000–17–03), whichever occurs later, perform an eddy current or dye penetrant inspection of the NLG main fitting subassembly to detect cracking, in accordance with Part 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100–32–118, dated October 8, 1999 (which is incorporated by reference in AD 2000–17–03). Such inspection within the compliance time required by paragraph (g) of this AD terminates the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD. Repeat the inspection thereafter, using an eddy current or dye penetrant technique, at intervals not to exceed 750 flight cycles, except as required by paragraph (m)(1) of this AD. Repeat the inspection until the replacement specified in paragraph (l) of this AD is done, or the installation specified in paragraph (n) of this AD is done.
This paragraph restates the actions required by paragraph (c) of AD 2000–17–03, Amendment 39–11876 (65 FR 52298, August 29, 2000), with revised repair methods. If any cracking is detected during any inspection required by paragraph (g) or (i) of this AD: Prior to further flight, rework the main fitting of the NLG, in accordance with Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100–32–118, dated October 8, 1999 (which is incorporated by reference in AD 2000–17–03). If, after rework, any cracking remains that exceeds the limits specified in Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100–32–118, dated October 8, 1999, prior to further flight, accomplish the actions specified by either paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2) of this AD.
(1) Replace the NLG in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100–32–118, dated October 8, 1999 (which is incorporated by reference in AD 2000–17–03); and within 7,875 flight cycles after such replacement, perform the inspection as specified in paragraph (i) of this AD, and repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 750 flight cycles.
(2) Repair in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the Rijksluchtvaartdienst (RLD) (or its delegated agent); or the European Aviation Safety Agency (or its delegated agent, or the Design Approval Holder with EASA's design organization approval, as applicable). For a repair method to be approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM–116, as required by this paragraph, the Manager's approval letter must specifically reference AD 2000–17–03, Amendment 39–11876 (65 FR 52298, August 29, 2000). For a repair method to be approved as of the effective date of this AD, the repair approval must specifically refer to this AD.
Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100–32–118, dated October 8, 1999 (which is incorporated by reference in AD 2000–17–03), references Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin F100–32–92, Revision 1, dated October 8, 1999, as an additional source of service information for accomplishing the inspections and rework of the NLG main fitting subassembly.
This paragraph restates the actions required by paragraph (d) of AD 2000–17–03, Amendment 39–11876 (65 FR 52298, August 29, 2000), with revised contact information and minor editorial changes. Submit a report of the detailed visual inspection findings (positive and negative) required by paragraph (g) of this AD, and a report of the initial eddy current or dye penetrant inspection findings (positive and negative) required by paragraph (i) of this AD, to Fokker Services B.V., P.O. Box 231, 2150 AE Nieuw-Vennep, the Netherlands; or to Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 1357, 2130 EL Hoofddorp, the Netherlands; telephone +31 (0)88–6280–350; fax +31 (0)88–6280–111; email
(1) For airplanes on which the detailed visual inspection specified by paragraph (g) of this AD, and the initial repetitive eddy current or dye penetrant inspection specified by paragraph (i) of this AD, are accomplished after October 3, 2000 (the effective date of AD 2000–17–03, Amendment 39–11876 (65 FR 52298, August 29, 2000)): Submit each report within 7 days after performing the applicable inspection.
(2) For airplanes on which the detailed visual inspection specified by paragraph (g) of this AD, and the initial repetitive eddy current or dye penetrant inspection specified in paragraph (i) of this AD, have been accomplished prior to October 3, 2000 (the effective date of AD 2000–17–03, Amendment 39–11876 (65 FR 52298, August 29, 2000)): Submit the reports within 7 days after October 3, 2000 (the effective date of AD 2000–17–03).
Except as provided by paragraph (m) of this AD, before the next scheduled main fitting overhaul of the nose landing gear (NLG) after the effective date of this AD, or within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first: Replace all nose landing gear (NLG) units having part number (P/N) 201071001 with a new P/N 201071003 NLG unit, and replace all NLG units having P/N 201071002 with a new P/N 201071004 NLG unit, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Services Bulletin SBF100–32–119, Revision 1, dated November 15, 2011.
For airplanes on which the next scheduled main fitting overhaul of the NLG is to occur later than 36 months after the effective date of this AD: Operators may accomplish the replacement required by paragraph (l) of this AD before the next scheduled main fitting overhaul of the nose landing gear (NLG) after the effective date of this AD, or within 72 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, provided the actions specified in paragraphs (m)(1) and (m)(2) of this AD are done.
(1) Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, accomplish the inspection specified in paragraph (i) of this AD within 750 flight cycles since the most recent inspection and repeat thereafter at intervals not to exceed 375 flight cycles until the replacement specified in paragraph (l) of this AD is done or the installation specified in paragraph (n) of this AD is done.
(2) In addition to the inspection specified in paragraph (m)(1) of this AD, do all other on-condition actions specified in paragraph 1.E(1)(b) of Fokker Services Bulletin SBF100–32–119, Revision 1, dated November 15, 2011, except where Fokker Services Bulletin SBF100–32–119, Revision 1, dated November 15, 2011, specifies to contact Fokker Services, before further flight, contact either the Manager, International Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA (or its delegated agent, or the Design Approval Holder with EASA's design organization approval, as applicable) for instructions and follow those instructions. For a repair method to be approved, the repair approval must specifically refer to this AD.
Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100–32–119, Revision 1, dated November 15, 2011, references Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin F100–32–94, dated January 5, 2000, as an additional source of service information for replacing the NLG unit.
Installing a new P/N 201456001 or P/N 201461001 NLG unit, in accordance with the Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100–32–149,
Prior to, or concurrently with, the installation of the NLG unit required by paragraph (l) of this AD or the optional installation specified in paragraph (n) of this AD, modify the nose landing gear (NLG) bracket, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Services Bulletin SBF100–53–074, Revision 1, dated October 25, 2007.
Accomplishing the replacement specified in paragraph (l) of this AD or the installation specified in paragraph (n) of this AD terminates the repetitive eddy current or dye penetrant inspections required by paragraphs (i) and (m)(1) of this AD.
(1) For airplanes equipped with Messier-Dowty nose landing gear (NLG) having part number (P/N) 201071001 or 201071002, on which a main fitting subassembly (MFSA) having P/N 201071200, 201071228, 201071248, or 201071249 is installed: As of October 3, 2000 (the effective date of AD 2000–17–03, Amendment 39–11876 (65 FR 52298, August 29, 2000), and until the effective date of this AD: No person may install an NLG having P/N 201071001 or 201071002 unless the installed MFSA has been inspected, by means of an eddy current or dye penetrant inspection, and corrected in accordance with paragraph (i) of this AD.
(2) For all airplanes: As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install an NLG having P/N 201071001 or 201071002 on any airplane.
This paragraph provides credit for the replacement required by paragraph (l) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Fokker Services B.V. Service Bulletin SBF 100–32–119, dated January 31, 2000, provided part number 201071003 or 201071004 nose gear has been installed.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1) Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness Directive 2012–0002R1, dated March 30, 2012, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 1357, 2130 EL Hoofddorp, the Netherlands; telephone +31 (0)88–6280–350; fax +31 (0)88–6280–111; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A300 B4–601, B4–603, B4–620, B4–622, -B4–605R, B4–622R, -F4–605R, F4–622R, and -C4–605R Variant F airplanes; and Model A310–203, –204, –221, –222, –304, –322, –324, and –325 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of inner skin disbonding damage on a rudder. This proposed AD would require repetitive ultrasonic inspections for disbonding of certain rudders; an elasticity of laminate checker inspection; a woodpecker or tap test inspection; venting the core, if necessary; and repairing, if necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct rudder disbonding, which could affect the structural integrity of the rudder.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 14, 2014.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Airbus SAS,
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; telephone (425) 227–2125; fax (425) 227–1149.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013–0039, dated February 26, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
One A310 operator found substantial inner skin disbonding damage on a rudder that was previously inspected in accordance with the instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin (SB) A310–55–2044. The results of the subsequent investigation revealed that the most probable cause of this damage was a blunt impact with no visible damage from outside during the rudder handling. Damage like this might grow with pressure variation during ground-air-ground cycles, and tests performed with other rudders showed a rapid propagation of damage during artificial pressure cycling.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could affect the structural integrity of the rudder.
To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus issued Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) A55W002–12 [dated December 13, 2012], pending Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) 27–21–21 PB401 revision to update rudder handling procedures.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires ultrasonic test (UT) inspections of the affected rudders to detect signs of disbonding and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s).
Airbus has issued Alert Operators Transmission A55W002–12, dated December 13, 2012. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
In many FAA transport ADs, when the service information specifies to contact the manufacturer for further instructions if certain discrepancies are found, we typically include in the FAA AD a requirement to accomplish the action using a method approved by either the FAA or the State of Design Authority (or its delegated agent).
We have recently been notified that certain laws in other countries do not allow such delegation of authority, but some countries do recognize design approval organizations. In addition, we have become aware that some U.S. operators have used repair instructions that were previously approved by a State of Design Authority or a Design Approval Holder (DAH) as a method of compliance with this provision in FAA ADs. Frequently, in these cases, the previously approved repair instructions come from the airplane structural repair manual or DAH repair approval statements that were not specifically developed to address the unsafe condition corrected by the AD. Using repair instructions that were not specifically approved for a particular AD creates the potential for doing repairs that were not developed to address the unsafe condition identified by the MCAI AD, the FAA AD, or the applicable service information, which could result in the unsafe condition not being fully corrected.
To prevent the use of repairs that were not specifically developed to correct the unsafe condition, certain requirements of this proposed AD specify that the repair approval specifically refer to the FAA AD. This change is intended to clarify the method of compliance and to provide operators with better visibility of repairs that are specifically developed and approved to correct the unsafe condition. In addition, we use the phrase “its delegated agent, or the DAH with the State of Design Authority's design organization approval, as applicable” in this proposed AD to refer to a DAH authorized to approve certain required repairs for this proposed AD.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 89 airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 10 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $75,650, or $850 per product.
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide a cost estimate for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by April 14, 2014.
None.
This AD applies to the airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD, except airplanes on which modification 08827 has been embodied in production.
(1) Airbus Model A300 B4–601, B4–603, B4–620, B4–622, –B4–605R, B4–622R, –F4–605R, F4–622R, and –C4–605R Variant F airplanes, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.
(2) Airbus Model A310–203, –204, –221, –222, –304, –322, –324, and –325 airplanes, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 55; Stabilizers.
This AD was prompted by a report of inner skin disbonding damage on a rudder. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct rudder disbonding, which could affect the structural integrity of the rudder.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, identify the rudder assembly part number (P/N) and serial number (S/N), in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Alert Operator Transmission (AOT) A55W002–12, dated December 13, 2012. If the part number or serial number cannot be determined, before further flight, identify the part number and serial number in accordance with a method approved by either the Manager, International Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA (or its delegated agent, or by the Design Approval Holder with EASA design organization approval, as applicable). For an identification method to be approved, the identification method approval must specifically refer to this AD.
If a rudder assembly part number starting with A55471500 is found during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, before further flight, do an ultrasonic (UT) inspection for damage (e.g., disbonding and liquid ingress) of the rudder side panel along the Z-profile and in the booster area, in accordance with Airbus Alert Operator Transmission (AOT) A55W002–12, dated December 13, 2012. If any damage is found, before further flight, do the inspections to confirm disbonding damage as specified in paragraph (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD, in accordance with Airbus Alert Operator Transmission (AOT) A55W002–12, dated December 13, 2012.
(1) Do an elasticity of laminate checker inspection to detect external and internal disbonding of the rudder side panel along the Z-profile and in the booster area.
(2) Do a woodpecker or tap test inspection to detect external disbonding of the rudder side panel along the Z-profile and in the booster area.
(1) If any disbonding is confirmed during any inspection required by paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD, before further flight, repair as specified in paragraphs (i)(1)(i) and (i)(1)(ii) of this AD, as applicable.
(i) If disbonding is less than or equal to 50 millimeters (mm) in width and less than or equal to 150 mm in length, before further flight, vent the core, using a method approved by either the Manager, International Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA (or its delegated agent, or by the Design Approval Holder with EASA design organization approval, as applicable). Within 100 flight cycles after the UT inspection specified in paragraph (h) of this AD is done, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA (or its delegated agent, or the Design Approval Holder with EASA's design organization approval, as applicable). For a repair method to be approved, the repair approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(ii) If disbonding is greater than 50 mm in width or greater than 150 mm in length, before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA (or its delegated agent, or the Design Approval Holder with EASA's design organization approval, as applicable). For a repair method to be approved, the repair approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(2) If liquid ingress is confirmed during any inspection required by paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2), before further flight, repair, using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA (or its delegated agent, or the Design Approval Holder with EASA's design organization approval, as applicable). For a repair method to be approved, the repair approval must specifically refer to this AD.
If any rudder has been inspected as specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A300–55–6043, Revision 01, dated December 3, 2007; or A310–55–2044, Revision 01, dated
As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install, on any airplane, a rudder assembly having a part number starting with A55471500, unless it has been inspected as required by paragraph (h) of this AD, and all applicable actions required by paragraph (i) of this AD have been done.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013–0039, dated February 26, 2013; for related information, which can be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Model A300 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by an analysis of the impacts of extended service goal activities on Airbus Model A300 series airplanes. This proposed AD would require revising the maintenance program. We are proposing this AD to prevent failure of flight critical systems.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 14, 2014.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; telephone (425) 227–2125; fax (425) 227–1149.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2012–0233, dated November 7, 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:
The results of the Extended Service Goal (ESG) exercise for A300 series aeroplanes (75,000 flight hours (FH) or 48,000 flight cycles (FC), whichever occurs first) identified certain operational tests as Airworthiness Limitation Items (ALI), necessary to ensure the safety objectives for aeroplanes which have accumulated or exceeded 60,000 FH.
These ALI are not fully new, since all nine tasks derive from existing Maintenance Planning Document (MPD) tasks. Consequently, the intervals of those nine tasks can no longer be escalated or retained at an interval higher than that specified in this [EASA] AD for each task.
Failure to comply with these tasks within the established maximum intervals could be detrimental to the safety of the affected aeroplanes.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires the implementation of nine specific operational ALI test for aeroplanes which have accumulated or exceeded 60,000 FH.
In addition, Airbus performed an analysis of the impacts of ESG activities on A300 series aeroplanes and, based on the results, this [EASA] AD publishes an operational life of 75,000 FH or 48,000 FC, whichever occurs first, applicable to A300 system installations.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 7 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $595, or $85 per product.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by April 14, 2014.
None.
This AD applies to Airbus Model A300 B2–1A, B2–1C, B2K–3C, B2–203, B4–2C, B4–103, and B4–203 airplanes, certificated in any category, all serial numbers.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05 Periodic Inspections; Code 22, Auto Flight; Code 27, Flight Controls.
This AD was prompted by an analysis of the impacts of extended service goal activities on Airbus Model A300 series airplanes. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of flight critical systems.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the information specified in Table 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD. The compliance time for doing the initial actions specified in Table 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD is before 60,000 total flight hours accumulated on the airplane, or within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
As of the effective date of this AD, do not operate any airplane beyond 75,000 total flight hours or 48,000 total flight cycles, whichever occurs first.
After accomplishing the revision required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals may be used unless the actions or intervals are approved as an alternative method of compliance in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2012–0233, dated November 7, 2012, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend Class E airspace at Albion, NE. Decommissioning of the Alaby non-directional radio beacon (NDB) at Albion Municipal Airport has made airspace reconfiguration necessary for standard instrument approach procedures and for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport.
0901 UTC. Comments must be received on or before April 14, 2014.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, Washington, DC 20590–0001. You must identify the docket number FAA–2013–0595/Airspace Docket No. 13–ACE–10, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at
Scott Enander, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone: 817–321–7716.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see “
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking (202) 267–9677, to request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11–2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.
This action proposes to amend Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), Part 71 by modifying Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Albion Municipal Airport, Albion, NE, for standard instrument approach procedures at the airport. Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Alaby NDB and the cancellation of the NDB approach. The segment southeast of the airport would now be within 2.6 miles each side of the 159° bearing from the airport. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.
Class E airspace areas 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 designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. 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 will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the 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 would amend controlled airspace at Albion Municipal Airport, Albion, NE.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 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 Albion Municipal Airport, and within 2.6 miles each side of the 159° bearing from the airport extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 7 miles southeast of the airport.
Securities and Exchange Commission
Re-opening of comment period.
The Securities and Exchange Commission is re-opening the comment period on two releases, Asset-Backed Securities, Securities Act Release No. 33–9117 (Apr. 7, 2010), 75 FR 23328 (the “2010 ABS Proposing Release”) and Re-Proposal of Shelf Eligibility Conditions for Asset-Backed Securities, Securities Act Release No. 33–9244 (July 26, 2011), 76 FR 47948 (the “2011 ABS Re-Proposing Release”). The
Comments should be received on or before March 28, 2014.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Use the Federal eRulemaking Portal (
• Send paper comments to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number S7–08–10. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help us process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (
Rolaine S. Bancroft, Senior Special Counsel or Robert Errett, Special Counsel, in the Office of Structured Finance at (202) 551–3850, Division of Corporation Finance, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–3628.
In 2010, the Commission proposed changes to the offering, disclosure, and reporting requirements for asset-backed securities (“ABS”).
In July 2010, subsequent to the publication of the 2010 ABS Proposing Release, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”), which required the Commission to prescribe several ABS-related rules. Some of the mandated rules were reflected in the 2010 ABS Proposing Release, while others were not. After considering the additional Dodd-Frank Act requirements, and considering comments received in connection with the 2010 ABS Proposing Release, the Commission re-proposed portions of the 2010 ABS Proposing Release in July 2011 seeking additional comment on asset-level disclosure provisions, and comment on Section 942(b) of the Dodd-Frank Act, which requires the Commission to adopt regulations to require asset-level information.
We received comments in response to the proposals and requests for comment recommending that, among other things, because certain potentially sensitive data would form part of the required asset-level disclosures, the asset-level information be provided by means other than public dissemination on EDGAR.
The staff has prepared a memorandum summarizing additional information about the use of Web sites in the ABS market as a means to disseminate asset-level and other offering information.
By the Commission.
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education (Department).
Proposed priorities, requirement, and definitions.
The Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education proposes priorities, a requirement, and definitions under the IAL program. The Assistant Secretary may use the priorities, requirement, and definitions for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2014 and later years. We take this action to ensure IAL projects will be supported, at a minimum, by evidence of strong theory, and to focus Federal financial assistance on projects that serve rural local educational agencies (LEAs).
We must receive your comments on or before March 31, 2014.
Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not accept comments submitted by fax or by email or those submitted after the comment period. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies, please submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the Docket ID at the top of your comments.
•
•
The Department's policy is to make all comments received from members of the public available for public viewing in their entirety on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Melvin Graham, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., room 3E334, Washington, DC 20202–6200. Telephone: (202) 260–8268 or by email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877–8339.
We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific requirements of Executive Order 12866 and its overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from these proposed priorities, requirement, and definitions. Please let us know of any further ways we could reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and efficient administration of the program.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about these proposed regulations by accessing Regulations.gov. You may also inspect the comments in person in room 3E241 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC between 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays. Please contact the person listed under
20 U.S.C. 7243–7243b.
This notice contains two proposed priorities.
We have developed a priority that describes the components of a high-quality plan and the level of evidence of effectiveness most appropriate for the IAL program.
The components of a high-quality plan include a description of how the activity improves literacy in early childhood, improves students' reading ability, motivates older children to read, or teaches children and students to read. The plan must also include a description of the populations to be served, key goals and activities, the rationale for the activities chosen, timeline for the project, parties responsible for implementing the project, and the credibility of the plan.
The Secretary published final regulations in the
Considering that the new regulations were established, in part, to provide incentives and opportunities to build the body of evidence of effectiveness in education, and considering the wide range of new and innovative approaches possible under the IAL program, we have determined that the most appropriate level of evidence for the IAL program is strong theory.
While there exists evidence in the field to support a higher level of evidence for the IAL program, we selected strong theory in order to broaden the evidence base by supporting innovative and new ideas, as well as to empower applicants to propose activities and approaches that have shown evidence of promise or effectiveness anecdotally or in theory, but that have not yet been included in a published research study or not met the requirements of a higher level of evidence.
The final regulations also note the importance of applicants proposing project evaluations that increase the level of evidence of the proposed project's effectiveness. In order to provide opportunities for applicants to build the body of evidence of effectiveness in education, we will include a related selection criterion that encourages applicants to incorporate evaluation designs that will, if well-implemented, produce evidence of
To meet this priority, applicants must submit a plan that is supported by evidence of strong theory, including a rationale for the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice and a corresponding logic model (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c)).
The applicant must submit a plan with the following information:
(a) a description of the proposed book distribution, childhood literacy activities, or both, that are designed to improve the literacy skills of children and students by one or more of the following—
(1) promoting early literacy and preparing young children to read;
(2) developing and improving students' reading ability;
(3) motivating older children to read; and
(4) teaching children and students to read.
(b) the age or grade spans of children and students from birth through 12th grade to be served within the attendance boundaries of high-need LEAs (as defined in this notice);
(c) a detailed description of the key goals, the activities to be undertaken, the rationale for those activities, the timeline, the parties responsible for implementing the activities, and the credibility of the plan (as judged, in part, by the information submitted as evidence of strong theory); and
(d)(i) a description of how the proposed project is supported by strong theory; and (ii) the corresponding logic model (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c)).
Rural school districts often lack the personnel and resources needed to compete effectively for Federal competitive grants. Therefore, we wish to establish a priority to better enable eligible rural applicants to compete effectively for IAL funds.
To meet this priority, an applicant must propose a project designed to provide high-quality literacy programming, or distribute books, or both, to students served by a rural LEA (as defined in this notice).
When inviting applications for a competition using one or more priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute, competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the
The IAL program is guided by the Senate report that accompanied the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (S. Rep. no. 113–71, at 173 (2013)). According to that report, funds made available under the IAL program are for competitive awards to national not-for-profit organizations (NNPs) or school libraries.
School libraries generally do not have the capacity to manage Federal grants independently of the schools and districts they serve. We believe LEAs are better equipped to compete for, and meet the requirements of, Federal grants than are school libraries. Therefore, school libraries should coordinate with their LEAs in competing for IAL funds.
The Assistant Secretary proposes the following requirement for this program. We may apply this requirement in any year in which this program is in effect.
Six important terms associated with this program are not defined in the authorizing statute, applicable regulations, or EDGAR.
The Assistant Secretary proposes the following definitions for this program. We may apply one or more of these definitions in any year in which this program is in effect.
We will announce the final priorities, requirement, and definitions in a notice in the
This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in which we choose to use one or more of these priorities, requirement, and definitions we invite applications through a notice in the
Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether this proposed regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action likely to result in a rule that may—
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to as an “economically significant” rule);
(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement 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 stated in the Executive order.
This proposed regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
We have also reviewed this proposed regulatory action under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency—
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into account—among other things and to the extent practicable—the costs of cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including economic incentives—such as user fees or marketable permits—to encourage the desired behavior, or provide information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency “to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.” The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these techniques may include “identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.”
We are issuing these proposed priorities, requirement, and definitions only on a reasoned determination that their benefits would justify their costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that would maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that this regulatory action is consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this regulatory action would not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.
In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for this program.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) seeks comment on a number of discrete issues relating to the rural broadband experiments and on the appropriate budget and funding to support initiatives for the ongoing need for research into the future of telephone numbering. The purpose of these experiments is to speed market-driven technological transitions and innovations by preserving the core statutory vales that exist today.
Comments are due on or before March 31, 2014 and reply comments are due on or before April 14, 2014. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this document, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
You may submit comments, identified by either WC Docket No. 10–90 or WC Docket No. 13–97, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the
Alexander Minard, Wireline Competition Bureau, (202) 418–0428 or TTY: (202) 418–0484 for WC Docket No. 10–90, Robert Cannon, Office of Strategic Planning and Policy Analysis, (202) 418–2421 for WC Docket No. 13–97.
This is a synopsis of the Commission's Further Notice of Proposed Rulemakings (FNPRM's) in WC Docket Nos. 10–90; 13–97 FCC 14–5, adopted on January 30, 2014 and released on January 31, 2014. The full text of this document is available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY–A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. Or at the following Internet address:
Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).
All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW., Room TW–A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of
Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554.
1. In the Technology Transitions Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (
2. The Commission intends to provide funding for experiments to extend modern networks in rural, high-cost areas without increasing the overall size of the universal service fund. The
3. According to USAC, the Connect America reserve account is projected to have an ending balance of $1.68 billion as of the first quarter of 2014, with $1.45 billion of those funds already allocated to Connect America Phase I (incremental support in round one and round two), the Mobility Fund Phase I, the Tribal Mobility Fund Phase I, and the Mobility Fund Phase II. The Commission does not envision using all unallocated funds in the broadband reserve for experiments in rural areas, but rather an amount that is sufficient to enable us to award funding to a limited number of projects that enable evaluation of the four sets of interrelated questions identified above. Should the Commission make available $50 or $100 million or some other amount in total support for experiments? Should the Commission allocate a lesser or greater amount? Should the Commission specifically allocate a separate amount for non-recurring support to be awarded on a competitive basis, in addition to recurring support, or merely a total amount that can used in a variety of ways, depending on the applications received? Should the Commission allocate a portion of the funds for Phase II experiments in price cap areas, and a separate amount for areas outside of price cap territories?
4. In the
5. The Commission remains firmly committed to the goal of ensuring that universal service support is utilized efficiently to preserve voice and extend broadband-capable networks in high-cost areas in rural America. As discussed in the
6. The Commission proposes generally to apply the same application process and procedures adopted in the
7. Consistent with the approach adopted for experiments in price cap territories and previously implemented by the Commission for the second round of Connect America Phase I, the Commission proposes that experimental funding would only be made only for locations in high-cost census blocks lacking broadband, subject to a challenge process. The Commission does not intend such experiments to threaten the financial viability of broadband networks that exist today through support from our existing high-cost mechanisms. Without prejudging where the funding threshold will ultimately be set for purposes of the offer of model-based support to price cap carriers, we encourage entities interested in proposing experiments in rate-of-return areas to focus their proposals on high-cost areas similar to those identified in the cost model as potentially eligible for the Phase II offer of model-based support to price cap carriers. The Commission recognizes that representatives of rate-of-return carriers have argued that adjustments would need to be made to the cost model before it could be used on a voluntary basis for any rate-of-return carrier that wished to elect to receive model-based support. Without prejudging the resolution of that question, could the model nonetheless be employed to identify potential areas where experiments in rate-of-return areas might be useful?
8. The Commission proposes to allow proposals in areas where the incumbent is a rate-of-return carrier to be made at the census block level in lieu of the census tract level in recognition that smaller providers may wish to develop proposals for smaller geographic areas.
9. The Commission seeks comment on all of these proposals. To the extent parties argue, the Commission should take a different approach in rate-of-return areas, they should identify with specificity what aspects of the experiments adopted for price cap areas should be modified and why.
10. A key objective in conducting these experiments is to determine whether there is interest in deploying robust, scalable networks for an amount equal to or less than model-based support. Here, the Commission seeks
11. The Commission seeks comment below on potential selective factors and ask commenters to address how the Commission might implement these selective factors as part of its objective process for selecting experiments. For example, should the Commission adopt a 100 point scale? The Commission also seeks comment more generally on whether any selective factors should be added, deleted or modified.
12. The Commission proposes that cost effectiveness should be the primary criteria in evaluating which applications to select for the experiment. How should the Commission measure cost effectiveness? One potential measure of cost effectiveness is whether the applicant proposes to serve an area for an amount less than model-based support. Are there other objective measures for cost-effectiveness that the Commission should test in the experimental setting? If the Commission were to adopt such a selective factor and a scoring system, how many points should be provided to applicants based on the cost effectiveness of their proposal? To the extent an applicant seeks one-time funding as opposed to recurring support, how should that be evaluated in the scoring system, as support amounts determined in the forward looking cost model are recurring amounts?
13. A second potential selective criteria is the extent to which the applicant proposes to build robust, scalable networks. In the
14. A third potential criteria could be the extent to which applicants propose innovative strategies to leverage non-Federal governmental sources of funding, such as State, local, or Tribal government funding. The Commission recognizes the importance of a State, local or Tribal government commitment to advance universal service in partnership with the Commission. If the Commission were to adopt this criteria, how much weight should be given to applications that leverage non-Federal governmental funding sources?
15. A fourth potential criteria could be whether applicants propose to offer high-capacity connectivity to Tribal lands. If the Commission were to adopt this criteria, how much weight should be given to applications that propose to serve Tribal lands?
16. Finally, the Commission seeks more specific comment on how the mechanics of the scoring system would function. What role, if any, should there be for more subjective evaluations of the financial and technical qualifications of applicants, or of which proposals provide the best value for requested funding? For instance, should there be flexibility to deviate from the scoring system in order to achieve diversity of projects, both in terms of geography and types of technologies?
17. Relatedly, the Commission seeks comment on what information may be useful to include in the formal proposals for rural broadband experiments, such as: The number of proposed residential and small business locations to be served within eligible census blocks in the relevant census tract; the number of health care providers, schools and libraries that are physically located within the eligible census blocks; whether the proposal includes the provision of service on Tribal lands and, if so, identification of the Tribal lands to be served; the planned service offerings that would be offered to residential and small businesses, and such anchor institutions, with details regarding the proposed speeds, latencies, usage allowance (if any), and pricing of such offerings; whether the services offered to residential consumers would be sufficiently robust to utilize advanced educational and health care applications; when such services would be available to consumers, businesses and such anchor institutions (the planned deployment schedule); whether the infrastructure can be upgraded later to offer greater throughput (i.e., speeds) and more capacity for each user at a given price point; how network speeds and other characteristics can be measured; whether any discounted services would be offered to specific populations, such as low-income households or customers on Tribal lands; proposed strategies for demand aggregation; proposed strategies for addressing barriers to adoption (e.g., whether the applicant proposes to offer digital literacy training or equipment to subscribers); whether and how other service providers can use the facilities constructed; availability and cost of backhaul and other assets required for project success; whether constraints in middle-mile connectivity may limit the services offered; whether the applicant plans to rely in part on financing from non-federal governmental institutions (e.g., State, regional, Tribal, or local funding; State universal service fund; private foundations); whether the applicant expects to have access to resources that will contribute to project success, such as in-kind contributions, access to cell towers, poles and rights of way, expedited permitting, or existing authorizations; information regarding the proposed network to be deployed and the technologies to be utilized (e.g., wireline, fixed wireless, or mobile wireless); how the applicant proposes to offer voice telephony service to customers at rates reasonably comparable to rates charged for similar services in urban areas; and the amount of Connect America support requested (total and per location) and the time period over which funding would be provided.
18. In the
19. The Commission expects that the amount of funding to be made available for any experiment will not exceed the amount of model-calculated support for a given geographic area. The Commission seeks comment on whether to limit the amount of support available in census tracts where the average cost per location is higher than the preliminary extremely high cost threshold to the amount per location equal to that preliminary extremely high cost threshold.
20. The Commission seeks comment on allowing applicants for funding awarded through this rural broadband experiment to propose to serve partially-served census blocks, which are not eligible for the offer of model-based support to price cap carriers. In adopting a framework for the Phase II challenge process, the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) concluded, primarily for administrative reasons, that partially served blocks would not be included in the offer of model-based support, reasoning that the administrative burdens on both Commission staff and potential challenges of conducting sub-census block challenges outweighed the marginal benefits. That was a reasonable approach for determining whether the incumbent would receive the opportunity to receive model-based support in exchange for a state-level commitment, given the assumption that areas not served by price cap carriers through the offer of model-based support potentially could be eligible for support through the Phase II competitive bidding process. The Commission believes it could be valuable to examine on a limited scale, in the Phase II experiment, whether the administrative difficulties of entertaining challenges to the eligibility of partially served census blocks could be mitigated by doing such challenges only if a partially served census block is tentatively awarded funding (rather than in advance of selection). Such an approach could advance the Commission's goal of ensuring that all consumers, businesses and anchor institutions—including those that currently lack service in these partially served census blocks—will have an opportunity to gain broadband access in the future.
21. The Commission seeks comment on any additional rules or requirements it should adopt in the context of rural broadband experiments. For instance, should a condition of participation be offering discounted broadband services to low-income consumers? For applicants whose service areas include Tribal lands, should a condition of participation be offering service to residents and anchor institutions on Tribal lands? Should a condition of participation be to offer to connect community-based institutions, such as schools, libraries, and health care providers, within the project area with high-capacity services appropriate for educational or healthcare activities? To the extent an applicant fails to meet the conditions of its experiment, should facilities built using universal service funding be made available to others? The Commission asks commenters to refresh the record on issues relating to the Eligible Telecommunications Carriers (ETC) designation process. Should the Commission adopt federal rules regarding the ETC designation process specifically for the rural broadband experiments? For instance, should the Commission adopt a presumption that if a State fails to act on an ETC application from a selected participant within a specified period of time, such as 60 days, the State lacks jurisdiction over the applicant, and the Commission will address the ETC application pursuant to section 214(e)(6)? The Commission also seeks comment on whether and how the competitive bidding requirements and other rules applicable to participants and vendors in other universal service programs should apply in the context of these experiments, to the extent an applicant seeks to offer services to schools, libraries, and/or health care providers, as well as to residential end users. Are there other issues discussed above in the service experiments section that should be addressed in the context of these experiments in rural, high-cost areas, and if so, how?
22. To the extent Connect America Phase II funding is awarded in the experiment prior to the offer of model-based support to price cap carriers, should the Commission direct the Bureau to adjust the offer of support for a state-level commitment to remove those areas from the offer? In such situations, should the incumbent price cap carrier be relieved of its federal ETC high-cost obligations for the area when support is awarded to another entity? The Commission notes that the carrier would still be required to comply with current notice requirements, including notice of discontinuance and notice of network change requirements. Similarly, should areas served by experiments be excluded from the Phase II competitive bidding process? How does the potential difference in duration, or other aspects, of proposals selected for the experiment impact any decision to exclude such areas from the general Phase II competitive bidding process?
23. In this section, the Commission seeks comment on soliciting experiments that focus on ensuring that consumers have access to advanced services to address the increased and growing demand for telemedicine and remote monitoring. The Commission has a role in ensuring universal access to advanced telecommunications and information services. Historically, the Commission's high-cost program has focused on providing support to providers for the cost of deploying and operating networks in high-cost areas. In the
24. When the Commission adopted the Healthcare Connect Fund in 2012, it sought to advance several goals for the rural healthcare program: (1) Increasing access to broadband for health care providers (HCPs), particularly those serving rural areas; (2) fostering the development and deployment of broadband health care networks, and (3) maximizing the cost-effectiveness of the program. It also set aside up to $50 million to conduct a pilot program to test expanded access to telemedicine at skilled nursing facilities. The Commission seeks comment on experiments that focus on the implications of the technology transition on health care facilities and their patients. The Commission seeks comment on conducting experiments that would explore how to improve access to advanced telecommunications and information services for healthcare for vulnerable populations such as the elderly and veterans in rural, high-cost, and insular areas. For example, technological advances hold great promise to enable the elderly to age in place, in their home, with remote monitoring of key health statistics
25. Consistent with the decision in the
26. The Commission seeks comment on the amount of funding it should allocate for such experiments. If the Commission moves forward with rural healthcare broadband experiments, it proposes to do so in a manner that would not impact the size of the Fund. Specifically, the Commission proposes funding any such experiments out of the $50 million currently authorized for the skilled nursing facility pilot program. The Commission has previously decided to set aside that amount of one-time support for testing broadband use in telemedicine. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal and other options that would not impact the size of the Fund, such as funding coming from the existing Connect America Fund budget or the rural health care mechanism.
27. The Commission proposes generally to use the application process described above for the Connect America rural broadband experiments for any healthcare experiments. To the extent parties suggest the Commission use different processes for a healthcare experiment, they should identify with specificity which aspects of the process should be modified and why.
28. The Commission seeks comment on the specific selective criteria for a healthcare broadband experiment. How many projects should be funded, and how should applications be prioritized? What auditing and recordkeeping measures should be in place for any such experiment to protect against waste, fraud and abuse? Are there specific ways in which the Commission's experience with the successful Rural Health Care Pilot Program or other universal service pilot programs which should be reflected in the evaluation of proposals or the operation of the experiments? Are there requirements under the existing rural health care mechanism (either the Telecommunications Program or the new Healthcare Connect Fund), or other universal service programs, that would be implicated by such experiments? If so, commenters should identify those rules with specificity and indicate how experiments would need to be tailored to such rules, or explain whether and how those rules should be waived or modified.
29. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on how these experiments might be implemented consistent with our legal authority. Following the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Commission implemented the directives in section 254 by adopting rules to administer universal service through four separate programs, but nothing in the statutory framework requires this result. Sections 254(b)(2) and 254(b)(3) require the Commission to “base policies on the preservation and advancement of universal service” on “principles” that “[a]ccess to advanced telecommunications and information services should be provided in all regions of the Nation” and that “[c]onsumers in all regions of the Nation, including low-income consumers and those in rural, insular, and high cost areas should have access to . . . advanced telecommunications and information services . . . that are reasonably comparable to services provided in urban areas.” Section 254(h)(1) contains specific provisions for “health care providers in rural areas” and section 254(h)(2) requires the Commission “to establish competitively neutral rules to enhance . . . access to advanced telecommunications services and information services for all . . . health care providers.” The Commission seeks comment on the Commission's legal authority to interpret section 254 to fund experiments that focus on providing advanced telecommunications and information services to consumers in rural areas, with a particular focus deploying broadband that is sufficient to meet consumers' healthcare needs. The Commission also seeks comment on experiments that would provide support to health care providers.
30. In the
31. In the
32. Much work has already been done by the Commission and multiple expert bodies to identify issues and concerns with regards to the future of telephone numbering. The Commission would expect that any testbed launched after the initial workshop would build upon these efforts.
33. In response to the May 10, 2013 Public Notice seeking comment on potential trials to explore technology transitions issues, the Commission received several comments concerning numbering. Numerous parties noted the need for numbering research, testing and trials. Commenters stated that a trial is needed to explore the changing role of the databases in an all-IP network, and recommended that any trial should be open to carriers, Voice over IP (VoIP) providers, database administrators, and others with an interest in numbering. In Charge Systems noted the need to identify and validate customers and telephone numbers. Neustar noted the decoupling of geography from telephone number assignments as well as the potential elimination of telephone number allocation on a rate center basis. NARUC commented on the need to consider numbering resource utilization and optimization.
34. Building upon the work and recommendations of these expert bodies, the Commission directs that it work collaboratively with government and non-government experts towards basic research into the design and development of a prototype post-transition number management system as described below. The Commission believes that the Commission, in cooperation with other experts, can play an important, beneficial and industry-neutral role in accelerating the development of this pre-market, non-production system.
35. The testbed goals would be to enable research into numbering in an all-IP network, unencumbered by the constraints of the legacy network. Such a testbed might address number allocation and management as well as database lookup for call routing. The effort could include two facets: (i) A small, non-production server system for prototyping, and (ii) one or more workshops or electronic fora to convene an open, cross-industry, and collaborative group of technical experts, including, in particular, software engineers with implementation experience, to sketch and prototype a system for managing numbering resources and obtaining information about these resources. Any testbed should be designed to result in experiences and output that will inform the work of relevant industry standards bodies, Commission advisory bodies and the Commission, using the Internet principles of “rough consensus and running code.”
36.
37. The Commission further expects that the testbed would include features such as security (including the ability to mitigate spoofing, phishing, unwanted calls, and denial-of-service attacks), the ability to authenticate numbers, traceability, efficiency, portability, and reliability. Any testbed should be designed to promote competition and create predictable dialing protocols for end users. A properly designed testbed should also take into account the needs of emergency communications and N11 dialing for special services, as well as any potential implications for persons with disabilities. International implications should be explored as well as the impact of the IPv6 migration.
38. To be most useful to the Commission, the testbed should permit exploration of what is feasible for an all-IP, post-transitions number system, identify issues, and flag what actions may be necessary in order to facilitate the technology transitions. Questions that could be explored include those noted above as well as: how can the number system be simplified? Can multiple databases exist and can they be distributed? What are the implications of decoupling numbering from geography or services? How can the Commission measure actual number utilization and prevent the inefficient use of numbering resources? What interfaces must be specified? What databases are necessary? How will routing be handled and what information is necessary within the database? What are the implications for number utilization, particularly in light of machine-to-machine communications? Who can a number be assigned to, how can that person be authenticated, and what information about that person needs to be in the database?
39. While the Commission does not anticipate needing a block of NANP numbers to initiate the test bed, would the availability of a block of numbers facilitate the goals of this test bed? If so, can the block be drawn from existing resources such as pANI or the 555 NXX or 456 NPA (carrier-specific services) blocks or should they be drawn from other numbering resources? How large a resource allocation is needed and are there Commission actions that need to be taken to facilitate allocation?
40.
41. The initial workshop will be hosted by the CTO and will focus on the basic design and launch of the testbed as a non-production, prototype system for managing numbering resources and obtaining information about these resources in a post-transitions world. The workshop has three objectives: (1) To identify the gaps in the existing system for an all-IP environment and opportunities for simplification; (2) to facilitate proposals for a general architecture for the testbed; and (3) to facilitate the infrastructure and organization (mailing list, conference calls) for those individuals that are interested in doing the prototyping and participating further in the testbed process. Subsequent engineering workshops will continue, as needed, to assist participants in refining the testbed and in further exploring the many technical questions raised by an all-IP, post transitions numbering management system.
42. The Commission expects the testbed to run for about a year. The Commission anticipates that the testbed would be hosted at a neutral but as of yet undetermined location. The Commission anticipates that maintaining the physical testbed will involve a modest expense of a few thousand dollars per year. For further information concerning the testbed and the workshop, please contact Robert Cannon,
43. As indicated by experts and commenters, there is an ongoing need for research into the future of telephone numbering. The Commission proposes funding telephone numbering research to support initiatives like the testbed, and it seeks comment on the appropriate budget and funding. For example, the Commission expects funding to maintain the testbed to be quite modest (approximately $100 per month for server resources), which could potentially be obtained from a number of sources, but technical staff resources may accelerate progress. The Commission requires the collection of numbering contributions associated with telephone numbering management that are used to fund the operation of numbering databases and services. Should the Commission use some of the revenue collected from these contributions to fund the testbed and related research? How would funding for such research be determined? What types of awards would be appropriate? Should the Commission seek NANC input on what research needs to be conducted? If so, what timeframe would be appropriate for obtaining input from the NANC? The Commission seeks comment on these issues. The Commission also seeks comment on how it can best identify any further research that should be facilitated by the Commission to supplement the work of stakeholders participating in any testbed and under what timeframe that research should be performed. Should the Commission solicit other numbering-related research proposals? If so, what kind of research would be most helpful and how should the Commission facilitate such research?
44. The Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking does not contain proposed information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107–198,
45. The
46. The proceeding this document initiates shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's
47. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated in the Dates section of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).
For further information, contact Alexander Minard, Acting Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, at
48. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), requires that agencies prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice-and-comment rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” The RFA generally defines “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).
49. In this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission states that there is an ongoing need for research into the future of telephone numbering, proposes funding telephone numbering research to support initiatives like the testbed described in the Order in WC Docket No. 13–97 described above, and seeks comment on the appropriate budget and funding. The Commission notes that it expects the funding to maintain the testbed to be quite modest (approximately $100 per month) for server resources, that it could potentially be funded by contributions already collected in association with telephone numbering management, and seeks comment on this. The Commission seeks comment on how funding for such research should be determined, the types of awards that would be appropriate, whether the Commission should seek NANC input on what research needs to be conducted, and the timeframe for any such input from NANC. This Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking only seeks comment on funding and budget for research and development projects and does not propose new rules, burdens, or requirements.
50. The Commission therefore certifies, pursuant to the RFA, that the proposals in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If commenters believe that the proposals discussed in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking require additional RFA analysis, they should include a discussion of these issues in their comments and additionally label them as RFA comments. The Commission will send a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including a copy of this initial regulatory flexibility certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. In addition, a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and this initial certification will be published in the
51. The proceeding this document initiates shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's
52. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated in the Dates section of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).
For further information, contact Robert Cannon, Senior Counsel, Office of Strategic Planning and Policy Analysis, at
53.
54.
55.
56.
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Proposed rule.
DoD is proposing to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to update the Rules of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA). The proposed rule revises and reorders the Board's Rules for clarity and consistency and accounts for changes in technology, provides updated contact information, and adds two addendums.
Comment date: Comments on the proposed rule should be submitted in writing to the addresses shown below on or before April 29, 2014, to be considered in the formation of a final rule.
Submit comments identified by Docket No. DARS 2014–0011, using any of the following methods:
○
○
○
○
Comments received generally will be posted without change to
Jeffrey Gardin, Deputy General Counsel, ASBCA, 703–681–8502, or Catherine Stanton, General Counsel, ASBCA, 703–681–8501; both at email address:
This proposed rule is being issued on behalf of Judge Paul Williams, Chairman, Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. The rule proposes to amend the DFARS to update the Rules of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals at 48 CFR Chapter 2, Appendix A, Part 2. It revises and reorders the Board's Rules for clarity and consistency and accounts for changes in technology, removes contradictions, resolves ambiguities, provides updated contact information to allow for some electronic communication by litigants appearing before the Board, and adds two addendums:
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 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 rule does not contain any 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).
Government procurement.
Therefore, 48 CFR chapter 2 is amended as follows:
41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.
The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (referred to herein as the Board) has jurisdiction to decide any appeal from a final decision of a contracting officer, pursuant to the Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. 7101–7109, or its Charter, 48 CFR Chap. 2, App. A, Pt. 1, relative to a contract made by the Department of Defense, the Department of the Army, the Department of the Navy, the Department of the Air Force, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration or any other department or agency, as permitted by law.
(a) The Board's address is Skyline Six, Room 703, 5109 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041–3208; telephone 703–681–8500
(b) The Board consists of a Chairman, two or more Vice Chairmen, and other Members, all of whom are attorneys at law duly licensed by a state, commonwealth, territory, or the District of Columbia. Board Members are designated Administrative Judges.
(c) There are a number of divisions of the Board, established by the Chairman in such manner as to provide for the most effective and expeditious handling of appeals. The Chairman and a Vice Chairman act as members of each division. Hearings may be held by an Administrative Judge or by a duly authorized examiner. Except for appeals processed under the expedited or accelerated procedure (see Rules 12.2(c) and 12.3(c)), the decision of a majority of a division constitutes the decision of the Board, unless the Chairman refers the appeal to the Board's Senior Deciding Group (consisting of the Chairman, Vice Chairmen, all division heads, and the Judge who drafted the decision), in which event a decision of a majority of that group constitutes the decision of the Board. Appeals referred to the Senior Deciding Group are those of unusual difficulty or significant precedential importance, or that have occasioned serious dispute within the normal division decision process.
(d) The Board will to the fullest extent practicable provide informal, expeditious, and inexpensive resolution of disputes.
(a)
(1) Where the contractor has submitted a claim of $100,000 or less to the contracting officer and has requested a written decision within 60 days from receipt of the request, and the contracting officer has not provided a decision within that period, or where such a contractor request has not been made and the contracting officer has not issued a decision within a reasonable time, the contractor may file a notice of appeal as provided in paragraph (a) of this Rule, citing the failure of the contracting officer to issue a decision.
(2) Where the contractor has submitted a properly certified claim over $100,000 to the contracting officer or has submitted a claim that involves no monetary amount, and the contracting officer, within 60 days of receipt of the claim, fails to issue a decision or fails to provide the contractor with a reasonable date by which a decision will be issued, and the contracting officer has failed to issue a decision within a reasonable time, the contractor may file a notice of appeal as provided in paragraph (a) of this Rule, citing the failure of the contracting officer to issue a decision.
(3) A reasonable time shall be determined by taking into account such factors as the size and complexity of the claim and the adequacy of the information provided by the contractor to support the claim.
(4) Where an appeal is before the Board pursuant to paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this Rule, the Board may, at its option, stay further proceedings pending issuance of a final decision by the contracting officer within such period of time as is determined by the Board.
(5) In lieu of filing a notice of appeal under (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this Rule, the contractor may petition the Board to direct the contracting officer to issue a decision in a specified period of time as determined by the Board.
(b)
(c)
(a) Documents may be filed with the Board by the following methods:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(b)
Documents may be served personally or by mail, addressed to the party upon whom service is to be made, unless the parties have agreed to an alternate means of service. Subpoenas shall be served as provided in Rule 22.
(a)
(1) The decision from which the appeal is taken;
(2) The contract, including pertinent specifications, amendments, plans, and drawings;
(3) All correspondence between the parties relevant to the appeal, including any claim in response to which the decision was issued.
The Government's appeal file may be supplemented at such times as are fair and reasonable and as ordered by the Board.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(a) Where practicable, actions should be taken in less time than the time allowed. Where appropriate and justified, however, extensions of time will be granted. All requests for extensions of time should be in writing and indicate that the other party was contacted to seek its concurrence.
(b) In computing any period of time, the day of the event from which the designated period of time begins to run will not be included, but the last day of the period will be included unless it is a Saturday, Sunday, or a Federal holiday, in which event the period will run to the next business day.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) To facilitate disposition of such a motion, the parties should adhere to the following procedures. Where the parties agree that disposition by summary judgment or partial summary judgment is appropriate, they may file a stipulation of all material facts necessary for the Board to rule on the motion. Otherwise, the moving party should file with its motion a “Statement of Undisputed Material Facts,” setting forth the claimed undisputed material facts in separate, numbered paragraphs. The non-moving party should file a “Statement of Genuine Issues of Material Fact,” responding to each numbered paragraph proposed, demonstrating, where appropriate, the existence of material facts in dispute and if appropriate propose additional facts. The moving party and the non-moving party should submit a memorandum of law supporting or opposing summary judgment.
(2) In deciding motions for summary judgment, the Board looks to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for guidance. The parties should explicitly state and support by specific evidence all facts and legal arguments necessary to sustain a party's position. Each party should cite to the record and attach any additional evidence upon which it relies (
(d)
(a)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(c)
(i) Written interrogatories to be answered separately in writing, signed under oath and answered or objected to within 45 days after service;
(ii) A request for the admission of specified facts and/or of the authenticity of any documents, to be answered or objected to within 45 days after service, the factual statements and/or the authenticity of the documents to be deemed admitted upon failure of a party to respond to the request; and
(iii) A request for the production, inspection, and copying of any documents, electronic or otherwise, or objects, not privileged, which reasonably may lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, to be answered or objected to within 45 days after service. The Board may allow a shorter or longer time.
The Board may, upon its own initiative, or upon the request of either party, arrange a conference or order the parties to appear before an Administrative Judge or examiner for a conference to address any issue related to the prosecution of the appeal.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(a) Either party may elect to waive a hearing and to submit its case upon the record. Submission of a case without hearing does not relieve the parties from the necessity of proving the facts supporting their allegations or defenses. Affidavits, declarations, depositions, admissions, answers to interrogatories, and stipulations may be employed in addition to the Rule 4 file if moved and accepted into evidence. Such submissions may be supplemented by briefs. The Board may designate, with notice to the parties, any document to be made part of the record.
(b) As appropriate, the Board may also rely on pleadings, prehearing conference memoranda, orders, briefs, stipulations and other documents contained in the Board's file.
(c) Except as the Board may otherwise order, no evidence will be received after notification by the Board that the record is closed.
(d) The weight to be given to any evidence will rest within the discretion of the Board. The Board may require either party, with appropriate notice to the other party, to submit additional evidence on any matter relevant to the appeal.
(e) The record will at all reasonable times be available for inspection by the parties at the offices of the Board.
(a) In appeals where the amount in dispute is $50,000 or less, or in the case of a small business concern (as defined in the Small Business Act and regulations under that Act), $150,000 or less, the appellant may elect to have the appeal processed under a Small Claims (Expedited) procedure requiring decision of the appeal, whenever possible, within 120 days after the Board receives written notice of the appellant's election to utilize this procedure. The details of this procedure appear in section 12.2 of this Rule. An appellant may elect the Accelerated procedure rather than the Small Claims (Expedited) procedure for any appeal where the amount in dispute is $50,000 or less.
(b) In appeals where the amount in dispute is $100,000 or less, the appellant may elect to have the appeal processed under an Accelerated procedure requiring decision of the appeal, whenever possible, within 180 days after the Board receives written notice of the appellant's election to utilize this procedure. The details of this procedure appear in section 12.3 of this Rule.
(c) The appellant's election of either the Small Claims (Expedited) procedure or the Accelerated procedure shall be made by written notice within 60 days after receipt of notice of docketing, unless such period is extended by the Board for good cause. The election, once made, may not be changed or withdrawn except with permission of the Board and for good cause.
(d) The 45-day conference required by Rule 8(a) does not apply to Rule 12 appeals.
(a) In appeals proceeding under the Small Claims (Expedited) procedure, the following time periods shall apply:
(1) Within 10 days from the Government's receipt of the appellant's notice of election of the Small Claims (Expedited) procedure, the Government shall send the Board a copy of the contract, the contracting officer's final decision, and the appellant's claim letter or letters, if any. Any other documents required under Rule 4 shall be submitted in accordance with times specified in that Rule unless the Board otherwise directs.
(2) Within 15 days after the Board has acknowledged receipt of the appellant's notice of election, the assigned Administrative Judge should take the following actions, if feasible, in a pre-hearing conference:
(i) Identify and simplify the issues;
(ii) Establish a simplified procedure, including discovery, appropriate to the particular appeal involved;
(iii) Determine whether either party elects a hearing, and if so, fix a time and place therefor; and
(iv) Establish an expedited schedule for the timely resolution of the appeal.
(b) Pleadings, discovery, and other prehearing activity will be allowed only as consistent with the requirement to conduct a hearing, or if no hearing is elected, to close the record on a date that will allow the timely issuance of the decision. The Board may shorten time periods prescribed or allowed under these Rules as necessary to enable the Board to decide the appeal within the 120-day period.
(c) Written decisions by the Board in appeals processed under the Small Claims (Expedited) procedure will be short and will contain only summary findings of fact and conclusions. Decisions will be rendered for the Board by a single Administrative Judge. If there has been a hearing, the Administrative Judge presiding at the hearing may at the conclusion of the hearing and after entertaining such oral argument as deemed appropriate, render on the record oral summary findings of fact, conclusions, and a decision of the appeal. Whenever such an oral decision is rendered, the Board will subsequently furnish the parties an authenticated copy of such oral decision for record and payment purposes and to establish the starting date for the period for filing a motion for reconsideration under Rule 20.
(d) A decision under Rule 12.2 shall have no value as precedent, and in the absence of fraud, shall be final and conclusive and may not be appealed or set aside.
(a) In appeals proceeding under the Accelerated procedure, the parties are encouraged, to the extent possible consistent with adequate presentation of their factual and legal positions, to waive pleadings, discovery, and briefs. The Board may shorten time periods prescribed or allowed under these Rules as necessary to enable the Board to decide the appeal within the 180-day period.
(b) Within 30 days after the Board has acknowledged receipt of the appellant's notice of election, the assigned Administrative Judge should take the following actions, if feasible, in a pre-hearing conference:
(1) Identify and simplify the issues;
(2) Establish a simplified procedure, including discovery, appropriate to the particular appeal involved;
(3) Determine whether either party elects a hearing, and if so, fix a time and place therefor; and
(4) Establish an accelerated schedule for the timely resolution of the appeal.
(c) Written decisions by the Board in appeals processed under the Accelerated procedure will normally be short and contain only summary findings of fact and conclusions. Decisions will be rendered for the Board by a single Administrative Judge with the concurrence of a Vice Chairman, or by a majority among these two and the Chairman in case of disagreement.
Motions for reconsideration of appeals decided under either the Small Claims (Expedited) procedure or the Accelerated procedure need not be decided within the original 120-day or 180-day limit, but all such motions will be processed and decided promptly so as to be consistent with the intent of this Rule.
(a) The record upon which the Board's decision will be rendered consists of the documents admitted under Rule 4, the documents admitted into evidence as hearing exhibits, together with the hearing transcript. The Board may designate with notice to the parties, any document to be made part of the record.
(b) As appropriate, the Board may also rely on pleadings, pre-hearing conference memoranda, orders, briefs, stipulations, and other documents contained in the Board's file.
(c) Except as the Board may otherwise order, no evidence will be received after completion of an oral hearing.
(d) The weight to be given to any evidence will rest within the discretion of the Board. The Board may require either party, with appropriate notice to the other party, to submit additional evidence on any matter relevant to the appeal.
(e) The record will at all reasonable times be available for inspection by the parties at the offices of the Board.
(a)
(b)
(a) An individual appellant may represent his or her interests before the Board; a corporation may be represented by one of its officers; and a partnership or joint venture by one of its members; or any of these by an attorney at law duly licensed in any state, commonwealth, territory, the District of Columbia, or in a foreign country. Anyone representing an appellant shall file a written notice of appearance with the Board.
(b) The Government shall be represented by counsel. Counsel for the Government shall file a written notice of appearance with the Board.
If any party fails to obey an order issued by the Board, the Board may impose such sanctions as it considers necessary to the just and expeditious conduct of the appeal.
Whenever the record discloses the failure of either party to file documents required by these Rules, respond to notices or correspondence from the Board, comply with orders of the Board, or otherwise indicates an intention not to continue the prosecution or defense of an appeal, the Board may, in the case of a default by the appellant, issue an order to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. In the case of a default by the Government, the Board may issue an order to show cause why the Board should not act thereon pursuant to Rule 16. If good cause is not shown, the Board may take appropriate action.
(a) The Board may suspend the proceedings by agreement of the parties for settlement discussions, or for good cause shown.
(b) In certain cases, appeals docketed before the Board are required to be placed in a suspense status and the Board is unable to proceed with disposition thereof for reasons not within the control of the Board. Where the suspension has continued, or may continue, for an inordinate length of time, the Board may dismiss such appeals from its docket for a period of time without prejudice to their restoration. Unless either party or the Board moves to reinstate the appeal within the time period set forth in the dismissal order, or if no time period is set forth, within one year from the date of the dismissal order, the dismissal shall be deemed to be with prejudice.
(a) Decisions of the Board will be made in writing and authenticated copies of the decision will be sent simultaneously to both parties. All orders and decisions, except those as may be required by law to be held confidential, will be available to the public. Decisions of the Board will be made solely upon the record.
(b) Any monetary award shall be promptly paid.
(c) In awards that may be paid from the Judgment Fund, 31 U.S.C. 1304, the Recorder will forward the required forms to each party with the decision. If the parties do not contemplate an appeal or motion for reconsideration, they will execute the forms indicating that no judicial review will be sought. The Government agency will forward the required forms with a copy of the decision to the Department of the Treasury for certification of payment.
(d) When the parties settle an appeal in favor of the appellant, they may file with the Board a stipulation setting forth the amount of the settlement due to the appellant. By joint motion, the parties may request that the Board issue a decision in the nature of a consent judgment, awarding the stipulated amount to the appellant. These decisions will be processed in accordance with paragraph (c) of this Rule.
(e) After a decision has become final the Board may, upon request of a party and after
A motion for reconsideration may be filed by either party. It shall set forth specifically the grounds relied upon to grant the motion. The motion must be filed within 30 days from the date of the receipt of a copy of the decision of the Board by the party filing the motion. An opposing party must file any cross-motion for reconsideration within 30 days from its receipt of the motion for reconsideration. Extensions in the period to file a motion will not be granted. Extensions to file a memorandum in support of a timely-filed motion may be granted.
Whenever any Court remands an appeal to the Board for further proceedings, each of the parties shall, within 30 days of receipt of such remand, submit a report to the Board recommending procedures to be followed so as to comply with the Court's remand. The Board will consider the reports and enter an order governing the remanded appeal.
(a)
(1) To cooperate and make available witnesses and evidence under its control as requested by the other party without issuance of a subpoena, and
(2) To secure voluntary attendance of desired third-party witnesses and production of desired third-party books, records, documents, or tangible things whenever possible.
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(c)
(1) A request for subpoena shall normally be filed at least:
(i) 15 days before a scheduled deposition where the attendance of a witness at a deposition is sought; or
(ii) 30 days before a scheduled hearing where the attendance of a witness at a hearing is sought.
(iii) The Board may honor a request for subpoena not made within these time limitations.
(2) A request for a subpoena shall state the reasonable scope and general relevance to the case of the testimony and of any books and records sought. The Board may require resubmission of a request that does not provide this information.
(d)
(e)
(1) Every subpoena shall state the name of the Board and the caption of the appeal, and shall command each person to whom it is directed to attend and give testimony, and if appropriate, to produce specified books and records at a time and place therein specified. In issuing a subpoena to a requesting party, the Administrative Judge will sign the subpoena, enter the name of the witness and may otherwise leave it blank. The party to whom the subpoena is issued shall complete the subpoena before service.
(2) Where the witness is located in a foreign country, a letter rogatory may be issued and served under the circumstances and in the manner provided in 28 U.S.C. 1781.
(f)
(1) The party requesting issuance of a subpoena shall arrange for service.
(2) A subpoena requiring the attendance of a witness at a deposition or hearing may be served in any state, commonwealth, territory, or the District of Columbia. A subpoena may be served by a United States marshal or deputy marshal, or by any other person who is not a party and not less than 18 years of age. Service of a subpoena upon a person named therein shall be made by personally delivering a copy to that person and tendering the fees for one day's attendance and the mileage provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1821 or other applicable law. However, where the subpoena is issued on behalf of the Government, payment need not be tendered in advance of attendance.
(3) The party at whose instance a subpoena is issued shall be responsible for the payment of fees and mileage of the witness and of the officer who serves the subpoena. The failure to make payment of such charges on demand may be deemed by the Board as a sufficient ground for striking such evidence as the Board deems appropriate.
(g)
No member of the Board or of the Board's staff shall entertain, nor shall any person directly or indirectly involved in an appeal, submit to the Board or the Board's staff, ex parte, any evidence, explanation, analysis, or advice, whether written or oral, regarding any matter at issue in an appeal. This Rule does not apply to consultation among Board members or its staff or to ex parte communications concerning the Board's administrative functions or procedures.
These rules and addendums are applicable to appeals processed under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA), 41 U.S.C. 7101–7109, and other appeals to the extent consistent with law. They apply to all appeals filed on or after the date of final publication in the
(a)
For the purpose of these procedures:
(1) “Equal Access to Justice Act,” or “EAJA,” means 5 U.S.C. 504, as amended;
(2) “Board” means the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals; and
(3) “Contract Disputes Act” means the Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. 7101–7109 (CDA).
(b)
(c)
(1) To be eligible for an EAJA award, an applicant must be a party appellant that has prevailed in a CDA appeal before the Board and must be one of the following:
(i) An individual with a net worth which did not exceed $2,000,000 at the time the appeal was filed; or
(ii) Any owner of an unincorporated business, or any partnership, corporation, association, unit of local Government, or organization, the net worth of which does not exceed $7,000,000 and which does not have more than 500 employees; except:
(A) Certain charitable organizations or cooperative associations; and
(B) For the purposes of 5 U.S.C. 504(a)(4), a small entity as defined in 5 U.S.C. 601, need not comply with any net worth requirement (see 5 U.S.C. 504(b)(1)(B)).
(2) For the purpose of eligibility, the net worth and number of employees of an applicant shall be determined as of the date the underlying CDA appeal was filed with the Board.
(d)
(e)
(2) No award for the fee of an attorney or agent may exceed $125 per hour. No expert witness shall be compensated at a rate in excess of the highest rate of compensation for expert witnesses paid by the agency involved.
(3) The reasonable cost of any study, analysis, engineering report, test, or project, prepared on behalf of a party may be awarded, to the extent that the study or other matter was necessary in connection with the appeal and the charge for the service does not exceed the prevailing rate for similar services.
(f)
(g)
(1) An EAJA application shall comply with each of the following:
(i) Show that the applicant is a prevailing party;
(ii) Show that the applicant is eligible to receive an award;
(iii) Allege that the position of the government was not substantially justified; and
(iv) Show the amount of fees and other expenses sought, including an itemized statement thereof.
(2) An original and one copy of the application and exhibits should be filed with the Board. The applicant will forward one copy to the Government.
(3) When a compliant application has been timely filed, the Board, in order to obtain more detailed information, may require supplementation of the application.
(h)
(i)
(j)
(1) Within 30 days after receipt by the Government of an application, the Government may file an answer. Unless the Government requests an extension of time for filing or files a statement of intent to negotiate under paragraph (2) below, failure to file an answer within the 30-day period may be treated by the Board at its discretion as a general denial to the application on behalf of the Government.
(2) If the Government and the applicant believe that the matters raised in the application can be resolved by mutual agreement, they may jointly file a statement of intent to negotiate a settlement. Filing of this statement will extend the time for filing an answer for an additional 30 days. Further extensions may be requested by the parties.
(3) The answer will explain in detail any objections to the award requested and identify the facts relied upon in support of the Government's position.
(4) An original and one copy of the answer should be filed with the Board. The Government will forward one copy to the applicant.
(k)
(l)
(1) The Board may enter an order prescribing the procedure to be followed or take such other action as may be deemed appropriate under the EAJA. Further proceedings will be held only when necessary for full and fair resolution of the issues arising from the application.
(2) A request that the Board order further proceedings under this paragraph will describe the disputed issues, explain why the additional proceedings are deemed necessary to resolve the issues and specifically identify any information sought and its relationship to the disputed issues.
(m)
(2)
(n)
(o)
(p)
1. The Contract Disputes Act (CDA), 41 U.S.C. 7105(g)(1), states that boards of contract appeals “shall . . . to the fullest extent practicable provide informal, expeditious, and inexpensive resolution of disputes”. Resolution of a dispute at the earliest stage feasible, by the fastest and least expensive method possible, benefits both parties. To that end, the parties are encouraged to consider Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedures for pre-claim and pre-final decision matters, as well as appeals pending before the Board. The Board may also conduct ADRs for any Federal agency. However, if the matter is not pending before the Board under its CDA jurisdiction, any settlement may not be paid out of the Judgment Fund.
2. The ADR methods described in this Addendum are intended to suggest techniques that have worked in the past. Any appropriate method that brings the parties together in settlement, or partial settlement, of their disputes is a good method. The ADR methods listed are not intended to preclude the parties' use of other ADR techniques that do not require the Board's participation, such as settlement negotiations, fact-finding conferences or procedures, mediation, or minitrials not involving use of the Board's personnel. Any method, or combination of methods, including one that will result in a binding decision, may be selected by the parties without regard to the dollar amount in dispute.
3. The parties must jointly request ADR procedures at the Board. The request must be approved by the Board. The Board may also schedule a conference to explore the desirability and selection of an ADR method and related procedures. If an ADR involving the Board's participation is requested and approved by the Board, a Neutral will be appointed. If an Administrative Judge has already been assigned to an appeal, the same judge will normally be assigned to be the Neutral in an ADR. If an Administrative Judge has not yet been assigned to the appeal, or if the subject of the ADR is a matter pending before the contracting officer prior to any appeal, the Board will appoint an Administrative Judge to be the Neutral. In such instances, as well as situations in which the parties prefer that an assigned Administrative Judge not be appointed to serve as the Neutral, the parties may submit a list of at least three preferred Administrative Judges and the Board will endeavor to accommodate their preferences.
4. To facilitate full, frank and open discussion and presentations, any Neutral who has participated in a non-binding ADR procedure that has failed to resolve the underlying dispute will be recused from further participation in the matter unless the parties expressly agree otherwise in writing and the Board concurs. Further, the recused Neutral will not discuss the merits of the dispute or substantive matters involved in the ADR proceedings with other Board personnel.
5. Written material prepared specifically for use in an ADR proceeding, oral presentations made at an ADR proceeding, and all discussions in connection with such proceedings between the parties and the Neutral are confidential and, unless otherwise specifically agreed by the parties, inadmissible as evidence in any pending or future Board proceeding involving the parties or matter in dispute. However, evidence otherwise admissible before the Board is not rendered inadmissible because of its use in the ADR proceeding.
6. The ADR method and the procedures and requirements implementing the ADR method will be prescribed by the written agreement of the parties and approved by the Board. ADR methods can be used successfully at any stage of the litigation.
7. The following are examples of ADR methods commonly used at the Board:
(a)
Mediations: A Neutral is an Administrative Judge who will not normally hear or have any formal or informal decision-making authority in the matter and who is appointed for the purpose of facilitating settlement. In many circumstances, settlement can be fostered by a frank, in-depth discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of each party's position with the Neutral. The agenda for meetings with the Neutral will be flexible to accommodate the requirements of the case. To further the settlement effort, the Neutral may meet with the parties either jointly or individually. A Neutral's recommendations are not binding on the parties. When this method is selected, the ADR agreement must contain a provision in which the parties and counsel agree not to subpoena the Neutral in any legal action or administrative proceeding of any kind to produce any notes or documents related to the ADR proceeding or to testify concerning any such notes or documents or concerning his/her thoughts or impressions.
(b)
Summary Proceeding With Binding Decision: A summary proceeding with binding decision is a procedure whereby the resolution of the appeal is expedited and the parties try their appeal informally before an Administrative Judge. A binding “bench” decision may be issued upon conclusion of the proceeding, or a binding summary written decision will be issued by the judge no later than ten days following the later of conclusion of the proceeding or receipt of a transcript. The parties must agree in the ADR agreement that all decisions, rulings, and orders by the Board under this method shall be final, conclusive, not appealable, and may not be set aside, except for fraud. All such decisions, rulings, and orders will have no precedential value. Pre-hearing, hearing, and post-hearing procedures and rules applicable to appeals generally will be modified or eliminated to expedite resolution of the appeal.
(c)
8. The above-listed ADR procedures are intended to shorten and simplify the Board's more formalized procedures. Generally, if the parties resolve their dispute by agreement, they benefit in terms of cost and time savings and maintenance or restoration of amicable relations. The Board will not view the parties' participation in ADR proceedings as a sign of weakness. Any method adopted for dispute resolution depends upon both parties having a firm, good faith commitment to resolve their differences. Absent such intention, the best structured dispute resolution procedure is unlikely to be successful.
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Proposed rule.
DoD is proposing to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to create an overarching prescription for a tax-related clause with an alternate and adds a separate prescription for the basic clause. The rule also proposes to include in the regulation the full text of the alternate clause.
Comments on the proposed rule should be submitted in writing to the address shown below on or before April 29, 2014, to be considered in the formation of a final rule.
Submit comments identified by DFARS Case 2013–D025, using any of the following methods:
○
○
○
○
Comments received generally will be posted without change to
Annette Gray, Defense Acquisition Regulations System, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP/DARS, Room 3B855, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301–3060. Telephone 571–372–6093.
DoD is undertaking a revision of provisions and clauses with alternates and the associated prescriptions, in order to clarify usage and facilitate the use of automated contract writing systems. These changes do not affect the meaning or applicability of the provisions or clauses.
This proposed rule addresses the single DFARS part 229 clause that has an alternate, 252.229–7001, Tax Relief. The naming convention results in proposed new clause titles, i.e., Tax Relief—Basic and Tax Relief—Alternate I.
An umbrella prescription is proposed for the elements common to the basic clause and the alternate. The specific prescriptions for the basic clause and the alternate address only the requirements for their use that enable the selection of the basic or the alternate. The planned changes will increase the clarity and ease of use but will not revise the applicability in any way. The presentation of the text of the clause alternate in the regulations would no longer consist solely of paragraph (d) with a reference to the basic clause, but would include the entire text of paragraphs (a) through (c)
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 proposed 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 purpose of this rule is to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to create an overarching prescription for use of the basic and alternate of DFARS clause 252.229–7001, Tax Relief, a separate prescription for the basic clause, and to include the full text of the clause alternate.
Employing a prescription for the basic version and alternate of DFARS clause 252.229–7001 will facilitate the use of automated contract writing systems. The current convention requires the prescription for the basic provision or clause to address all the possibilities covered by the alternates, and then the prescription for each alternate addresses only what is different for the use of that particular alternate. Instead of the current convention for alternates to show only paragraphs changed from the basic version of the provision or clause, this rule proposes to include the full text of the clause alternate.
There will be no impact on small business entities since DFARS clause 252.229–7001 is used only in solicitations and contracts when award is made to a foreign concern and performance is in a foreign country.
This rule does not add any new information collection requirements. The rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules. No alternatives were identified that will accomplish the objectives of the rule.
DoD invites comments from small business concerns and other interested parties on the expected impact of this rule on small entities.
DoD will also consider comments from small entities concerning the existing regulations in subparts affected by this rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 (DFARS Case 2013–D025), in correspondence.
The rule does not contain any 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).
Government procurement.
Therefore, 48 CFR parts 229 and 252 are proposed to be amended as follows:
41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.
(a) Use the basic or the alternate of the clause at 252.229–7001, Tax Relief, in solicitations and contracts when a contract will be awarded to a foreign concern for performance in a foreign country.
(1) Use the clause Tax Relief—Basic in solicitations and contracts when the contract will be performed in a foreign country other than Germany.
(2) Use the clause Tax Relief—Alternate I in solicitations and contracts when the contract will be performed in Germany.
As prescribed in 229.402–70(a), use one of the following clauses:
(a) Prices set forth in this contract are exclusive of all taxes and duties from which the United States Government is exempt by virtue of tax agreements between the United States Government and the Contractor's government. The following taxes or duties have been excluded from the contract price:
NAME OF TAX: (
(b) The Contractor's invoice shall list separately the gross price, amount of tax deducted, and net price charged.
(c) When items manufactured to United States Government specifications are being acquired, the Contractor shall identify the materials or components intended to be imported in order to ensure that relief from import duties is obtained. If the Contractor intends to use imported products from inventories on hand, the price of which includes a factor for import duties, the Contractor shall ensure the United States Government's exemption from these taxes. The Contractor may obtain a refund of the import duties from its government or request the duty-free import of an amount of supplies or components corresponding to that used from inventory for this contract.
(d) Tax relief will be claimed in Germany pursuant to the provisions of the Agreement Between the United States of America and Germany Concerning Tax Relief to be Accorded by Germany to United States Expenditures in the Interest of Common Defense. The Contractor shall use Abwicklungsschein fuer abgabenbeguenstigte Lieferungen/Leistungen nach dem Offshore Steuerabkommen (Performance Certificate for Tax-Free Deliveries/Performance according to the Offshore Tax Relief Agreement) or other documentary evidence acceptable to the German tax authorities. All purchases made and paid for on a tax-free basis during a 30-day period may be accumulated, totaled, and reported as tax-free.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) has submitted Amendment 5 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Dolphin and Wahoo Fishery off the Atlantic States (FMP) for review, approval, and implementation by NMFS. Amendment 5 proposes actions to revise the acceptable biological catch (ABC), annual catch limits (ACLs) and accountability measures (AMs) for the commercial and recreational sectors for dolphin and wahoo, and update the framework procedures for the FMP. The purpose of Amendment 5 is to help achieve optimum yield (OY) within the dolphin and wahoo fishery and to minimize socio-economic impacts in accordance with the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
Written comments must be received on or before April 29, 2014.
You may submit comments on Amendment 5 identified by “NOAA–NMFS–2013–0170” by any of the following methods:
•
•
Electronic copies of Amendment 5, which includes an environmental assessment, a Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis, and a regulatory impact review, may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office Web site at
Nikhil Mehta, Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727–824–5305, or email:
The dolphin and wahoo fishery off the Atlantic states is managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the Council and is implemented through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving a plan or amendment, publish an announcement in the
The final rule for the Comprehensive ACL Amendment included Amendment 3 to the FMP, which established ACLs (including ACL allocations to both the recreational and commercial sectors), acceptable biological catches (ABCs), recreational annual catch targets (ACTs), and accountability measures (AMs) for dolphin and wahoo (77 FR 15916, March 16, 2012). Recreational catch estimates used in the Comprehensive ACL Amendment were determined with data collected by the Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey (MRFSS), which was the best scientific information available at that time. NMFS has made significant improvements in the data collection and catch estimation methodologies that are used to collect and analyze the recreational data for the computation of ABCs, as well as ACLs and ACTs. NMFS now estimates recreational landings using the Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP).
The MRIP collects recreational data on a more frequent basis and provides more accurate recreational catch estimates by accounting for potential biases such as possible differences in catch rates at high-activity and low-activity fishing sites, as well as variation in fishing effort throughout the day. As described in Amendment 5, the MRIP values used to estimate recreational landings, along with updates to headboat and commercial landings, are now the best scientific information available to revise the ABC catch estimates, ACLs, recreational ACTs, and AMs for dolphin and wahoo. Updates to the commercial and headboat landings were included in the revisions to the ACLs and ACTs, because the ABC control rule and subsequent ABCs and ACLs established in the Comprehensive ACL Amendment used data from both the recreational and commercial sectors (77 FR 15916, March 16, 2012). The headboat and commercial data updates reflect NMFS's ongoing data quality assurance and quality control protocols and reflect the the best available scientific information.
These revisions are necessary because if the ABC, ACL, and ACT values are not updated using the new MRIP estimates, the recreational ACLs would be based on MRFSS data while the landings information being used to track the recreational ACLs would be estimated using MRIP data. This would result in inconsistencies in how the ACLs are calculated versus how the ACLs are monitored.
Amendment 5 would revise the ABCs, ACLs, and AMs for the commercial and recreational sectors for dolphin and wahoo, revise the recreational ACTs for dolphin and wahoo, and update the framework procedures for the FMP.
Amendment 5 would revise the ABCs for dolphin and wahoo. The ABC for dolphin would increase from 14,596,216 lb (6,620,732 kg) to 15,344,846 lb (6,960,305 kg). The ABC for wahoo would increase from 1,491,785 lb (676,662 kg) to 1,794,960 lb (814,180 kg). The revised ABCs would be established using MRIP data as opposed to the current ABCs that were established using MRFSS data.
Amendment 5 would revise the dolphin commercial and recreational ACLs. The current dolphin commercial ACL of 1,065,524 lb (483,314 kg) would be increased to 1,157,001 lb (524,807
Amendment 5 would revise the wahoo commercial and recreational ACLs. The wahoo commercial ACL would be increased from 64,147 lb (29,097 kg) to 70,542 lb (31,997 kg). The wahoo recreational ACL would be increased from 1,427,638 lb (647,566 kg) to 1,724,418 lb (782,183 kg). The effects of the small increases in ACLs for wahoo are expected to be negligible to the stock and the human environment.
The current commercial AMs for dolphin and wahoo close the commercial sector for the respective species for the remainder of the fishing year, if commercial landings as estimated by the Science and Research Director (SRD), reach or are projected to reach the commercial ACL (in-season closure).
Amendment 5 would also provide that if the commercial ACL is met or projected to be met, then the commercial ACL for the respective species in the following fishing year would be reduced by the amount of the commercial ACL overage. However, the commercial ACL overage adjustment would only be applied if the species is overfished and the total ACL (combined commercial and recreational ACLs) is exceeded. The Council determined the commercial ACL overage adjustment, combined with the in-season AM closure, would offer greater protection to the stocks and provided the best management strategy for the commercial sector based on the biology and recent catch levels of dolphin and wahoo.
The current recreational AMs for dolphin and wahoo provide that if recreational landings, as estimated by the SRD, exceed the recreational ACL, then during the following fishing year, recreational landings will be monitored for a persistence in increased landings and, if necessary, the length of the following recreational fishing season will be reduced by the amount necessary to ensure recreational landings do not exceed the recreational ACL in the following fishing year. However, the length of the recreational season will not be reduced during the following fishing year if the NMFS Southeast Regional Administrator (RA) determines, using the best scientific information available, that a reduction in the length of the following fishing season is unnecessary.
Amendment 5 would modify the recreational AM to reduce the length of the fishing season and the recreational ACL in the fishing year following any recreational ACL overage, if the stock is overfished and the total ACL (commercial and recreational ACLs combined) is exceeded. However, the recreational ACL overage adjustment and fishing season reduction would not be applied if the RA determines, using the best scientific information available, that such a reduction is unnecessary. The ability to reduce the recreational ACL when an overage of the respective ACL occurs would provide additional protection to the dolphin and wahoo stocks.
Amendment 5 would increase the current dolphin recreational ACT of 11,595,803 lb (5,259,768 kg) to 12,769,061 (5,791,949 kg) and increase the current wahoo recreational ACT of 1,164,953 lb (528,414 kg) to 1,258,825 lb (570,993 kg). The current recreational ACTs for dolphin and wahoo function as performance standards, and do not have management measures associated with them, such as triggering AMs.
The current framework procedures for dolphin and wahoo were implemented in 2004 through the FMP (69 FR 30235, May 27, 2004). Amendment 5 would revise the framework procedures for the FMP. These revisions would include adding an ABC control rule, ACLs, ACTs, and AMs to the measures that could be revised via the framework amendment process. Additionally, Amendment 5 would allow an ABC, ACL, and ACT to be modified using an abbreviated framework procedure, whereby after the Council has taken final action to change an ABC, ACL, and/or ACT, the Council would submit a letter containing an analysis of the relevant biological, economic, social, and administrative information necessary to support the action to the NMFS RA. Based on the information provided by the Council, the RA would determine whether or not the requested modifications are warranted. If the requested modifications may be warranted, NMFS would develop the appropriate documentation to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act and other applicable law, and propose the action through rulemaking. NMFS anticipates this expedited process will shorten the time it would take to make routine changes to harvest limits in response to new scientific information, while allowing the public adequate time to comment on any change.
Amendment 5 also contained an action to establish a commercial trip limit for dolphin in the Atlantic exclusive economic zone. However, the Council chose to take no action on that issue at this time because a commercial trip limit would have very little effect on constraining harvest of dolphin as most commercial trips harvest 1,000 lb (454 kg) or less of dolphin and the ACL had not been met. The Council has not historically imposed trip limits on fishers in the commercial sector if an ACL has not been met.
A proposed rule that would implement measures outlined in Amendment 5 has been drafted. In accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS is evaluating Amendment 5 to determine whether it is consistent with the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law. If the determination is affirmative, NMFS will publish the proposed rule in the
The Council submitted Amendment 5 for Secretarial review, approval, and implementation. NMFS' decision to approve, partially approve, or disapprove Amendment 5 will be based, in part, on consideration of comments, recommendations, and information received during the comment period on this notice of availability.
Public comments received on or before April 29, 2014, will be considered by NMFS in the approval, partial approval, or disapproval decision regarding Amendment 5. Comments received after that date will not be considered by NMFS in this decision. All comments received by NMFS on the amendment or the proposed rule during their respective comment periods will be addressed in the final rule.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
NMFS issues this proposed rule for the 2014 Pacific whiting fishery under the authority of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP), the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), and the Pacific Whiting Act of 2006. This proposed rule would allocate 17.5 percent of the U.S. Total Allowable Catch of Pacific whiting for 2014 to Pacific Coast Indian tribes that have a Treaty right to harvest groundfish.
Comments on this proposed rule must be received no later than March 31, 2014.
You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA–NMFS–2014–0020, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Kevin C. Duffy (Northwest Region, NMFS), phone: 206–526–4743, and email:
This proposed rule is accessible via the Internet at the Office of the
The regulations at 50 CFR 660.50(d) establish the process by which the tribes with treaty fishing rights in the area covered by the FMP request new allocations or regulations specific to the tribes, in writing, during the biennial harvest specifications and management measures process. The regulations state that “the Secretary will develop tribal allocations and regulations under this paragraph in consultation with the affected tribe(s) and, insofar as possible, with tribal consensus.” The procedures NOAA employs in implementing tribal treaty rights under the FMP, in place since May 31, 1996, were designed to provide a framework process by which NOAA Fisheries can accommodate tribal treaty rights by setting aside appropriate amounts of fish in conjunction with the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) process for determining harvest specifications and management measures. The Council's groundfish fisheries require a high degree of coordination among the tribal, state, and federal co-managers in order to rebuild overfished species and prevent overfishing, while allowing fishermen opportunities to sustainably harvest over 90 species of groundfish managed under the FMP.
Since 1996, NMFS has been allocating a portion of the U.S. total allowable catch (TAC) (called Optimum Yield (OY) or Annual Catch Limit (ACL) prior to 2012) of Pacific whiting to the tribal fishery, following the process established in 50 CFR 660.50(d). The tribal allocation is subtracted from the U.S. Pacific whiting TAC before allocation to the non-tribal sectors.
To date, only the Makah Tribe has prosecuted a tribal fishery for Pacific whiting. The Makah Tribe has annually harvested a whiting allocation every year since 1996 using midwater trawl gear. Since 1999, the tribal allocation has been made in consideration of their participation in the fishery. In 2008 the Quileute Tribe and Quinault Indian Nation expressed an interest in commencing participation in the whiting fishery. Tribal allocations for 2009–2013 were based on discussions with all three tribes regarding their intent for those fishing years. The table below provides a history of U.S. OYs/ACLs and the annual tribal allocation in metric tons (mt).
For the past five years, NMFS and the co-managers, including the States of Washington and Oregon, as well as the Treaty tribes, have been involved in a process designed to determine the long-term tribal allocation for Pacific whiting. In 2009, NMFS shared a preliminary report summarizing scientific information available on the migration and distribution of Pacific whiting on the west coast. The co-managers met in 2009 and discussed this preliminary information.
In 2010, NMFS finalized the report summarizing scientific information available on the migration and distribution of Pacific whiting on the West Coast. In addition, NMFS responded in writing to requests from the tribes for clarification on the paper and requests for additional information. NMFS also met with each of the tribes in the fall of 2010 to discuss the report and to discuss a process for negotiation of the long-term tribal allocation of Pacific whiting.
In 2011, NMFS again met individually with the Makah, Quileute, and Quinault tribes to discuss these matters. Due to the detailed nature of the evaluation of the scientific information, and the need to negotiate a long-term tribal allocation following completion of the evaluation, the process continued in 2012. No additional meetings were held on these matters in 2013. The 2014 tribal allocation of Pacific whiting will not reflect a negotiated long-term tribal allocation. Instead, it is an interim allocation not intended to set precedent for future allocations.
In exchanges between NMFS and the tribes during November and December of 2013, the Makah tribe indicated their intent to participate in the tribal whiting fishery in 2014. The Makah tribe has requested 17.5% of the U.S. TAC. The Quileute tribe and the Quinault Indian Nation indicated that they are not planning to participate in 2014. The Hoh tribe has not expressed an interest in participating to date. NMFS proposes a tribal allocation that accommodates the Makah request, specifically 17.5% of the U.S. TAC. NMFS believes that the current scientific information regarding the distribution and abundance of the coastal Pacific whiting stock suggests that the 17.5% is within the range of the tribal treaty right to Pacific whiting.
NMFS cannot at this time propose a specific amount for the tribal allocation because this amount depends on the amount of the U.S. TAC of whiting, which will not be determined until late March. Because the whiting fishery typically begins in May, the final rule establishing the whiting specifications for 2014 must be published by early April. Therefore, in order to provide for public input on the tribal allocation, NMFS is issuing this proposed rule without knowledge of the 2014 TAC. However, to provide a basis for public input, NMFS is describing a range of potential tribal allocations in this proposed rule, applying the proposed approach to determining the tribal allocation to a range of potential TACs derived from historical experience. The Joint Management Committee (JMC), which was established pursuant to the Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Canada on Pacific Hake/Whiting (the Agreement), is anticipated to recommend the coastwide and corresponding U.S./Canada TACs no later than March 25, 2014. The U.S. TAC is 73.88% of the coastwide TAC.
As mentioned above, NMFS is applying its proposed approach to determining the tribal allocation to the range of U.S. TACs over the last ten years, 2004 through 2013 (plus or minus 25% to capture variability in stock abundance) in order to project a range of potential tribal allocations for 2014. The range of TACs is 135,939 mt (2009) to 290,903 mt (2011). Applying the 25% variability results in a range of potential TACs from 101,954 mt to 363,629 mt for 2014.
Application of the 17.5% requested by the Makah Tribe to the above modified range of U.S. TACs over the last ten years results in a tribal allocation of between 17,842 and 67,271 mt for 2014.
As described earlier, NOAA Fisheries proposes this rule as an interim allocation for the 2014 tribal Pacific whiting fishery. As with past allocations, this proposed rule is not intended to establish any precedent for future whiting seasons or for the long-term tribal allocation of whiting.
The rule would be implemented under authority of Section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which gives the Secretary responsibility to “carry out any fishery management plan or amendment approved or prepared by him, in accordance with the provisions of this Act.” With this proposed rule, NMFS, acting on behalf of the Secretary, would ensure that the FMP is implemented in a manner consistent with treaty rights of four Northwest tribes to fish in their “usual and accustomed grounds and stations” in common with non-tribal citizens.
NMFS has preliminarily determined that the management measures for the 2014 Pacific whiting tribal fishery are consistent with the national standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws. In making the final determination, NMFS will take into account the data, views, and comments received during the comment period.
The Office of Management and Budget has determined that this proposed rule is not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
An IRFA was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A summary of the analysis follows. A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS and is published on the NMFS Web site under Groundfish Management (see
This proposed rule would allocate 17.5 percent of the U.S. Total Allowable Catch of Pacific whiting for 2014 to Pacific Coast Indian tribes that have a Treaty right to harvest groundfish. The entities that this rule impacts are catcher vessels in the tribal fishery, and the following in the non-tribal fishery: Catcher vessels delivering to shoreside facilities; catcher vessels delivering to mothership vessels at sea; and catcher/processor vessels.
Under the RFA, the term “small entities” includes small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. The Small Business Administration has established size criteria for all different industry sectors in the US, including fish harvesting and fish processing businesses. On June 20, 2013, the SBA
This rule proposes to allocate fish to tribal harvesters. There are four tribes that can participate in the tribal whiting fishery: The Hoh, Makah, Quileute, and Quinault. The current tribal fleet is composed of 5 trawlers that either deliver to a shoreside plant or to a contracted mothership. Based on groundfish ex-vessel revenues and on tribal enrollments (the population size of each tribe), the four tribes and their fleets are considered “small” entities.
This rule would impact vessels in the non-tribal fishery that fish for Pacific whiting. Currently, there are three non-tribal sectors in the Pacific whiting fishery: Shorebased Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) Program—Trawl Fishery; Mothership Coop (MS) Program—Whiting At-sea Trawl Fishery; and C/P Coop Program—Whiting At-sea Trawl Fishery.
The Shorebased IFQ Program is composed of 138 Quota Share permits/accounts, 136 vessel accounts, and 42 first receivers. The MS Coop fishery is currently composed of a single coop, with six mothership processor permits, and 36 Mothership/Catcher-Vessel (MS/CV) endorsed permits, with one permit having two catch history assignments endorsed to it. The C/P Coop Program is composed of 10 C/P permits owned by three companies.
Although there are three non-tribal sectors, many companies participate in two or more of these sectors. All mothership catcher-vessel participants participate in the shorebased IFQ sector, while two of the three catcher-processor companies also participate in both the shorebased IFQ sector and in the MS sector. Many companies own several QS accounts. After accounting for cross participation, multiple QS account holders, and for affiliation through ownership, there are 95 entities directly affected by these proposed regulations, 82 of which are considered to be “small” businesses.
For the years 2008 to 2012, the total whiting fishery (tribal and non-tribal) has averaged harvests of 186,000 mt annually, worth $40 million in terms of ex-vessel revenues. As the U.S. TAC has been highly variable during this time, so have harvests. During this period, harvests have ranged from 121,000 mt (2009) to 248,000 mt (2008). In 2012, the harvest was approximately 160,000 mt. Ex-vessel revenues have also varied. Annual ex-vessel revenues have ranged from $14 million (2009) to $58 million (2008). Ex-vessel revenues in 2012 were about $47 million, with an average shorebased ex-vessel price of $295 per mt. Total whiting harvest in 2013 was approximately 233,000 mt worth $61 million, at an ex-vessel price of $262 per mt. The prices for whiting are largely determined by the world market for groundfish, because most of the whiting harvested is exported. Note that the use of ex-vessel values does not take into account the wholesale or export value of the fishery or the costs of harvesting and processing whiting into a finished product. NMFS does not have sufficient information to make a complete assessment of these values.
The Pacific whiting fishery harvests almost exclusively Pacific whiting. While bycatch of other species occurs, the fishery is constrained by bycatch limits on key overfished species. This is a high-volume fishery with low ex-vessel prices per pound. This fishery also has seasonal aspects based on the distribution of whiting off the west coast.
Since 1996, there has been a tribal allocation of the U.S. whiting TAC. Tribal fisheries undertake a mixture of fishing activities that are similar to the activities that non-tribal fisheries undertake. Tribal harvests are delivered to both shoreside plants and motherships for processing. These processing facilities also process fish harvested by non-tribal fisheries.
This proposed rule would allocate 17.5 percent of Pacific whiting to the tribal fishery, and would ultimately determine how much is left for allocation to the non-tribal sectors, which are the Shorebased IFQ Program—Trawl Fishery; Mothership Coop (MS) Program—Whiting At-sea Trawl Fishery; and C/P Coop Program—Whiting At-sea Trawl Fishery. The amount of whiting allocated to both the tribal and non-tribal sectors is based on the U.S. TAC. From the U.S. TAC, small amounts of whiting that account for research catch and for bycatch in other fisheries are deducted. The amount of the tribal allocation is also deducted directly from the TAC. After accounting for these deductions, the remainder is the commercial harvest guideline. This guideline is then allocated among the other three sectors as follows: 34 percent for the C/P Coop Program; 24 percent for the MS Coop Program; and 42 percent for the Shorebased IFQ Program.
The effect of the tribal allocation on non-tribal fisheries will depend on the level of tribal harvests relative to their allocation and the reapportioning process. Total whiting harvest in 2013 was approximately 233,000 mt worth $61 million, at an ex-vessel price of $262 per mt. Assuming a similar harvest level and ex-vessel price in 2014, if the tribe were to harvest 17.5%, the approximate value of that harvest would be $10.7 million. If the tribes do not harvest their entire allocation, there are opportunities during the year to reapportion unharvested tribal amounts to the non-tribal fleets. For example, last year, NMFS did such a reapportionment. On, September 18, 2013, NMFS announced: “The best available information on September 16, 2013, indicates that at least 30,000 mt of the tribal allocation of 63,205 mt for the 2013 tribal Pacific whiting fishery will not be used by December 31, 2013. Recent conversations with tribal fishery managers indicate that reapportioning 30,000 mt, leaving a tribal allocation of 33,205 mt, will not limit tribal harvest opportunities for the remainder of year. Tribal harvests to date amount to approximately 3,000 mt.”
NMFS considered two alternatives for this action: The “No-Action” vs. the “Proposed Action.” NMFS did not consider a broader range of alternatives to the proposed allocation. The tribal allocation is based primarily on the requests of the tribes. These requests reflect the level of participation in the fishery that will allow them to exercise their treaty right to fish for whiting. Under the Proposed Action alternative, NMFS proposes to set the tribal allocation percentage at 17.5%, as requested by the tribes. This would yield a tribal allocation of between
A no-action alternative was considered, but the regulatory framework provides for a tribal allocation on an annual basis only. Therefore, no action would result in no allocation of Pacific whiting to the tribal sector in 2014, which would be inconsistent with NMFS' responsibility to manage the fishery consistent with the tribes' treaty rights. Given that there is a tribal request for allocation in 2014, this alternative received no further consideration.
NMFS believes this proposed rule would not adversely affect small entities. This reapportioning process allows unharvested tribal allocations of whiting, fished by small entities, to be fished by the non-tribal fleets, benefitting both large and small entities. Nonetheless, NMFS has prepared this IRFA and is requesting comments on this conclusion. See
There are no reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements in the proposed rule.
No Federal rules have been identified that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this action.
NMFS issued Biological Opinions under the ESA on August 10, 1990, November 26, 1991, August 28, 1992, September 27, 1993, May 14, 1996, and December 15, 1999 pertaining to the effects of the Pacific Coast groundfish FMP fisheries on Chinook salmon (Puget Sound, Snake River spring/summer, Snake River fall, upper Columbia River spring, lower Columbia River, upper Willamette River, Sacramento River winter, Central Valley spring, California coastal), coho salmon (Central California coastal, southern Oregon/northern California coastal), chum salmon (Hood Canal summer, Columbia River), sockeye salmon (Snake River, Ozette Lake), and steelhead (upper, middle and lower Columbia River, Snake River Basin, upper Willamette River, central California coast, California Central Valley, south/central California, northern California, southern California). These biological opinions have concluded that implementation of the FMP for the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery was not expected to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species under the jurisdiction of NMFS, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
NMFS issued a Supplemental Biological Opinion on March 11, 2006, concluding that neither the higher observed bycatch of Chinook in the 2005 whiting fishery nor new data regarding salmon bycatch in the groundfish bottom trawl fishery required a reconsideration of its prior “no jeopardy” conclusion. NMFS also reaffirmed its prior determination that implementation of the Groundfish PCGFMP is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any of the affected ESUs. Lower Columbia River coho (70 FR 37160, June 28, 2005) and Oregon Coastal coho (73 FR 7816, February 11, 2008) were recently relisted as threatened under the ESA. The 1999 biological opinion concluded that the bycatch of salmonids in the Pacific whiting fishery were almost entirely Chinook salmon, with little or no bycatch of coho, chum, sockeye, and steelhead.
On December 7, 2012, NMFS completed a biological opinion concluding that the groundfish fishery is not likely to jeopardize non-salmonid marine species including listed eulachon, green sturgeon, humpback whales, Steller sea lions, and leatherback sea turtles. The opinion also concludes that the fishery is not likely to adversely modify critical habitat for green sturgeon and leatherback sea turtles. An analysis included in the same document as the opinion concludes that the fishery is not likely to adversely affect green sea turtles, olive ridley sea turtles, loggerhead sea turtles, sei whales, North Pacific right whales, blue whales, fin whales, sperm whales, Southern Resident killer whales, Guadalupe fur seals, or the critical habitat for Steller sea lions.
Steller sea lions and humpback whales are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). Impacts resulting from fishing activities proposed in this rule are discussed in the FEIS for the 2013–2014 groundfish fishery specifications and management measures. West coast pot fisheries for sablefish are considered Category II fisheries under the MMPA's List of Fisheries, indicating occasional interactions. All other west coast groundfish fisheries, including the trawl fishery, are considered Category III fisheries under the MMPA, indicating a remote likelihood of or no known serious injuries or mortalities to marine mammals. MMPA section 101(a)(5)(E) requires that NMFS authorize the taking of ESA-listed marine mammals incidental to U.S. commercial fisheries if it makes the requisite findings, including a finding that the incidental mortality and serious injury from commercial fisheries will have negligible impact on the affected species or stock. As noted above, NMFS concluded in its biological opinion for the groundfish fisheries that these fisheries were not likely to jeopardize Steller sea lions or humpback whales. The eastern distinct population segment of Steller sea lions was delisted under the ESA on November 4, 2013 (78 FR 66140). On September 4, 2013, based on its negligible impact determination dated August 28, 2013, NMFS issued a permit for three years to authorize the incidental taking of humpback whales by the sablefish pot fishery (78 FR 54553).
On November 21, 2012, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) issued a biological opinion concluding that the groundfish fishery will not jeopardize the continued existence of the short-tailed albatross. The FWS also concurred that the fishery is not likely to adversely affect the marbled murrelet, California least tern, southern sea otter, bull trout, nor bull trout critical habitat.
Pursuant to Executive Order 13175, this proposed rule was developed after meaningful consultation and collaboration with tribal officials from the area covered by the FMP. Consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act at 16 U.S.C. 1852(b)(5), one of the voting members of the Pacific Council is a representative of an Indian tribe with federally recognized fishing rights from the area of the Council's jurisdiction. In addition, NMFS has coordinated specifically with the tribes interested in the whiting fishery regarding the issues addressed by this rule.
Fisheries, Fishing, Indian fisheries.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 660 is proposed to be amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(f) * * *
(4)
The Department of Agriculture will submit the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13 on or after the date of publication of this notice. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC; New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received by March 31, 2014. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720–8681.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), this notice announces the Agricultural Marketing Service's (AMS) intention to request approval, from the Office of Management and Budget, for an extension without change of a currently approved information collection titled Data Collection for Container Availability.
Comments on this notice must be received by April 29, 2014 to be assured of consideration.
As part of the Agricultural Marketing Service, the Transportation Services Division (TSD) provides insightful agricultural transportation information and analysis to help move agricultural products to market. TSD informs, represents, and assists agricultural shippers and government policymakers through: Market reports, representation, analysis, assistance, and responses to inquiries. TSD collects data for its analysis from public resources as well as unique data sources to help the agricultural exporters make the most out of the transportation options available.
The Data Collection for Container Availability provides U.S. agricultural exporters with weekly data detailing the availability of containers at 18 select locations around the country. AMS collects these data on a voluntary basis from ocean container carriers and then provides these up-to-date data in an aggregate report on its Web site. The goal of the report is to provide more transparency in the market for the location and availability of marine shipping containers for U.S. exporters. Exporters use this tool to make more knowledgeable decisions about which locations provide the best chance for finding available containers to move their products overseas.
Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to April Taylor, Transportation Services Division, Transportation and Marketing Program, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Ave. SW.—Rm 4534 South, Stop 0266, Washington, DC 20250, telephone 202–295–7374, fax 202–690–2451. All comments received will be available for public inspection during regular business hours at the same address.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
The Ochoco National Forest is preparing an environmental impact statement (EIS) to analyze the effects of changing grazing management in four grazing allotments on the Ochoco National Forest. These four allotments are Bear Creek, Elkhorn, Snowshoe, and Trout Creek. The proposed action would reauthorize term grazing permits, make rangeland improvements, manage livestock use and distribution to facilitate the improvement of riparian conditions, including streambank stability, riparian vegetation, and water temperature, and would conduct riparian restoration activities on some streams in the project area. These actions are needed to achieve and maintain consistency with the Ochoco National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended.
Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received by March 31, 2014. The draft environmental impact statement is expected to be completed and available for public comment in January, 2015. The final environmental impact statement is expected to be completed in May, 2015.
Send written comments to Slater Turner, District Ranger, Lookout Mountain District, Ochoco National Forest, 3160 NE Third Street, Prineville, Oregon 97754. Alternately, electronic comments may be sent to
Tory Kurtz, Project Leader, at 3160 NE Third Street, Prineville, Oregon 97754, or at (541) 416–6407, or by email at
The purpose of this proposal is to reauthorize livestock grazing consistent with Forest Plan standards and guidelines. Based on surveys, conditions on some streams in the
The proposed action includes a variety of pasture-specific management strategies and activities, including active management of livestock, relocation or reconstruction of existing water developments, planting of riparian hardwoods, placing logs and rocks in and along stream channels, and protection of riparian vegetation and streambanks.
• The allotment would continue to consist of 11,158 acres divided between three pastures: North Bear, South Bear and Dodd's.
• Either cattle or sheep grazing would be authorized, as follows:
○ The current permitted amount of 685 AUMs with 132 cow/calf pair from June 5 to September 30 would be authorized;
○ OR ewe/lamb livestock kind may be used instead of cow/calf pair; a permitted amount of 1,298 AUMs with 1,100 ewe/lamb pairs from June 5 to September 30 would be authorized.
• Existing structural improvements would be reauthorized including 16 troughs, 8 reservoirs and approximately 21 miles of fence.
• Approximately 12 miles of fence would be reauthorized; (interior fence lines would not be required with ewe/lamb pairs since there is a herder).
• The grazing system for cattle would be a three pasture rotation, deferring North Bear and South Bear pastures each year and utilizing Dodd's pasture last each year.
• Active management of livestock would be required for cattle.
• The grazing system for ewe/lamb pairs would be a herded system with the following rules:
○ Sheep would not be grazed within a minimum of
○ Siesta or bedding places would be far from open roads, streams, new plantations, aspen stands, heritage sites and prairies, and would not be located in riparian areas or scablands.
○ The sheep would not take siesta or bedding at the same place more than once per grazing season.
○ Salt and supplements would be placed in portable containers, on rocks, sawed tree trunks and fallen tree trunks, and would be located away from roads and generally
○ Streams containing anadromous fish habitat would not be used prior to July 15th; off-source water including water brought in by truck would be used prior to July 15th.
○ Drafting for water would not occur in streams that are occupied by steelhead.
• Aspen stands identified in the field would be protected and enhanced through conifer thinning and utilization of thinned materials, prescribed fire, and mechanical treatment. Exclosures may be used when thinning and placement of thinned materials to protect aspens stands is not found to provide adequate protection.
• The allotment would continue to consist of 9,620 acres divided between four pastures: Bridge Creek, Elkhorn, Indian Prairie and Val Trail.
• The current permitted amount of 1,378 AUMs with 290 cow/calf pair from June 15 to September 30 would be authorized.
• Existing structural improvements would be reauthorized including 30 troughs and approximately 18 miles of fence.
• The grazing system would be a three pasture rotation using Elkhorn first to decrease the spread of
• Active management of livestock would be required.
• Trailing routes and anticipated crossings between pastures would be identified for
• Aspen stands identified in the field would be protected and enhanced through conifer thinning and utilization of thinned materials, prescribed fire, and mechanical treatment. Exclosures may be used when thinning and placement of thinned materials to protect aspens stands is not found to provide adequate protection.
• The allotment would continue to consist of 2,711 acres divided between two pastures: North Nature Creek and Snowshoe.
• The current permitted amount of 343 AUMs with 156 cow/calf pair from August 12 to September 30 would be authorized.
• Existing structural improvements would be reauthorized including 10 troughs and approx. 9.25 miles of fence.
• The grazing system would be a two pasture rotation deferring Snowshoe pasture each year until after July 15th at the earliest.
• Active management of livestock would be required.
• Trailing routes and anticipated crossings between pastures would be identified for
• Existing aspen stands identified in the field would be protected and enhanced through conifer thinning and utilization of thinned materials, prescribed fire, and mechanical treatment. Exclosures may be used when thinning and placement of thinned materials to protect aspens stands is not found to provide adequate protection.
• The allotment would consist of 21,370 acres.
• The current permitted amount of 1,797 AUMs with 1,953 ewe/lamb pairs from June 16 to September 15 would be authorized.
• Existing structural improvements would be reauthorized including 22 troughs, 5 ponds, and approx. 20 miles of fence.
• The grazing system for ewe/lamb pairs would be a herded system with the following rules:
○ Sheep would not be grazed within a minimum of
○ Siesta or bedding places would be far from open roads, streams, new plantations, aspen stands, heritage sites and prairies, and would not be located in riparian areas or scablands.
○ The sheep would not take siesta or bedding at the same place more than once per grazing season.
○ Salt and supplements would be placed in portable containers, on rocks, sawed tree trunks and fallen tree trunks, and would be located away from roads and generally
○ Streams containing anadromous fish habitat would not be used prior to July 15th; off-source water including water brought in by truck would be used prior to July 15th.
○ Drafting for water would not occur in streams that are occupied by steelhead.
• Twenty-five water developments would be reconstructed and associated springs would be protected as needed.
• Two water developments would be removed and their sites restored to a natural state.
• Existing aspen stands identified in the field would be protected and enhanced through conifer thinning and utilization of thinned materials, prescribed fire, and mechanical treatment. Exclosures may be used when thinning and placement of thinned materials to protect aspens stands is not found to provide adequate protection.
• Juniper up to 12″ diameter would be mechanically thinned and/or thinned by prescribed fire.
• An approximately 2-acre aspen stand would be enhanced and protected through conifer thinning and utilization of thinned materials, prescribed fire and mechanical treatment. Exclosures may be used when thinning and placement of thinned materials to protect aspens stands is not found to provide adequate protection.
• Bedding/camping areas would be monitored for known
• Riparian restoration activities would take place where necessary on 4.5 miles of Little McKay Creek and tributaries; activities would include in-stream placement of wood and/or rock structures, filling and connecting floodplains, planting hardwoods, and creating physical barriers (such as wood, rock or fences) to protect hardwoods and improve bank stability, conifer thinning to improve RHCA stand conditions and utilization of thinning materials for in-stream placement and improved bank stability. Wood and physical barrier material may come from on-site.
• An alternative grazing plan would be included to have two total grazing plans that can be alternated.
In addition to the Proposed Action and any alternative that is developed following this scoping effort, the project interdisciplinary team will analyze the effects of:
• No Action alternative: No grazing permits would be reauthorized; cattle would be removed from all allotments within two years.
• Current management alternative: Permits would be reauthorized at current levels; there would be no new water developments, no riparian restoration, and there would be no requirement for permittees to move livestock out of sensitive areas, except as required by current permits.
The responsible official will be District Ranger, Lookout Mountain Ranger District, Ochoco National Forest, 3160 NE Third Street, Prineville, Oregon 97754.
Given the purpose and need, the deciding official will review the proposed action, the other alternatives, and the environmental consequences in order to make the following decisions:
• Whether and under what circumstances grazing will be reauthorized in the Bear Creek, Elkhorn, Snowshoe, and Trout Creek allotments.
• Whether and under what circumstances range improvements will be constructed.
• Whether and under what circumstances riparian restoration activities will be implemented.
Preliminary issues identified include the potential effect of the proposed action on livestock grazing, heritage resources, fisheries, water quality, sensitive plants, and on the introduction and/or spread of invasive plants, as well as the cumulative effects of the proposed action where the effects of associated activities overlap with the effects of other management activities.
Public comments about this proposal are requested in order to assist in identifying issues, determining how to best manage the resources, and focusing the analysis. Comments received to this notice, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, anonymous comments will not provide the Agency with the ability to provide the respondent with subsequent environmental documents.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The GMUG Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Delta, Colorado. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (Pub. L. 110–343) (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with the title II of the Act. The meeting is open to the public. The purpose of the meeting is to review past and current project proposals to recommend for funding and implementation under the Secure Rural Schools, Title II disbursements.
The meeting will be held April 8, 2014 at 1:00 to 4:00 p.m.
All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
The meeting will be held at 2250 Highway 50, Delta, Colorado at the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre & Gunnison National Forests Forest Headquarters in the North Spruce conference room.
Written comments may be submitted as described under
Lee Ann Loupe, RAC Coordinator by phone at 970.874.6717 or via 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. Please make requests in
Additional RAC information, including the meeting agenda and the meeting summary/minutes can be found at the following Web site:
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 requests for time for oral comments must be sent to Lee Ann Loupe, GMUG RAC Coordinator, 2250 Highway 50 Delta, CO 81416; or by email to
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Bureau of Economic Analysis, Commerce.
Notice of Reporting Requirements.
By this Notice, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), Department of Commerce, is informing the public that it is conducting the mandatory survey titled BE–15, Annual Survey of Foreign Direct Investment in the United States. This survey is authorized by the International Investment and Trade in Services Survey Act.
This Notice constitutes legal notification to all United States persons (defined below) who meet the reporting requirements set forth in this Notice that they must respond to, and comply with, the survey. A completed report covering a reporting company's fiscal year ending during the previous calendar year is due by May 31 (or by June 30 for reporting companies that use BEA's eFile system). This notice is being issued in conformance with the rule BEA issued in 2012 (77 FR 24373) establishing guidelines for collecting data on international trade in services and direct investment through notices, rather than through rulemakings. Additional information about BEA's collection of data on international trade in services and direct investment can be found in the 2012 rule and the International Investment and Trade in Services Survey Act (22 U.S.C. 3101 et. seq.). The BE–15 survey forms and instructions are available on the BEA Web site at
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(a) Reports are required from each U.S. business enterprise in which a foreign person has a direct and/or indirect ownership interest of at least 10 percent of the voting stock if an incorporated business enterprise, or an equivalent interest if an unincorporated business enterprise, and that meets the additional conditions detailed in Form BE–15.
(b) Entities required to report will be contacted individually by BEA. Entities not contacted by BEA have no reporting responsibilities.
22 U.S.C. 3101–3108.
Bureau of Economic Analysis, Commerce.
Notice of Reporting Requirements.
By this Notice, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), Department of Commerce, is informing the public that it is conducting the mandatory survey titled BE–11, Annual Survey of U.S. Direct Investment Abroad. This survey is authorized by the International Investment and Trade in Services Survey Act.
This Notice constitutes legal notification to all United States persons (defined below) who meet the reporting requirements set forth in this Notice that they must respond to, and comply with, the survey. A completed report covering a reporting company's fiscal year ending during the previous calendar year is due by May 31. This notice is being issued in conformance with the rule BEA issued in 2012 (77 FR 24373) establishing guidelines for collecting data on international trade in services and direct investment through notices, rather than through rulemakings. Additional information about BEA's collection of data on international trade in services and direct investment can be found in the 2012 rule and the International Investment and Trade in Services Survey Act (22 U.S.C. 3101 et. seq.). The BE–11 survey forms and instructions are available on the BEA Web site at
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(a) Reports are required from each U.S. person that has a direct and/or indirect ownership interest of at least 10 percent of the voting stock in an incorporated foreign business enterprise or an equivalent interest in an unincorporated foreign business enterprise and that meets the additional conditions detailed in Form BE–11.
(b) Entities required to report will be contacted individually by BEA. Entities not contacted by BEA have no reporting responsibilities.
22 U.S.C. 3101–3108.
Bureau of Economic Analysis, Commerce.
Notice of Reporting Requirements.
By this Notice, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), Department of Commerce, is informing the public that it is conducting the mandatory survey titled Quarterly Survey of Financial Services Transactions between U.S. Financial Services Providers and Foreign Persons (BE–185). This mandatory survey is conducted under the authority of the International Investment and Trade in Services Survey Act and by Section
This Notice constitutes legal notification to all United States persons (defined below) who meet the reporting requirements set forth in this Notice that they must respond to, and comply with, the survey. Reports are due 45 days after the end of the U.S. person's fiscal quarter, except for the final quarter of the U.S. person's fiscal year when reports must be filed within 90 days. This notice is being issued in conformance with the rule BEA issued in 2012 (77 FR 24373) establishing guidelines for collecting data on international trade in services and direct investment through notices, rather than through rulemakings. The BE–125 survey forms and instructions are available on the BEA Web site at
(a)
(b)
(c)
22 U.S.C. 3101–3108, as amended, and 15 U.S.C. 4908(b).
Bureau of Economic Analysis, Commerce.
Notice of Reporting Requirements.
By this Notice, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), Department of Commerce is informing the public that it is conducting the mandatory survey titled Quarterly Survey of Foreign Airline Operators' Revenues and Expenses in the United States (BE–9). This survey is authorized by the International Investment and Trade in Services Survey Act.
This Notice constitutes legal notification to all United States persons (defined below) who meet the reporting requirements set forth in this Notice that they must respond to, and comply with, the survey. Reports are due 45 days after the end of each calendar quarter. This notice is being issued in conformance with the rule BEA issued in 2012 (77 FR 24373) establishing guidelines for collecting data on international trade in services and direct investment through notices, rather than through rulemakings. The BE–9 survey forms and instructions are available on the BEA Web site at
(a)
(b)
(c)
22 U.S.C. 3101–3108, as amended.
Bureau of Economic Analysis, Commerce.
Notice of reporting requirements.
By this Notice, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), Department of Commerce, is informing the public that it is conducting the mandatory survey titled BE–605, Quarterly Survey of Foreign Direct Investment in the United States—Transactions of U.S. Affiliate with Foreign Parent. This survey is authorized by the International Investment and Trade in Services Survey Act.
This Notice constitutes legal notification to all United States persons (defined below) who meet the reporting requirements set forth in this Notice that they must respond to, and comply with, the survey. Reports are due 30 days after the close of each calendar or fiscal quarter; 45 days if the report is for the final quarter of the financial reporting year. This notice is being issued in conformance with the rule BEA issued in 2012 (77 FR 24373) establishing guidelines for collecting data on international trade in services and direct investment through notices, rather than through rulemakings. Additional information about BEA's collection of data on international trade in services and direct investment can be found in the 2012 rule and the International Investment and Trade in Services Survey Act (22 U.S.C. 3101
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(a) Reports are required from each U.S. business enterprise in which a foreign person has a direct and/or indirect ownership interest of at least 10 percent of the voting stock if an incorporated business enterprise, or an equivalent interest if an unincorporated business enterprise, and that meets the additional conditions detailed in Form BE–605.
(b) Entities required to report will be contacted individually by BEA. Entities not contacted by BEA have no reporting responsibilities.
22 U.S.C. 3101–3108.
Bureau of Economic Analysis, Commerce.
Notice of Reporting Requirements.
By this Notice, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), Department of Commerce, is informing the public that it is conducting the mandatory survey titled Quarterly Survey of Insurance Transactions by U.S. Insurance Companies with Foreign Persons (BE–45). This mandatory survey is conducted under the authority of the International Investment and Trade in Services Survey Act.
This Notice constitutes legal notification to all United States persons (defined below) who meet the reporting requirements set forth in this Notice that they must respond to, and comply with, the survey. Reports are due 60 days after the end of the U.S. person's fiscal quarter, except for the final quarter of the U.S. person's fiscal year when reports must be filed within 90 days. This notice is being issued in conformance with the rule BEA issued in 2012 (77 FR 24373) establishing guidelines for collecting data on international trade in services and direct investment through notices, rather than through rulemakings. The BE–45 survey forms and instructions are available on the BEA Web site at
(a)
(b)
(c)
for the final quarter of the reporter's fiscal year when reports must be filed within 90 days.
22 U.S.C. 3101–3108, as amended.
Bureau of Economic Analysis, Commerce.
Notice of Reporting Requirements.
By this Notice, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), Department of Commerce, is informing the public that it is conducting the mandatory survey titled BE–577, Quarterly Survey of U.S. Direct Investment Abroad—Transactions of U.S. Reporter with Foreign Affiliate. This survey is authorized by the International Investment and Trade in Services Survey Act.
This Notice constitutes legal notification to all United States persons (defined below) who meet the reporting requirements set forth in this Notice that they must respond to, and comply with, the survey. Reports are due 30 days after the close of each calendar or fiscal quarter; 45 days if the report is for the final quarter of the financial reporting year. This notice is being issued in conformance with the rule BEA issued in 2012 (77 FR 24373) establishing guidelines for collecting data on international trade in services and direct investment through notices, rather than through rulemakings. Additional information about BEA's collection of data on international trade in services and direct investment can be found in the 2012 rule and the International Investment and Trade in Services Survey Act (22 U.S.C. 3101
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(a) Reports are required from each U.S. person that has a direct and/or indirect ownership interest of at least 10 percent of the voting stock in an incorporated foreign business enterprise or an equivalent interest in an unincorporated foreign business enterprise and that meets the additional conditions detailed in Form BE–577.
(b) Entities required to report will be contacted individually by BEA. Entities not contacted by BEA have no reporting responsibilities.
22 U.S.C. 3101–3108.
Bureau of Economic Analysis, Commerce.
Notice of Reporting Requirements.
By this Notice, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), Department of Commerce is informing the public that it is conducting the mandatory survey titled Survey of Foreign Ocean Carriers' Revenues and Expenses in the United States (BE–29). This mandatory survey is authorized by the International Investment and Trade in Services Survey Act.
This Notice constitutes legal notification to all United States persons (defined below) who meet the reporting requirements set forth in this Notice that they must respond to, and comply with, the survey. Reports are due 90 days after the end of each calendar year. This notice is being issued in conformance with the rule BEA issued in 2012 (77 FR 24373) establishing guidelines for collecting data on international trade in services and direct investment through notices, rather than through rulemakings. The BE–29 survey forms and instructions are available on the BEA Web site at
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
22 U.S.C. 3101–3108, as amended.
Bureau of Economic Analysis, Commerce.
Notice of reporting requirements.
By this Notice, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), Department of Commerce, is informing the public that it is conducting a mandatory survey titled Survey of Ocean Freight Revenues and Foreign Expenses of United States Carriers (BE–30). This survey is authorized by the International Investment and Trade in Services Survey Act.
This Notice constitutes legal notification to all United States persons (defined below) who meet the reporting requirements set forth in this Notice that they must respond to, and comply with, the survey. Reports are due 45 days after the end of each calendar quarter. This notice is being issued in conformance with the rule BEA issued in 2012 (77 FR 24373) establishing guidelines for collecting data on international trade in services and direct investment through notices, rather than through rulemakings. The BE–30 survey forms and instructions are available on the BEA Web site at
(a)
(b)
(c)
22 U.S.C. 3101–3108, as amended.
Bureau of Economic Analysis, Commerce.
Notice of Public Meeting.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463 as amended by Pub. L. 94–409, Pub. L. 96–523, Pub. L. 97–375 and Pub. L. 105–153), we are announcing a meeting of the Bureau of Economic Analysis Advisory Committee. The meeting will address ways in which the national economic accounts can be presented more effectively for current economic analysis and recent statistical developments in national accounting.
Friday, May 9, 2014 the meeting will begin at 9:00 a.m. and adjourn at 3:30 p.m.
The meeting will take place at the Bureau of Economic Analysis at 1441 L St. NW., Washington, DC.
Gianna Marrone, Program Analyst, Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230; telephone number: (202) 606–9633.
The Committee was established September 2, 1999. The Committee advises the Director of BEA on matters related to the development and improvement of BEA's national, regional, industry, and international economic accounts, especially in areas of new and rapidly growing economic activities arising from innovative and advancing technologies, and provides recommendations from the perspectives of the economics profession, business,
Enforcement and Compliance, formerly Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) has received requests to conduct administrative reviews of various antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings with January anniversary dates. In accordance with the Department's regulations, we are initiating those administrative reviews.
Brenda E. Waters, Office of AD/CVD Operations, Customs Liaison Unit, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482–4735.
The Department has received timely requests, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), for administrative reviews of various antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings with January anniversary dates.
All deadlines for the submission of various types of information, certifications, or comments or actions by the Department discussed below refer to the number of calendar days from the applicable starting time.
If a producer or exporter named in this notice of initiation had no exports, sales, or entries during the period of review (“POR”), it must notify the Department within 60 days of publication of this notice in the
In the event the Department limits the number of respondents for individual examination for administrative reviews, except for the review of the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”), the Department intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) data for U.S. imports during the POR. We intend to release the CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (“APO”) to all parties having an APO within seven days of publication of this initiation notice and to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 21 days of publication of this
In the event that the Department limits the number of respondents for individual examination in the antidumping duty administrative review of wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC, for the purposes of this segment of the proceeding,
In the event the Department decides it is necessary to limit individual examination of respondents and conduct respondent selection under section 777A(c)(2) of the Act:
In general, the Department has found that determinations concerning whether particular companies should be “collapsed” (
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), a party that has requested a review may withdraw that request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The regulation provides that the Department may extend this time if it is reasonable to do so. In order to provide parties additional certainty with respect to when the Department will exercise its discretion to extend this 90-day deadline, interested parties are advised that the Department does not intend to extend the 90-day deadline unless the requestor demonstrates that an extraordinary circumstance has prevented it from submitting a timely withdrawal request. Determinations by the Department to extend the 90-day deadline will be made on a case-by-case basis.
In proceedings involving non-market economy (“NME”) countries, the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to an administrative review in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate.
To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from government control of its export activities to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise under a test arising from the
All firms listed below that wish to qualify for separate rate status in the administrative reviews involving NME countries must complete, as appropriate, either a separate rate application or certification, as described below. In addition, all firms that wish to qualify for separate-rate status in the antidumping duty administrative review of wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC must complete, as appropriate, either a separate-rate certification or application, as described below, and respond to the additional questions and the Q&V questionnaire which are included along with the separate-rate certification and application in a document package on the Department's Web site at
Entities that currently do not have a separate rate from a completed segment of the proceeding
For exporters and producers who submit a separate-rate status application or certification and subsequently are selected as mandatory respondents, these exporters and producers will no longer be eligible for separate rate status unless they respond to all parts of the questionnaire as mandatory respondents.
Furthermore, this notice constitutes public notification to all firms for which an antidumping duty administrative review of wooden bedroom furniture has been requested, and that are seeking separate rate status in the review, that they must submit a timely separate rate application or certification (as appropriate) as described above, and a timely response to the Q&V
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we are initiating administrative reviews of the following antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings. We intend to issue the final results of these reviews not later than January 31, 2015.
None.
None.
During any administrative review covering all or part of a period falling between the first and second or third and fourth anniversary of the publication of an antidumping duty order under 19 CFR 351.211 or a determination under 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4) to continue an order or suspended investigation (after sunset review), the Secretary, if requested by a domestic interested party within 30 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the review, will determine, consistent with
For the first administrative review of any order, there will be no assessment of antidumping or countervailing duties on entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the relevant provisional-measures “gap” period, of the order, if such a gap period is applicable to the POR.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective orders in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the Department published
On April 10, 2013, the Department published
Any party submitting factual information in an antidumping duty or countervailing duty proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.
On September 20, 2013, the Department modified its regulation concerning the extension of time limits for submissions in antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings:
These initiations and this notice are in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)) and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i).
Enforcement and Compliance, Formerly Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) published its preliminary results on August 7, 2013.
Toni Page, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–1398.
On August 7, 2013, the Department published the
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 Department has conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
The products covered by the antidumping duty order are all gauges of raw, pretreated, or primed PET Film, whether extruded or coextruded. Excluded are metallized films and other finished films that have had at least one of their surfaces modified by the application of a performance-enhancing resinous or inorganic layer of more than 0.00001 inches thick. Imports of PET Film are currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item number 3920.62.00.90. HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the scope of the antidumping duty order is dispositive.
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of issues that parties raised and to which we respond in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice as an Appendix. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). IA ACCESS is available to registered users at
Based on a review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding our
As a result of our review, we determine the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2012.
The Department determines, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. We will instruct CBP to liquidate entries of merchandise produced and/or exported by Jindal, SRF, and Polyplex. The Department will issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of review. For assessment purposes, where the respondent reported the entered value for its sales, we calculated importer-specific (or customer-specific)
The following deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of PET Film from India entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the company under review will be the rate established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or 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.
The Department is issuing and publishing these final results of administrative review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Enforcement and Compliance, formerly Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published its preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film, sheet, and strip from Taiwan.
Milton Koch or Gene Calvert at (202) 482–2584, or (202) 482–3586, respectively; AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
On August 9, 2013, the Department published the
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 products covered by the antidumping duty order are all gauges of raw, pretreated, or primed polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip, whether extruded or coextruded. Excluded are metalized films and other finished films that have had at least one of their surfaces modified by the application of a performance-enhancing resinous or inorganic layer of more than 0.00001 inches thick. Imports of polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip are currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) under item number 3920.62.00.90. HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the scope of the antidumping duty order is dispositive.
A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, “Decision Memorandum for Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from Taiwan; 2011–2012 Administrative Review” (“Issues and Decision Memorandum”), which is issued concurrent with and hereby adopted by this notice.
The issue raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties is addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. The issue which parties raised is identified in the Appendix to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file in the Central Records Unit (“CRU”), Room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building, as well as electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“IA ACCESS”). IA ACCESS is available to registered users at
Based on our analysis of the comments received and information gathered after the
We determine that Shinkong's weighted-average dumping margin is 4.48 percent for entries of subject merchandise that were produced and/or exported by Shinkong and that entered, or were withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the period July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2012.
The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review.
For any individually examined respondents whose weighted-average dumping margin is above
The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003. This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by each respondent for which they did not know that their merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification,
The following deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of PET film from Taiwan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”): (1) The cash deposit rate for the company under review will be the rate established in the final results of this review (except, if the
This notice is the only reminder to parties subject to the administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under the APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
These final results of administrative review and notice are published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h).
Whether Shinkong's underutilized capacity should be classified as a cost of manufacturing or as a general and administrative expense.
Enforcement and Compliance, formerly Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On August 7, 2013, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the antidumping duty administrative review of certain pasta (pasta) from Italy and gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the
Stephanie Moore (Gallo) and George McMahon (Rummo), Office III, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3692 and (202) 482–1167, respectively.
On August 7, 2013, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the
On January 15, 2014, Rummo filed a case brief and Petitioners
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. Therefore, all deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by 16 days.
On October 23, 2013, the Department issued a memorandum extending the time period for issuing the final results of this administrative review from
Imports covered by the order are shipments of certain non-egg dry pasta. The merchandise subject to review is currently classifiable under items 1901.90.90.95 and 1902.19.20 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to the order is dispositive.
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues that parties raised and to which we responded is attached to this notice as Appendix. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on-file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). IA ACCESS is available to registered users at
Based on a review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding our
As a result of this review, the Department determines the following weighted-average dumping margins
The Department shall determine and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries.
To determine whether the duty assessment rates covering the period were
The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003.
We intend to issue assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for respondents noted above will be the rate established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this administrative review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the manufacturer of the subject merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 15.45 percent, the all-others rate established in the antidumping investigation as modified by the section 129 determination. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during the POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. 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 the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h).
Enforcement and Compliance, formerly Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On January 10, 2014, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published its notice of initiation and preliminary results of a changed circumstances review (“CCR”) of the antidumping duty order on Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp (“shrimp”) from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (“Vietnam”).
Frances Veith, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: at (202) 482–4295.
On October 31, 2013,
The merchandise subject to the order is certain frozen warmwater shrimp. The product is currently classified under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States item numbers: 0306.17.00.03, 0306.17.00.06, 0306.17.00.09, 0306.17.00.12, 0306.17.00.15, 0306.17.00.18, 0306.17.00.21, 0306.17.00.24, 0306.17.00.27, 0306.17.00.40, 1605.21.10.30, and 1605.29.10.10. The written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.
Because no parties have submitted comments opposing the Department's preliminary determination, and because there is no other information or evidence on the record that calls into question the
As a result of this determination, we find that Dachan should receive the cash deposit rate previously assigned to Quang Ngai in the most recently completed review of the antidumping duty order on shrimp from Vietnam. Consequently, the Department will instruct U.S Customs and Border Protection to collect estimated antidumping duties for all shipments of subject merchandise exported by Dachan and entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of this notice in the
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.
This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.216.
Enforcement and Compliance, formerly Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On August 7, 2013, the Department published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the countervailing duty order on polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip (PET film) from India.
Elfi Blum, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0197.
The products covered are all gauges of raw, pretreated, or primed polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet and strip, whether extruded or coextruded. Excluded are metallized films and other finished films that have had at least one of their surfaces modified by the application of a performance-enhancing resinous or inorganic layer of more than 0.00001 inches thick. Imports of PET film are classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item number 3920.62.00.90. HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.
The issue raised by SRF in its case brief is addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.
Based on the comment received from SRF, we made a change to the Department's U.S. dollar-denominated short-term benchmark calculations from the
In accordance with section 777A(e)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5), we calculated an individual
The Department intends to instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to liquidate shipments of subject merchandise produced and/or exported by SRF entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption from January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2011, at 2.64 percent
The Department intends also to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties at the rate of 2.64 percent
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of proceeding. 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 violation which is subject to sanction.
These final results are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), United States Department of Commerce (DoC).
Notice of Funding Availability.
NIST invites applications from eligible applicants for funding one (1) MEP center in the State of Florida. The objective of the MEP center is to provide manufacturing extension services to primarily small- and medium-sized manufacturers in the state of Florida. The MEP center will become part of the MEP national system of extension service providers, currently comprised of more than 400 centers and field offices located throughout the United States and Puerto Rico.
Electronic applications must be received no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on May 14, 2014. Paper applications must be received by NIST by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on May 14, 2014. Applications received after the respective deadline will not be reviewed or considered. The earliest anticipated start date for awards made under this notice and the corresponding Federal Funding Opportunity (FFO) announcement is expected to be October 1, 2014.
For applicants without Internet access, the standard application package may be obtained by contacting Diane Henderson, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Manufacturing Extension Partnership, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 4800, Gaithersburg, MD 20899–4800, phone (301) 975–5105. Applicants with Internet access should obtain the standard application package by downloading the application package through Grants.gov. Paper submissions should be sent to: Diane Henderson, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Manufacturing Extension Partnership, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 4800, Gaithersburg, MD 20899–4800. Electronic submissions should be submitted to
Administrative, budget, cost-sharing, and eligibility questions and other programmatic questions should be directed to Diane Henderson at Tel: (301) 975–5105; Email:
The objective of an MEP center is to provide manufacturing extension services that enhance productivity, innovative capacity, and technological performance, and strengthen the global competitiveness of primarily small- and
It is not the intent of this program that the centers perform research and development.
Information regarding MEP and these centers is available at
Non-Federal cost sharing is that portion of the project costs not borne by the Federal Government. The applicant's share of the MEP center expenses may include cash, services, and third party in-kind contributions, as described at 15 CFR § 14.23 or § 24.24, as applicable, and the MEP program rule, 15 CFR § 290.4(c). No more than 50% of the applicant's total non-Federal cost share may be third party in-kind contributions of part-time personnel, equipment, software, rental value of centrally located space, and related contributions, per 15 CFR § 290.4(c)(5). The source and detailed rationale of the cost share, including cash, full- and part-time personnel, and in-kind donations, must be documented in the budget submitted with the application and will be considered as part of the evaluation review under Section V.1(c) of the FFO.
All non-Federal cost share contributions require a letter of commitment signed by an authorized official from each source.
Any cost sharing must be in accordance with the “cost sharing or matching” provisions of 15 CFR Part 14,
As with the Federal share, any proposed costs included as non-Federal cost sharing must be an allowable/eligible cost under this Program and the following applicable Federal cost principles: (1) Institutions of Higher Education: 2 CFR part 220 (OMB Circular A–21); (2) Nonprofit Organizations: 2 CFR part 230 (OMB Circular A–122); and (3) State, Local and Indian Tribal Governments: 2 CFR part 225 (OMB Circular A–87).
As with the Federal share, any proposed non-Federal cost sharing will be made a part of the cooperative agreement award and will be subject to audit if the project receives MEP funding.
The evaluation criteria that will be used in evaluating applications and assigned weights, with a maximum score of 100, are listed below.
i.
• delineates target service regions and manufacturers;
• makes use of appropriate quantitative and qualitative data sources and market intelligence to support proposed strategies and approaches to defining and segmenting the market; and
• aligns priority industries and regions with other state and regional priorities and investments.
• serves the region's manufacturing base, industry types, and technology requirements;
• meets existing and emerging needs of manufacturers in the service region;
• makes use of multiple sources of qualitative and quantitative information to determine manufacturers' needs and how to address them;
• makes use of resources, tools and services appropriate for the targeted small- and medium-sized manufacturers to meet identified needs of the region; and
• incorporates a range of complementary service providers and partners to deliver broad expertise and
ii.
• Incorporates the market analysis described in criterion (i) above to inform strategies, products and services;
• defines a strategy for delivering services that balances market penetration with impact and revenue generation, addressing the needs of manufacturers, with an emphasis on the small- and medium-sized manufacturers;
• defines a state or regional ecosystem in which the Center will operate, including universities, community colleges, technology-based economic developers, and others; and
• supports achievements of the MEP mission and objectives while also satisfying the interests of other stakeholders, investors, and partners.
iii.
• Reaches area manufacturers;
• enables the use of delivery methods (direct delivery, third party, account management); and
• facilitates the engagement of manufacturers' leadership in strategic discussions related to new technologies, new products, and new markets.
• Engages expertise both from within the Center and from other sub-recipients and partners to make available a wide range of experts and services to manufacturers;
• delivers services to small- and medium-sized manufacturers to encourage adoption of new technologies, developing new products, and selling products in new markets;
• balances delivering process improvement services with services that will transform and grow manufacturers; and
• delivers advanced manufacturing technology to small- and medium-sized manufacturers and mechanisms for accelerating the adoption of technologies for both process improvement and new product adoption.
• Establishes a sustainable business model, incorporating investment from NIST, other public investors (federal, state, and local), small- and medium-sized manufacturing clients, and other sources; and
• makes use of effective resources or partnerships with third parties such as industry, universities, nonprofit economic organizations, and state governments likely to amplify the Center's capabilities for delivering growth services.
• Proposed key personnel have the appropriate experience and education in manufacturing, outreach and partnership development to support achievements of the MEP mission and objectives;
• proposed key personnel have the appropriate experience and education to plan, direct, monitor, organize and control the monetary resources of the proposed Center to achieve its business objectives and maximize its value;
• the proposed management structure (leadership and governance) is aligned to support the execution of the strategy, products and services;
• the proposed staffing plan flows logically from the specified approach to the market and products and service offerings.
• the organizational roles and responsibilities of key personnel and staff are clearly delineated;
• the proposed field staff structure sufficiently supports the geographic concentrations and industry targets for the region; and
• a workable governance structure is delineated, including an oversight Board with a membership representing small- and medium-sized manufacturers in the region.
• The proposed methodology of program management and internal evaluation is likely to ensure effective operations and oversight and meet program and service delivery objectives;
• the proposed evaluation plan is aligned to support the execution of the proposed Center's strategy and business model; and
• the proposed approach aligns effectively with the proposed key personnel, staff and organizational structure.
• The applicant's funding commitments for cost share are identified and demonstrate stability and duration; and
• the applicant clearly describes the total level of cost share and detailed rationale of the cost share, including cash and in-kind, within the proposed budget.
• The proposed projections for income and expenditures are appropriate for the scale of services that are to be delivered by the proposed Center and the service delivery model envisioned;
• the proposal's narrative of each of the budgeted items explains the rationale for each of the budgeted items, including assumptions the applicant used in budgeting for the Center;
• the overall financial plan is sufficiently robust and diversified so as to support the long term sustainability of the Center; and
• the proposed financial plan is aligned to support the execution of the proposed Center's strategy and business model.
a. The availability of Federal funds.
b. Relevance of the proposed project to MEP program goals and policy objectives.
c. Reviewers' evaluations, including technical comments.
d. The need to assure appropriate distribution within Florida and the surrounding region.
e. Whether the project duplicates other projects funded by DoC or by other Federal agencies.
Finalists may receive written follow-up questions in order for the reviewers to gain a better understanding of the applicant's proposal. Once the reviewers have completed their review of the applicant's responses, a conference call or site visit may be deemed necessary. If deemed necessary, either all finalists will participate one-on-one with reviewers in a conference call or all finalists will receive site visits that will be conducted by the reviewers referenced in the preceding paragraph. Finalists will be reviewed and evaluated, and reviewers may revise their assigned numeric scores based on the evaluation criteria (
NIST reserves the right to negotiate the budget costs with any applicant selected to receive an award, which may include requesting that the applicant remove certain costs. Additionally, NIST may request that the successful applicant modify objectives or work plans and provide supplemental information required by the agency prior to award. NIST also reserves the right to reject an application where information is uncovered that raises a reasonable doubt as to the responsibility of the applicant. NIST may select part, some, all, or none of the applications. The final approval of selected applications and issuance of awards will be by the NIST Grants Officer. The award decisions of the NIST Grants Officer are final.
Per 2 CFR part 25, each applicant must:
1. Be registered in the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) before submitting an application, noting the CCR now resides in SAM;
2. Maintain an active CCR registration, noting the CCR now resides in SAM, with current information at all times during which it has an active Federal award or an application under consideration by an agency; and
3. Provide its DUNS number in each application or application it submits to the agency.
The applicant can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet. A DUNS number can be created within one business day. The CCR or SAM registration process may take five or more business days to complete. If you are currently registered with the CCR, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the EIN/TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your CCR registration annually. This may take three or more business days to complete. Information about SAM is available at
See also 2 CFR part 25 and the
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
A
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce.
Notice of open meeting.
The Smart Grid Advisory Committee (SGAC or Committee), will meet in open session on Tuesday, March 18, 2014 from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time and Wednesday, March 19, 2014 from 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Eastern time. The primary purposes of this meeting are to discuss the updated NIST Framework and Roadmap for Smart Grid Interoperability Standards, updated Guidelines for Smart Grid Cyber Security (NISTIR 7628), NIST Smart Grid Testbed activities, and interactions between Cyber-Physical Systems and Smart Grid. The agenda may change to accommodate Committee business. The final agenda will be posted on the Smart Grid Web site at
The SGAC will meet on Tuesday, March 18, 2014 from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time and Wednesday, March 19, 2014 from 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Eastern time. The meeting will be open to the public.
The meeting will be held in the Portrait Room, Administration Building, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899. Please note admittance instructions under the
Mr. Cuong Nguyen, Smart Grid and Cyber-Physical Systems Program Office, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 8200, Gaithersburg, MD 20899–8200; telephone 301–975–2254, fax 301–948–5668; or via email at
The Committee was established in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App. The Committee is composed of nine to fifteen members, appointed by the Director of NIST, who were selected on the basis of established records of distinguished professional service in their professional community and knowledge of issues affecting Smart Grid deployment and operations. The Committee advises the Director of NIST on carrying out duties authorized by section 1305 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110–140). The Committee provides input to NIST on Smart Grid standards, priorities, and gaps, on the overall direction, status, and health of the Smart Grid implementation by the Smart Grid industry, and on Smart Grid Interoperability Panel activities, including the direction of research and standards activities. Background information on the Committee is available at
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App., notice is hereby given that the Smart Grid Advisory Committee (SGAC or Committee) will meet in open session on Tuesday, March 18, 2014 from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time and Wednesday, March 19, 2014 from 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Eastern time. The meeting will be open to the public and held in the Portrait Room, in the Administration Building at NIST in Gaithersburg, Maryland. The primary purposes of this meeting are to discuss the updated NIST Framework and Roadmap for Smart Grid Interoperability Standards, updated Guidelines for Smart Grid Cyber Security (NISTIR 7628), NIST Smart Grid Testbed activities, and interaction between Cyber-Physical System and Smart Grid. The agenda may change to accommodate Committee business. The final agenda will be posted on the Smart Grid Web site at
Individuals and representatives of organizations who would like to offer comments and suggestions related to the Committee's affairs are invited to request a place on the agenda by
All visitors to the NIST site are required to pre-register to be admitted. Anyone wishing to attend this meeting must register by 5:00 p.m. Eastern time, Tuesday, March 11, 2014, in order to attend. Please submit your full name, time of arrival, email address, and phone number to Cuong Nguyen. Non-U.S. citizens must submit additional information; please contact Mr. Nguyen. Mr. Nguyen's email address is
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Commerce.
Notice.
The Information Security and Privacy Advisory Board (ISPAB) will meet Wednesday, March 12, 2014, from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Thursday, March 13, 2014, from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, and Friday, March 14, 2014, from 8:00 a.m. until 12:00 p.m. Eastern Time. All sessions will be open to the public.
The meeting will be held on Wednesday, March 12, 2014, from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Thursday, March 13, 2014, from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, and Friday, March 14, 2014, from 8:00 a.m. until 12:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
The meeting will be held at the Residence Inn, 1199 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20005 (TEL. 202–898–1100).
Annie Sokol, Information Technology Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 8930, Gaithersburg, MD 20899–8930, telephone: (301) 975–2006, or by email at:
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App., notice is hereby given that the Information Security and Privacy Advisory Board (ISPAB) will meet Wednesday, March 12, 2014, from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Thursday, March 13, 2014, from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, and Friday, March 14, 2014, from 8:00 a.m. until 12:00 p.m. Eastern Time. All sessions will be open to the public. The ISPAB is authorized by 15 U.S.C. 278g–4, as amended, and advises the Secretary of Commerce, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the Director of NIST on information security and privacy issues pertaining to federal information systems. Details regarding the ISPAB's activities are available at
The agenda is expected to include the following items:
Note that agenda items may change without notice. The final agenda will be posted on the Web site indicated above. Seating will be available for the public and media.
Speakers who wish to expand upon their oral statements, those who had wished to speak but could not be accommodated on the agenda, and those who were unable to attend in person are invited to submit written statements. In addition, written statements are invited and may be submitted to the ISPAB at any time. All written statements should be directed to the ISPAB Secretariat, Information Technology Laboratory, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8930, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899–8930.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC) will
The meeting will be held on Wednesday, March 19, 2014, from 9 a.m. until 12 p.m.
Kim Iverson, Public Information Officer, SAFMC; telephone: (843) 571–4366 or toll free (866) SAFMC–10; fax: (843) 769–4520; email:
The items of discussion in the AP's agenda are as follows:
1. Approve the current agenda as well as the minutes from the April 2013 Dolphin Wahoo AP meeting.
2. Receive a presentation on dolphin research from the Cooperative Science Services Center.
3. Receive an update on Dolphin Wahoo Amendment 5, pertaining to: Revision of accountability measures; changes to dolphin sector allocations; modifications to the framework for dolphin and wahoo; and changes to the Annual Catch Limit (ACL) and the Allowable Biological Catch (ABC). Review Scientific & Statistical Committee (SSC) comments on the amendment.
4. Receive an overview on Dolphin Wahoo Amendment 7, regarding the transport of fillets from Bahamian waters into the United States Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Discuss the amendment and provide AP recommendations.
5. Receive an overview of Dolphin Wahoo Amendment 8, regarding accountability measures (AMs). Discuss the amendment and provide AP recommendations.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the council office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council.
The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a meeting of its Law Enforcement Advisory Panel (LEAP) in conjunction with the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission's Law Enforcement Committee (LEC).
The meeting will be held from 1:30 p.m. until 5 p.m. on Tuesday, March 18, 2014.
Mr. Steven Atran, Senior Fishery Biologist, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; telephone: (813) 348–1630; fax: (813) 348–1711; email:
The items of discussion on the agenda are as follows:
The Law Enforcement Advisory Panel consists of principal law enforcement officers in each of the Gulf States, as well as the NOAA Law Enforcement, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the NOAA General Counsel for Law Enforcement. A copy of the agenda and related materials can be obtained by calling the Council office at (813) 348–1630.
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 identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305© of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency. These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kathy Pereira at
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meetings.
The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a meeting of the Standing, Special Shrimp and Special Red Drum Scientific and Statistical Committees (SSC).
The meetings will be held from 1 p.m. on Wednesday, March 19 until 5 p.m. Thursday, March 20, 2014.
Mr. Steven Atran, Senior Fishery Biologist, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; telephone: (813) 348–1630; fax: (813) 348–1711; email:
The items of discussion in the individual meeting agendas are as follows:
Although other non-emergency issues not on the agenda may come before the Scientific and Statistical Committees for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Actions of the Scientific and Statistical Committees will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agenda 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 action to address the emergency.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kathy Pereira at the Council Office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Issuance of permit.
Notice is hereby given that NMFS Southeast Fisheries Center (SEFSC) (hereinafter “Permit Holder”); 75 Virginia Beach Drive, Miami, FL 33149 [Responsible Party: Bonnie Ponwith, Ph.D.], has been issued a permit to take smalltooth sawfish (
The permit and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following offices:
Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427–8401; fax (301) 713–0376; and
Southeast Region, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, Saint Petersburg, Florida 33701; phone (727) 824–5312; fax (727) 824–5309.
Malcolm Mohead, (301) 427–8401.
On March 21, 2013, notice was published in the
The primary objective of the permit will be to gather life history information on smalltooth sawfish. The purpose of the research is to investigate the movements and habitat use of smalltooth sawfish in Florida waters, primarily in the region of the Florida coast from Naples to Key West, encompassing the Ten Thousand Islands. Up to 100 neonate and 20 large juvenile and adult sawfish are authorized to be captured annually by longline, gillnet, seine net, and recreational angling gear. All captured sawfish are to be measured, tagged, sampled, and released. Tagging methods will include dart tags, passive integrated transponder tags, and external satellite tags (e.g., Smart Position Only Transmitting tags, Pop-Up Archival Transmitting tags) and internal acoustic tags. Tissue and blood samples will also be taken. Up to 20 dead sawfish acquired through strandings, or from law enforcement confiscations, would also be sampled for scientific purposes. The permit is valid for 5 years from the date of issuance.
Issuance of this permit, as required by the ESA, was based on a finding that such permit (1) Was applied for in good faith, (2) Will not operate to the disadvantage of such endangered or threatened species, and (3) Is consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA.
National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of Open Public Meetings.
The Board of the First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) will convene an open public meeting of the Board on March 11, 2014, preceded by meetings of the Board Committees on March 10, 2014.
On March 10, 2014 between 2:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time there will be sequential meetings of FirstNet's four Board Committees: (1) Planning and Technology; (2) Governance and Personnel; (3) Finance; and (4) Outreach. The full FirstNet Board will hold a meeting on March 11, 2014, between 9:00 a.m. and 11:30 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time.
Board members will meet at the NYC Police Headquarters (2nd Floor Press Room), One Police Plaza, New York, NY 10038.
Uzoma Onyeije, Secretary, FirstNet, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0016; email:
This notice informs the public that the Board of the First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) will convene an open public meeting of the Board on March 11, 2014, preceded by meetings of the Board Committees on March 10, 2014.
The meetings are accessible to people with disabilities. Individuals requiring accommodations, such as sign language interpretation or other ancillary aids, are asked to notify Uzoma Onyeije, Secretary, FirstNet, at (202) 482–0016 or
The meetings will also be webcast. Please refer to NTIA's Web site at
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Addition to the Procurement List.
This action adds a product to the Procurement List that will be furnished by a nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 10800, Arlington, Virginia 22202–4149.
Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603–7740, Fax: (703) 603–0655, or email
On 10/25/2013 (78 FR 63967–63968), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed addition to the Procurement List.
After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of a qualified nonprofit agency to provide the product and impact of the addition on the current or most recent contractor, the Committee has determined that the product listed below is suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501–8506 and 41 CFR 51–2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organization that will furnish the product to the Government.
2. The action will result in authorizing a small entity to furnish the product to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501–8506) in connection with the product proposed for addition to the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following product is added to the Procurement List:
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed additions to and deletions from the Procurement List.
The Committee is proposing to add services to the Procurement List that will be provided by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities and, deletes products and services previously furnished by such agencies.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 10800, Arlington, Virginia 22202–4149.
Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603–7740, Fax: (703) 603–0655, or email
This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51–2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.
If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to provide the services listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
The following services are proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:
The following products and services are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:
Department of Defense.
Notice.
This notice provides an opportunity for the public to submit issues that have an impact on Service members and their families where state governments are the primary agents for making positive change. Each year, DoD selects issues for states to consider that represent barriers resulting from the transience and uncertainty of military life. For example, DoD has asked states to consider remedies to improve school transition for children in active duty military families to overcome problems with records transfer, class and course placement, qualifying for extra-curricular activities, and fulfilling graduation requirements.
Inputs must be received by April 14, 2014.
Electronic responses can be sent to:
Marcus Beauregard, (571) 372–5357.
Inputs should include the following information:
A. Issue title.
B. Description of the issue to include a description of the policy or practice, the impact and who is impacted by this issue.
C. Description of the potential solution to this issue, to include whether the issue can be corrected through a change in state procedures, state regulations or state statute.
D. Your contact information so that we can follow-up if we need any clarifications.
Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs), Department of Defense.
Notice of meeting.
The Department of Defense is publishing this notice to announce the following meeting of the Uniform Formulary Beneficiary Advisory Panel (hereafter referred to as the Panel). This meeting is open to the public.
March 20, 2014, from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
Naval Heritage Center Theater, 701 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004.
Col J. Michael Spilker, DFO, Uniform Formulary Beneficiary Advisory Panel, 7700 Arlington Boulevard, Suite 5101, Falls Church, VA 22042–5101. Telephone: (703) 681–2890. Fax: (703) 681–1940. Email Address:
This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C. Appendix, as amended) and the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended).
Written statements that do not pertain to the scheduled meeting of the Panel may be submitted at any time. However, if individual comments pertain to a specific topic being discussed at a planned meeting, then these statements must be submitted no later than 5 business days prior to the meeting in question. The DFO will review all submitted written statements and provide copies to all the committee members.
To ensure timeliness of comments for the official record, the Panel encourages that individuals and interested groups consider submitting written statements instead of addressing the Panel.
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Notice of availability.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Wilmington District, Wilmington Regulatory Field Office has received a request for Department of the Army authorization, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbor Act, from the Village of Bald Head Island (VBHI) to develop and implement a shoreline protection plan that includes the installation of a terminal groin structure on the east side of the Wilmington Harbor Baldhead Shoal Entrance Channel (a federally-maintained navigation channel of the Cape Fear River) at the “Point” of Bald Head Island. The structure will be designed to function in concert with Federal beach disposal operations associated with the Wilmington Harbor navigation project. This is a supplement to the notice published in the
Due to inclement weather, the public hearing that was scheduled for February 12 was cancelled and re-scheduled for March 4, 2014. Written comments on the DEIS will be received until March 17, 2014.
Copies of comments and questions regarding scoping of the DEIS may be submitted to: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Wilmington District, Regulatory Division. ATTN: File Number SAW–2012–00040, 69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington, NC 28403.
Questions about the proposed action and DEIS can be directed to Mr. Ronnie Smith, Wilmington Regulatory Field Office, telephone: (910) 251–4829. Additional description of the VBHI proposal can be found at the following link,
Please reference the Notice of Availability that was filed in the
The DEIS has been published and circulated, and a public hearing will be held March 4, 2014 at the International Longshoreman's Association Center, located at 211 West 10th Street in Southport, Brunswick County, North Carolina at 6 p.m.
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 March 31, 2014.
Fred Licari, 571–372–0493.
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra 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.
Notice.
The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of
Consideration will be given to all comments received by March 31, 2014.
Fred Licari, 571–372–0493.
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra 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.
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before March 31, 2014.
Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Christopher Tate, 202–260–8103.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy.
Submission for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review; comment request.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has submitted an information collection request to OMB for extension under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection requests a three-year extension on the reports and data collected and recorded in support of DOE's Appliance Standards Program. Specifically, DOE is submitting for approval paperwork requirements associated with the three following aspects of the appliance standards program: (1) Gathering data and submitting the certification and compliance reports for each basic model distributed in commerce in the US; (2) maintaining records underlying the certified ratings for each basic model including test data and the associated calculations; and (3) applications for a test procedure waiver for which manufacturers may elect to submit if they manufacturer a basic model that cannot be tested pursuant to the DOE test procedure. This collection includes all covered products and equipment subject to DOE's regulatory requirements described in 10 CFR Parts 429, 430, and 431. More specifically, DOE's certification and compliance requirements are described in 10 CFR Part 429. DOE's records retention requirements are described in 10 CFR 429.71. DOE's application for a test procedure waiver process is described in 10 CFR 430.27 and 431.401.
Comments regarding this collection must be received on or before March 31, 2014. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, please advise the OMB Desk Officer of your intention to make a submission as soon as possible. The Desk Officer may be telephoned at 202–395–4650.
Direct all written comments to:
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Ashley Armstrong at
This information collection request contains:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
The Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles consists of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. The testing requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers of covered products must use (1) as the basis for certifying to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted under the EPCA, and (2) for making representations about the efficiency of those products. DOE must use these test requirements to determine whether the products comply with any relevant standards promulgated under the EPCA.
DOE is renewing its information collection on the energy and water efficiency of consumer products and commercial equipment manufactured for distribution in commerce in the United States. Under the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles DOE requires that manufacturers: (1) Submit certification and compliance reports for each basic model distributed in commerce in the US; (2) maintain records underlying the certified ratings for each basic model including test data and the associated calculations; and (3) submit an application for a test procedure waiver for which manufacturers may elect to submit if they manufacturer a basic model that cannot be tested pursuant to the DOE test procedure.
DOE currently requires manufacturers or their party representatives prepare and submit certification reports and compliance statements using DOE's electronic Web-based tool, the Compliance and Certification Management System (CCMS), which is the only mechanism for submitting certification reports to DOE. CCMS currently has product specific templates which manufacturers are required to use when submitting certification data to DOE. See
Covered products and equipment are described in 10 CFR Parts 429, 430, and 431. They generally include: (1) Residential refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers and freezers; (2) Room air conditioners; (3) Central air conditioners and heat pumps, including SDHV and Space-Constrained; (4) Residential water heaters; (5) Residential furnaces, including boilers; (6) Dishwashers; (7) Residential clothes washers; (8) Residential clothes dryers; (9) Direct heating equipment; (10) Conventional cooking tops, conventional ovens, microwave ovens; (11) Pool heaters; (12) Fluorescent lamp ballasts; (13) General service fluorescent lamps, general service incandescent lamps, and incandescent reflector lamps; (14) Faucets; (15) Showerheads; (16) Water closets; (17) Urinals; (18)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
Part A of Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6291–6309); 10 CFR Parts 429, 430, and 431.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) will hold a Commission-led technical conference on Winter 2013–2014 Operations and Market Performance in Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators on April 1, 2014 beginning at 9:00 a.m. and ending at approximately 5:00 p.m. The conference will be held at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The Commission is establishing this technical conference to explore the impacts of recent cold weather events on the Regional Transmission Organizations/Independent System Operators (RTO/ISO), and discuss actions taken to respond to those impacts. The conference will look broadly across multiple RTO/ISO regions to inform the Commission of the challenges posed by these cold weather events. Discussion will focus on a number of issues, including: The impact of cold weather events on operational planning and real-time operations, market prices and performance, and regional infrastructure; the actions taken in response to those impacts; gas procurement; and lessons learned that can be shared between regions and applied in future events.
A supplemental notice will be issued prior to the technical conference with further details regarding the agenda and organization of the technical conference. Those interested in attending the technical conference are encouraged to register at the following Web site:
There will be a free webcast of the conference. The webcast will allow persons to listen to the technical conference, but not participate.
Anyone with Internet access who wants to listen to the conference can do so by navigating to
FERC conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please send an email to
For more information about the technical conference, please contact:
Jordan Kwok (Technical Information), Office of Energy Policy and Innovation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502–6161,
Sarah McKinley (Logistical Information), Office of External Affairs, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502–8368,
NOTICE: Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at:
Revision to FR Notice Published 01/03/2014; Comment Period will remain open through 03/11/2014, per request of the lead agency.
Revision to FR Notice Published 02/07/2014; Extending Comment Period from 3/31/2014 to 4/04/2014
Revision to FR Notice Published 02/14/2014; Correcting Lead Agency from AFS to USFS.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Request for nominations for peer reviewers and notice of public comment period.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) invites the public to nominate scientific experts to be considered as peer reviewers for the contractor-managed external peer review of the draft documents entitled, “Health Effects Document for Perfluorooctanoic Acid” and “Health Effects Document for Perfluorooctane Sulfonate.” In addition, EPA is announcing the release of the draft health effects documents for public comment. Public comments will be made available to the peer reviewers for consideration in their review. The draft documents and charge questions were prepared in order to support potential future regulatory evaluations and decisions. These draft documents do not represent and should not be construed to represent final Agency policy.
The nomination period for scientific experts begins on February 28, 2014 and ends on March 21, 2014.
The public comment period begins on February 28, 2014 and ends on April 29, 2014. Technical comments should be submitted to the public EPA docket by April 29, 2014.
Any interested person or organization may nominate scientific experts to be considered as a peer reviewer. Nominations should be submitted in time to arrive no later than March 21, 2014. Self-nominations will also be accepted. Nominations should be submitted to the EPA contractor, Versar, Inc., online using the following URL:
•
• Email:
• Mail: EPA Water Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822–IT, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of two copies (including references).
• Hand Delivery: EPA Water Docket, EPA Docket Center, William Jefferson Clinton West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004, Docket No. EPA–HQ–OW–2014–0138. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
Questions concerning the nomination process or Web site should be directed to the EPA contractor, Versar, Inc., at 6850 Versar Center, Springfield, VA 22151; by email
EPA has prepared draft health effects documents for Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS) for purposes of public comment (scientific views) and peer review. EPA will consider any public comments submitted in accordance with this
Peer reviewer candidates must not have previously provided comments on the draft health effects documents for PFOA and PFOS; that is, anyone wishing to be considered as a peer reviewer must not submit comments during the 60-day public comment period. However, candidates not selected for the panel peer review will be given a limited opportunity to submit public comments once the final peer reviewers are selected by Versar, Inc., the EPA contractor managing this peer review process.
The draft documents “Health Effects Document for Perfluorooctanoic Acid” and “Health Effects Document for Perfluorooctane Sulfonate” and charge questions are available electronically by the following methods: (1) Public Docket at
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), the Federal Communications Commission invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection(s). Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
Written Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) comments should be submitted on or before April 29, 2014. If you anticipate that you will be submitting PRA comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the FCC contact listed below as soon as possible.
Submit your PRA comments to Benish Shah, Federal Communications Commission, via the Internet at
Benish Shah, Office of Managing Director, (202) 418–7866.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, this notice advises interested persons that the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC or Commission) Communications Security, Reliability, and Interoperability Council (CSRIC) IV will hold its second meeting. Votes are scheduled on reports for Working Group 3 on Emergency Alerting, Working Group 7 on Legacy Best Practices, and Working Group 9 on Infrastructure Sharing During Emergencies. In addition, Working Group 4 Cybersecurity Best Practices, will begin their work to recommend consensus-based best practices that implement the NIST Cybersecurity Framework.
March 20, 2014.
Federal Communications Commission, Room TW–C305 (Commission Meeting Room), 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
Jeffery Goldthorp, Designated Federal Officer, (202) 418–1096 (voice) or
The meeting will be held on March 20, 2014, from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. in the Commission Meeting Room of the Federal Communications Commission, Room TW–C305, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
The CSRIC is a Federal Advisory Committee that will provide recommendations to the FCC regarding best practices and actions the FCC can take to ensure the security, reliability, and interoperability of communications systems. On March 19, 2013, the FCC, pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, renewed the charter for the CSRIC for a period of two years through March 18, 2015. Each of the ten Working Groups of this most recently-chartered CSRIC is described in more detail at
The meeting on March 20, 2014, will be the third meeting of the CSRIC under the current charter. The FCC will attempt to accommodate as many attendees as possible; however, admittance will be limited to seating availability. The Commission will provide audio and/or video coverage of the meeting over the Internet from the FCC's Web page at
Open captioning will be provided for this event. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. Requests for such accommodations should be submitted via email to
Federal Election Commission.
Tuesday March 4, 2014 at 10 a.m.
999 E Street NW., Washington, DC.
This meeting will be closed to the public.
Compliance matters pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g.
Information the premature disclosure of which would be likely to have a considerable adverse effect on the implementation of a proposed Commission action.
Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694–1220.
Federal Maritime Commission.
Notice of Order of Investigation and Hearing.
The Order of Investigation and Hearing was served February 21, 2014.
On February 21, 2014, the Federal Maritime Commission instituted an Order of Investigation and Hearing entitled Oceanic Bridge International, Inc.—Possible Violations of Section 10(a)(1) of the Shipping Act of 1984. Acting pursuant to Section 11 of the Shipping Act, 46 U.S.C. 41302, that investigation is instituted to determine:
(1) Whether Oceanic Bridge International, Inc. violated section 10(a)(1) of the Shipping Act, 46 U.S.C. 41102(a), by knowingly and willfully, directly or indirectly, obtaining or attempting to obtain transportation at less than the rates and charges otherwise applicable by the unjust or unfair device or means of unlawfully accessing a service contract to which it was neither a signatory nor an affiliate; and,
(2) whether, in the event violations of section 10(a)(1) of the Shipping Act are found, civil penalties should be assessed against Oceanic Bridge International, Inc. and, if so, the amount of the penalties to be assessed.
The Order may be viewed in its entirety at
46 U.S.C. 41302.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than March 17, 2014.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198–0001:
1.
Federal Trade Commission.
Proposed consent agreement.
The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The attached Analysis of Proposed Consent Order to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the draft complaint and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.
Comments must be received on or before March 24, 2014.
Interested parties may file a comment at
Elisa Jillson, Bureau of Consumer Protection, (202–326–3001), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.
Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for February 21, 2014), on the World Wide Web, at
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before March 24, 2014. Write “N.E.W. Plastics Corp.,—Consent Agreement; File No. 132 3126” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at
Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, like anyone's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, like medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, do not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which . . . is privileged or confidential,” as discussed in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.
If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you file your comment on paper, write “N.E.W. Plastics Corp.,—Consent Agreement; File No. 132 3126” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail or deliver it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H–113 (Annex D), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Visit the Commission Web site at
The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) has accepted, subject to final approval, an agreement containing a consent order from N.E.W. Plastics Corp., a corporation (“Respondent”).
The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty (30) days, the Commission will again review the agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement or make final the agreement's proposed order.
This matter addresses allegedly deceptive green claims that Respondent made while promoting two brands of plastic lumber products, Evolve and Trimax, to retailers, independent distributors and end-use consumers. According to the FTC complaint, Respondent marketed (1) Evolve products as made from 90% or more recycled content; (2) Trimax products as made from mostly post-consumer recycled content; and (3) both Trimax and Evolve as recyclable. The complaint alleges first that each of these claims is false and misleading. It also alleges that Respondent did not possess or rely upon a reasonable basis to substantiate these representations. Finally, it alleges that Respondent provided its retailers and distributors with deceptive promotional materials, i.e., the means and instrumentalities to deceive consumers. Thus, the three-count complaint alleges that Respondent engaged in deceptive practices in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act.
The proposed consent order contains several provisions designed to prevent Respondent from engaging in similar acts and practices in the future. Part I prohibits N.E.W. from making representations regarding the recycled content, the post-consumer recycled content, or the environmental benefit of any product or package unless they are true, not misleading, and substantiated by competent and reliable evidence. Part I further provides that if, in general, experts in the relevant scientific field would conclude it necessary, such evidence must be competent and reliable scientific evidence. Consistent with the Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims (“Green Guides”), 16 CFR 260.13(b), Part I specifically requires N.E.W. to substantiate recycled content claims by demonstrating that such recycled content is composed of materials that were recovered or otherwise diverted from the waste stream.
Part II prohibits N.E.W. from making an unqualified claim that any product or package is recyclable unless: (1) The item, excluding minor incidental components, can be recycled in an established recycling program, and (2) recycling facilities that accept the item are available to at least 60% of consumers or communities where it is sold. If recycling facilities are available to fewer than 60%, consistent with the Green Guides, 16 CFR 260.12(b), Part II requires N.E.W. to qualify its claim regarding the availability of recycling facilities. Part II requires such claims to be true, not misleading, and substantiated by competent and reliable evidence. It further provides that if, in general, experts in the relevant scientific field would conclude it necessary, such evidence must be competent and reliable scientific evidence. Finally, Part II provides that if Respondent promotes as recyclable at item that is only partially recyclable, Respondent must disclose the part or portion of the product or package that is recyclable.
Part III prohibits N.E.W. from providing others with the means and
Part IV requires N.E.W. to deliver a letter to its distributors and retailers that instructs them to stop using Evolve and Trimax plastic lumber advertising and marketing materials provided by N.E.W. prior to December 2013. This requirement seeks to ensure that deceptive claims will be entirely removed from the market.
Parts V through IX are reporting and compliance provisions. Part V requires Respondent to keep (and make available to the Commission on request): Copies of advertisements and promotional materials containing the representations covered by the order; materials relied upon in disseminating those representations; evidence that contradicts, qualifies, or calls into question the representations, or the basis relied upon for the representations. Part VI requires dissemination of the order now and in the future to principals, officers, directors, and managers, and to all current and future employees, agents, and representatives having responsibilities relating to the subject matter of the order. It also requires Respondent to maintain and make available to the FTC all acknowledgments of receipt of the order. Part VII requires notification to the FTC of changes in corporate status. Part VIII mandates that Respondent submit an initial compliance report to the FTC and make available to the FTC subsequent reports. Part IX is a provision terminating the order after twenty (20) years, with certain exceptions.
The purpose of this analysis is to aid public comment on the proposed consent order. It is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the proposed order or to modify its terms in any way.
By direction of the Commission.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be received by
When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number (OCN). To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:
1.
2.
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' Web site address at
2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to
3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786–1326.
Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786–1326
This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the
1.
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments on the collection(s) of information must be received by the OMB desk officer by
When commenting on the proposed information collections, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be received by the OMB desk officer via one of the following transmissions: OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: CMS Desk Officer, Fax Number: (202) 395–5806 or Email:
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' Web site address at
2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to
3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786–1326.
Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786–1326
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal agencies to publish a 30-day notice in the
1.
While the statute does not specify an administrative review process for appealing low QBP Star Ratings, we have implemented an appeals process in accordance with its authority to establish MA program standards by regulation at section 1856(b)(1) of the Act. Under this process, MA organizations may seek review of their QBP Star Rating determinations. This review process also applies to the determinations we made where the organization's Star Rating sets its QBP status at ineligible for rebate retention. The information collected from Medicare Advantage organizations is considered by the reconsideration official and potentially the hearing officer to review our determination of the organization's eligibility for a quality bonus payment.
2.
The AEs shall report suspected or confirmed incidents affecting loss or suspected loss of PII within one hour of discovery to their designated Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight State Officer who will then notify the affected Federal agency data sources, i.e., Internal Revenue Service, Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, Social Security Administration, Peace Corps, Office of Personnel Management and Veterans Health Administration. Additionally, AEs shall contact the office of the appropriate Special Agent-in-Charge, Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA), and the IRS Office of Safeguards within 24 hours of discovery of any potential breach, loss, or misuse of Return Information.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces the preliminary federal share DSH allotments for FY 2014 and the preliminary federal share FY 2014 limits on aggregate DSH payments that states may make to institutions for mental diseases (IMDs) and other mental health facilities. This notice also includes additional information regarding the calculation of the FY 2014 DSH allotments and FY 2014 IMD DSH limits.
Rory Howe, (410) 786–4878; or Richard Strauss, (410) 786–2019.
A state's federal fiscal year (FY) disproportionate share hospital (DSH) allotment represents the aggregate limit on the federal share amount of the state's payments to DSH hospitals in the state for the FY. The amount of such allotment is determined in accordance with the provisions of section 1923(f)(3) of the Social Security Act (the Act). Under such provisions, in general a state's FY DSH allotment is calculated by increasing the amount of its DSH allotment for the preceding FY by the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI–U) for the previous FY.
The Affordable Care Act amended Medicaid DSH provisions, adding section 1923(f)(7) of the Act which would have required reductions to states' FY DSH allotments beginning with FY 2014, the calculation of which was described in the Disproportionate Share Hospital Payment Reduction final rule published in the September 18, 2013
The reductions under section 1923(f)(7) of the Act were delayed and modified by section 1204 of Division B (Medicare and Other Health Provisions) of the “Pathway for SGR Reform Act of 2013” (Pub. L. 113–67), which was enacted on December 26, 2013. The reductions of states' fiscal year DSH allotments under section 1923(f)(7) of the Act that were applicable to FY 2014 and 2015 were repealed, and the FY 2016 was increased substantially.
Because there is no reduction to DSH allotments for FY 2014 under section 1923(f)(7) of the Act, this notice contains only the state-specific FY 2014 DSH allotments, as calculated under the statute without application of the reductions that would have been imposed under the Affordable Care Act provisions beginning with FY 2014. This notice also provides information on the calculation of such FY DSH allotments, the calculation of the states' IMD DSH limits, and the amounts of states' preliminary FY 2014 IMD DSH limits.
Generally, in accordance with the methodology specified under section 1923(f)(3) of the Act, a state's FY DSH allotment is calculated by increasing the amount of its DSH allotment for the preceding FY by the percentage change in the CPI–U for the previous FY. Also in accordance with section 1923(f)(3) of the Act, a state's DSH allotment for a FY is subject to the limitation that an increase to a state's DSH allotment for a FY cannot result in the DSH allotment exceeding the greater of the state's DSH allotment for the previous FY or 12 percent of the state's total medical assistance expenditures for the allotment year (this is referred to as the 12 percent limit).
Furthermore, under section 1923(h) of the Act, federal financial participation (FFP) for DSH payments to institutions for mental diseases (IMDs) and other mental health facilities is limited to state-specific aggregate amounts. Under this provision, the aggregate limit for DSH payments to IMDs and other mental health facilities is the lesser of a state's FY 1995 total computable (state and federal share) IMD and other mental health facility DSH expenditures applicable to the state's FY 1995 DSH allotment (as reported on the Form CMS–64 as of January 1, 1997), or the amount equal to the product of the state's current year total computable DSH allotment and the applicable percentage specified in section 1902(h) of the Act (the applicable percentage is the IMD share of DSH total computable expenditures as of FY 1995).
In general, we determine states' DSH allotments for a FY and the IMD DSH limits for the same FY using the most
Addendum 1 to this notice provides the preliminary FY 2014 DSH allotments determined in accordance with section 1923(f)(3) of the Act. The preliminary FY 2014 DSH allotments contained in this notice were determined based on the most recent available estimates from states of their FY 2014 total computable Medicaid expenditures. Also, the preliminary FY 2014 allotments contained in this notice were determined by increasing the preliminary FY 2013 DSH allotments as contained in the notice published in the
We will publish states's final FY 2014 DSH allotments in future notices based on the states' four quarterly Medicaid expenditure reports (Form CMS–64) for FY 2014 available following the end of FY 2014 and the actual change in the CPI–U for FY 2013.
Section 1923(h) of the Act specifies the methodology to be used to establish the limits on the amount of DSH payments that a state can make to IMDs and other mental health facilities. FFP is not available for IMD or DSH payments that exceed the IMD limits. In this notice, we are publishing the preliminary FY 2014 IMD DSH Limits determined in accordance with the provisions discussed above.
Addendum 2 to this notice details each state's preliminary FY 2014 IMD DSH Limit, determined in accordance with section 1923(h) of the Act.
This notice does not impose any new or revised information collection, recordkeeping, or third-party disclosure requirements. The currently approved requirements and burden estimates associated with Form CMS–37 (OCN 0938–0101) and Form CMS–64 (OCN 0938–0067) are unaffected by this notice. Consequently, this notice, Form CMS–37, and Form CMS–64 are not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
We have examined the impact of this notice as required by Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review (September 1993), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (September 19, 1980, Pub. L. 96–354), section 1102(b) of the Act, section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (March 22, 1995; Pub. L. 104–4), Executive Order 13132 on Federalism (August 4, 1999) and the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2)).
Executive Order 12866 directs 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). A regulatory impact analysis (RIA) must be prepared for major rules with economically significant effects ($100 million or more in any 1 year). This notice reaches the $100 million economic threshold and thus is considered a major rule under the Congressional Review Act.
The preliminary FY 2014 DSH allotments being published in this notice are about $108 million more than the preliminary FY 2013 DSH allotments previously published in the July 26, 2013
The preliminary FY 2014 IMD DSH limits being published in this notice are about $9 million more than the preliminary FY 2013 IMD DSH limits previously published in the FR on July 26, 2013 (78 FR 45217). The increase in the IMD DSH limits is because the DSH allotment for a FY is a factor in the determination of the IMD DSH limit for the FY. Since the preliminary FY 2014 DSH allotments were increased as compared to the preliminary FY 2013 DSH allotments previously published in the
The RFA requires agencies to analyze options for regulatory relief of small businesses, if a rule has a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. For purposes of the RFA, small entities include small businesses, nonprofit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. Most hospitals and most other providers and suppliers are small entities, either by nonprofit status or by having revenues of less than $7.0 million to less than $35.5 million in any one year. Individuals and states are not included in the definition of a small entity. We are not preparing an analysis for the RFA because the Secretary has determined that this notice will not have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Specifically, any impact on providers is due to the effect of the various controlling statutes; providers are not impacted as a result of the independent regulatory action in publishing this notice. The purpose of the notice is to announce the latest state distributions as required by the statute.
In addition, section 1102(b) of the Act requires us to prepare a regulatory impact analysis if a rule may have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals. This analysis must conform to
The Medicaid statute specifies the methodology for determining the amounts of states' DSH allotments and IMD DSH limits; and as described previously, the application of the methodology specified in statute results in the changes in states' DSH allotments and IMD DSH limits for the applicable FYs. The statute applicable to these allotments and limits does not apply to the determination of the amounts of DSH payments made to specific DSH hospitals; rather, these allotments and limits represent an overall limit on the total of such DSH payments a state can make. In this regard, we do not believe that this notice will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 also requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule whose mandates require spending in any 1 year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. Currently the threshhold is approximately $141 million. This notice will have no consequential effect on state, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or on the private sector.
Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it promulgates a proposed rule (and subsequent final rule) that imposes substantial direct requirement costs on state and local governments, preempts state law, or otherwise has Federalism implications. Since this notice does not impose any costs on state or local governments, the requirements of E.O. 13132 are not applicable.
We calculated the state-specific FY 2014 DSH allotments and the associated state-specific IMD DSH limits in accordance with the methodologies specified in statute and regulation. This notice does not put forward any further discretionary administrative policies for determining such allotments.
As required by OMB Circular A–4 (available at
This proposed regulation is subject to the Congressional Review Act provisions of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) and has been transmitted to the Congress and the Comptroller General for review.
In accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 12866, this notice was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
The FACES Core study will assess the school readiness skills of Head Start children, survey their parents, and ask their Head Start teachers to rate children's social and emotional skills. In addition, FACES will include observations in Head Start classrooms, and program director, center director, and teacher surveys. FACES Plus studies include additional survey content of policy or programmatic interest, and may include additional programs or respondents beyond those participating in the Core FACES study.
Previous notices provided the opportunity for public comment on the proposed Head Start program recruitment and center selection process (FR V.78, pg. 75569 12/12/2013; FR V.79, pg. 8461 02/12/2014). This notice describes the planned data collection activities for the FACES Core study and Plus studies. Direct child assessments, parent surveys, and teacher child reports for the Core study are included in this clearance package. Additionally, we describe instruments to support the Core study at the program and classroom levels and the Plus studies anticipated for future submission. Since these instruments will be informed by initial findings of FACES and emerging policy needs, they cannot be fully specified at this time. However, we describe the respondents and data collection methods, estimated respondent burden, and how the information will be used to the extent possible at this time. Subsequently, when fully developed in a manner consistent with the description provided in this 60-day notice and prior to use, we will submit these materials for a 30-day public comment period under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Methods for Core data collection start with site visits in fall 2014 to 60 Head Start programs to directly assess the school readiness skills of 2,400 children sampled to participate in FACES. Parents of sampled children will complete surveys on the Web or by telephone about their children and family background. Head Start teachers will rate each sampled child (approximately 10 children per classroom) using the Web or paper-and-pencil forms. These activities will occur a second time in spring 2015. Additionally, the program sample size will increase to 180 programs in the spring to collect program- and classroom-level data. The methods of data collection for this phase will feature site visitors conducting observations of the types and quality of classroom activities. Head Start program directors, center directors, and teachers will complete surveys about themselves and the services and instruction at Head Start. The program- and classroom-level data collection will occur a second time in spring 2017.
Plus study data collection will parallel the Core design in many ways, including recruitment and data collection procedures, to add new respondents, include new populations, or expand on the information gathered in the Core study. Additional early care and education administrators or providers (such as Education Coordinators or Family Service Staff) may be sampled. Plus studies may involve data collection in additional programs, such as programs serving different populations or programs implementing specific interventions. Data collection for these Plus studies may include child assessments, parent surveys, teacher child reports, and staff surveys. Plus studies may also feature topical modules to gather information in greater depth on particular topics (for example, parent engagement or program functioning). The methods of data collection will involve new methodologies such as qualitative interviews and supplemental surveys with expanded content.
The purpose of the Core data collection is to support the 2007 reauthorization of the Head Start program (P.L. 110–134), which calls for periodic assessments of Head Start's quality and effectiveness. Plus data collection will further support understanding Head Start functioning for a broader set of programs or in more depth for particular topics.
In compliance with the requirements of Section 3506(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 to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: OPRE Reports Clearance Officer. Email address:
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.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Fax written comments on the collection of information by March 31, 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 European Community (EC) is a group of 27 European countries that have agreed to harmonize their commodity requirements to facilitate commerce among member States. EC legislation for intra-EC trade has been extended to trade with non-EC countries, including the United States. For certain food products, including those listed in this document, EC legislation requires assurances from the responsible authority of the country of origin that the processor of the food is in compliance with applicable regulatory requirements. The European Commission, the executive branch of the EC, requires countries trading with any of the EC member countries to provide lists of firms and processors approved to export certain animal-derived commodities to the EC. As stated in the notice published in the
Although our 1996
We request the following information from each firm or processor seeking to be included on the lists for shell eggs, dairy products, game meat, game meat products, and animal casings:
• Business name and address;
• Name and telephone number of person designated as business contact;
• Lists of products presently being shipped to the EC and those intended to be shipped in the next 6 months;
• Name and address of manufacturing plants for each product; and
• Names and affiliations of any Federal, State, or local governmental agencies that inspect the plant, government-assigned plant identifier such as plant number, and last date of inspection.
We use the information to maintain lists of firms and processors that have demonstrated current compliance with U.S. requirements. We provide the lists to the EC quarterly. Inclusion on the list is voluntary. EC member countries refer to the lists at ports of entry to verify that products offered for importation to the EC from the United States are from firms and processors that meet U.S. regulatory requirements. Products processed by firms and processors not on the lists are subject to detention and possible refusal at the port.
We request the following information from each firm or processor seeking to be included on the lists for raw, bulk collagen, and gelatin:
• Business name and address;
• Name, telephone number, and email address of contact person;
• List of products presently shipped to the EC and those intended to be shipped within the next 2 years;
• Name and address of the manufacturing and processing plant for each product;
• Names and affiliations of any Federal, State, and local governmental agencies that inspect the plant, government assigned plant identifier, such as plant number and last date of inspection; and
• A copy of the most recent (within 1 year of the date of application) inspection report issued by a State, local or Federal public health regulatory agency and a copy of a recent laboratory analysis as required by the EC of the finished product including: Total aerobic bacteria, coliforms (30 °C), coliforms (44.5 °C), anaerobic sulphite-reducing bacteria (no gas production),
We use the information to maintain a list of approved firms and processors for raw, bulk collagen, and gelatin. We make the list available on our Web site. We include on the list only firms and processors that are not the subject of an unresolved regulatory enforcement action. If a listed firm or processor subsequently becomes the subject of a regulatory enforcement action or an unresolved warning letter, we will view such a circumstance as evidence that the firm or processor is no longer in compliance with applicable U.S. laws and regulations. Should this occur, we will take steps to remove that firm or processor from the list and send a revised list to the EC authorities, usually within 48 to 72 hours after the relevant regulatory enforcement action. If a firm or processor has been delisted as a result of a regulatory enforcement action or unresolved warning letter, the firm or processor will have to reapply for inclusion on the list once the regulatory action has been resolved.
We update the list of firms and processors eligible to export raw, bulk collagen, and gelatin to the EC quarterly. Firms and processors placed on the approved exporters list are subject to audit by FDA and EC officials. Complete requests for inclusion must be submitted to us every 12 months to remain on the list. Inclusion on the list is voluntary. However, raw, bulk collagen, and gelatin products from firms or processors not on the approved exporters list for these products will not receive an export certificate, and these products may be detained at EC ports of entry.
In the
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
We base our estimates of the number of respondents and total annual responses on the submissions that we have received in the past 3 years for each product type. We have retained our previous estimates of total annual responses because the number of submissions are few and have remained relatively stable. To calculate the estimate for the hours per response values, we assumed that the information requested is readily available to the submitter. We expect that the submitter will need to gather information from appropriate persons in the submitter's company and to prepare this information for submission. We believe that this effort should take no longer
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Attachment to Guidance on Antiviral Product Development—Conducting and Submitting Virology Studies to the Agency: Guidance for Submitting HIV–1 Resistance Data.” The purpose of this guidance is to assist sponsors in submitting human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) clinical virology data that are important for supporting clinical trials of products in development for the treatment of HIV. HIV resistance data submitted in appropriately formatted datasets are critical components in the review of investigational antiviral products for the treatment of HIV. The information in this guidance will facilitate the development of anti-HIV products. This draft guidance revises the guidance for industry entitled “Attachment to Guidance on Antiviral Product Development—Conducting and Submitting Virology Studies to the Agency: Guidance for Submitting HIV Resistance Data” issued on June 5, 2006.
Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by April 29, 2014.
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, rm. 2201, Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance to
Lisa K. Naeger, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg., 22, rm. 6366, Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002, 301–796–0771.
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Attachment to Guidance on Antiviral Product Development—Conducting and Submitting Virology Studies to the Agency: Guidance for Submitting HIV–1 Resistance Data.” The purpose of this guidance is to assist sponsors in submitting HIV clinical virology data that are important for supporting clinical trials of products in development for the treatment of HIV. This guidance revises and replaces the guidance on submitting HIV resistance data published in June 2006. The revised guidance provides the format, recommended definitions, standardization of column headings and variables, and recommended data for submission of HIV resistance datasets.
This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the Agency's current thinking on submitting HIV clinical virology data. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 312 have been approved under OMB control number 0910–0014.
Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; correction.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a notice that appeared in the
Marina Kalinina, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, rm. 1183, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301–796–7591; or Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 5515 Security Lane, rm. 5130, Rockville, MD 20852, 301–827–6210.
In FR Doc. 2014–02654, appearing on page 7463 in the
1. On page 7464, in the first column, in the “Electronic Access” section, the Web site “
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Social Sciences and Population Studies B Study Section, February 28, 2014, 08:00 a.m. to February 28, 2014, 05:00 p.m., Renaissance Long Beach Hotel, 111 East Ocean Blvd., Long Beach, CA, 90802 which was published in the
The meeting will be held at the Courtyard Long Beach Downtown, 500 East 1st Street, Long Beach, CA 90802. The meeting date and time remain the same. The meeting is closed to the public.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable materials, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable materials, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable materials, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Advisory Council.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the early adjournment of the February 12, 2014 Council meeting as a result of the extreme weather conditions.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on a revision of a currently approved information collection. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning the collection of Individual Assistance Program Effectiveness & Recovery Survey responses and information for assessment and improvement of the delivery of disaster assistance to individuals and households.
Comments must be submitted on or before April 29, 2014.
To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please use only one of the following means to submit comments:
(1)
(2)
(3)
All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Maggie Billing, Program Analyst, Customer Satisfaction Analysis Section of the National Processing Service Center Division, Recovery Directorate, (940) 891–8709. You may contact the Records Management Division for copies of the proposed collection of information at facsimile number (202) 646–3347 or email address:
This collection is in accordance with Executive Orders 12862 and 13571 requiring all Federal agencies to survey customers to determine the kind and quality of services they want and their level of satisfaction with existing services. The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) requires Federal agencies to set missions and goals and to measure agency performance against them. The GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 requires quarterly performance assessments of government programs for the purposes of assessing agency performance and improvement. The Federal Emergency Management Agency fulfills these requirements by collecting customer satisfaction program information through surveys of individuals and households who are disaster survivors.
Comments may be submitted as indicated in the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will submit the information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission will describe the nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents, the estimated burden (i.e., the time, effort and resources used by respondents to respond) and cost, and the actual data collection instruments FEMA will use.
Comments must be submitted on or before March 31, 2014.
Submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the Desk Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and sent via electronic mail to
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection should be made to Director, Records Management Division, 1800 South Bell Street, Arlington, VA 20598–3005, facsimile number (202) 646–3347, or email address
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will submit the information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission will describe the nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents, the estimated burden (i.e., the time, effort and resources used by respondents to respond) and cost, and the actual data collection instruments FEMA will use.
Comments must be submitted on or before March 31, 2014.
Submit written comments on the proposed information collection
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection should be made to Director, Records Management Division, 1800 South Bell Street, Arlington, VA 20598–3005, facsimile number (202) 646–3347, or email address
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on a revision of a currently approved information collection. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning the collection of Individual Assistance Follow-Up Program Effectiveness & Recovery Survey responses and information for assessment and improvement of the delivery of disaster assistance to individuals and households.
Comments must be submitted on or before April 29, 2014.
To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please use only one of the following means to submit comments:
(1)
(2)
(3)
All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Maggie Billing, Program Analyst, Customer Satisfaction Analysis Section of the National Processing Service Center Division, Recovery Directorate, (940) 891–8709. You may contact the Records Management Division for copies of the proposed collection of information at facsimile number (202) 646–3347 or email address:
This collection is in accordance with Executive Orders 12862 and 13571 requiring all Federal agencies to survey customers to determine the kind and quality of services they want and their level of satisfaction with existing services. The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) requires Federal agencies to set missions and goals and to measure agency performance against them. The GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 requires quarterly performance assessments of government programs for the purposes of assessing agency performance and improvement. The Federal Emergency Management Agency fulfills these requirements by collecting customer satisfaction program information through surveys of individuals and households who are disaster survivors.
Comments may be submitted as indicated in the
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy Development & Research, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410–5000; telephone 202–402–3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Kheng Mei Tan, Office of Policy Development and Research, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 402–4986 (this is not a toll free number) for copies of the proposed forms and other available information.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD has submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington,
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at
This notice informs the public that HUD has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the information collection described in Section A. The
Respondents (i.e. affected public): Public Housing Authorities.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapters 35.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD has submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202–395–5806. Email:
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at
This notice informs the public that HUD has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the information collection described in Section A. The
When an individual presents a PHA, owner, or manager with a claim for protections under the Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization Act of 2013 (VAWA 2013), the PHA, owner, or manager may (but is not required to) request that the individual complete, sign and submit within 14 business days of the request, a HUD approved certification form, or alternate documentation as described on the certification form, to document the
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapters 35.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice.
This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible use to assist the homeless.
Juanita Perry, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 7262, Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 402–3970; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708–2565, (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 800–927–7588.
In accordance with the December 12, 1988 court order in
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice; request for comments.
We (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) have sent an Information Collection Request (ICR) to OMB for
You must submit comments on or before March 31, 2014.
Send your comments and suggestions on this information collection to the Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior at OMB–OIRA at (202) 395–5806 (fax) or OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov (email). Please provide a copy of your comments to the Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS 2042–PDM, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22203 (mail), or
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Hope Grey at
We are not proposing any major changes to the applications and reports currently approved under OMB Control Number 1018–0093. We are proposing a new application: FWS Form 3–200–88 (Musical Instrument (CITES)). The Musical Instrument application will be for multiple border crossings for noncommercial use (including, but not limited to, personal use, performance, display, or competition).
The commenter addressed the processing of applications under section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act and the public comment period under that section. We actively support the elements of section 10(c) and the right of the public to review the merits of applications involving endangered species. We are currently reviewing mechanisms to ensure greater access to this material and ease of the public to supply substantial comments. These comments did not address the information collection requirements, and we did not make any changes to our requirement.
During the comment period for the proposed rule titled “Updates Following the Fifteenth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES,” which we published in the
The commenter expressed dissatisfaction with the process for renewing a certificate of ownership for personally owned, live wildlife. The commenter objected to having to complete an entire application when only a few items needed to be updated, and to having to submit his original certificate along with the application for renewal, thus preventing cross-border travel while awaiting issuance of the new certificate. In addition, the commenter noted that having the renewed certificate issued before the end of the period of validity of his existing certificate effectively shortens the period of validity to less than 3 years. He also considered the estimated time of 30 minutes for completion of Form 3–200–64 to be “overly conservative,” and stated that “a more realistic, but still conservative estimate” would be at least 60 minutes.
FWS Form 3–200–64, the application form for issuance of a certificate of ownership for personally owned live wildlife, asks for detailed information regarding the animal to be covered under the certificate. When a certificate holder wishes to renew a certificate of ownership, he or she should complete and submit FWS Form 3–200–52, the application for reissuance or renewal of a permit. This is a simplified application on which the applicant can certify that there have been no changes to the original application or that there have been changes as noted on an attached page. We ask that individuals allow 30 to 60 days for processing of applications, and we do require submission of the original certificate before we will issue a new one. If applying well in advance (more than 60 days before expiration of the certificate), an applicant could submit a copy and continue to use the original certificate, keeping in mind that he or she must return to the United States before the certificate expires. Once travel is completed and the animal has reentered the United States, the original certificate must be returned to the Management Authority. As stated above, we will not issue a new certificate until we have received the original certificate. In some cases it may take longer than 30 minutes to complete FWS Form 3–200–64; however, we believe the average completion time for completing FWS Form 3–200–64 is 30 minutes.
We again invite comments concerning this information collection on:
• Whether or not the collection of information is necessary, including
• The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information;
• Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask OMB in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that it will be done.
United States Geological Survey (USGS), Interior.
Notice of a new information collection, iCoast—Did the Coast Change?
We (the U.S. Geological Survey) will ask the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve the information collection (IC) described below. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, and as part of our continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, we invite the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on this IC.
To ensure that your comments are considered, we must receive them on or before April 29, 2014.
You may submit comments on this information collection to the Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Geological Survey, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive MS 807, Reston, VA 20192 (mail); (703) 648–7197 (fax); or
Sophia B. Liu, Research Geographer, at
As part of its mission to document coastal change, the USGS has been taking aerial photographs of the coast before and after each major storm for the past 18 years to assess damages to the natural landscape and the built environment. A typical mission consists of approximately 10,000 photographs. The digital photo-archive maintained by the USGS is a valuable environmental record containing approximately 100,000 photographs taken before and after 23 extreme storms along the Gulf and Atlantic Coasts. At the same time, the USGS has been developing mathematical models that predict the likely interactions between storm surge and coastal features, such as beaches and dunes, during extreme storms, with the aim of predicting areas that are vulnerable to storm damage. Currently the photographs are not used to inform the mathematical models. The models are based primarily on pre-storm dune height and predicted wave behavior.
If scientists could “ground truth” coastal damage by comparing before and after photographs of the coast, the predictive models might be improved. It is not physically or economically possible for USGS scientists to examine all aerial photographs related to each storm, however, and automation of this process is also problematic. Image analysis software is not yet sophisticated enough to automatically identify damages to the natural landscape and the built environment that are depicted in these photographs; human perception and local knowledge are required. `iCoast—Did the Coast Change?' (hereafter referred to as `iCoast') is a USGS research project to construct a web-based application that will allow citizen volunteers to compare these before and after photographs of the coast and identify changes that result from extreme storms through a process known as `crowdsourcing' (
There are two distinct purposes to `iCoast':
• To allow USGS scientists to `ground truth' or validate their predictive storm surge models. These mathematical models, which are widely used in the emergency management community for locating areas of potential vulnerability to incoming storms, are currently based solely on pre-storm beach morphology as determined by high-resolution elevation data, and predicted wave behavior derived from parameters of the approaching storm. The on-the-ground post-storm observations provided by citizens using `iCoast' will allow scientists to determine the accuracy of the models for future applications, and
• To serve as a repository of images that enables citizens to become more aware of their vulnerability to coastal change and to participate in the advancement of coastal science.
The application consists of sets of before-and-after photographs from each storm with accompanying educational material about coastal hazards. Since the photographs of a given area were taken on different dates following slightly different flight paths, the geographic orientation of before and after images may differ slightly. Often there will be more than one image covering approximately the same geographic area and showing the same coastal features. Participants are asked to identify which post-storm image best covers the same geographic area and shows the same natural and man-made features as the image taken after the storm. After the best match between before-and-after aerial photographs is established, participants will classify post-storm coastal damage using simple one-or-two word descriptive tags. This type of tagging is similar to that used in commercial photo-sharing Web sites such as Flickr (
In order for a citizen to participate in classifying the photographs, the following information must be collected by this application:
(1) Participants will login to the `iCoast' application using externally issued credentials via the Federally approved “Open Identity Exchange” (
(2)
(3)
This application will have many benefits. It will serve the cause of open government and open data, in that these images will be available to the public in an easily accessible online format for the first time. It will enhance the science of coastal change and allow for more accurate storm surge predictions, benefitting emergency managers and coastal planners. It will also familiarize coastal communities with coastal processes and increase their awareness of vulnerabilities to extreme storms. We anticipate that this application will be used by educators to further science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education; outreach to educators is planned.
We are soliciting comments as to: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the agency to perform its duties, including whether the information is useful; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) how to minimize the burden on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please note that the comments submitted in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your personal mailing address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifiable information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personally identifiable information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personally identifiable information from public view, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of Reservation Proclamation.
This notice informs the public that the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs proclaimed approximately 283.17 acres, more or less, as an addition to the Port Madison Reservation for the Suquamish Indian Tribe.
Matthew C. Kirkland, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Division of Real Estate Services, MS–4642–MIB, 1849 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20240, telephone (202) 208–3615.
This Notice is published in the exercise of authority delegated by the Secretary of the Interior to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs by part 209 of the Departmental Manual.
A proclamation was issued according to the Act of June 18, 1934 (48 Stat. 986; 25 U.S.C. 467) for the land described below. The land was proclaimed to be an addition to the Port Madison Reservation of the Suquamish Indian Tribe of Washington, for the exclusive use of Indians entitled by enrollment or tribal membership to reside at such reservation.
Legal description of the trust property including +/− 283.17 acres is:
Vacated tracts E, F, G, I and J and portions of vacated Tracts D, H and P of the Plat of White Horse, recorded under Auditor's file Number 200502020210 in Volume 31 of Plats, Page 139 through 157, inclusive, records of Kitsap County, Washington; being within Section 3 of Township 26 North, Range 2 East of the Willamette Meridian in Kitsap County,
Situate in the County of Kitsap, State of Washington.
The above-described lands contain a total of 283.17 acres, more or less, which is subject to all valid rights, reservations, rights-of-way, and easements of record.
This proclamation does not affect title to the land described above nor does it affect any valid existing easements for public roads and highways, for public utilities and for railroads and pipelines and any other rights-of-way or reservations of record.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of availability.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has prepared a Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Ochoa Mine Project and by this notice is announcing its availability.
The BLM will not issue a final decision on the proposal for a minimum of 30 days from the date that the Environmental Protection Agency publishes its own notice of availability in the
Copies of the Ochoa Mine Project Final EIS are available for public inspection at the Carlsbad Field Office, 620 E Greene Street, Carlsbad, NM 88220
David Herrell or Shiva Achet, project co-leads, telephone 575–234–2229 (David) or 575–234–5924 (Shiva); address BLM Carlsbad Field Office, 620 East Greene Street, Carlsbad, NM 88220; email
Intercontinental Potash Corporation (ICP) is proposing to develop a new underground mine in southern Lea County, New Mexico, to extract polyhalite ore for the production of the sulfate of potash and sulfate of potash magnesia, potassium fertilizers for food production. The project area includes Federal, State, and private lands totaling 31,134 acres, of which 2,400 acres would be disturbed. The surface landownership consists of about 22 percent public lands managed by the BLM, 53 percent owned by the State of New Mexico, and 25 percent privately owned. About 55 percent of the minerals within the proposed mine area is owned by the Federal Government.
ICP holds BLM prospecting permits and has applied for preference right leases. These prospecting permits are located about 40 miles southeast of Carlsbad and 20 miles west of Jal, in Lea County, New Mexico. ICP has proposed a Mine Plan of Operations that includes an underground mine accessed by a shaft and a ramp, and processing facilities, including the ore process plant, dry stack tailings pile, evaporation ponds, water wells, pipelines, power lines, and a railroad load out facility. The polyhalite will be continuously mined using the conventional room and pillar retreat method. In order to mine in proximity to active oil and gas wells, ICP has elected to follow the rules and regulations of a Category IV gassy mine. Processing would require pumping a maximum of 4,000 gallons per minute of groundwater from the Capitan Reef Aquifer.
The BLM initiated the NEPA process for the project by publication of a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS on January 3, 2012 (77 FR 130). Public scoping meetings were conducted on January 23–24, 2012. Major issues identified for this project include oil and gas, water resources, land use, socioeconomic impacts, air quality, wildlife, livestock grazing, and health and safety. A scoping report was compiled and published on March 27, 2012.
Alternatives developed in the Draft EIS include the proposed action (Alternative A), which would include approval of ICP's Mine Plan of Operations, granting new rights-of-way, and approval of preference right leases to allow the mining and processing of polyhalite ore for the production of the sulphate of potash and sulphate of potash magnesia. In addition, three action alternatives were analyzed in the Draft EIS. Alternative B is identical to Alternative A except that the visual impacts of the tailing stockpile would be reduced. Alternative C is identical to Alternative A except that standards and guidance would be established for managing concurrent development of fluid minerals. Alternative D is similar to Alternative A, except that the location of the evaporation ponds and tailings stockpile would be at a different location. A no action alternative was also analyzed, in which the proposed mine plan of operations, rights-of-way, and preference right leases would be denied.
The Draft EIS was published on August 9, 2013, starting a 45-day public comment period. Three public scoping meetings were held in Carlsbad, New Mexico, on August 26, 2013, and in Hobbs and Jal, New Mexico, on August 27, 2013. Briefings were also held for the City of Eunice, New Mexico, and a cooperating agency. Twenty-nine written comment letters consisting of 490 comments were received and analyzed. Comments on the Draft EIS received from the public and internal BLM review were considered and incorporated as appropriate into the Final EIS. The Final EIS Preferred Alternative consists of a mixture of what the BLM considers the best features of Alternatives A, B, and C, as well as some new aspects incorporated in response to public comments and BLM concerns. The Preferred Alternative is similar to the proposed action (Alternative A), as it incorporates the same proposed mine area, mining methods, facilities, and processing methods. Additionally, water demands, well field and water pipelines, and layout facilities remain the same as the proposed action. The Preferred Alternative differs from the proposed action as it requires additional monitoring of water resources, includes subsidence, dust, and reclamation requirements, a smaller tailings stockpile, a more formalized co-development coordination program with stakeholders, and a dispute resolution process.
40 CFR 1506.6, 40 CFR 1506.10.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice; request for comments.
We (National Park Service) have sent an Information Collection Request (ICR) to OMB for review and approval. We summarize the ICR below and describe the nature of the collection and the estimated burden and cost. This information collection is scheduled to expire on February 28, 2014. We 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. However, under OMB regulations, we may continue to conduct or sponsor this information collection while it is pending at OMB.
You must submit comments on or before March 31, 2014.
Send your comments and suggestions on this information collection to the Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior at OMB—OIRA at (202) 395–5806 (fax) or
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Bill Commins at
• Names and business contact information.
• Project title, purpose of study, summary of proposed field methods and activities, and study and field schedules.
• Location where scientific activities are proposed to take place, including method of access.
• Whether or not specimens are proposed to be collected or handled, and if yes, scientific descriptions and proposed disposition of specimens.
• If specimens are to be permanently retained, the proposed repositories for those specimens.
Persons who receive a permit must report annually on the activities conducted under the permit. Form 10–226 (Investigator's Annual Report) collects the following information:
• Reporting year, park, and type of permit.
• Names and business contact information and names of additional investigators.
• Project title, park-assigned study or activity number, park-assigned permit number, permit start and expiration dates, and scientific study start and ending dates.
• Activity type, subject discipline, purpose of study/activity during the reporting year, and finding and status of study or accomplishments of education activity during the reporting year.
We use the above information to manage the use and preservation of park resources and for reporting to the public via the Internet about the status of permitted research and collecting activities. We encourage respondents to use the Internet-based, automated Research Permit and Reporting System (RPRS) to complete and submit applications and reports. For those who use RPRS, much of the information needed for the annual report is generated automatically through information supplied in the application or contained in the permit.
We again invite comments concerning this information collection on:
• Whether or not the collection of information is necessary, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
• The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information;
• Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask OMB in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that it will be done.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice of availability.
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C), the National Park Service announces the availability of the Record of Decision for the Grand Ditch Breach Restoration, Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado. On August 14, 2013, the Regional Director, Intermountain Region approved the Record of Decision for the project. As soon as practicable, the National Park Service will begin to implement the Preferred Alternative contained in the FEIS issued on May 31, 2013.
Ben Bobowksi, Division Chief, 1000 US Highway 36, Estes Park, CO 80517–8937, Telephone (970) 586–1206,
Copies of the Record of Decision can be obtained from the contact listed above or online at
The National Park Service (NPS) considered five alternatives for the restoration of the Grand Ditch breach. Alternative A, the no action alternative; Alternative B, minimal restoration; Alternative C, high restoration; Alternative D, the NPS preferred alternative; and Alternative E, maximum restoration. Alternative D, the NPS preferred alternative, is the selected action and will emphasize the removal of large debris deposits at the confluence of Lulu Creek and the Colorado River and in the Lulu City wetland. Actions will be conducted to stabilize limited areas of unstable 2003 debris deposits along slopes and banks throughout the project area. Stabilization actions will be implemented in areas with steep slopes, where vegetation has not reestablished since the 2003 ditch breach occurred, and outside the channel and floodplain that are not exposed to high flows. These actions will enhance hydrologic conditions and remove debris sources that could erode and be transported downstream as sediment causing continued degradation. Sediment would also be removed in localized areas along the Colorado River to reconnect the river with some previously blocked floodplain locations. Hydrology through the Lulu City wetland will be restored in the historical central channel through removal of large, localized deposits of debris and sediment, relying on the historical channel to transport river flow. Channel restoration will achieve stream channels that are more hydrologically and hydraulically stable and provide streambed and channel dynamic stability. Small-scale motorized equipment may be employed for stabilization and revegetation activities, while larger equipment may be employed for excavation of large debris deposits. The selected action represents basic hydraulic engineering requirements to ensure that flows are naturally conveyed within the stream channel cross-sections and that the channels will maintain hydrologic function, while accommodating the natural range of overbank flooding of adjacent floodplains and wetlands. The Record of Decision includes a statement of the decision made, synopses of other alternatives considered, the basis for the decision, a description of the environmentally preferable alternative, a finding of no impairment of park resources and values, a listing of measures to minimize environmental harm, and an overview of public involvement in the decision-making process.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice of opportunity to provide written comments in connection with the Commission's fifth annual review.
The U.S. International Trade Commission (Commission) has announced its schedule, including deadlines for filing written submissions, in connection with the preparation of its fifth annual review in investigation No. 332–503,
All Commission offices, including the Commission's hearing rooms, are located in the United States International Trade Commission Building, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC. All written submissions, including statements, and briefs, should be addressed to the Secretary, United States International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
Project Leader Laura Rodriguez (202–205–3499 or
Section 404(d) directs the Commission to conduct an annual review of the program to evaluate the effectiveness of the program and make recommendations for improvements. The Commission is required to submit its reports containing the results of its reviews to the House Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on Finance. Copies of the Commission's first four annual reviews are available on the Commission's Web site at
The Commission instituted this investigation pursuant to section 332(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930 to facilitate docketing of submissions and also to facilitate public access to Commission records through the Commission's EDIS electronic records system.
Any submissions that contain confidential business information must also conform to the requirements of section 201.6 of the Commission's
The Commission intends to publish only a public report in this review. Consequently, the report that the Commission sends to the committees will not contain any confidential business information. Any confidential business information received by the Commission in this investigation and used in preparing its report will not be published in a manner that would reveal the operations of the firm supplying the information.
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of expedited reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(3)) (the Act) to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty orders on uncovered innerspring units from China, South Africa, and Vietnam would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. For further information concerning the conduct of these reviews and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).
Joanna Lo (202–205–1888), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202–205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the reviews must be served on all other parties to the reviews (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
These reviews are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Patient Protection Notice,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501
Submit comments on or before March 31, 2014.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov Web site at
Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL–EBSA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by fax: 202–395–6881 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202–693–4129, TTY 202–693–8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Patient Protection Notice, which a health plan sponsor or issuer uses to notify certain individuals of their right (1) to choose a primary care provider or a pediatrician when the plan or issuer requires participants or subscribers to designate a primary care physician or (2) to obtain obstetrical or gynecological care without prior authorization. Patient Protection and Affordable Care section 10101(g) authorizes this collection. Regulations 29 CFR 2590.715–2719A contains the specific information collection requirements for the notice.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on February 28, 2014. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
Notice of availability of proposed records schedules; request for comments.
The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) publishes notice at least once monthly of certain Federal agency requests for records disposition authority (records schedules). Once approved by NARA, records schedules provide mandatory instructions on what happens to records when no longer needed for current government business. They authorize the preservation of records of continuing value in the National Archives of the United States and the destruction, after a specified period, of records lacking administrative, legal, research, or other value. Notice is published for records schedules in which agencies propose to destroy records not previously authorized for disposal or reduce the retention period of records already authorized for disposal. NARA invites public comments on such records schedules, as required by 44 U.S.C. 3303a(a).
Requests for copies must be received in writing on or before March 31, 2014. Once the appraisal of the records is completed, NARA will send a copy of the schedule. NARA staff usually prepare appraisal memoranda that contain additional information concerning the records covered by a proposed schedule. These, too, may be requested and will be provided once the appraisal is completed. Requesters will be given 30 days to submit comments.
You may request a copy of any records schedule identified in this notice by contacting Records Management Services (ACNR) using one of the following means:
Requesters must cite the control number, which appears in parentheses after the name of the agency which submitted the schedule, and must provide a mailing address. Those who desire appraisal reports should so indicate in their request.
Margaret Hawkins, Director, Records Management Services (ACNR); National Archives and Records Administration; 8601 Adelphi Road; College Park, MD 20740–6001. Telephone: 301–837–1799. Email:
Each year, Federal agencies create billions of records on paper, film, magnetic tape, and other media. To control this accumulation, agency records managers prepare schedules proposing retention periods for records and submit these schedules for NARA's approval. These schedules provide for the timely transfer into the National Archives of historically valuable records and authorize the disposal of all other records after the agency no longer needs them to conduct its business. Some schedules are comprehensive and cover all the records of an agency or one of its major subdivisions. Most schedules, however, cover records of only one office or program or a few series of records. Many of these update previously approved schedules, and some include records proposed as permanent.
The schedules listed in this notice are media-neutral unless specified otherwise. An item in a schedule is media-neutral when the disposition instructions may be applied to records regardless of the medium in which the records are created and maintained. Items included in schedules submitted to NARA on or after December 17, 2007, are media-neutral unless the item is limited to a specific medium. (See 36 CFR 1225.12(e).)
No Federal records are authorized for destruction without the approval of the Archivist of the United States. This approval is granted only after a thorough consideration of their administrative use by the agency of origin, the rights of the Government and of private persons directly affected by the Government's activities, and whether or not they have historical or other value.
Besides identifying the Federal agencies and any subdivisions requesting disposition authority, this public notice lists the organizational unit(s) accumulating the records or indicates agency-wide applicability in the case of schedules that cover records that may be accumulated throughout an agency. This notice provides the control number assigned to each schedule, the total number of schedule items, and the number of temporary items (the records proposed for destruction). It also includes a brief description of the temporary records. The records schedule itself contains a full description of the records at the file unit level as well as their disposition. If NARA staff has prepared an appraisal memorandum for the schedule, it too includes information about the records. Further information about the disposition process is available on request.
1. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (DAA–0029–2013–0007, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Records relating to the production and dissemination of population estimates for the United States.
2. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis (DAA–0375–2014–0003, 5 items, 4 temporary items). Records relating to preparation of estimates of personal income and employment for states and local areas. Proposed for permanent retention are
3. Department of Defense, Office of the Secretary of Defense (DAA–0330–2013–0006, 2 items, 1 temporary item). Master files of an electronic information system containing tracking information on military suicides and suicide attempts. Proposed for permanent retention are annual statistical reports on suicide events.
4. Department of Defense, Office of the Secretary of Defense (DAA–0330–2013–0008, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Master files of an electronic information system containing eye injury and eye disease data on military service members and veterans.
5. Department of Defense, Office of the Secretary of Defense (DAA–0330–2013–0016, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Master files of an electronic information system used to track vehicle tow appeals.
6. Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration (N1–560–12–15, 9 items, 9 temporary items). Budget records related to planning, estimates, and appropriations including reports, working papers, and correspondence files.
7. Administrative Office of the United States Courts, United States District Courts (DAA–0021–2013–0006, 15 items, 14 temporary items). Records of the Federal Public Defenders Organization including routine audits, administrative records, and web postings. Proposed for permanent retention are annual reports.
8. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Office of Consumer Response (N1–587–12–4, 4 items, 3 temporary items). Master files of an electronic information system containing consumer complaints and quality control records. Proposed for permanent retention are reports and financial trend analysis records.
9. National Archives and Records Administration, Government-wide (DAA–GRS–2013–0006, 8 items, 8 temporary items). General Records Schedule for records related to system and data security and access, reports on computer security incidents, and backup tapes and files.
10. National Archives and Records Administration, Government-wide (DAA–GRS–2013–0008, 5 items, 5 temporary items). General Records Schedule for grant and cooperative agreement program management records, grant and cooperative agreement case files, and final grant and cooperative agreement products or deliverables.
The National Science Board, pursuant to NSF regulations (45 CFR part 614), the National Science Foundation Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1862n–5), and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice of a CHANGE in the scheduling of two meetings for the transaction of National Science Board business, as noted below. The original notice was published in the
These meetings will be held at the National Science Foundation, 4201Wilson Blvd., Rooms 1235, Arlington, VA 22230. All visitors must contact the Board Office (call 703–292–7000 or send an email message to
Please refer to the National Science Board Web site for additional information. Meeting information and schedule updates (time, place, subject matter or status of meeting) may be found at
Jennie L. Moehlmann,
Dana Topousis,
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Exemption; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is granting an exemption in response to a March 22, 2013, request from Florida Power & Light Company for an exemption for the use of a different fuel rod cladding material (Optimized ZIRLO
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2014–0035 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may access publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Audrey L. Klett, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, telephone: 301–415–0489, email:
Florida Power & Light Company (the licensee) is the holder of Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–31 and DPR–41, which authorize operation of the Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 3 and 4 (Turkey Point 3 and 4), respectively. The license provides, among other things, that the facility is subject to all rules, regulations, and orders of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) now or hereafter in effect. The facility consists of two pressurized water reactors located in Miami-Dade County, Florida.
Pursuant to Section 50.12, “Specific exemptions,” of Title 10 of the
The exemption request relates solely to the cladding material specified in these regulations (i.e., fuel rods with Zircaloy or ZIRLO
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the Commission may, upon application by any interested person, grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, which are authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security. Paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of 10 CFR 50.12 states that the Commission will not consider granting an exemption unless special circumstances are present, such as when application of the regulation in the particular circumstance is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule.
Special circumstances, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), are present whenever application of the regulation in the particular circumstances is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule. The underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.46 and Appendix K to 10 CFR Part 50 is to establish acceptance criteria for ECCS performance. The regulations in 10 CFR 50.46 and Appendix K are not directly applicable to Optimized ZIRLO
This exemption would allow the use of Optimized ZIRLO
Section 10 CFR 50.46 requires that each boiling or pressurized light-water nuclear power reactor fueled with uranium oxide pellets within cylindrical zircaloy or ZIRLO cladding must be provided with an ECCS that must be designed so that its calculated cooling performance following postulated loss-of-coolant accidents (LOCAs) conforms to the criteria set forth in paragraph (b) of this section. The underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.46 is to establish acceptance criteria for adequate ECCS performance. As previously documented in the NRC staff's safety evaluation dated June 10, 2005 (ADAMS Accession No. ML051670395), of topical reports submitted by Westinghouse, and subject to compliance with the specific conditions of approval established in the safety evaluation, the NRC staff found that Westinghouse demonstrated the applicability of these ECCS acceptance criteria to Optimized ZIRLO
In its letter dated March 22, 2013, the licensee stated that its reload evaluations will ensure that acceptance criteria are met for the insertion of assemblies with fuel rods clad with Optimized ZILRO
Paragraph I.A.5 of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix K requires that the rate of energy release, hydrogen generation, and cladding oxidation from the metal/water reaction shall be calculated using the Baker-Just equation. Because the Baker-Just equation presumes the use of zircaloy clad fuel, strict application of the rule would not permit use of the equation for Optimized ZIRLO
The licensee's exemption request is only to allow the application of the aforementioned regulations to an improved fuel rod cladding material. In its letter dated March 22, 2013, the licensee stated that all the requirements and acceptance criteria will be maintained. The licensee is required to handle and control special nuclear material in these assemblies in accordance with its approved procedures. The licensee stated that use of full regions of Optimized ZIRLO
The NRC staff determined that the exemption discussed herein meets the eligibility criteria for the categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9) because it is related to a requirement concerning the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area, as defined in 10 CFR Part 20, and the granting of this exemption involves: (i) no significant hazards consideration, (ii) no significant change in the types or a significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite, and (iii) no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. Therefore, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the NRC's consideration of this exemption request. The basis for the NRC staff's determination is discussed as follows with an evaluation against each of the requirements in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
The NRC staff evaluated the issue of no significant hazards consideration, using the standards described in 10 CFR 50.92(c), as presented as follows:
1. Does the proposed exemption involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed exemption would allow the use of Optimized ZIRLO
2. Does the proposed exemption create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The use of Optimized ZIRLO
3. Does the proposed exemption involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed exemption does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety because it has been demonstrated that the material properties of the Optimized ZIRLO
Based on the above, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed exemption presents no significant hazards consideration under the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, accordingly, a finding of no significant hazards consideration is justified.
The proposed exemption would allow the use of Optimized ZIRLO
The proposed exemption would allow the use of the Optimized ZIRLO
Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the exemption is authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and is consistent with the common defense and security. Also, special circumstances are present. Therefore, the Commission hereby grants the licensee an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.46 and Appendix K to 10 CFR Part 50, to allow the use of Optimized ZIRLO
This exemption is effective upon issuance.
For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Peace Corps.
60-Day notice and request for comments.
The Peace Corps will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comment in the
Submit comments on or before April 29, 2014.
Comments should be addressed to Denora Miller, FOIA/Privacy Act Officer. Denora Miller can be contacted by telephone at 202–692–1236 or email at
Denora Miller at the Peace Corps address above.
Peace Corps uses the confidential reference form in order to learn from someone, who knows a volunteer applicant and his or her background, whether the applicant possesses the necessary characteristics and skills to serve as a Volunteer.
a. Average Number of Annual Applicants (complete the application process): 20,000.
b. Number of reference required per applicant: 2.
c. Estimated Number of reference forms received: 40,000.
d. Frequency of response: One time.
e. Completion time: 10 minutes.
f. Annual burden hours: 6,667.
Peace Corps.
60-Day notice and request for comments.
The Peace Corps will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comment in the
Submit comments on or before April 29, 2014.
Comments should be addressed to Denora Miller, FOIA/Privacy Act Officer. Denora Miller can be contacted by telephone at 202–692–1236 or email at
Denora Miller at Peace Corps address above.
The Peace Corps Questionnaire for Peace Corps Volunteer Background Investigation Form is used to conduct a formal background check. The information obtained on the form is provided to the Office of Personnel Management or other contract investigator to obtain the necessary information as to an applicant's legal suitability for service.
a. Number of Average Applicants: 20,000.
b. Number of Applicants who submit NAC form: 20,000.
c. Frequency of response: One time.
d. Completion time: 15 minutes.
e. Annual burden hours: 5,000.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
30-Day Notice and request for comments.
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) offers the general public and other federal agencies the opportunity to comment on an information collection request (ICR) 3206–0236, Customer Satisfaction Surveys. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (Pub. L. 104–13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35) as amended by the Clinger-Cohen Act (Pub. L. 104–106), OPM is soliciting comments for this collection. The information collection was previously published in the
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until March 31, 2014. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.1.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of Personnel Management or sent via electronic mail to
A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of Personnel Management or sent via electronic mail to
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) leads Federal agencies in shaping human resources management systems to effectively recruit, develop, manage and retain a high quality and diverse workforce. Customer service surveys are valuable tools to gather information from our customers so we can design and implement new ways to improve our performance to meet their needs. This collection request includes surveys that we currently use or plan to use during the next three years to measure our performance in providing services to meet our customer needs. The survey instruments include direct mail, telephone contact, focus groups and web exit surveys. Our customers include the general public, Federal benefit recipients, Federal agencies and Federal employees. We estimate 911,232 customer service surveys will be completed in the next 3 years. The time estimate varies from 2 minutes to 25 minutes to complete. The estimated burden is 55,587 hours over the next 3 years.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
30-Day notice and request for comments.
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) offers the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on an information collection request (ICR) 3206–0253, Performance Measurement Surveys. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35) as amended by the Clinger-Cohen Act (Pub. L. 104–106), OPM is soliciting comments for this collection. The information collection was previously published in the
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until April 29, 2014. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.1.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of Personnel Management or sent via electronic mail to
A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of Personnel Management or sent via electronic mail to
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) leads Federal agencies in shaping human resources management systems to effectively recruit, develop, manage and retain a high quality and diverse workforce. Performance measurement surveys are valuable tools to gather information from our customers so we can design and implement new ways to improve our performance to meet their needs. This collection request includes surveys that we currently use or plan to use during the next three years to measure our performance in providing services to meet our customer needs. The survey instruments include direct mail, telephone contact, focus groups and Web exit surveys. Our customers include the general public, Federal benefit recipients, Federal agencies and Federal employees. We estimate 272,100 performance measurement surveys will be completed in the next 3 years. The time estimate varies from 15 minutes to 20 minutes to complete. The estimated burden is 75,575 hours.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
30-Day notice and request for comments.
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) offers the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on an information collection request (ICR) 3206–0252, Program Services Evaluation Surveys. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35) as amended by the Clinger-Cohen Act (Pub. L. 104–106), OPM is soliciting comments for this collection. The information collection was previously published in the
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until March 31, 2014. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.1.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of Personnel Management or sent via electronic mail to
A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of Personnel Management or sent via electronic mail to
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) leads Federal agencies in shaping human resources management systems to effectively recruit, develop, manage and retain a high quality and diverse workforce. Program services evaluation surveys are valuable tools to gather information from our customers so we can design and implement new ways to improve our programs to meet their needs. This collection request includes surveys that we currently use or plan to use during the next three years to measure our ability to deliver program services to meet our customer needs. The survey instruments include direct mail, telephone contact, focus groups and Web exit surveys. Our customers include the general public, Federal benefit recipients, Federal agencies and Federal employees. We estimate 12,300 program services evaluation surveys will be completed in the next 3 years. The time estimate varies from 1 minute to 40 minutes to complete. The estimated burden is 3,755 hours.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice of an application for an order under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Act”) for an exemption from sections 2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), 22(d) and 22(e) of the Act and rule 22c–1 under the Act, under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act for an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and (a)(2) of the Act, and under section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act for an exemption from sections 12(d)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act.
Cohen & Steers Capital Management, Inc. (“Cohen & Steers” or “Adviser”), Cohen & Steers ETF Trust (the “Trust”), and Cohen & Steers Securities, LLC (the “Distributor”).
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on March 20, 2014, and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090. Applicants: 280 Park Avenue, 10th Floor, New York, New York 10017.
Emerson S. Davis, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551–6868 or Daniele Marchesani, Branch Chief, at (202) 551–6821 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or for an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. The Trust is registered as an open-end management investment company under the Act and is a statutory trust organized under the laws of Maryland. Applicants seek relief to create and operate a series of the Trust with an actively managed investment portfolio (the “Initial Fund”). The investment strategy and objectives of the Initial Fund will conform to description of the Funds (as defined below).
2. Cohen & Steers, a New York corporation, is registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”) and will serve as investment adviser to the Initial Fund. The Adviser may in the future retain one or more sub-advisers (each a “Sub-Adviser”) to manage the portfolios of the Funds (as defined below). Any Sub-Adviser will be registered or not subject to registration under the Advisers Act. The Distributor, a Delaware limited liability company, is a registered broker-dealer (“Broker”) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and will act as the distributor and principal underwriter of the Funds.
3. Applicants request that the order apply to the Initial Fund and any future series of the Trust or of any other future open-end management companies that may utilize active management investment strategies (“Future Funds”). Any Future Fund will (a) be advised by Cohen & Steers or an entity controlling, controlled by, or under common control with Cohen & Steers (each, an “Adviser”), and (b) comply with the terms and conditions of the application.
4. Applicants also request that any exemption under section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act from sections 12(d)(1)(A) and (B) apply to: (i) Any Fund that is currently or subsequently part of the same “group of investment companies” as the Initial Fund within the meaning of section 12(d)(1)(G)(ii) of the Act; (ii) any principal underwriter for the Fund; (iii) any Brokers selling Shares of a Fund to an Investing Fund (as defined below); and (iv) each management investment company or unit investment trust registered under the Act that is not part of the same “group of investment companies” as the Funds within the meaning of section 12(d)(1)(G)(ii) of the Act and that enters into a FOF Participation Agreement (as defined below) with a Fund (such management investment companies, “Investing Management Companies,” such unit investment trusts, “Investing Trusts,” and Investing Management Companies and Investing Trusts together, “Investing Funds”). Investing Funds do not include the Funds.
5. Applicants anticipate that a Creation Unit will consist of at least 50,000 Shares. Applicants anticipate that the trading price of a Share will range from $10 to $100. All orders to purchase Creation Units must be placed with the Distributor by or through a party that has entered into a participant agreement with the Distributor and the transfer agent of the Fund (“Authorized Participant”) with respect to the creation and redemption of Creation Units. An Authorized Participant is either: (a) A Broker or other participant in the Continuous Net Settlement System of the National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”), a clearing agency registered with the Commission and affiliated with the Depository Trust Company (“DTC”), or (b) a participant in the DTC (such participant, “DTC Participant”).
6. In order to keep costs low and permit each Fund to be as fully invested as possible, Shares will be purchased and redeemed in Creation Units and
7. Purchases and redemptions of Creation Units may be made in whole or in part on a cash basis, rather than in kind, solely under the following circumstances: (a) To the extent there is a Cash Amount, as described above; (b) if, on a given Business Day, a Fund announces before the open of trading that all purchases, all redemptions or all purchases and redemptions on that day will be made entirely in cash; (c) if, upon receiving a purchase or redemption order from an Authorized Participant, a Fund determines to require the purchase or redemption, as applicable, to be made entirely in cash; (d) if, on a given Business Day, a Fund requires all Authorized Participants purchasing or redeeming Shares on that day to deposit or receive (as applicable) cash in lieu of some or all of the Deposit Instruments or Redemption Instruments, respectively, solely because: (i) Such instruments are not eligible for transfer through either the NSCC or DTC; or (ii) in the case of Funds holding non-U.S. investment (“Global Funds”), such instruments are not eligible for trading due to local trading restrictions, local restrictions on securities transfers or other similar circumstances; or (e) if a Fund permits an Authorized Participant to deposit or receive (as applicable) cash in lieu of some or all of the Deposit Instruments or Redemption Instruments, respectively, solely because: (i) Such instruments are, in the case of the purchase of a Creation Unit, not available in sufficient quantity; (ii) such instruments are not eligible for trading by an Authorized Participant or the investor on whose behalf the Authorized Participant is acting; or (iii) a holder of Shares of a Global Fund would be subject to unfavorable income tax treatment if the holder receives redemption proceeds in kind.
8. Each Business Day, before the open of trading on a national securities exchange, as defined in section 2(a)(26) of the Act (“Stock Exchange”), on which Shares are listed, each Fund will cause to be published through the NSCC the names and quantities of the instruments comprising the Creation Basket, as well as the estimated Cash Amount (if any), for that day. The published Creation Basket will apply until a new Creation Basket is announced on the following Business Day, and there will be no intra-day changes to the Creation Basket except to correct errors in the published Creation Basket. The Stock Exchange will disseminate every 15 seconds throughout the trading day an amount representing, on a per Share basis, the sum of the current value of the Portfolio Instruments that were publicly disclosed prior to the commencement of trading in Shares on the Stock Exchange.
9. A Fund may recoup the settlement costs charged by NSCC and DTC by imposing a transaction fee on investors purchasing or redeeming Creation Units (the “Transaction Fee”). The Transaction Fee will be borne only by purchasers and redeemers of Creation Units and will be limited to amounts that have been determined appropriate by the Adviser to defray the transaction expenses that will be incurred by a Fund when an investor purchases or redeems Creation Units.
10. Shares will be listed and traded at negotiated prices on a Stock Exchange and traded in the secondary market. Applicants expect that Stock Exchange specialists or market makers (“Market Makers”) will be assigned to Shares. The price of Shares trading on the Stock Exchange will be based on a current bid/offer in the secondary market. Transactions involving the purchases and sales of Shares on the Stock Exchange will be subject to customary brokerage commissions and charges.
11. Applicants expect that purchasers of Creation Units will include institutional investors and arbitrageurs. Specialists or Market Makers, acting in their unique role to provide a fair and orderly secondary market for Shares, also may purchase Creation Units for use in their own market making activities.
12. Shares will not be individually redeemable and owners of Shares may acquire those Shares from a Fund, or tender such shares for redemption to the Fund, in Creation Units only. To redeem, an investor must accumulate enough Shares to constitute a Creation Unit. Redemption requests must be placed by or through an Authorized Participant.
13. Neither the Trust nor any Fund will be marketed or otherwise held out as a “mutual fund.” Instead, each Fund will be marketed as an “actively-managed exchange-traded fund.” In any advertising material where features of obtaining, buying or selling Shares traded on the Stock Exchange are described there will be an appropriate statement to the effect that Shares are not individually redeemable.
14. The Funds' Web site, which will be publicly available prior to the public offering of Shares, will include a Prospectus and additional quantitative information updated on a daily basis, including, on a per Share basis for each Fund, the prior Business Day's NAV and the market closing price or mid-point of the bid/ask spread at the time of the calculation of such NAV (“Bid/Ask Price”), and a calculation of the premium or discount of the market closing price or Bid/Ask Price against such NAV. On each Business Day, before commencement of trading in Shares on the Stock Exchange, the Fund will disclose on its Web site the identities and quantities of the Portfolio Instruments held by the Fund (including any short positions held in securities (“Short Positions”)) that will form the basis for the Fund's calculation of NAV at the end of the Business Day.
1. Applicants request an order under section 6(c) of the Act for an exemption from sections 2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), 22(d) and 22(e) of the Act and rule 22c–1 under the Act, under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act for an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Act, and under section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act for an exemption from sections 12(d)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act.
2. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security or transaction, or any class of persons, securities or transactions, from any provisions of the Act, if and to the extent that such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to exempt a proposed transaction from section 17(a) of the Act if evidence establishes that the terms of the transaction, including the consideration to be paid or received, are reasonable and fair and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned, and the proposed transaction is consistent with the policies of the registered investment company and the general provisions of the Act. Section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or transaction, or any class or classes of persons, securities or transactions, from any provision of section 12(d)(1) if the exemption is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors.
3. Section 5(a)(1) of the Act defines an “open-end company” as a management investment company that is offering for sale or has outstanding any redeemable security of which it is the issuer. Section 2(a)(32) of the Act defines a redeemable security as any security, other than short-term paper, under the terms of which the holder, upon its presentation to the issuer, is entitled to receive approximately a proportionate share of the issuer's current net assets, or the cash equivalent. Because Shares will not be individually redeemable, applicants request an order that would permit each Fund to redeem Shares in Creation Units only. Applicants state that investors may purchase Shares in Creation Units from each Fund and redeem Creation Units from each Fund. Applicants further state that because the market price of Creation Units will be disciplined by arbitrage opportunities, investors should be able to sell Shares in the secondary market at prices that do not vary materially from their NAV.
4. Section 22(d) of the Act, among other things, prohibits a dealer from selling a redeemable security that is currently being offered to the public by or through a principal underwriter, except at a current public offering price described in the prospectus. Rule 22c–1 under the Act generally requires that a dealer selling, redeeming, or repurchasing a redeemable security do so only at a price based on its NAV. Applicants state that secondary market trading in Shares will take place at negotiated prices, not at a current offering price described in the Prospectus, and not at a price based on NAV. Thus, purchases and sales of Shares in the secondary market will not comply with section 22(d) of the Act and rule 22c–1 under the Act. Applicants request an exemption under section 6(c) from these provisions.
5. Applicants assert that the concerns sought to be addressed by section 22(d) of the Act and rule 22c–1 under the Act with respect to pricing are equally satisfied by the proposed method of pricing Shares. Applicants maintain that while there is little legislative history regarding section 22(d), its provisions, as well as those of rule 22c–1, appear to have been designed to (a) prevent dilution caused by certain riskless-trading schemes by principal underwriters and contract dealers, (b) prevent unjust discrimination or preferential treatment among buyers resulting from sales at different prices, and (c) assure an orderly distribution system of investment company shares by eliminating price competition from brokers offering shares at less than the published sales price and repurchasing shares at more than the published redemption price.
6. Applicants believe that none of these purposes will be thwarted by permitting Shares to trade in the secondary market at negotiated prices. Applicants state that (a) secondary market trading in Shares does not involve the Funds as parties and cannot result in dilution of an investment in Shares, and (b) to the extent different
7. Section 22(e) of the Act generally prohibits a registered investment company from suspending the right of redemption or postponing the date of payment of redemption proceeds for more than seven days after the tender of a security for redemption. Applicants observe that settlement of redemptions of Creation Units of Global Funds is contingent not only on the settlement cycle of the U.S. securities markets but also on the delivery cycles present in foreign markets in which those Funds invest. Applicants have been advised that, under certain circumstances, the delivery cycles for transferring Portfolio Instruments to redeeming investors, coupled with local market holiday schedules, will require a delivery process of up to 14 calendar days. Applicants therefore request relief from section 22(e) in order to provide payment or satisfaction of redemptions within the maximum number of calendar days required for such payment or satisfaction in the principal local markets where transactions in the Portfolio Instruments of each Global Fund customarily clear and settle, but in all cases no later than 14 calendar days following the tender of a Creation Unit.
8. Applicants state that section 22(e) was designed to prevent unreasonable, undisclosed and unforeseen delays in the actual payment of redemption proceeds. Applicants assert that the requested relief will not lead to the problems that section 22(e) was designed to prevent. Applicants state that allowing redemption payments for Creation Units of a Fund to be made within a maximum of 14 calendar days would not be inconsistent with the spirit and intent of section 22(e). Applicants state each Global Fund's statement of additional information (“SAI”) will disclose those local holidays (over the period of at least one year following the date of the SAI), if any, that are expected to prevent the delivery of redemption proceeds in seven calendar days and the maximum number of days needed to deliver the proceeds for each affected Global Fund. Applicants are not seeking relief from section 22(e) with respect to Global Funds that do not effect redemptions in-kind.
9. Section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act prohibits a registered investment company from acquiring shares of an investment company if the securities represent more than 3% of the total outstanding voting stock of the acquired company, more than 5% of the total assets of the acquiring company, or, together with the securities of any other investment companies, more than 10% of the total assets of the acquiring company. Section 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act prohibits a registered open-end investment company, its principal underwriter, or any other broker or dealer from selling its shares to another investment company if the sale will cause the acquiring company to own more than 3% of the acquired company's voting stock, or if the sale will cause more than 10% of the acquired company's voting stock to be owned by investment companies generally.
10. Applicants request relief to permit Investing Funds to acquire Shares in excess of the limits in section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act and to permit the Funds, their principal underwriters and any Broker to sell Shares to Investing Funds in excess of the limits in section 12(d)(l)(B) of the Act. Applicants submit that the proposed conditions to the requested relief address the concerns underlying the limits in section 12(d)(1), which include concerns about undue influence, excessive layering of fees and overly complex structures.
11. Applicants submit that their proposed conditions address any concerns regarding the potential for undue influence. To limit the control that an Investing Fund may have over a Fund, applicants propose a condition prohibiting the adviser of an Investing Management Company (“Investing Fund Adviser”), trustee or sponsor of an Investing Trust (“Trustee” or “Sponsor”, respectively), any person controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the Investing Fund Adviser or Sponsor, and any investment company or issuer that would be an investment company but for sections 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the Act that is advised or sponsored by the Investing Fund Adviser, the Sponsor, or any person controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the Investing Fund Adviser or Sponsor (“Investing Fund's Advisory Group”) from controlling (individually or in the aggregate) a Fund within the meaning of section 2(a)(9) of the Act. The same prohibition would apply to any sub-adviser to an Investing Management Company (“Investing Fund Sub-Adviser”), any person controlling, controlled by or under common control with the Investing Fund Sub-Adviser, and any investment company or issuer that would be an investment company but for sections 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the Act (or portion of such investment company or issuer) advised or sponsored by the Investing Fund Sub-Adviser or any person controlling, controlled by or under common control with the Investing Fund Sub-Adviser (“Investing Fund's Sub-Advisory Group”).
12. Applicants propose a condition to ensure that no Investing Fund or Investing Fund Affiliate
13. Applicants propose several conditions to address the potential for layering of fees. Applicants note that the board of directors or trustees of any Investing Management Company, including a majority of the directors or trustees who are not “interested persons” within the meaning of section 2(a)(19) of the Act (“independent
14. Applicants submit that the proposed arrangement will not create an overly complex fund structure. Applicants note that a Fund will be prohibited from acquiring securities of any investment company or company relying on section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the Act in excess of the limits contained in section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act, except to the extent permitted by exemptive relief from the Commission permitting the Fund to purchase shares of other investment companies for short-term cash management purposes.
15. To ensure that an Investing Fund is aware of the terms and conditions of the requested order, the Investing Funds must enter into an agreement with the respective Funds (“FOF Participation Agreement”). The FOF Participation Agreement will include an acknowledgement from the Investing Fund that it may rely on the order only to invest in a Fund and not in any other investment company.
16. Section 17(a) of the Act generally prohibits an affiliated person of a registered investment company, or an affiliated person of such a person (“second tier affiliate”), from selling any security to or purchasing any security from the company. Section 2(a)(3) of the Act defines “affiliated person” to include any person directly or indirectly owning, controlling, or holding with power to vote, 5% or more of the outstanding voting securities of the other person and any person directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common control with, the other person. Section 2(a)(9) of the Act defines “control” as the power to exercise a controlling influence over the management or policies of a company and provides that a control relationship will be presumed where one person owns more than 25% of another person's voting securities. Each Fund may be deemed to be controlled by an Adviser and hence affiliated persons of each other. In addition, the Funds may be deemed to be under common control with any other registered investment company (or series thereof) advised by an Adviser (an “Affiliated Fund”).
17. Applicants request an exemption under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Act to permit in-kind purchases and redemptions of Creation Units by persons that are affiliated persons or second tier affiliates of the Funds solely by virtue of one or more of the following: (a) Holding 5% or more, or in excess of 25% of the outstanding Shares of one or more Funds; (b) having an affiliation with a person with an ownership interest described in (a); or (c) holding 5% or more, or more than 25% of the Shares of one or more Affiliated Funds.
18. Applicants assert that no useful purpose would be served by prohibiting such affiliated persons from making in-kind purchases or in-kind redemptions of Shares of a Fund in Creation Units. Absent the unusual circumstances discussed in the application, the Deposit Instruments and Redemption Instruments available for a Fund will be the same for all purchasers and redeemers, respectively, and will correspond
19. Applicants also submit that the sale of Shares to and redemption of Shares from an Investing Fund meets the standards for relief under sections 17(b) and 6(c) of the Act. Applicants note that any consideration paid for the purchase or redemption of Shares directly from a Fund will be based on the NAV of the Fund in accordance with policies and procedures set forth in the Fund's registration statement.
Applicants agree that any order of the Commission granting the requested relief will be subject to the following conditions:
1. As long as a Fund operates in reliance on the requested order, the Shares of the Fund will be listed on a Stock Exchange.
2. Neither the Trust nor any Fund will be advertised or marketed as an open-end investment company or a mutual fund. Any advertising material that describes the purchase or sale of Creation Units or refers to redeemability will prominently disclose that the Shares are not individually redeemable and that owners of the Shares may acquire those Shares from the Fund and tender those Shares for redemption to the Fund in Creation Units only.
3. The Web site for the Funds, which is and will be publicly accessible at no charge, will contain, on a per Share basis, for each Fund the prior Business Day's NAV and the market closing price or Bid/Ask Price, and a calculation of the premium or discount of the market closing price or Bid/Ask Price against such NAV.
4. On each Business Day, before commencement of trading in Shares on the Stock Exchange, the Fund will disclose on its Web site the identities and quantities of the Portfolio Instruments held by the Fund that will form the basis for the Fund's calculation of NAV at the end of the Business Day.
5. The Adviser or any Sub-Adviser, directly or indirectly, will not cause any Authorized Participant (or any investor on whose behalf an Authorized Participant may transact with the Fund) to acquire any Deposit Instrument for the Fund through a transaction in which the Fund could not engage directly.
6. The requested relief to permit ETF operations will expire on the effective date of any Commission rule under the Act that provides relief permitting the operation of actively-managed exchange-traded funds.
1. The members of the Investing Fund's Advisory Group will not control (individually or in the aggregate) a Fund within the meaning of section 2(a)(9) of the Act. The members of the Investing Fund's Sub-Advisory Group will not control (individually or in the aggregate) a Fund within the meaning of section 2(a)(9) of the Act. If, as a result of a decrease in the outstanding voting securities of a Fund, the Investing Fund's Advisory Group or the Investing Fund's Sub-Advisory Group, each in the aggregate, becomes a holder of more than 25 percent of the outstanding voting securities of a Fund, it will vote its Shares of the Fund in the same proportion as the vote of all other holders of the Fund's Shares. This condition does not apply to the Investing Fund's Sub-Advisory Group with respect to a Fund for which the Investing Fund Sub-Adviser or a person controlling, controlled by or under common control with the Investing Fund Sub-Adviser acts as the investment adviser within the meaning of section 2(a)(20)(A) of the Act.
2. No Investing Fund or Investing Fund Affiliate will cause any existing or potential investment by the Investing Fund in a Fund to influence the terms of any services or transactions between the Investing Fund or an Investing Fund Affiliate and the Fund or a Fund Affiliate.
3. The board of directors or trustees of an Investing Management Company, including a majority of the independent directors or trustees, will adopt procedures reasonably designed to ensure that the Investing Fund Adviser and any Investing Fund Sub-Adviser are conducting the investment program of the Investing Management Company without taking into account any consideration received by the Investing Management Company or an Investing Fund Affiliate from a Fund or a Fund Affiliate in connection with any services or transactions.
4. Once an investment by an Investing Fund in the Shares of a Fund exceeds the limit in section 12(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, the Board of a Fund, including a majority of the independent directors or trustees, will determine that any consideration paid by the Fund to the Investing Fund or an Investing Fund Affiliate in connection with any services or transactions: (i) Is fair and reasonable in relation to the nature and quality of the services and benefits received by the Fund; (ii) is within the range of consideration that the Fund would be required to pay to another unaffiliated entity in connection with the same services or transactions; and (iii) does not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned. This condition does not apply with respect to any services or transactions between a Fund and its investment adviser(s), or any person controlling, controlled by or under common control with such investment adviser(s).
5. The Investing Fund Adviser, or Trustee or Sponsor, as applicable, will waive fees otherwise payable to it by the Investing Fund in an amount at least equal to any compensation (including fees received pursuant to any plan adopted by a Fund under rule 12b–1 under the Act) received from a Fund by the Investing Fund Adviser, or Trustee or Sponsor, or an affiliated person of the Investing Fund Adviser, or Trustee or Sponsor, other than any advisory fees paid to the Investing Fund Adviser, or Trustee, or Sponsor, or its affiliated person by the Fund, in connection with the investment by the Investing Fund in the Fund. Any Investing Fund Sub-Adviser will waive fees otherwise payable to the Investing Fund Sub-Adviser, directly or indirectly, by the Investing Management Company in an amount at least equal to any compensation received from a Fund by the Investing Fund Sub-Adviser, or an affiliated person of the Investing Fund Sub-Adviser, other than any advisory fees paid to the Investing Fund Sub-Adviser or its affiliated person by the Fund, in connection with the investment by the Investing Management Company in the Fund made at the direction of the Investing Fund Sub-Adviser. In the event that the Investing Fund Sub-Adviser waives fees, the benefit of the waiver will be passed through to the Investing Management Company.
6. No Investing Fund or Investing Fund Affiliate (except to the extent it is acting in its capacity as an investment adviser to a Fund) will cause a Fund to purchase a security in an Affiliated Underwriting.
7. The Board of a Fund, including a majority of the independent directors or trustees, will adopt procedures reasonably designed to monitor any purchases of securities by the Fund in an Affiliated Underwriting, once an investment by an Investing Fund in the securities of the Fund exceeds the limit of section 12(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, including any purchases made directly from an Underwriting Affiliate. The Board will review these purchases periodically, but no less frequently than annually, to determine whether the purchases were influenced by the investment by the Investing Fund in the Fund. The Board will consider, among other things: (i) Whether the purchases were consistent with the investment objectives and policies of the Fund; (ii) how the performance of securities purchased in an Affiliated Underwriting compares to the performance of comparable securities purchased during a comparable period of time in underwritings other than Affiliated Underwritings or to a benchmark such as a comparable market index; and (iii) whether the amount of securities purchased by the Fund in Affiliated Underwritings and the amount purchased directly from an Underwriting Affiliate have changed significantly from prior years. The Board will take any appropriate actions based on its review, including, if appropriate, the institution of procedures designed to assure that purchases of securities in Affiliated Underwritings are in the best interest of shareholders of the Fund.
8. Each Fund will maintain and preserve permanently in an easily accessible place a written copy of the procedures described in the preceding condition, and any modifications to such procedures, and will maintain and preserve for a period of not less than six years from the end of the fiscal year in which any purchase in an Affiliated Underwriting occurred, the first two years in an easily accessible place, a written record of each purchase of securities in Affiliated Underwritings once an investment by an Investing
9. Before investing in a Fund in excess of the limits in section 12(d)(1)(A), an Investing Fund will execute a FOF Participation Agreement with the Fund stating that their respective boards of directors or trustees and their investment advisers, or Trustee and Sponsor, as applicable, understand the terms and conditions of the order, and agree to fulfill their responsibilities under the order. At the time of its investment in Shares of a Fund in excess of the limit in section 12(d)(1)(A)(i), an Investing Fund will notify the Fund of the investment. At such time, the Investing Fund will also transmit to the Fund a list of the names of each Investing Fund Affiliate and Underwriting Affiliate. The Investing Fund will notify the Fund of any changes to the list as soon as reasonably practicable after a change occurs. The Fund and the Investing Fund will maintain and preserve a copy of the order, the FOF Participation Agreement, and the list with any updated information for the duration of the investment and for a period of not less than six years thereafter, the first two years in an easily accessible place.
10. Before approving any advisory contract under section 15 of the Act, the board of directors or trustees of each Investing Management Company, including a majority of the independent directors or trustees, will find that the advisory fees charged under such contract are based on services provided that will be in addition to, rather than duplicative of, the services provided under the advisory contract(s) of any Fund in which the Investing Management Company may invest. These findings and their basis will be recorded fully in the minute books of the appropriate Investing Management Company.
11. Any sales charges and/or service fees charged with respect to shares of an Investing Fund will not exceed the limits applicable to a fund of funds as set forth in NASD Conduct Rule 2830.
12. No Fund relying on the section 12(d)(1) relief will acquire securities of any investment company or company relying on section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the Act in excess of the limits contained in section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act, except to the extent permitted by exemptive relief from the Commission permitting the Fund to purchase shares of other investment companies for short-term cash management purposes.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
On November 13, 2013, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Historically, FINRA has utilized the Trade Reporting and Compliance Engine (“TRACE”) to collect from its members and publicly disseminate information on secondary over-the-counter transactions in corporate debt securities, Agency Debt Securities,
FINRA has proposed to revise FINRA Rule 6750 to include Asset-Backed Securities among the TRACE-Eligible Securities that FINRA will disseminate publicly.
In addition, FINRA has proposed to provide further guidance regarding the scope of this narrower definition of “Asset-Backed Security” in proposed Supplementary Material .01 to FINRA Rule 6710, which would state that the term “Asset-Backed Security” includes, but is not limited to:
Transactions included in the re-defined group of Asset-Backed Securities, set forth in proposed Rule 6710(cc) (including Rule 144A transactions in such securities) and Supplementary Material .01 thereto, will be publicly disseminated through TRACE as a result of the proposed rule change.
FINRA also has proposed to define “Collateralized Mortgage Obligation” in proposed new FINRA Rule 6710(dd).
In connection with its proposal to publicly disseminate transactions in certain Asset-Backed Securities,
According to FINRA, many Asset-Backed Securities are underwritten using a syndicated process that is similar to the offering process for corporate bonds.
In light of the similarity of the offering process for corporate bonds and many Asset-Backed Securities, FINRA has proposed to amend FINRA Rules 6710(q) and 6710(r) so that primary market Asset-Backed Securities transactions that meet all of the requirements of a List or Fixed Offering Price Transaction or a Takedown Transaction may be treated in accordance with FINRA Rules 6730(a)(2), 6750(b)(3), and 7730(b)(1)(C).
Currently, there are dissemination caps in place for disseminated TRACE data, such that the actual size (volume) of a transaction over a certain par value is not displayed.
Currently, the standard data elements that are disseminated for TRACE-Eligible securities include, among other things, a dealer/customer indicator (indicating the type of contra party) and a buy/sell indicator.
Currently, what is known as Asset-Backed Securities data—organized as the ABS Data Set for real-time data and as the Historic ABS Data Set for Historic TRACE Data
FINRA has proposed to eliminate certain provisions that have expired and all cross-references thereto in FINRA Rule 6730(a) and to make conforming changes.
FINRA has stated that it would announce the effective date of the proposed rule change in a
The Commission received one comment on the proposal,
According to the commenter, FINRA's prior implementation of post-trade transparency in the high-yield bond market, and more recently in the markets for mortgage-backed securities traded TBA and in specified pools,
In response, FINRA notes that TRACE has been subject to extensive academic interest since its inception, and that studies have shown multiple benefits of transparency, including a narrowing of the bid-ask spread, reduction in trade execution costs, and improved valuation precision in mark-to-market valuations.
Furthermore, FINRA states that, during the time period beyond 90 days from the last stage of dissemination, it appears that the trading activity of such bonds recovered to pre-dissemination levels, while the reduction in price dispersion was maintained. FINRA asserts this based on its understanding of the information and analysis provided in the same study referenced in the SIFMA Letter.
In addition, FINRA disputes the commenter's assertion that the implementation of post-trade transparency in the markets for mortgage-backed securities traded TBA and in specified pools has caused decreased liquidity in these markets. According to FINRA, while there has been a decline in trading in these markets, there is no direct evidence that transparency has contributed to the decline.
The commenter also states that its members are “generally in agreement with the re-definition of ABS that includes securities backed by consumer or student loans, a lease or a secured or unsecured receivable but excludes Agency Pass-MBS, Agency CMOs and Agency and Non-Agency RMBS.”
In its response, FINRA stated that it “agrees that the credit analysis for [these securities] differs from those Securitized Products backed by consumer or student loans, a lease, or a secured or unsecured receivable.”
Finally, the commenter suggests an increased reporting period for TRACE-reportable Regulation S securities, stating that they require a manual and time-consuming booking process which would be difficult if not impossible to complete within the proposed timeframes.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities association.
In approving the original TRACE rules, the Commission stated that price transparency plays a fundamental role in promoting the fairness and efficiency of U.S. capital markets.
The Commission has considered the commenter's argument that post-trade transparency in the Asset-Backed Security market has the potential to negatively impact liquidity in that market. The commenter references an academic study that found that the implementation of mandatory transparency through TRACE in the corporate bond market is associated with a significant decrease in price dispersion for all bonds and a significant decrease in trading activity for certain categories of bonds. FINRA notes in response to the comment that the study found a statistically significant decrease in trading activity only in the last of the four stages of transparency implementation in high-yield corporate bonds, and no impact on trading activity in the first three stages.
The Commission believes that the proposed reduction in reporting times for Asset-Backed Security transactions (except those that are effected as primary market List or Fixed Offering Price Transactions or Takedown Transactions) is an important corollary to the expansion of post-trade transparency for such transactions. Reducing the reporting period for these transactions as set forth in the proposal will result in important trade information reaching the market more quickly, thus contributing to enhanced price transparency for Asset-Backed Securities. The Commission also believes that FINRA's two-stage phased approach to implementing the reduced reporting period is reasonably designed to ease the compliance burdens on those affected by the proposal without significantly compromising FINRA's ability to disseminate more timely transaction information. Further, the Commission believes that it is reasonable and appropriate to allow members that effect primary market Asset-Backed Security transactions as List or Fixed Ordering Price Transactions or Takedown Transactions to continue to take advantage of the more flexible treatment of those transactions provided for in FINRA Rules 6730(a)(2), 6750(b)(3), and 7730(b)(1)(C).
The Commission believes that the proposed $10 million dissemination cap for Asset-Backed Security transactions is reasonable and consistent with the Act. FINRA has represented that it will observe the effects of the $10 million dissemination cap on the market and may propose modifications to the cap size in the future if warranted. The Commission expects FINRA to periodically re-evaluate whether the dissemination caps, including the caps for Asset-Backed Security transactions being approved today, continue to be appropriate. Furthermore, the Commission believes that the additional
The Commission further believes that including disseminated Asset-Backed Security transaction data in the SP Data Set and Historic SP Data Set (as renamed under the proposal) while maintaining the current fee levels in effect for those data sets is reasonable and consistent with the Act. The rules that establish the existing data sets have been approved by the Commission,
The Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed rule change, as amended by Amendment No. 1, prior to the thirtieth day after the date of publication of notice of filing thereof in the
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On November 6, 2013, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“Exchange” or “NYSE Arca”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act” or “Exchange Act”)
The Commission approved the listing and trading on the Exchange of shares (“Shares”) of the Fund
On December 6, 2012, the staff of the Commission's Division of Investment Management issued a no-action letter (“No-Action Letter”) relating to the use of derivatives by actively-managed exchange traded funds (“ETFs”).
The No-Action Letter stated that Division of Investment Management staff will no longer defer consideration of exemptive requests under the 1940 Act relating to actively-managed ETFs that make use of derivatives provided that they include representations to address some of the concerns expressed in the Commission's March 2010 press release. These representations are: (i) That the ETF's board periodically will review and approve the ETF's use of derivatives and how the ETF's investment adviser assesses and manages risk with respect to the ETF's use of derivatives; and (ii) that the ETF's disclosure of its use of derivatives in its offering documents and periodic reports is consistent with relevant Commission and staff guidance. The No-Action Letter stated that the Division of Investment Management would not recommend enforcement action to the Commission under sections 2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), 17(a), 22(d), and 22(e) of the 1940 Act, or rule 22c–1 under the 1940 Act if actively-managed ETFs operating in reliance on specified orders (which include the Trust's Exemptive Order)
In the Prior Release, the Exchange stated that, consistent with the Trust's Exemptive Order, the Fund would not invest in options contracts, futures contracts, or swap agreements. In view of the No-Action Letter, the Exchange is proposing to change this representation to permit the Fund to use derivative instruments, as described below.
The Prior Release stated that the Fund will invest under normal market circumstances at least 65% of its total assets in a diversified portfolio of Fixed Income Instruments of varying maturities.
The Prior Release stated that the Fund's investment would not be used to enhance leverage. In view of the Exchange's proposal to permit the Fund to use derivative instruments, as described below, the Fund's investments in derivative instruments may be used to enhance leverage. However, as noted in the Prior Release, the Fund's investments will not be used to seek performance that is the multiple or inverse multiple (
According to the Exchange, with respect to the Fund, derivative instruments primarily will include forwards, exchange-traded and over-the-counter (“OTC”) options contracts, exchange-traded futures contracts, options on futures contracts, and swap agreements. Generally, derivatives are financial contracts whose value depends upon, or is derived from, the value of an underlying asset, reference rate, or index, and may relate to stocks, bonds, interest rates, currencies or currency exchange rates, commodities, and related indexes. The Exchange states that the Fund may, but is not required to, use derivative instruments for risk management purposes or as part of its investment strategies.
The Exchange represents that the Fund's investments in derivative instruments will be made in accordance with the 1940 Act and consistent with the Fund's investment objective and policies. The Exchange states that the Fund will typically use derivative instruments as a substitute for taking a position in the underlying asset and/or as part of a strategy designed to reduce exposure to other risks, such as interest rate or currency risk. The Fund may also use derivative instruments to enhance returns. According to the Exchange, to limit the potential risk associated with such transactions, the Fund will segregate or “earmark” assets determined to be liquid by PIMCO in accordance with procedures established by the Trust's Board of Trustees and in accordance with the 1940 Act (or, as permitted by applicable regulation, enter into certain offsetting positions) to cover its obligations under derivative instruments. These procedures have been adopted consistent with Section 18 of the 1940 Act and related Commission guidance. In addition, the Exchange states that the Fund will include appropriate risk disclosure in its offering documents, including leveraging risk. Leveraging risk is the risk that certain transactions of the Fund, including the Fund's use of derivatives, may give rise to leverage, causing the Fund to be more volatile than if it had not been leveraged.
The Adviser believes that derivatives can be an economically attractive substitute for an underlying physical security that the Fund would otherwise purchase. For example, the Fund could purchase Treasury futures contracts instead of physical Treasuries or could sell credit default protection on a corporate bond instead of buying a physical bond. Economic benefits include potentially lower transaction costs or attractive relative valuation of a derivative versus a physical bond (
The Adviser further believes that derivatives can be used as a more liquid means of adjusting portfolio duration as well as targeting specific areas of yield curve exposure, with potentially lower transaction costs than the underlying securities (
According to the Exchange, the Fund also can use derivatives to increase or decrease credit exposure. Index credit default swaps (CDX) can be used to gain exposure to a basket of credit risk by “selling protection” against default or other credit events, or to hedge broad market credit risk by “buying protection.” Single name credit default swaps (CDS) can be used to allow the Fund to increase or decrease exposure to specific issuers, saving investor capital through lower trading costs. The Fund can use total return swap contracts to obtain the total return of a reference asset or index in exchange for paying a financing cost. A total return swap may be much more efficient than buying underlying securities of an index, potentially lowering transaction costs.
The Adviser believes that the use of derivatives will allow the Fund to selectively add diversifying sources of return from selling options. Option purchases and sales can also be used to hedge specific exposures in the portfolio, and can provide access to return streams available to long-term investors such as the persistent difference between implied and realized volatility. Option strategies can generate income or improve execution prices (
In addition to the Fund's use of derivatives in connection with the 65% policy, under the proposal the Fund would seek to invest in derivative instruments not based on Fixed Income Instruments, consistent with the Fund's investment restrictions relating to exposure to those asset classes.
The Prior Release also stated that the Fund may invest in debt securities and instruments that are economically tied to foreign (non-U.S.) countries. The Prior Release stated further that PIMCO generally considers an instrument to be economically tied to a non-U.S. country if the issuer is a foreign government (or any political subdivision, agency, authority, or instrumentality of such government), or if the issuer is organized under the laws of a non-U.S. country. In the case of applicable money market instruments, such instruments will be considered economically tied to a non-U.S. country if either the issuer or the guarantor of such money market instrument is organized under the laws of a non-U.S. country.
The Exchange proposes to add to this representation that, with respect to derivative instruments, as proposed to be used, PIMCO generally will consider such instruments to be economically tied to non-U.S. countries if the underlying assets are foreign currencies (or baskets or indexes of such currencies), or instruments or securities that are issued by foreign governments (or any political subdivision, agency, authority, or instrumentality of such governments) or issuers organized under the laws of a non-U.S. country (or if the underlying assets are money market instruments, as applicable, if either the issuer or the guarantor of such money market instruments is organized under the laws of a non-U.S. country).
The Fund's investments, including investments in derivative instruments, are subject to all of the restrictions under the 1940 Act, including restrictions with respect to illiquid securities. The Fund may hold up to an aggregate amount of 15% of its net assets in illiquid securities (calculated at the time of investment), including Rule 144A securities deemed illiquid by the Adviser,
The Exchange states that the changes described herein will be effective upon (i) the effectiveness of an amendment to the Trust's Registration Statement disclosing the Fund's intended use of derivative instruments, and (ii) when this proposed rule change has become operative. The Adviser represents that it has managed and will continue to manage the Fund in the manner described in the Prior Release, and will not implement the changes described herein until this proposed rule change is operative.
The Adviser represents that there is no change to the Fund's investment objective and that the Fund will continue to comply with all initial and continued listing requirements under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600. Except for the changes noted above, all other facts presented and representations made in the Prior Release remain unchanged.
The Exchange states that the net asset value (“NAV”) of the Fund's Shares is determined by dividing the total value of the Fund's portfolio investments and other assets, less any liabilities, by the total number of Shares outstanding. Fund Shares are valued as of the close of regular trading (normally 4:00 p.m., Eastern time (“E.T.”)) (“NYSE Close”) on each day NYSE Arca is open (“Business Day”). Information that becomes known to the Fund or its agents after the NAV has been calculated on a particular day will not generally be used to retroactively adjust the price of a portfolio asset or the NAV determined earlier that day. The Fund reserves the right to change the time its NAV is calculated if the Fund closes earlier, or as permitted by the Commission.
According to the Exchange, for purposes of calculating NAV, portfolio securities and other assets for which market quotes are readily available are valued at market value. Market value is generally determined on the basis of last reported sales prices, or if no sales are reported, based on quotes obtained from a quotation reporting system, established market makers, or pricing services. Domestic and foreign fixed income securities and non-exchange-traded derivatives will normally be valued on the basis of quotes obtained from brokers and dealers or pricing services using data reflecting the earlier closing of the principal markets for those assets. Prices obtained from independent pricing services use information provided by market makers or estimates of market values obtained from yield data relating to investments or securities with similar characteristics. Exchange-traded options, futures, and options on futures will generally be valued at the settlement price determined by the applicable exchange.
Derivatives for which market quotes are readily available will be valued at market value. Local closing prices will be used for all instrument valuation purposes.
For the Fund's 4:00 p.m. E.T. futures holdings, estimated prices from Reuters will be used if any cumulative futures margin impact is greater than $0.005 to the NAV due to futures movement after the fixed income futures market closes (3:00 p.m. E.T.) and up to the NYSE Close (generally 4:00 p.m. E.T.). Swaps traded on exchanges such as the Chicago Mercantile Exchange or the Intercontinental Exchange will use the applicable exchange closing price where available.
According to the Exchange, on each Business Day, before commencement of trading in Fund Shares on NYSE Arca, the Fund discloses on its Web site the identities and quantities of the portfolio instruments and other assets held by the Fund that will form the basis for the Fund's calculation of NAV at the end of the Business Day. In order to provide additional information regarding the intra-day value of Shares of the Fund, NYSE Arca or a market data vendor disseminates every 15 seconds through the facilities of the Consolidated Tape Association or other widely disseminated means an updated Intra-day Indicative Value (“IIV”) for the Fund as calculated by an information provider or market data vendor.
The Exchange states that a third party market data provider is currently calculating the IIV for the Fund. For the purposes of determining the IIV, the third party market data provider's valuation of derivatives is expected to be similar to their valuation of all securities. The third party market data provider may use market quotes if available or may fair value securities against proxies (such as swap or yield curves).
According to the Exchange, with respect to specific derivatives:
• Foreign currency derivatives may be valued intraday using market quotes, or another proxy as determined to be appropriate by the third party market data provider.
• Futures may be valued intraday using the relevant futures exchange data, or another proxy as determined to be appropriate by the third party market data provider.
• Interest rate swaps may be mapped to a swap curve and valued intraday based on changes of the swap curve, or another proxy as determined to be appropriate by the third party market data provider.
• CDX/CDS may be valued using intraday data from market vendors, or based on underlying asset price, or another proxy as determined to be appropriate by the third party market data provider.
• Total return swaps may be valued intraday using the underlying asset price, or another proxy as determined to be appropriate by the third party market data provider.
• Exchange listed options may be valued intraday using the relevant exchange data, or another proxy as determined to be appropriate by the third party market data provider.
• OTC options may be valued intraday through option valuation models (
The Exchange states that the Fund's disclosure of derivative positions in the Disclosed Portfolio will include information that market participants can use to value these positions intraday. This information will vary by line item, and may include tickers or other identifiers which would identify the listing or clearing exchange for exchange-traded and cleared derivatives, strike price(s), underlying asset, swap or index, coupon, effective date, maturity, and quantities or exposure. For example, a Treasury future would require only a ticker/identifier and quantity. An OTC option may require underlying asset or swap details, strike price, quantity, and expiration date. For the avoidance of doubt, exchange-traded and cleared derivatives will be identified by ticker or other identifiers which would identify the listing or clearing exchange for those instruments.
The Adviser believes there will be minimal, if any, impact to the arbitrage mechanism as a result of the use of derivatives. Market makers and participants should be able to value derivatives as long as the positions are disclosed with relevant information. The Adviser believes that the price at which Shares trade will continue to be
The Adviser does not believe there will be any significant impacts to the settlement or operational aspects of the Fund's arbitrage mechanism due to the use of derivatives. Because derivatives generally are not eligible for in-kind transfer, they will typically be substituted with a “cash in lieu” amount when the Fund processes purchases or redemptions of creation units in-kind.
The Exchange represents that trading in the Shares will be subject to the existing trading surveillances, administered by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) on behalf of the Exchange, which are designed to detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws.
The surveillances referred to above generally focus on detecting securities trading outside their normal patterns, which could be indicative of manipulative or other violative activity. When such situations are detected, surveillance analysis follows and investigations are opened, where appropriate, to review the behavior of all relevant parties for all relevant trading violations.
FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares, exchange traded options, futures, and options on futures with other markets or other entities that are members of the Intermarket Surveillance Group (“ISG”), and FINRA may obtain trading information regarding trading in the Shares, exchange traded options, futures, and options on futures from such markets or entities. In addition, the Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in the Shares, exchange traded options, futures, and options on futures from markets or other entities that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement.
Additional information regarding the Trust, the Fund, and the Shares, including investment strategies, risks, creation and redemption procedures, fees, portfolio holdings disclosure policies, distributions, and taxes, among other things, is included in the Notice and Registration Statement, as applicable.
The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,
As discussed above, under the proposal, the Fund would seek to invest, under normal market circumstances, at least 65% of its total assets in a diversified portfolio of Fixed Income Instruments of varying maturities, which may be represented by derivative instruments based on Fixed Income Instruments.
The Commission solicits comment on whether the proposal is consistent with
The Commission requests that interested persons provide written submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the concerns identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of interested persons concerning whether the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) or any other provision of the Act, or the rules and regulations thereunder. Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval which would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b–4, any request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments regarding whether the proposal should be approved or disapproved by March 21, 2014. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by April 4, 2014.
The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency and merit of the Exchange's statements in support of the proposal, in addition to any other comments they may wish to submit about the proposed rule change. In particular, the Commission seeks comment on the following:
1. The Exchange states, in the proposed rule change, that the Fund's disclosure of derivative positions in the Disclosed Portfolio will include information that market participants can use to value the derivatives positions intraday, and that this information will vary by line item, and may include tickers or other identifiers which would identify the listing or clearing exchange for exchange-traded and cleared derivatives, strike price(s), underlying asset, swap or index, coupon, effective date, maturity, and quantities or exposure. The Exchange further states that market makers and participants should be able to value derivatives as long as the positions are disclosed with relevant information. Do commenters agree? Why or why not? What type of information is necessary to be included in the information to be made available about the Disclosed Portfolio for market participants to be able to value the derivatives positions intraday?
2. The Exchange states that the Adviser believes there will be minimal, if any, impact to the arbitrage mechanism as a result of the use of derivatives. Do commenters agree? Why or why not?
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
FINRA is proposing to amend the Code of Arbitration Procedure for Customer Disputes (the “Customer Code”) and the Code of Arbitration Procedure for Industry Disputes (the “Industry Code”) to provide that any document that a party files with FINRA that contains an individual's Social Security number, taxpayer identification number, or financial account number must be redacted to include only the last four digits of any of these numbers. The proposed amendments would apply only to documents filed with FINRA. They would not apply to documents that parties exchange with each other or submit to the arbitrators at a hearing on the merits. In addition, the amendments would not apply to cases administered under Rule 12800 of the Customer Code and Rule 13800 of the Industry Code (collectively, the “Simplified Arbitration rules”).
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the principal office of FINRA, on FINRA's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, FINRA 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. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
During an arbitration proceeding, parties submit pleadings and supporting documents to FINRA Dispute Resolution (“DR”) that may contain an individual's Social Security number, taxpayer identification number, or financial account number (“personal confidential information” or “PCI”). Since FINRA employees are regularly exposed to PCI as they handle party documents, FINRA has procedures in place to guide staff on how to keep confidential information safe. FINRA maintains an Information Privacy and Protection Policy (“Policy”), and administers Information Privacy and Protection Training to all FINRA staff annually. In addition to the Policy, DR has its own detailed procedures for protecting confidential information relating to, among other matters, storage and disposal of case materials in a manner that preserves the confidentiality of the information, and removal of PCI that appears in awards that will be publicly available.
DR procedures also provide staff with guidance on what arbitrators and mediators can do to protect confidential information. For example, DR requires arbitrators and mediators to keep confidential all information obtained in connection with an arbitration or mediation and to participate in FINRA training programs on information security.
In 2010, FINRA published a Notice to Parties
As a service to forum users, DR serves certain pleadings on other parties to an arbitration matter. The parties are responsible for providing DR with addresses for service. The greatest risk of DR staff misdirecting PCI occurs when DR staff serves pleadings on a party (
In an effort to protect parties from identity theft and the accidental loss of PCI, FINRA is proposing to amend the Customer Code and the Industry Code to require parties to redact specified PCI from documents they file with FINRA. FINRA is proposing to amend Rules 12300 (Filing and Serving Documents) and 12307 (Deficient Claims) of the Customer Code and Rules 13300 (Filing and Serving Documents) and 13307 (Deficient Claims) of the Industry Code as described below. For ease of reading, the description below only refers to Rules 12300 and 12307 of the Customer Code. The proposed amendments to Rules 13300 and 13307 of the Industry Code are identical and FINRA's rationale is the same.
FINRA is proposing to amend Rule 12300 to provide that, in an electronic or paper filing with FINRA, any document that contains an individual's Social Security number, taxpayer identification number, or financial account number must be redacted to include only the last four digits of any of these numbers. The rule would specify that a party shall not include full numbers. If FINRA receives a claim,
The proposed rule change would include two exemptions—one for documents that parties exchange with each other or submit to the arbitrators at a hearing on the merits, and one for cases administered under the Simplified Arbitration rules. As explained above, FINRA's greatest risk of misdirecting PCI occurs when DR staff is transmitting pleadings and documents to parties and
The second exemption relates to claims administered under the Simplified Arbitration rules. Generally, a single arbitrator decides these claims based solely on the parties' written submissions. Many claimants who initiate a claim under the Simplified Arbitration rules are not represented by counsel (
FINRA is proposing to make conforming changes to Rule 12307. FINRA would amend Rule 12307(a) to add an item to the list of deficiencies enumerated in the rule—that the claim does not comply with the restrictions on filings with PCI under Rule 12300(g). FINRA is proposing to amend Rule 12307(c) to clarify that if a party corrects a deficiency in a counterclaim, cross claim or third party claim within 30 days, FINRA will consider the document to be filed on the date the party initially filed the counterclaim, cross claim or third party claim with FINRA. FINRA would also amend Rule 12307(c) to correct a typographical error by deleting the word “the” (indicated by brackets) in the sentence that currently reads “The Director will notify the party making the counterclaim, cross claim or third party claim of [the] any deficiencies in writing.”
FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,
FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. FINRA considered the potential burden on the parties of the proposed redaction requirement. FINRA believes that the potential benefits outweigh the potential burden. Currently, Rule 5.2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Privacy Protection for Filings Made with the Court) allows parties filing documents in Federal Court to include only the last four digits of a Social Security number, taxpayer identification number, and financial account number. Rule 5.2's redaction requirement applies to all documents, including attachments. Since many party representatives are already accustomed to complying with a redaction requirement, and because the redaction requirement applies only to documents filed with DR and not to documents that the parties exchange with each other or submit to the arbitrators at a hearing on the merits, or to documents submitted pursuant to the Simplified Arbitration rules, FINRA believes that the additional burden to these representatives would be minimal. Further, FINRA member firms are required to protect PCI under federal laws such as Regulation S–P
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The proposed rule change consists of amendments to the Rules & Procedures (“Rules”) of NSCC to modify its fee schedule, as more fully described below.
In its filing with the Commission, NSCC 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. NSCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to revise NSCC's fee schedule (as listed in Addendum A of the Rules) in order to implement a fee for a new service being added to NSCC's Obligation Warehouse (“OW”). The new service, which will be implemented in March 2014, will pair off and close certain open, pending obligations, reducing the number of open obligations in OW (“OW Pair Off service”).
The proposed rules change will be implemented on a date announced by an NSCC Important Notice, to coincide with the effective date of the OW Pair Off service.
NSCC proposes to amend Addendum A as marked on Exhibit 5 hereto. No other changes to the Rules are contemplated by this proposed rule change.
The proposed rule change will align NSCC's fees with the costs of delivering the OW Pair Off service, and will be applied equitably to the NSCC members that use that service. Therefore, NSCC believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to NSCC, in particular Section 17A(b)(3)(D) of the Act,
NSCC does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition. As stated above, the proposed change will be applied equitably to the NSCC members that use the OW Pair Off service, and will not disproportionally impact any NSCC members.
Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not yet been solicited or received. NSCC will notify the Commission of any written comments received by NSCC.
The forgoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File No. SR–NSCC–2014–01 and should be submitted on or before March 21, 2014.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice.
As authorized by 46 U.S.C. 12121, the Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before March 31, 2014.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD–2014–0025. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M–30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Linda Williams, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23–453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202–366–0903, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel KOUKLA is:
The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD–2014–0025 at
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice.
As authorized by 46 U.S.C. 12121, the Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before March 31, 2014.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD–2014–0023. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M–30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Linda Williams, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23–453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202–366–0903, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel PISTOLERO is:
The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD–2014–0023 at
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice.
As authorized by 46 U.S.C. 12121, the Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before March 31, 2014.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD–2014–0026. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M–30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Linda Williams, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23–453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202–366–0903, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel NASHA III is:
The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD–2014–0026 at
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice.
As authorized by 46 U.S.C. 12121, the Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before March 31, 2014.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD–2014–0024.
Linda Williams, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23–453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202–366–0903, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel C23 is:
The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD–2014–0024 at
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Central Maine & Quebec Railway U.S. Inc. (CMQR),
MMA and MMA's Canadian affiliate, Montreal Maine & Atlantic Canada Co. (MMA Canada) filed bankruptcy petitions with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maine and the Superior Court for the Province of Quebec, District of Montreal, respectively, on August 7, 2013, following a rail accident in Lac Mégantic, Que., on July 6, 2013. Since that time, the rail business of MMA and MMA Canada has been operated under the oversight of Robert J. Keach, the Chapter 11 Trustee in the MMA bankruptcy proceeding.
On December 12, 2013, RAH entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement (Agreement) with Trustee Keach, MMA, and MMA Canada, pursuant to which RAH agreed to purchase certain rail assets of both MMA and MMA Canada. Thereafter, both the U.S. Bankruptcy Court and the Quebec Superior Court issued final orders approving the sale of the rail assets of MMA and MMA Canada to RAH.
The purpose of the proposed transaction is to restore and preserve rail service on and over the rail lines of the bankrupt MMA located in Maine and Vermont. Although MMA has continued to provide certain rail services while in bankruptcy, east-west through service between points in Quebec and points in Maine has not been available to shippers since the Lac Mégantic disaster. CMQR and CMQR Canada will provide rail service over the entire pre-bankruptcy rail network of MMA and MMA Canada.
This transaction is related to a concurrently filed verified notice of exemption in
CMQR has certified that its projected annual revenues as a result of this transaction will not result in CMQR's becoming a Class II or Class I rail carrier, but that its projected annual revenues will exceed $5 million. Accordingly, CMQR is required, at least
CMQR states that it intends to consummate the transaction as soon as practicable after the effective date of this exemption. The Board will establish in a separate decision on the waiver request the earliest date that this transaction may be consummated.
If the notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 35805 must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423–0001. In addition, one copy of each pleading must be served on Robert J. Keach, Esq. (as Trustee for MMA), c/o Bernstein, Shur, Sawyer & Nelson, P.A., 100 Middle Street, Portland, ME 04104–5029, and on Terence M. Hynes, Sidley Austin LLP, 1501 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20005.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Fortress Investment Group LLC (Fortress Investment) has filed a verified notice of exemption pursuant to 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(2), for the benefit of an investment fund managed by an affiliate of Fortress Investment, Fortress Worldwide Transportation and Infrastructure General Partnership (Fortress Worldwide), to continue in control of Central Maine & Quebec Railway US Inc. (CMQR), a noncarrier, upon CMQR's becoming a Class III railroad.
This transaction is related to a concurrently filed verified notice of exemption in
The purpose of this verified notice of exemption and the concurrently filed one in Docket No. FD 35805 is to restore and preserve rail service on and over the rail lines of the bankrupt MMA located in Maine and Vermont. Although MMA has continued to provide certain rail services while in bankruptcy, east-west through service between points in Quebec and points in Maine has not been available to shippers since the July 2013 Lac Mégantic rail accident in Quebec. CMQR and CMQR Canada will provide rail service over the entire pre-bankruptcy rail network of MMA and MMA Canada.
The parties intend to consummate the proposed transaction as soon as practicable after the effective date of this notice of exemption and the concurrent notice of exemption filed in Docket No. FD 35805.
Fortress Investment notes that another rail carrier subject to the Board's jurisdiction, Florida East Coast Railway, L.L.C. (FECR), is currently owned by FECR Rail Holding LLC, which is, in turn, owned by investment funds managed by an affiliate of Fortress Investment. FECR, a Class II carrier, operates approximately 350 miles of rail lines in Florida extending between Jacksonville and the Miami metropolitan area.
Fortress Investment represents that: (1) The railroads would not connect with each other or any railroads in its corporate family; (2) the continuance in control is not part of a series of anticipated transactions that would connect CMQR's rail lines with the lines of any other rail carrier owned by Fortress Investment or any investment fund managed by any affiliate of Fortress Investment; and (3) the transaction does not involve a Class I rail carrier. Therefore, the transaction is exempt from the prior approval requirements of 49 U.S.C. 11323.
Under 49 U.S.C. 10502(g), the Board may not use its exemption authority to relieve a rail carrier of its statutory obligation to protect the interests of its employees. As a condition to the use of this exemption, any employees adversely affected by this transaction will be protected by the conditions set forth in
If the notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 35806 must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423–0001. In addition, one copy of each pleading must be served on Terence M. Hynes, Sidley Austin LLP, 1501 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20005, and on Robert J. Keach, Esq. (as Trustee for MMA), c/o Bernstein, Shur, Sawyer & Nelson, P.A., 100 Middle Street, Portland, ME 04104–5029.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
By the Board.
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13, on or after the date of publication of this notice.
Comments should be received on or before March 31, 2014 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Treasury, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or email at
Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 927–5331, email at
Proposed collection; comment request.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) Fund, Department of the Treasury, is soliciting comments concerning the Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery.
Written comments should be received on or before April 29, 2014 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all comments to Brette Fishman, Management Analyst, at the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, U.S. Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20020 by email to
Requests for additional information should be directed to
Feedback collected under this generic clearance will provide useful information, but it will not yield data that can be generalized to the overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such data uses require more rigorous designs that address: The target population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame, the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing potential non-response bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior fielding the study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for other generic
Public Law 104–13.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The OCC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on a continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
Under the PRA, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
In accordance with the requirements of the PRA, the OCC may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
The OCC is soliciting comment concerning the renewal of its information collection titled, “Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery.”
Comments must be submitted on or before April 29, 2014.
Because paper mail in the Washington, DC area and at the OCC is subject to delay, commenters are encouraged to submit comments by email if possible. Comments may be sent to: Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Attention: 1557–0248, 400 7th Street SW., Suite 3E–218, Mail Stop 9W–11, Washington, DC 20219. In addition, comments may be sent by fax to (571) 465–4326 or by electronic mail to
All comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Do not enclose any information in your comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.
You can request additional information or a copy of the collection from Johnny Vilela or Mary H. Gottlieb, OCC Clearance Officers, (202) 649–5490, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20219.
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the OMB for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) to include agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
The OCC is proposing to extend OMB approval of the following information collection:
The solicitation of feedback targets areas such as timeliness, appropriateness, accuracy of information, courtesy, efficiency of service delivery, and resolution of issues with service delivery. The information generated through the responses is used to inform and plan efforts to improve or maintain the quality of service offered to the public. If this information is not collected, the OCC will not have access to vital feedback from customers and stakeholders.
The OCC will submit a collection for approval under this generic clearance only if it meets the following conditions:
• The collections are voluntary;
• The collections are low-burden for respondents (based on considerations of total burden hours, total number of respondents, or burden-hours per respondent) and are low-cost for both the respondents and the Federal Government;
• The collections are non-controversial and do not raise issues of concern to other Federal agencies;
• Any collection is targeted to the solicitation of opinions from respondents who have experience with the program or may have experience with the program in the near future;
• Personally identifiable information (PII) is collected only to the extent necessary and is not retained;
• Information gathered is intended to be used only internally for general service improvement and program management purposes and is not intended for release outside of the agency (if released, the agency must indicate the qualitative nature of the information);
• Information gathered will not be used for the purpose of substantially informing influential policy decisions; and
• Information gathered will yield qualitative information, meaning that the collections will not be designed or expected to yield statistically reliable results or used to reach general conclusions about the population of study.
Feedback collected under this generic clearance provides useful information, but it does not yield data that can be attributed to the overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such data uses require more rigorous designs to identify: The target population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame, the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing potential non-response bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior to conducting the study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative results.
As a general matter, information collections will not result in any new system of records containing privacy information and will not ask questions of a sensitive nature.
The OCC used this collection twice in 2013 to obtain feedback from vendors following OCC outreach sessions. It allowed OCC business units to solicit feedback from participants at outreach events, access the participants' experiences, and make adjustments to future outreach events. Specifically, it allowed the OCC to generate Congressional reports on the “successes achieved and challenges faced by the agency in operating minority and women outreach programs.” 12 U.S.C. 5452(e).
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on:
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the OCC, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the OCC's estimate of the burden of the information collection;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e) Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury.
Notice and request for comment.
The OCC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on a continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
Under the PRA, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
In accordance with the requirements of the PRA, the OCC may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
The OCC is soliciting comment concerning renewal of its information collection titled, “Capital Adequacy Standards.”
Comments must be submitted on or before April 29, 2014.
Because paper mail in the Washington, DC area and at the OCC is subject to delay, commenters are encouraged to submit comments by email if possible. Comments may be sent to: Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Attention: 1557–0318, 400 7th Street SW., Suite 3E–218, Mail Stop 9W–11, Washington, DC 20219. In addition, comments may be sent by fax to (571) 465–4326 or by electronic mail to
All comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Do not enclose any information in your comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.
You may request additional information or a copy of the collection from Johnny Vilela or Mary H. Gottlieb, OCC Clearance Officers, (202) 649–5490, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW., Suite 3E–218, Mail Stop 9W–11, Washington, DC 20219.
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from OMB for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) to include agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
In connection with issuance of the Basel III final rule,
Twelve CFR Part 3 sets forth the OCC's minimum capital requirements and overall capital adequacy standards for national banks and Federal savings associations.
Section 3.3(c) allows for the recognition of netting across multiple types of transactions or agreements if the institution obtains a written legal opinion verifying the validity and enforceability of the agreement under certain circumstances and maintains sufficient written documentation of this legal review.
Section 3.22(h)(2)(iii)(A) permits the use of a conservative estimate of the amount of an institution's investment in its own capital or the capital of unconsolidated financial institutions held through the index security with prior approval by the OCC.
Section 3.35(b)(3)(i)(A) requires, for a cleared transaction with a qualified central counterparty (QCCP), that a client bank apply a risk weight of two percent, provided that the collateral posted by the bank to the QCCP is subject to certain arrangements and the client bank has conducted a sufficient legal review (and maintains sufficient written documentation of the legal review) to conclude with a well-founded basis that the arrangements, in the event of a legal challenge, would be found to be legal, valid, binding, and enforceable under the law of the relevant jurisdictions.
Section 3.37(c)(4)(i)(E), regarding collateralized transactions, requires that a bank have policies and procedures in place describing how it determines the period of significant financial stress used to calculate its own internal estimates for haircuts and be able to provide empirical support for the period used.
Section 3.41(b)(3) which sets forth operational requirements for securitization exposures, allows the national bank or Federal savings association to recognize for risk-based capital purposes, in the case of synthetic securitizations, a credit risk mitigant to hedge underlying exposures if certain conditions are met, including a requirement that the national bank or Federal savings association obtain a well-reasoned opinion from legal counsel that confirms the enforceability of the credit risk mitigant in all relevant jurisdictions.
Section 3.41(c)(2)(i) requires that a national bank or Federal savings association demonstrate its comprehensive understanding of a securitization exposure by conducting and documenting an analysis of the risk characteristics of each securitization exposure prior to its acquisition, taking into account a number of specified considerations.
If a national bank or Federal savings association provides non-contractual support to a securitization, § 3.42(e)(2), regarding risk-weighted assets for securitization exposures, requires that a national bank or Federal savings association to publicly disclose that is has provided implicit support to a securitization and the risk-based capital impact to the bank of providing such implicit support.
Section 3.62 sets forth disclosure requirements related to the capital requirements of a national bank or Federal savings association. These requirements apply to a national bank or Federal savings association with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more that is not a consolidated subsidiary of an entity that is itself subject to Basel III disclosures. Section 3.62(a) requires quarterly disclosure of information in the applicable tables in section 3.63 and, if a significant change occurs, such that the most recent reported amounts are no longer reflective of the institution's capital adequacy and risk profile, section 3.62(a) requires the national bank or Federal savings association to disclose as soon as practicable thereafter, a brief discussion of the change and its likely impact. Section 3.62(a) permits annual disclosure of qualitative information that typically does not change each quarter, provided that any significant changes are disclosed in the interim. Section 3.62(b) requires that a national bank or Federal savings association have a formal disclosure policy approved by the board of directors that addresses its approach for determining the disclosures it makes. The policy must address the associated internal controls and disclosure controls and procedures. Section 3.62(c) permits a national bank or Federal savings association to disclose more general information about certain subjects if the national bank or Federal savings association concludes that the specific commercial or financial information required to be disclosed under § 3.62 is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), and national bank or Federal savings association provides the reason the specific items of information have not been disclosed.
Section 3.63 sets forth the specific disclosure requirements for a non-advanced approaches national bank or Federal savings association with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more that is not a consolidated subsidiary of an entity that is itself subject to Basel III disclosure requirements. Section 3.63(a) requires those institutions to make the disclosures in Tables 1 through 10 to § 3.63 and in § 3.63(b) for each of the last three years beginning on the effective date of the rule. Section 3.63(b) requires quarterly disclosure of an institution's common equity tier 1 capital, additional tier 1 capital, tier 2 capital, tier 1 and total capital ratios, including the regulatory capital elements and all the regulatory
Section 3.121 requires a national bank or Federal savings association subject to the advanced approaches risk-based capital requirements to adopt a written implementation plan to address how it will comply with the advanced capital adequacy framework's qualification requirements and also develop and maintain a comprehensive and sound planning and governance process to oversee the implementation efforts described in the plan. Section 3.122 further requires these institutions to: develop processes for assessing capital adequacy in relation to an organization's risk profile; establish and maintain internal risk rating and segmentation systems for wholesale and retail risk exposures, including comprehensive risk parameter quantification processes and processes for annual reviews and analyses of reference data to determine their relevance; document its process for identifying, measuring, monitoring, controlling, and internally reporting operational risk; verify the accurate and timely reporting of risk-based capital requirements; and monitor, validate, and refine its advanced systems.
Section 3.123 sets forth ongoing qualification requirements that require an institution to notify the OCC of any material change to an advance system and to establish and submit to the OCC a plan for returning to compliance with the qualification requirements.
Section 3.124 requires a national bank of Federal savings association to submit to the OCC, within 90 days of consummating a merger or acquisition, an implementation plan for using its advanced systems for the merged or acquired company.
Section 3.132(b)(2)(iii)(A) addresses counterparty credit risk of repo-style transactions, eligible margin loans, and over-the-counter (OTC) derivative contracts, and internal estimates for haircuts. With the prior written approval of the OCC, an institution may calculate haircuts (H
Section 3.132(b)(3) covers counterparty credit risk of repo-style transactions, eligible margin loans, and OTC derivative contracts, and simple Value-at-Risk (VaR) methodology. With the prior written approval of the OCC, a national bank or Federal savings association may estimate exposure at default (EAD) for a netting set using a VaR model that meets certain requirements.
Section 3.132(d)(1) permits the use of the internal models methodology (IMM) to determine EAD for counterparty credit risk for derivative contracts with prior written approval from the OCC. Section 3.132(d)(1)(iii) permits the use of the internal models methodology for derivative contracts, eligible margin loans, and repo-style transactions subject to a qualifying cross-product netting agreement with prior written approval from the OCC.
Section 3.132(d)(2)(iv) addresses counterparty credit risk of repo-style transactions, eligible margin loans, and OTC derivative contracts, and risk-weighted assets using IMM. Under the IMM, an institution uses an internal model to estimate the expected exposure (EE) for a netting set and then calculates EAD based on that EE. An institution must calculate two EEs and two EADs (one stressed and one unstressed) for each netting as outlined in this section. A national bank or Federal savings association may use a conservative measure of EAD subject to prior written approval of the OCC.
Section 3.132(d)(3)(vi) addresses counterparty credit risk of repo-style transactions, eligible margin loans, and OTC derivative contracts. To obtain OCC approval to calculate the distributions of exposures upon which the EAD calculation is based, a national bank or Federal savings association must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the OCC that it has been using for at least one year an internal model that broadly meets the minimum standards, with which the institution must maintain compliance. The institution must have procedures to identify, monitor, and control wrong-way risk throughout the life of an exposure and they must include stress testing and scenario analysis.
Section 3.132(d)(3)(viii) addresses counterparty credit risk of repo-style transactions, eligible margin loans, and OTC derivative contracts. When estimating model parameters based on a stress period, a national bank or Federal savings association must use at least three years of historical data that include a period of stress to the credit default spreads of the institution's counterparties. The institution must review the data set and update the data as necessary, particularly for any material changes in its counterparties. The institution must demonstrate at least quarterly that the stress period coincides with increased credit default swap (CDS) or other credit spreads of the institution's counterparties. The institution must have procedures to evaluate the effectiveness of its stress calibration that include a process for using benchmark portfolios that are vulnerable to the same risk factors as the institution's portfolio. The OCC may require the institution to modify its stress calibration to better reflect actual historic losses of the portfolio.
Section 3.132(d)(3)(ix), regarding counterparty credit risk of repo-style transactions, eligible margin loans, and OTC derivative contracts, requires that an institution must subject its internal model to an initial validation and annual model review process that includes consideration of whether the inputs and risk factors, as well as the model outputs, are appropriate. The section requires national banks and Federal savings associations to have a backtesting program for its model that includes a process by which unacceptable model performance will be determined and remedied.
Section 3.132(d)(3)(x), regarding counterparty credit risk of repo-style transactions, eligible margin loans, and OTC derivative contracts, provides that an national bank or Federal savings association must have policies for the measurement, management, and control of collateral and margin amounts.
Section 3.132(d)(3)(xi), concerning counterparty credit risk of repo-style transactions, eligible margin loans, and OTC derivative contracts, states that an institution must have a comprehensive stress testing program that captures all credit exposures to counterparties, and incorporates stress testing of principal market risk factors and creditworthiness of counterparties.
Section 3.141 relates to operational criteria for recognizing the transfer of risk in connection with a securitization. Section 3.141(b)(3) requires a national bank or Federal savings association to obtain a well-reasoned legal opinion confirming the enforceability of the credit risk mitigant in all relevant jurisdictions in order to recognize the transference of risk in connection with a synthetic securitization. An institution must demonstrate its comprehensive understanding of a securitization exposure under § 3.141(c)(2) for each securitization exposure by conducting an analysis of the risk characteristics of a securitization exposure prior to acquiring the exposure and document such analysis within three business days after acquiring the exposure. Sections 3.141(c)(2)(i) and (ii) require that institutions, on an on-going basis (at least quarterly), evaluate, review, and update as appropriate the analysis required under this section for each securitization exposure.
Section 3.142(h)(2), regarding the capital treatment for securitization exposures, requires a national bank or Federal savings association to disclose publicly if it has provided implicit support to a securitization and the regulatory capital impact to the institution of providing such implicit support.
Section 3.153(b), outlining the Internal Models Approach (IMA) for calculating risk-weighted assets for equity exposures, specifies that a national bank or Federal savings association must receive prior written approval from the OCC before it can use IMA.
Section 3.172 specifies that each advanced approaches national bank or Federal savings association that has completed the parallel run process must publicly disclose its total and tier 1 risk-based capital ratios and their components.
Section 3.173 addresses disclosures by an advanced approaches national bank or Federal savings association that is not a consolidated subsidiary of an equity that is subject to the Basel III disclosure requirements. An advanced approaches institution that is subject to the disclosure requirements must make the disclosures described in Tables 1 through 12. The institution must make these disclosures publicly available for each of the last three years (that is, twelve quarters) or such shorter period beginning on the effective date of this subpart E.
The tables to section 3.173 require qualitative and quantitative public disclosures for capital structure, capital adequacy, capital conservation and countercyclical buffers, credit risk, securitization, operational risk, equities not subject to the market risk capital requirements, and interest rate risk for non-trading activities.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on:
(a) Whether the collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the OCC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the OCC's estimates of the burden of the information collections, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of information collections on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This notice requests comments on all forms used by individual taxpayers: Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, and Schedules A, B, C, C–EZ, D, E, EIC, F, H, J, R, and SE; Form 1040A; Form 1040EZ; Form 1040NR; Form 1040NR–EZ; Form 1040X; and all attachments to these forms (see the Appendix to this notice).
Written comments should be received on or before April 29, 2014 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to The OMB Unit, SE:W:CAR:MP:T:T:SP, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Under the PRA, OMB assigns a control number to each “collection of information” that it reviews and approves for use by an agency. The PRA also requires agencies to estimate the burden for each collection of information. Burden estimates for each control number are displayed in (1) PRA notices that accompany collections of information, (2)
The Individual Taxpayer Burden Model (ITBM) estimates burden experienced by individual taxpayers when complying with Federal tax laws and incorporates results from a survey of tax year 2011 individual taxpayers, conducted in 2012 and 2013. The approach to measuring burden focuses on the characteristics and activities undertaken by individual taxpayers in meeting their tax return filing obligations.
Burden is defined as the time and out-of-pocket costs incurred by taxpayers in complying with the Federal tax system and are estimated separately. Out-of-pocket costs include any expenses incurred by taxpayers to prepare and submit their tax returns. Examples include tax return preparation fees, the purchase price of tax preparation software, submission fees, photocopying costs, postage, and phone calls (if not toll-free).
The methodology distinguishes among preparation method, taxpayer activities, taxpayer type, filing method, and income level. Indicators of tax law and administrative complexity, as reflected in the tax forms and instructions, are incorporated into the model.
Preparation methods reflected in the model are as follows:
• Self-prepared without software,
• Self-prepared with software, and
• Use of a paid preparer or tax professional.
Types of taxpayer activities reflected in the model are as follows:
• Recordkeeping,
• Tax planning,
• Gathering tax materials,
• Use of services (IRS and other),
• Form completion, and
• Form submission.
Summary level results using this methodology are presented in Table 1 below. The data shown are the best forward-looking estimates available for income tax returns filed for tax year 2013.
Table 1 shows burden estimates based on current statutory requirements as of November 21, 2013 for taxpayers filing a 2013 Form 1040, 1040A, or 1040EZ tax return. Time spent and out-of-pocket costs are presented separately. Time burden is broken out by taxpayer activity, with record keeping representing the largest component. Out-of-pocket costs include any expenses incurred by taxpayers to prepare and submit their tax returns. Examples include tax return preparation and submission fees, postage and photocopying costs, and tax preparation software costs. While these estimates do not include burden associated with post-filing activities, IRS operational data indicate that electronically prepared and filed returns have fewer arithmetic errors, implying lower post-filing burden.
Reported time and cost burdens are national averages and do not necessarily reflect a “typical” case. Most taxpayers experience lower than average burden, with taxpayer burden varying considerably by taxpayer type. For instance, the estimated average time burden for all taxpayers filing a Form 1040, 1040A, or 1040EZ is 12 hours, with an average cost of $210 per return. This average includes all associated forms and schedules, across all preparation methods and taxpayer activities. The average burden for taxpayers filing Form 1040 is about 15 hours and $280; the average burden for taxpayers filing Form 1040A is about 7 hours and $90; and the average for Form 1040EZ filers is about 4 hours and $30.
Within each of these estimates there is significant variation in taxpayer activity. For example, non-business taxpayers are expected to have an average burden of about 7 hours and $120, while business taxpayers are expected to have an average burden of about 24 hours and $430. Similarly, tax preparation fees and other out-of-pocket costs vary extensively depending on the tax situation of the taxpayer, the type of software or professional preparer used, and the geographic location.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Communications Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Thursday, March 27, 2014, through Friday, March 28, 2014.
Ellen Smiley or Patti Robb at 1–888–912–1227 or 414–231–2360.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Communications Project Committee will be held Thursday, March 27, 2014, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., and Friday, March 28, 2014, from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Notification of intent to participate must be made with Ms. Ellen Smiley or Ms. Patti Robb. For more information please contact Ms. Smiley or Ms. Robb at 1–888–912–1227 or 414–231–2360, or write TAP Office Stop 1006MIL, 211 West Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53203–2221, or post comments to the Web site:
The committee will be discussing various issues related to Taxpayer Communications and public input is welcome.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Toll-Free Phone Line Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meetings will be held Monday, March 17, 2014 through Tuesday, March 18, 2014.
Linda Rivera at 1–888–912–1227 or (202) 317–3337.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Toll-Free Phone Line Project Committee will be held Monday, March 17, 2014, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. and Tuesday, March 18, 2014, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time. Notification of intent to participate must be made with Linda Rivera. For more information please contact: Ms. Rivera at 1–888–912–1227 or (202) 317–3337, or write TAP Office, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 1509–National Office, Washington, DC 20224, or contact us at the Web site:
The committee will be discussing Toll-free issues and public input is welcomed.
Notification of Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee March 10–11, 2014, public meeting.
Pursuant to United States Code, Title 31, section 5135(b)(8)(C), the United States Mint announces the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee (CCAC) public meeting scheduled for March 10–11, 2014.
Date: March 10–11, 2014.
Time: March 10 1:00 p.m. to 4:45 p.m.
March 11 9:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
Location: Conference Room A, United States Mint, 801 9th Street NW., Washington, DC 20220.
Subject: Review and discussion of candidate designs for the 2015 and 2016 Native American $1 Coin Program, 2015 and 2016 Presidential $1 Coin Program, First Special Service Force Congressional Gold Medal, and 2015 United States Marshals Service 225th Anniversary Commemorative Coin Program.
In accordance with 31 U.S.C. 5135, the CCAC:
Advises the Secretary of the Treasury on any theme or design proposals relating to circulating coinage, bullion coinage, Congressional Gold Medals, and national and other medals.
Advises the Secretary of the Treasury with regard to the events, persons, or places to be commemorated by the issuance of commemorative coins in each of the five calendar years succeeding the year in which a commemorative coin designation is made.
Makes recommendations with respect to the mintage level for any commemorative coin recommended.
William Norton, United States Mint Liaison to the CCAC; 801 9th Street NW., Washington, DC 20220; or call 202–354–7200.
Any member of the public interested in submitting matters for the CCAC's consideration is invited to submit them by fax to the following number: 202–756–6525.
31 U.S.C. 5135(b)(8)(C).
Central Utah Project Completion Act, Interior; Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission.
Notice.
The Department of the Interior, Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission, and the Central Utah Water Conservancy District, as Joint Lead Agencies, have prepared and made available to the public a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) that discloses the effects of the Provo River Delta Restoration Project (Project) which is a recovery action within the approved June Sucker Recovery Plan of 1999.
Submit written comments on the DEIS on or before April 29, 2014. One or more public meetings will be held in association with the release of the DEIS allowing for public comment. Date(s), time(s), and location(s) of the meeting(s) will be mailed to interested parties and provided in the local media.
Send written comments on the DEIS and requests for copies to Mr. Richard Mingo, Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission, 230 South 500 East Suite 230, Salt Lake City, UT 84102; or by email to
Mr. Richard Mingo, 801–524–3146; or by email to
The Department of the Interior's Record of Decision for the Diamond Fork System Final Supplement to the Diamond Fork Power System Final Environmental Impact Statement, signed September 29, 1999, commits the Joint Lead Agencies to “. . . participate in the development of a Recovery Implementation Program for June sucker.” Moreover, “. . . [a]ny future development of the Bonneville Unit of CUP [Central Utah Project] will be contingent on the RIP [June Sucker Recovery Implementation Program (JSRIP)] making `sufficient progress' towards recovery of June sucker.” The Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission signed its own Record of Decision for the Diamond Fork System Project on November 19, 1999. The JSRIP was established in 2002, and the Joint Lead Agencies are participants. The goals of the JSRIP are to recover June sucker so that it no longer requires protection under the Endangered Species Act and allow continued operation of existing water facilities and future development of water resources for human uses within the Utah Lake Basin in Utah.
The June sucker exists naturally only in Utah Lake and spawns naturally only in the lower Provo River, a Utah Lake tributary. Monitoring indicates young June sucker hatching in the lower Provo River do not survive to the adult stage. Monitoring shows that first-year fish do not survive due to habitat inadequacies in the lower Provo River and its interface with Utah Lake related to flow, food supply, and shelter. A compounding factor is likely predation by nonnative fishes. Dredging and channelization for flood control has eliminated the shallow, warm, complex wetland habitat at the mouth of the Provo River where it entered Utah Lake.
The Project would restore the lower Provo River to a more natural deltaic ecosystem. The delta and associated habitat would provide needed habitat for the recovery of the endangered June sucker. These improvements would be accomplished through the implementation of one or any combination of the action alternatives or options analyzed in the DEIS.
The Project has been identified as an essential action needed to recover the endangered June sucker. It would restore functional habitat conditions in the lower Provo River and its interface with Utah Lake that are needed for spawning, hatching, larval transport, survival, rearing and recruitment of young into the population on a self-sustaining basis.
The purposes of the Project are to:
• Implement the specific criteria of the June Sucker Recovery Plan to restore a naturally functioning Provo River delta ecosystem essential for recruitment of June sucker;
• Provide recreational improvements and opportunities associated with the Project;
• Adopt flow regime targets for the lower Provo River and provide delivery of supplemental water to the lower Provo River, including additional conserved water.
A Notice of Intent to prepare the Provo River Delta Restoration Project DEIS was published in the
This alternative considers the consequences of taking “no action” with respect to the purpose and need of the Project. Under the No Action Alternative, the planned Project would not be implemented, but remaining actions in the June Sucker Recovery Plan and JSRIP would proceed as planned, subject to National Environmental Policy Act compliance as appropriate. Private lands would not be acquired for the Project.
Alternative A would maximize the available rearing and spawning habitat for June sucker. The acquisition boundary for this alternative encompasses 507.3 acres.
Alternative B was developed with substantial involvement from study area landowners and other stakeholders. It is the agency preferred alternative. It would reduce the amount of private land required for the Project and preserve the highest-value agricultural land, while still meeting June sucker spawning and rearing habitat improvement needs. The acquisition boundary for this alternative encompasses 310.3 acres.
Alternative C would exclude most of the existing peat wetlands located on the east and north sides of the Project area from restoration activities but, as a consequence, would be constructed on the higher-value agricultural lands. Alternative C would meet June sucker spawning and rearing habitat improvement needs for the Project by using lands to the south of these wetlands. The acquisition boundary for
Two options were considered for use of the existing Provo River Channel. Either of the two options could be paired with any of the three action alternatives. Option 1 would leave the existing Provo River Channel open to Utah Lake, allowing for fluctuating water levels at various times of the year. Option 2 would maintain the existing channel at a relatively constant elevation by constructing a small dam at the downstream mouth of the channel near Utah Lake State Park. Under both options, an aeration system would be installed and operated to improve water quality and a minimum flow of 10 cubic feet per second would be provided to the existing Provo River channel which would be retained and managed for recreational and aesthetic purposes.
The purpose of the public meeting(s) is to provide the public and other interested parties the opportunity to ask questions and provide comment to the Joint Lead Agencies. The format of the meeting(s) will be an open-house type format.
Written comments should be received no later than 60 days following publication of the Notice of Availability in the
Copies of the DEIS are available for review and inspection at:
• Department of the Interior, Central Utah Project Completion Act Office, 302 East 1860 South, Provo, Utah 84606–7317–2045.
• Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission, 230 South 500 East Suite 230, Salt Lake City, Utah 84102.
• Central Utah Water Conservancy District, 355 West University Parkway, Orem, Utah 84058–7303.
• Provo City Public Library, 550 North University Avenue, Provo, Utah 84601.
• Salt Lake City Public Library, 210 East 400 South, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before April 29, 2014.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Nancy J. Kessinger at (202) 632–8924 or FAX (202) 632–8925.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13; 44 U.S.C. 3501–3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.
National Cemetery Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–21), this notice announces that the National Cemetery Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden and includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before March 31, 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.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs (VA) established the Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses Task Force (GWVI–TF) in August 2009 to focus on full spectrum health care and benefits issues faced by Veterans of the 1990–1991 Gulf War (Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm). The GWVI–TF published its first annual report in September 2010.
The GWVI–TF posted a draft of its 2012–13 report for public comment on May 14, 2013. VA published the report in the
VA has completed its 2012–13 Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses Task Force Report. The GWVI–TF reviewed all the comments submitted, and addressed in this report those comments that were directly responsive to the draft report. Comments specifically addressed in this report are annotated accordingly. The comments that were not directly responsive to the draft report will serve as guidance for the VA to consider as it moves forward.
Finally, there were a number of individual requests for assistance. Those that contained sufficient specific information were referred to appropriate VA offices for action. Those that were not specific enough or were anonymously submitted will serve as background for consideration on areas for the VA to study in the future.
The 2012–13 Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses Task Force Report is available on the VA Web site at:
Col. Patrick Picardo, GWVI–TF Secretary, OSVA, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, at
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 January 27, 2014, for publication.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice.
This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for use to assist the homeless.
Juanita Perry, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 7266, Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 402–3970; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708–2565 (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 800–927–7588.
In accordance with 24 CFR part 581 and section 501 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11411), as amended, HUD is publishing this Notice to identify Federal buildings and other real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. The properties were reviewed using information provided to HUD by Federal landholding agencies regarding unutilized and underutilized buildings and real property controlled by such agencies or by GSA regarding its inventory of excess or surplus Federal property. This Notice is also published in order to comply with the December 12, 1988 Court Order in
Properties reviewed are listed in this Notice according to the following categories: Suitable/available, suitable/unavailable, and suitable/to be excess, and unsuitable. The properties listed in the three suitable categories have been reviewed by the landholding agencies, and each agency has transmitted to HUD: (1) Its intention to make the property available for use to assist the homeless, (2) its intention to declare the property excess to the agency's needs, or (3) a statement of the reasons that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use as facilities to assist the homeless.
Properties listed as suitable/available will be available exclusively for homeless use for a period of 60 days from the date of this Notice. Where property is described as for “off-site use only” recipients of the property will be required to relocate the building to their own site at their own expense. Homeless assistance providers interested in any such property should send a written expression of interest to HHS, addressed to Theresa Ritta, Office of Enterprise Support Programs, Program Support Center, HHS, Room 12–07, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857; (301) 443–2265. (This is not a toll-free number.) HHS will mail to the interested provider an application packet, which will include instructions for completing the application. In order to maximize the opportunity to utilize a suitable property, providers should submit their written expressions of interest as soon as possible. For complete details concerning the processing of applications, the reader is encouraged to refer to the interim rule governing this program, 24 CFR part 581.
For properties listed as suitable/to be excess, that property may, if subsequently accepted as excess by GSA, be made available for use by the homeless in accordance with applicable law, subject to screening for other Federal use. At the appropriate time, HUD will publish the property in a Notice showing it as either suitable/available or suitable/unavailable.
For properties listed as suitable/unavailable, the landholding agency has decided that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use to assist the homeless, and the property will not be available.
Properties listed as unsuitable will not be made available for any other purpose for 20 days from the date of this Notice. Homeless assistance providers interested in a review by HUD of the determination of unsuitability should call the toll free information line at 1–800–927–7588 for detailed instructions or write a letter to Ann Marie Oliva at the address listed at the beginning of this Notice. Included in the request for review should be the property address (including zip code), the date of publication in the
For more information regarding particular properties identified in this Notice (i.e., acreage, floor plan, existing sanitary facilities, exact street address), providers should contact the appropriate landholding agencies at the following addresses:
Dated: February 13, 2014.
Comments:
Reasons: Within 2000 ft. of flammable or explosive material; Secured Area