Forest Service
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Presidential Documents
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office
Employment and Training Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Transit Administration
Maritime Administration
Surface Transportation Board
Comptroller of the Currency
Foreign Assets Control Office
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this page for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board.
Final rule.
This regulation implements the authority established under the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (DCIA) for the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board (Agency) to order a non-Federal employer to withhold up to 15 percent of an employee's disposable income to pay a non-tax delinquent debt owed to the Agency or Thrift Savings Fund.
This rule is effective May 27, 2014 without further action, unless adverse comment is received by May 23, 2014. If adverse comment is received, the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board will publish a timely withdrawal of the rule in the
You may submit comments using one of the following methods:
• Mail: Office of General Counsel, Attn: James B. Petrick, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, 77 K Street NE., Washington, DC 20002.
• Hand Delivery/Courier: The address for sending comments by hand delivery or courier is the same as that for submitting comments by mail.
• Facsimile: Comments may be submitted by facsimile at (202) 942–1676.
The most helpful comments explain the reason for any recommended change and include data, information, and the authority that supports the recommended change.
Ryan R. Montgomery at 202–942–1661.
The Agency administers the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP), which was established by the Federal Employees' Retirement System Act of 1986 (FERSA), Public Law 99–335, 100 Stat. 514. The TSP provisions of FERSA are codified, as amended, largely at 5 U.S.C. 8351 and 8401–79. The TSP is a tax-deferred retirement savings plan for Federal civilian employees and members of the uniformed services. The TSP is similar to cash or deferred arrangements established for private-sector employees under section 401(k) of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. 401(k)).
In 1996, Congress enacted the Debt Collection Improvement Act (Pub. L. 104–134, 110 Stat. 1321–1358, approved April 26, 1996), which amended the Debt Collection Act of 1982. Section 31001(o) of the DCIA authorizes collection of Federal agency debt by administrative wage garnishment (section 31001(o) is codified at 31 U.S.C. 3720D). Wage garnishment is a legal process whereby an employer withholds amounts from an employee's wages and pays those amounts to the employee's creditor in satisfaction of a withholding order. The DCIA authorizes Federal agencies to withhold up to 15 percent of an employee's disposable income to pay a non-tax delinquent debt owed to the agency. Prior to the enactment of the DCIA, agencies were required to obtain a court judgment before garnishing the wages of non-Federal employees.
The DCIA directed the Secretary of the Treasury to issue implementing regulations (see 31 U.S.C. 3720D(h)) on this subject. On May 6, 1998 (63 FR 25136), the Department of the Treasury published a final rule implementing the statutory administrative wage garnishment requirements at 31 CFR 285.11. Paragraph (f)(1) of 31 CFR 285.11 provides that agencies prescribe regulations for the conduct of administrative wage garnishment hearings consistent with the section or adopt the section without change by reference.
This final rule amends the Agency's regulations at 5 CFR part 1639 to adopt 31 CFR 285.11 in its entirety. Specifically, the final rule establishes a new provision that contains a cross-reference to 31 CFR 285.11.
Readers should refer to the Department of the Treasury regulation at 31 CFR 285.11 for details regarding the administrative wage garnishment procedures that are adopted by this rule. For the convenience of readers, the following presents a very brief overview of the rules and procedures codified at 31 CFR 285.11.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The Agency has determined that implementation of this rule without prior notice and the opportunity for public comment is warranted because this rule is one of agency procedure and practice and therefore is exempt from notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A) and (B).
This final rule parallels the existing operational regulations of other agencies to effectuate the collection of non-tariff and nontax debts to implement 31 U.S.C. 3711. Because this rule parallels existing, long-standing rules that have already been subject to APA notice and comment procedures, we believe that publishing this rule with the usual notice and comment procedures is unnecessary. Accordingly, the Agency has determined that prior notice and public comment procedures would be unnecessary pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).
Because the Agency has determined that it may issue these rules without public comment, the Agency is also not required to publish any initial or final regulatory flexibility analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act as part of such action.
I certify that these regulations do not require additional reporting under the criteria of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 602, 632, 653, 1501–1571, the effects of this regulation on state, local, and tribal governments and the private sector have been assessed. This regulation will not compel the expenditure in any one year of $100 million or more by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector. Therefore, a statement under 1532 is not required.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 810(a)(1)(A), the Agency submitted a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States before publication of this rule in the
Claims, Government employees, Income taxes, Wages.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Agency amends 5 CFR chapter VI as follows:
5 U.S.C. 8474 and 31 U.S.C. 3711, 3716, 3720A, and 3720D.
The regulations of this part are issued under 5 U.S.C. 8474 and 31 U.S.C. 3711, 3716, 3720A, and 3720D.
(a)
(b) [Reserved]
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; accountability measure.
NMFS implements an accountability measure (AM) for recreational greater amberjack in the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) reef fish fishery for the 2014 fishing year through this temporary final rule. This rule reduces the Gulf greater amberjack 2014 recreational annual catch target (ACT) (equal to the recreational quota) to 862,512 lb (391,229 kg) and reduces the 2014 recreational annual catch limit (ACL) to 1,031,512 lb (467,886 kg), based on the 2013 recreational ACL overage. These actions are necessary to reduce overfishing of the Gulf greater amberjack resource.
This rule is effective April 23, 2014, through December 31, 2014.
Rich Malinowski, Southeast Regional Office, telephone 727–824–5305, email
The reef fish fishery of the Gulf, which includes greater amberjack, is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (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 Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). All
The Gulf greater amberjack recreational ACL is 1,299,000 lb (589,216 kg), and the recreational ACT (recreational quota) is 1,130,000 lb (512,559 kg), as specified in 50 CFR 622.41(a)(2)(iii) and 50 CFR 622.39(a)(2)(ii), respectively.
In accordance with regulations at 50 CFR 622.41(a)(2)(ii), if landings exceed the recreational ACL, then during the following fishing year, both the recreational ACT (recreational quota) and the recreational ACL will be reduced by the amount of the prior year's recreational ACL overage.
NMFS determined that the 2013 recreational landings were 1,566,488 lb (710,547 kg), which exceeded the 2013 recreational ACL of 1,299,000 lb (589,216 kg) by 267,488 lb (121,331 kg). Therefore, NMFS implements a post-season AM for recreational greater amberjack in the Gulf for the 2014 fishing year through this temporary rule. The reduced 2014 recreational ACT (recreational quota) for Gulf greater amberjack is 862,512 lb (391,229 kg) (
The 2015 recreational ACT (recreational quota) for greater amberjack will return to 1,130,000 lb (512,559 kg), as specified at 50 CFR 622.39(a)(2)(ii), and the recreational ACL for greater amberjack will return to 1,299,000 lb (589,216 kg), as specified in 50 CFR 622.41(a)(2)(iii), unless AMs are implemented due to a recreational ACL overage, or the Council takes subsequent regulatory action to adjust the recreational ACT (recreational quota) and recreational ACL.
The Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS, has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of Gulf greater amberjack and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.41(a)(2)(ii) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
These measures are exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the temporary rule is issued without opportunity for prior notice and comment.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this temporary rule. Such procedures are unnecessary because the AMs established by Amendment 35 to the FMP (77 FR 67574, November 13, 2013) and located at 50 CFR 622.41(a)(2)(ii) authorize the Assistant Administrator, NMFS, to file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register to reduce the recreational ACT (recreational quota) and recreational ACL the following fishing year when the recreational ACL is exceeded. The proposed rule for Amendment 35 (77 FR 42476, July 19, 2012) was already subject to notice and comment and all that remains is to notify the public of the 2014 recreational ACT (recreational quota) and recreational ACL for Gulf greater amberjack.
Allowing prior notice and opportunity for public comment is contrary to the public interest because of the need to immediately implement this action to protect the greater amberjack resource. Any delay in notification of the public of the 2014 recreational ACT (recreational quota) and recreational ACL could result in the recreational ACT or ACL for greater amberjack being exceeded, which, in turn, would trigger an in-season AM in 2014 or post-season AMs in 2015 for greater amberjack, respectively.
For the aforementioned reasons, the Assistant Administrator, NMFS, also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
16 U.S.C. 1801
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
Pursuant to the Board's regulations, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board is publishing its proposed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Fee Schedule Update and solicits comments from interested organizations and individual members of the public.
To be considered, comments must be mailed or delivered to the address listed below by 5:00 p.m. on or before May 23, 2014.
Comments on the proposed fee schedule should be mailed or delivered to the Office of the General Counsel, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004–2901. All comments will be placed in the Board's public files and will be available for inspection between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday (except on federal holidays), in the Board's Public Reading Room at the same address.
Mark T. Welch, General Manager, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004–2901, (202) 694–7060.
The FOIA requires each Federal agency covered by the Act to specify a schedule of fees applicable to processing of requests for agency records. 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(A)(i). Pursuant to 10 CFR 1703.107(b)(6) of the Board's regulations, the Board's General Manager will update the FOIA Fee Schedule once every 12 months. Previous Fee Schedule Updates were published in the
Accordingly, the Board proposes to establish the following schedule of updated fees for services performed in response to FOIA requests:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 747–100B SUD, 747–200B, 747–300, 747–400, 747–400D series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) indicating that the upper deck tension ties are subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections for cracking in the upper deck tension ties, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary; tension tie replacement; and post-replacement repetitive inspections for cracking in the upper deck tension ties, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the upper deck tension ties. Severed or disconnected tension ties at multiple locations could result in rapid decompression and loss of structural integrity of the airplane.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 9, 2014.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Nathan Weigand, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; phone: 425–917–6428; fax: 425–917–6590; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
Structural fatigue damage is progressive. It begins as minute cracks, and those cracks grow under the action of repeated stresses. This can happen because of normal operational conditions and design attributes, or because of isolated situations or incidents such as material defects, poor fabrication quality, or corrosion pits, dings, or scratches. Fatigue damage can occur locally, in small areas or structural design details, or globally. Global fatigue damage is general degradation of large areas of structure with similar structural details and stress levels. Multiple-site damage is global damage that occurs in a large structural element such as a single rivet line of a lap splice joining two large skin panels. Global damage can also occur in multiple elements such as adjacent frames or stringers. Multiple-site-damage and multiple-element-damage cracks are typically too small initially to be reliably detected with normal inspection methods. Without intervention, these cracks will grow, and eventually compromise the structural integrity of the airplane, in a condition known as WFD. As an airplane ages, WFD will likely occur, and will certainly occur if the airplane is operated long enough without any intervention.
The FAA's WFD final rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) became effective on January 14, 2011. The WFD rule requires certain actions to prevent catastrophic failure due to WFD throughout the operational life of certain existing transport category airplanes and all of these airplanes that will be certificated in the future. For existing and future airplanes subject to the WFD rule, the rule requires that design approval holders (DAHs) establish a limit of validity (LOV) of the engineering data that support the structural maintenance program. Operators affected by the WFD rule may not fly an airplane beyond its LOV, unless an extended LOV is approved.
The WFD rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) does not require identifying and developing maintenance actions if the DAHs can show that such actions are not necessary to prevent WFD before the airplane reaches the LOV. Many LOVs, however, do depend on accomplishment of future maintenance actions. As stated in the WFD rule, any maintenance actions necessary to reach the LOV will be mandated by airworthiness directives through separate rulemaking actions.
In the context of WFD, this approach is necessary to enable DAHs to propose LOVs that allow operators the longest operational lives for their airplanes, and still ensure that WFD will not occur. This approach allows for an implementation strategy that provides flexibility to DAHs in determining the timing of service information development (with FAA approval), while providing operators with certainty regarding the LOV applicable to their airplanes.
The identified unsafe condition is at airplane body station locations 880 to 1100 where the floor beams were replaced with tension ties during airplane conversion to special freighter or Boeing converted freighter. Tension ties have been determined to be structure that is susceptible to WFD. WFD could cause multiple adjacent tension ties to become severed or disconnected from the frames, which could result in rapid decompression and loss of structural integrity of the airplane.
We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2866, dated December 4, 2013. For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD applies to current and future Model 747–100B SUD, 747–200B, 747–300, 747–400, 747–400D series airplanes converted to special freighter or Boeing converted freighter configuration.
This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections for cracking in the upper deck tension ties, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary; tension tie replacement; and post-replacement repetitive inspections for cracking in the upper deck tension ties, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary; as specified in the service information identified previously, except as discussed under “Difference Between this Proposed AD and the Service Information.”
The phrase “related investigative actions” is used in this proposed AD. “Related investigative actions” are follow-on actions that (1) are related to the primary actions, and (2) further investigate the nature of any condition found. Related investigative actions in an AD could include, for example, inspections.
The phrase “corrective actions” is used in this proposed AD. “Corrective actions” correct or address any
The FAA worked in conjunction with industry, under the Airworthiness Directives Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee, to enhance the AD system. One enhancement was a new process for annotating which steps in the service information are required for compliance with an AD. Differentiating these steps from other tasks in the service information is expected to improve an owner's/operator's understanding of crucial AD requirements and help provide consistent judgment in AD compliance. The actions specified in the service information described previously include steps that are labeled as RC (required for compliance) because these steps have a direct effect on detecting, preventing, resolving, or eliminating an identified unsafe condition.
As noted in the specified service information, steps labeled as RC must be done to comply with the proposed AD. However, steps that are not labeled as RC are recommended. Those steps that are not labeled as RC may be deviated from, done as part of other actions, or done using accepted methods different from those identified in the service information without obtaining approval of an alternative method of compliance (AMOC), provided the steps labeled as RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in a serviceable condition. Any substitutions or changes to steps labeled as RC will require approval of an AMOC.
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2866, dated December 4, 2013, specifies to contact the manufacturer for instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD would require repairing those conditions in one of the following ways:
• In accordance with a method that we approve; or
• Using data that meet the certification basis of the airplane, and that have been approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) whom we have authorized to make those findings.
The compliance time for the modification specified in this proposed AD for addressing WFD was established to ensure that discrepant structure is modified before WFD develops in airplanes. Standard inspection techniques cannot be relied on to detect WFD before it becomes a hazard to flight. We will not grant any extensions of the compliance time to complete any AD-mandated service bulletin related to WFD without extensive new data that would substantiate and clearly warrant such an extension.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 76 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates 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.
(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 June 9, 2014.
None.
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 747–100B SUD, 747–200B, 747–300, 747–400, and 747–400D series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2866, dated December 4, 2013.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) indicating that the upper deck tension ties are subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the upper deck tension ties. Severed or disconnected tension ties at multiple locations could result in rapid decompression and loss of structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
For airplanes identified as Group 1, Configuration 2; and Group 2; in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2866, dated December 4, 2013: Before the accumulation of 10,000 flight cycles after conversion to special freighter or Boeing converted freighter configuration, or within 2,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, do the actions specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2866, dated December 4, 2013, except as provided by paragraph (h) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the inspection of the forward and aft tension tie channels thereafter at the applicable time and intervals specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2866, dated December 4, 2013.
(1) At each tension tie station from 880 to 1100: Do a detailed inspection for cracks in the forward and aft tension tie channels.
(2) At each tension tie station from 880 to 1100: Do a detailed inspection for cracks in the forward and aft tension tie channels, and do a surface high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection for cracks around fasteners in the tension tie channels.
If, during accomplishment of the related investigative action or inspections required by this AD, any cracking is found, and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2866, dated December 4, 2013, specifies to contact Boeing for repair instructions: Before further flight, do the repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.
After the accumulation of 13,000 total flight cycles; but before the accumulation of 22,000 flight cycles after conversion to special freighter or Boeing converted freighter configuration, or within 2,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later: Do the tension tie replacement, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2866, dated December 4, 2013, except as provided by paragraph (h) of this AD. Accomplishment of the actions required by this paragraph terminates the inspection requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD.
After accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (i) of this AD: At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2866, dated December 4, 2013, do the actions specified in paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2) of this AD; and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2866, dated December 4, 2013, except as provided by paragraph (h) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the applicable inspection of the forward and aft tension tie channels thereafter at the applicable time and intervals specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2866, dated December 4, 2013.
(1) At each tension tie station from 880 to 1100: Do a detailed inspection for cracks in the forward and aft tension tie channels.
(2) At each tension tie station from 880 to 1100: Do a detailed inspection for cracks in the forward and aft tension tie channels, and do a surface HFEC inspection for cracks around fasteners in the tension tie channels.
(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in the paragraph (l)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) If the service information contains steps that are labeled as RC (Required for Compliance), those steps must be done to comply with this AD; any steps that are not labeled as RC are recommended. Those steps that are not labeled as RC may be deviated from, done as part of other actions, or done using accepted methods different from those identified in the specified service information without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the steps labeled as RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in a serviceable condition. Any substitutions or changes to steps labeled as RC require approval of an AMOC.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Nathan Weigand, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; phone: 425–917–6428; fax: 425–917–6590; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, Seattle, WA 98124–2207; telephone 206–544–5000, extension 1; fax 206–766–5680; Internet
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for The Boeing Company Model 707 airplanes, Model 720 and 720B series airplanes, Model 727 airplanes, and Model 737–
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 9, 2014.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, Seattle, WA 98124–2207; telephone 206–544–5000, extension 1; fax 206–766–5680; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Susan L. Monroe, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM–150S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; phone: 425–917–6457; fax: 425–917–6590, email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We received a report indicating that, on certain The Boeing Company Model 757 airplanes, a fire originated near the first officer's area, which caused extensive damage to the flight deck. A Boeing investigation found that the low pressure flexible hoses in the pressurized flightcrew oxygen system can potentially be conductive because of the anti-kink metallic spring inside the hose. The flight crew oxygen system on The Boeing Company Model 707 airplanes, Model 720 and 720B series airplanes, Model 727 airplanes, and Model 737–100, –200, and –200C series airplanes is almost identical to the system installed on certain Model 757 airplanes. Therefore, Model 707 airplanes, Model 720 and 720B series airplanes, Model 727 airplanes, and Model 737–100, –200, and –200C series airplanes may be subject to the unsafe condition revealed on certain Model 757 airplanes. This proposed AD is being issued to prevent inadvertent electrical current, which can cause the low-pressure flex-hose of a flight crew or supernumerary oxygen system to melt or burn, resulting in oxygen system leakage and smoke or fire.
On March 29, 2010, we issued AD 2010–06–17, Amendment 39–16242 (75 FR 15328, March 29, 2010), applicable to certain Model 757 airplanes. AD 2010–06–17 currently requires inspecting to verify the part number of the low-pressure flex-hoses of the flightcrew and supernumerary oxygen system installed under the oxygen mask stowage box at a flightcrew and supernumerary oxygen mask location and replacing with a new non-conductive low-pressure flex-hose of the oxygen system if necessary. AD 2010–06–17 was prompted by reports of a low-pressure flex-hose of a flightcrew oxygen system that burned through due to inadvertent electrical current from a short circuit in an adjacent audio select panel.
We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin A3538, dated October 2, 2013; Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727–35A0031, dated July 18, 2013; and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–35A1140, dated August 28, 2013. For information on the procedures, see this service information at
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of these same type designs.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information identified previously.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 530 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by June 9, 2014.
None.
This AD applies to The Boeing Company airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(3) of this AD, certificated in any category.
(1) Model 707–100 long body, –200, –100B long body, and –100B short body airplanes; Model 707–300, –300B, –300C, and –400 series airplanes; and Model 720 and 720B series airplanes; as identified in Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3538, dated October 2, 2013.
(2) Model 727, 727C, 727–100, 727 –100C, 727–200, and 727–200F series airplanes, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727–35A0031, dated July 18, 2013.
(3) Model 737–100, –200, and –200C series airplanes, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–35A1140, dated August 28, 2013.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 35, Oxygen.
This AD was prompted by a report of a fire which originated near the first officer's area and caused extensive damage to the flight deck on a different airplane model. We are issuing this AD to prevent inadvertent electrical current from passing through an internal, anti-collapse spring of the low-pressure oxygen hose, which can cause the low-pressure oxygen hose to melt or burn, leading to an oxygen-fed fire and/or smoke in the flight deck.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD: Replace the low-pressure oxygen hoses in the flight compartment with non-conductive low-pressure oxygen hoses, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(3) of this AD, as applicable.
(1) For Model 707–100 long body, –200, –100B long body, and –100B short body series airplanes; Model 707–300, –300B, –300C, and –400 series airplanes; and Model 720 and 720B series airplanes: Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3538, dated October 2, 2013.
(2) For Model 727, 727C, 727–100, 727–100C, 727–200, and 727–200F series airplanes: Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727–35A0031, dated July 18, 2013.
(3) For Model 737–100, –200, and –200C series airplanes: Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–35A1140, dated August 28, 2013.
As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a low-pressure oxygen hose specified in Table 1 to paragraph (h) of this AD, on any airplane.
(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for The Boeing Company Model 737–100, –200, and –200C series airplanes, covered by this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for The Boeing Company Model 707 airplanes, Model 720 and 720B series airplanes, and Model 727 airplanes, covered by this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(3) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(1) For more information about this AD, Susan L. Monroe, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM–150S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; phone: 425–917–6457; fax: 425–917–6590; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, Seattle, WA 98124–2207; telephone 206–544–5000, extension 1; fax 206–766–5680; Internet
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of petition.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that Excentials B.V. has filed a petition proposing that the food additive regulations be amended to provide for the safe use of L-selenomethionine as a dietary source of selenium in feed for poultry, swine, and ruminants.
Submit either electronic or written comments on the petitioner's request for categorical exclusion from preparing an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement by May 23, 2014.
Submit electronic comments to:
Isabel W. Pocurull, Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240–453–6853.
Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (section 409(b)(5) (21 U.S.C. 348(b)(5)), notice is given that a food additive petition (FAP 2278) has been filed by Excentials B.V., Vierlinghstraat 51, 4251 LC Werkendam, The Netherlands. The petition proposes to amend Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) in part 573
The petitioner has requested a categorical exclusion from preparing an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under 21 CFR 25.32(r). Interested persons may submit either electronic or a single copy of written comments regarding this request for categorical exclusion to the Division of Dockets Management (see
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of filing of petitions and request for comment.
This document announces the Agency's receipt of several initial filings of pesticide petitions requesting the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various commodities.
Comments must be received on or before May 23, 2014.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number and the pesticide petition number (PP) of interest as shown in the body of this document, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
Lois Rossi, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone number: (703) 305–7090; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed at the end of the pesticide petition summary of interest.
1.
2.
i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading,
ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives.
vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
3.
EPA is announcing its receipt of several pesticide petitions filed under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, requesting the establishment or modification of regulations in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various food commodities. The Agency is taking public comment on the requests before responding to the petitioners. EPA is not proposing any particular action at this time. EPA has determined that the pesticide petitions described in this document contain the data or information prescribed in FFDCA section 408(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the pesticide petitions. After considering the public comments, EPA intends to evaluate whether and what action may be warranted. Additional data may be needed before EPA can make a final determination on these pesticide petitions.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of each of the petitions that are the subject of this document, prepared by the petitioner, is included in a docket EPA has created for each rulemaking. The docket for each of the petitions is available at
As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), EPA is publishing notice of the petition so that the public has an opportunity to comment on this request for the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticides in or on food commodities. Further information on the petition may be obtained through the petition summary referenced in this unit.
1.
2.
3.
Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives, Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Children's Bureau (CB), Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of Statewide Data Indicators and National Standards for Child and Family Services Reviews.
The Children's Bureau reviews a state's substantial conformity with titles IV–B and IV–E of the Social Security Act through the Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSRs). Statewide data indicators are used to inform the Children's Bureau's determination of a state's substantial conformity relative to certain safety and permanency outcomes. This document advises the public of the Children's Bureau's plan to replace the statewide data indicators and the methods for calculating associated national standards on those indicators. We invite the public to comment on these indicators and methods before their use in CFSRs scheduled for Federal Fiscal Years (FFY) 2015 through FY 2018.
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the
Interested persons may submit written comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
Miranda Lynch Thomas, Children's Bureau, 1250 Maryland Ave. SW., 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20024, (202) 205–8138.
The Children's Bureau implemented the CFSRs in 2001 in response to a mandate in the Social Security Amendments of 1994 for the Department of Health and Human Services to issue regulations for the review of state child and family services programs under titles IV–B and IV–E of the Social Security Act (see section 1123A of the Social Security Act). The reviews are required for the Children's Bureau to determine whether such programs are in substantial conformity with title IV–B and IV–E plan requirements, implementing regulations, and relevant title IV–B and IV–E plans. The review process, as regulated at 45 CFR 1355.31–37, grew out of extensive consultation with interested groups, individuals, and experts in the field of child welfare and related areas.
The Children's Bureau conducted the first round of CFSRs from 2001 through 2004 and the second round from 2007 through 2010. The third round is scheduled to begin in FFY 2015. Information about the initiation of this latest round can be found in CFSR Technical Bulletin #7 issued in March 2014 (see
The CFSRs enable the Children's Bureau to: (1) Ensure conformity with federal child welfare requirements; (2) determine what is actually happening to children and families as they are engaged in child welfare services; and (3) assist states to enhance their capacity to help children and families achieve positive outcomes. The Children's Bureau conducts the reviews in partnership with state child welfare agency staff and other stakeholders involved in the provision of child welfare services. We have structured the reviews to help states identify strengths as well as areas needing improvement within their agencies and programs.
The CFSR assesses state performance on seven outcomes and seven systemic factors. The seven outcomes focus on key items measuring safety, permanency, and well-being. The seven systemic factors focus on key state plan requirements of titles IV–B and IV–E that provide a foundation for child outcomes. States that the Children's Bureau determines have not achieved substantial conformity in all the areas assessed in the review are required to develop and implement a program improvement plan within two years addressing the areas of nonconformity. The Children's Bureau supports the states with technical assistance and monitors implementation of their program improvement plans. States that are unable to complete their plans successfully have some of their federal child welfare funds withheld.
Most relevant to this document is the element of the reviews that provides for the Children's Bureau to determine whether the state is in substantial conformity with certain child outcomes based on national standards we set for state performance on statewide data indicators. The regulations at 45 CFR 1355.34(b)(4) and (5) authorize us to add, amend, or suspend any of the statewide data indicators when appropriate, and to adjust the national standards when appropriate. Statewide data indicators are aggregate measures and we calculate them using administrative data available from a state's submissions to the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS),
The Children's Bureau views the CFSR as a dynamic process and has made ongoing improvements in the process to best meet state and federal needs. Most recently, we solicited feedback from the public (see 76 FR 18677, published April 5, 2011) about how they would envision a federal review process that meets the statutory requirements in section 1123A of the Social Security Act and holds child welfare agencies accountable for achieving positive outcomes for children and families and continuously improving the quality of their systems for doing so. In addition, we hired a consultant that specializes in child welfare measurement to work with Children's Bureau data specialists. In 2013 we also tasked a contractor to the Children's Bureau to convene a panel of child welfare administrators and data measurement experts to develop recommendations and feedback about specific aspects of the review process, including the statewide data indicators, national standards, and program improvement. The information from these experts along with public comments has shaped our plan for replacing the statewide data indicators that will be used in the CFSRs.
For CFSR Round 2, the Children's Bureau developed six statewide data indicators and measures: two indicators related to safety and four composite measures related to permanency. The two safety-related statewide data indicators focused on recurrence of maltreatment and maltreatment of children in foster care and were used to inform an assessment of the state's substantial conformity with the safety outcome that children are, first and foremost, protected from abuse and neglect. The four permanency-related data composites were used to inform the assessment of a state's substantial conformity with the permanency outcome that children have permanency and stability in their living situations. The four permanency composites used during CFSR Round 2 were related to measures of timeliness and permanency
While entry cohorts have methodological advantages, they have limitations in terms of assessing state performance with regard to children who have been in foster care for a long time because of the length of time we measure for state improvements. For example, with an entry cohort approach, children who had already been in foster care for two or more years could only start being tracked in a third year. To address this limitation, the Children's Bureau will still use other cohorts in some of its indicators.
To address these concerns and clarify expectations with regard to national performance, the Children's Bureau proposes to measure state performance with simplified statewide data indicators. We propose to maintain some of the advantages found with the composite approach by implementing companion measures during the program improvement plan period to provide an expanded and more effective measurement of a domain.
The Children's Bureau plans for the new statewide data indicators to measure maltreatment in foster care and re-report of maltreatment as a component in evaluating Safety Outcome 1:
Attachment A provides a summary of each planned indicator including numerators, denominators, exclusions, and adjustments. Attachment B provides a comparison of the data measures used during CFSR Round 2 with the statewide data indicators we propose to use during Round 3. Attachment C provides information on the AFCARS and NCANDS data elements that are used to calculate the proposed indicators and national standards.
Some states provide incident dates in their NCANDS data submissions. If a state provides incident dates, records with an incident date occurring before the date of removal will be excluded. Children in foster care for less than 8 days and any report that occurs within the first 7 days of removal are excluded from this indicator. This indicator is calculated using data that match
The Children's Bureau made this change in response to a suggestion from stakeholders with regard to the indicators used for the last round of reviews that we are now able to address with the improved quality of data reported in NCANDS. In addition, the contractor's recommendations based on the expert panel convened in 2013 expressed support for a measure of screened-in reports to capture repeat maltreatment.
Previous CFSR data measures focused on substantiated and indicated reports of maltreatment. The growing implementation of differential response in the states (sometimes referred to as alternative response programs) where a substantial percentage of cases may bypass formal investigation altogether, however, makes a comparison of differential-response and non-differential-response states difficult. In addition, states that initiate or expand differential response during an improvement period could show improvement on a substantiation-based measure of repeat maltreatment merely as an artifact of adopting differential response. An indicator based only on screened-in reports is not affected by differential response which contributed to our selecting this indicator.
The permanency-related statewide data indicators exclude children entering foster care at age 18 and older or who are already 18 and older on the first day of the period under review. Although the amendments to title IV–E of the Social Security Act made by the Fostering to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110–351) permit states to provide foster care to youth who are age 18 and older, all states have not exercised such an option. Some states provide foster care to youth age 18 and older, however, there is no consistent inclusion of this population of youth across states and no consistent construct at this time for what achieving permanency means for such older youth. Therefore, the Children's Bureau believes that it is appropriate to limit the permanency statewide data indicators to children under age 18 in this way to maintain consistency as we have in prior rounds.
The Children's Bureau made this change in response to suggestions from stakeholders with regard to the indicators used for the last round of reviews that we are now able to address. The indicator's expanded set of permanency outcomes recognizes that all forms of permanency represent equally successful outcomes for children. Although all permanency outcomes are included within this one indicator, states will still be able to analyze their data to determine which types of permanency they are achieving for children. The indicator's expanded population recognizes the Children's Bureau's desire to measure performance for all children entering foster care rather than first removals only. The expansion to 12 months, as opposed to 6 months in the prior indicator will yield more stable estimates of performance. A 12 month period is important for this indicator as this cohort will also serve as the basis for the denominator in the re-entry into foster care indicator (discussed further below). Re-entry into foster care after a discharge from foster care is a rarer event that is better captured over a longer period to accommodate variability. In addition, including a full 12 month period lessens the effect of potential seasonal differences between 6 month periods.
Please see the section on program improvement plans for more information on how this indicator may be used in program improvement.
The Children's Bureau made this change in response to suggestions from stakeholders with regard to the indicators used for the last round of reviews that we are now able to address. The indicator attempts to capture the rate of “permanency” for children who leave foster care by measuring whether children re-enter foster care. For this indicator, adoption is not included as a permanency outcome because it is not
Please see the section on program improvement plans for more information on how this indicator may be used in program improvement.
The Children's Bureau believes that placement stability is important to the permanency and well-being of children in foster care regardless of how long they have been in foster care. Even so, our analysis of AFCARS data indicates that most placement moves occur within a child's first 12 months of foster care, which is why we plan to focus this indicator on that time period. With this refined focus, the Children's Bureau and states can monitor the period during which placement moves are most likely to occur and the state's most recent performance. In the CFSR Round 2 measure, placement moves were monitored over the life of the case which meant that placement instability for a child in the early years of foster care placement would affected the assessment of the state's CFSR performance in a more recent period under review. We also believe that by confining the indicator to this period of time, we are better able to measure a state's improvement in a subsequent 12-month period. The Children's Bureau made this change in response to suggestions from stakeholders with regard to the indicators used for the last round of reviews that we are now able to address.
National standards will be established for all indicators. By measuring state performance against national standards on statewide data indicators, the Children's Bureau can assist states in continuously monitoring their performance on child outcomes and help practitioners and administrators better understand the entirety of their child welfare systems.
We propose that the national standard for each indicator be set at the national observed performance for that particular indicator. The national standards will remain constant over the entire round of review, as has been the case in prior rounds. In CFSR round 2, national standards were based on the 75th percentile (approximately) of all states' performance, with an adjustment for sampling error. For this round, we believe that the national observed performance, which will be similar to the average performance across all states, is a more reasonable benchmark and would appropriately challenge states to improve their performance.
The national standard set at the national performance level for each indicator is a benchmark that is easily communicated to and understood by stakeholders, and a reasonable goal given the reality that states still need to improve practice in multiple areas. Setting the national standard at the national performance for each indicator is rooted in strategies central to an effective performance management system focused on continuous quality improvement.
The Children's Bureau will finalize risk adjustment variables after receiving public comments on this document. The contractor's recommendations to us based on feedback from the expert panel convened in 2013 support the use of risk adjustment. The Children's Bureau's consideration of particular risk-adjustment variables will be based initially on the research literature, recommendations based on feedback from the expert panel and expert consultants, and the availability of data. The Children's Bureau will test proposed variables and retain only those variables that have a statistically significant relationship to the outcome for each statewide data indicator. For example, the Children's Bureau has
To assess state performance, the Children's Bureau proposes to estimate each state's risk-adjusted performance and the corresponding 95% interval estimate. The Children's Bureau can be 95% confident that a state's true performance lies somewhere between the lower and upper limit of this interval. This interval also provides a way to judge whether a state's performance is above or below the national average in a statistically meaningful way.
The Children's Bureau plans to compare each state's interval estimate to the national observed performance, and assign each state to one of three groups:
•
•
•
Whether it is desirable for a state to be higher or lower than the national performance depends on the indicator. For the two permanency measures, a higher value is more desirable; for the remaining measures, a lower value is desirable.
The methodology described above is similar to that used by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to measure hospital performance as part of its Hospital Inpatient Quality Reporting program.
During the first two rounds of the CFSR, there have been occasions in which the Children's Bureau cannot use a state's data in aggregate calculations of the national standard. In isolated circumstances, these data quality issues have been significant enough to prevent us from relying on the state's data as an accurate assessment of its performance on a statewide data indicator. The Children's Bureau would like to be clear about the level of data quality issues that prevent state data from being used for CFSR purposes as described below.
We analyzed every data element from AFCARS and NCANDS that is relevant to each statewide data indicator (as listed in Attachment C) and performed data quality checks across files both over time as well as between files.
Based on this analysis, we developed thresholds to identify data quality concerns and either accept or exclude the files when calculating national standards and state performance. For those data quality issues that are contained to one data file submission, we will consider a threshold of 5%. In other words, any state that has more than 5% of data missing or invalid
For those states that do not exceed the data quality thresholds but still have identified data quality problems, we will include the state in national standards calculations and measure state performance but we will exclude child-level records with missing or invalid data on elements needed to determine the child's outcome and perform the risk-adjustment. For example, if the risk-adjustment for an indicator includes age at entry, a child whose age at entry cannot be determined (due to a missing date of birth) will not be include in the analysis. We believe this exclusion will result in more accurate estimates of performance for those states with minor data quality issues. For each indicator, the Children's Bureau will provide each state with a list of records that were excluded from the analyses.
States that fall below the national standard on any given indicator will be required to include that indicator in a program improvement plan. Regardless of which indicators a state is required to include in its program improvement plan, the Children's Bureau will provide each state with a data profile that
We will use a technique called bootstrapping to develop goals and thresholds. The method calls for the Children's Bureau to repeatedly sample a state's past three years of performance estimates to construct a larger sample, and from that the calculation of a grand mean and standard deviation. The grand mean reflects that state's “average” performance and the standard deviation reflects how much normal fluctuation in performance the Children's Bureau might expect for that state, given its past performance. Then the standard deviation is used to calculate an estimate that would represent a level of change above and beyond the typical fluctuation that would otherwise be expected. The Children's Bureau will set the magnitude at four standard deviations from the grand mean. At that level we can say with confidence that—if we were to randomly estimate a state's performance on the indicator (using their past performance), and did so 100 times—we would expect to see performance at this level less than 6% of the time (or fewer than 6 times out of 100). Six times out of 100 is rather rare, which is why we can treat it as representing a statistically meaningful change has occurred in the program.
To determine exactly how much a state will need to improve, we must first calculate an improvement factor, which is the percentage difference between the grand mean and four standard deviations above the grand mean. We then apply that to the baseline, which is the observed performance in the most recent year. To demonstrate a sample calculation:
A state may have a grand mean of 50%, a grand mean plus four standard deviations = 52%, and a year 3 value of 51. This will give us an improvement factor of 52/50 = 1.04. If that is applied to the baseline of 51%, the program improvement plan goal will be 51% × 1.04 = 53.04%.
We will use a comparable technique to set thresholds for companion measures, subtracting rather than adding four standard deviations to the grand mean (when higher performance on an indicator is better), which can be used to identify a state's decline in performance. To provide an example, if a goal was calculated to be three percentage points higher than the baseline percent, the threshold would be three percentage points below it. Thresholds are only relevant to companion measures.
By design, states with less variation in performance from year to year have more modest goals, while those showing greater variation have more aggressive goals. Overall, we believe that the goals are reflective of each state's own prior experience and performance levels, with goals that are achievable and substantively meaningful. We acknowledge that a few states with the
To address these problems at the extreme ends, we propose to establish minimum and maximum improvement factors. Specifically, a floor will be set at the top of the bottom fifth, and the bottom of the top fifth, ordered by the size of the improvement factor. While the impact of this rule varies somewhat from indicator to indicator, overall we believe it provides a consistent basis for producing goals that are achievable and substantively meaningful. The inverse would be done for the thresholds. The contractor's recommendations to us based on the feedback from the expert panel convened in 2013 support the setting of maximum and minimum thresholds for improvement goals at the level of performance of top and bottom quintiles.
We are interested in comments on all aspects of the statewide data indicators proposed and the methods to calculate national standards and program improvement. After considering the feedback to this docuemnt, we plan to publish a final list of indicators and methods that will be used in the CFSRs along with the actual national standards.
42 U.S.C. 1320a–1a; 45 CFR 1355.31–37.)
For instruction regarding AFCARS data elements, refer to
For instruction with regard to NCANDS data elements, refer to
Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Proposed rule.
DoD, GSA, and NASA are proposing to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to standardize the incorporation by reference of representations and certifications in contracts.
Interested parties should submit written comments to the Regulatory Secretariat at one of the addressees shown below on or before June 23, 2014 to be considered in the formation of the final rule.
Submit comments in response to FAR Case 2014–001 by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Mr. Curtis Glover, Sr., Procurement Analyst, at 202–501–1448, for clarification of content. For information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory Secretariat at 202–501–4755. Please cite FAR Case 2014–001.
DoD, GSA, and NASA are proposing to revise the language at FAR subpart 4.12, Representations and Certifications, and add a new clause at FAR 52.204–X to standardize the incorporation by reference of representations and certifications in contracts. In the Uniform Contract Format, section K is the “Representations, certifications, and other statements of offerors or respondents”. Currently, FAR 15.204–1 requires incorporation by reference of section K into the contract.
Additionally, the standard contract award forms are inconsistent regarding the reference to Section K. Standard Forms (SF) 26 and 33, and Optional Form 307 each have a block for the page numbers where Section K is located in the contract, whereas, the other solicitation/award forms (SFs 252, 1442, 1447, and 1449) are silent.
This case revises the language at FAR subpart 4.12, Representations and Certifications, and adds a new clause at FAR 52.204–X to standardize the incorporation by reference of representations and certifications in contracts regardless of which contract award form is used. The commercial items clause 52.212–4 will have a new paragraph (v) to cover this issue for commercial items.
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 Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
DoD, GSA, and NASA do 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,
However, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has been performed and is summarized as follows:
The standard process is for the offeror to submit the representations and certifications with each proposal to demonstrate compliance with a variety of statutes and regulations. The proposed rule does not revise, change or impact the existing representations and certifications submissions done by small entities; therefore, this proposed rule will have no significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. There are no recordkeeping, reporting, or other compliance requirements associated with the proposed rule. The rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.
The Regulatory Secretariat has submitted a copy of the IRFA to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A copy of the IRFA may be obtained from the Regulatory Secretariat. DoD, GSA, and NASA invite comments from small business concerns and other interested parties on the expected impact of this rule on small entities.
DoD, GSA, and NASA will also consider comments from small entities concerning the existing regulations in subparts affected by the rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 (FAR Case 2014–001), in correspondence.
The proposed 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, DoD, GSA, and NASA propose amending 48 CFR parts 4, 14, 15, and 52 as set forth below:
40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 137; and 51 U.S.C. 20113.
(c) Incorporate by reference the contractors' representations and certifications in the awarded contract.
(d) The contracting officer shall incorporate the representations and certifications by reference in the contract (see 52.204–X, or for commercial items see 52.212–4(v)).
(b) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.204–X, Incorporation by Reference of Representations and Certifications, in solicitations and contracts.
40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 137; and 42 U.S.C. 2473(c).
(c) * * * The representations and certifications are incorporated by reference in the contract by using 52.204–X (see 4.1202(b)) or for commercial items 52.212–4(v).
(b) * * * The representations and certifications shall be incorporated by reference in the contract by using 52.204–X (see 4.1202(b)) or for commercial items 52.212–4(v).
As prescribed in 4.1202(b), insert the following clause:
The contractor's representations and certifications, including those completed electronically via the System for Award Management (SAM), are incorporated by reference into the contract.
(v)
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by May 23, 2014 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
The Chester County Stream and Riparian Restoration/Enhancement Project will involve restoring and enhancing the hydrologic, riparian and aquatic functions within four watersheds located on National Forest System (NFS) lands in Chester County, S.C., and help meet the stream restoration goals outlined in the 2004 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan,
Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received by May 23, 2014. The draft environmental impact statement is expected July 2014
Send written comments to USDA Forest Service, 4931 Broad River Road, Columbia, SC 29212. Comments may also be sent via email to
Chris Evans (
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.
The purpose and need for this Project is to restore and enhance the hydrologic and aquatic functions within four watersheds (Project Area) located upon lands of the Sumter National Forest in Chester County, SC. Hereinafter in this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), “restore” is used synonymously with “rehabilitate”. This change in condition would restore riparian functions and help move the current stream systems toward stability and reestablishment of natural stream and related habitat forming processes. This may include, but not be limited to, restoring the hydrologic regime including reconnecting streams to their respective floodplains, reducing sedimentation and stabilizing banks, improving in-stream and riparian habitats, and improving water quality.
In 2010, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) approached the Forest Service about the potential for completing compensatory mitigation projects upon National Forest System lands. The Corps' Final Mitigation Rule (the Rule) requires that compensatory mitigation be completed within or immediately adjacent to the watershed where the impacts are occurring. The Enoree Ranger District is geographically located within the Lower Broad, Enoree and Tyger sub-basins (8-digit Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUC)), making it within the primary service area for projects in Greenville, Spartanburg and possibly the greater Charlotte metro area. There is high demand for compensatory mitigation in these HUCs, while currently no private mitigation banks are serving them. The Rule also clarifies that public lands are appropriate for use in completion of compensatory mitigation projects, provided a land management plan is in place to enable long-term protection and management of the mitigation property.
Stream restoration is a primary goal of the Forest Service's 2004 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (Plan) and the Plan includes multiple objectives designed to restore and enhance stream habitat and aquatic communities within the Project Area streams. The Forest Service and Corps have entered into a regional Conservation Land Use Agreement that sets forth the policies, undertakings, and responsibilities governing the use of Sumter National Forest lands for compensatory mitigation projects required or authorized under the Corp's permit program. In May 2011, the Forest Service began discussions with the Corps and Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke Energy) regarding the potential for a compensatory mitigation project to be completed on the Enoree Ranger District. The project would be used to offset the impacts associated with Duke Energy's construction of a drought contingency reservoir for the proposed Lee Nuclear Station in Cherokee County, SC.
It is the intent of this EIS to identify those watersheds within the analysis area that may benefit from restoration and enhancement, and to provide the required documentation so that they may be considered for future use as compensatory mitigation properties.
The Project Area is located along the western most portion of Chester County, South Carolina, approximately 2 miles south of Lockhart. The Project Area is bounded by the Broad River to the west and Highway SC–49 to the east. The potential restoration work to be completed within the Project Area includes approximately 18 miles of streams within four watersheds: Clarks Creek, Little Turkey Creek, McCluney Branch, and an unnamed tributary to Clarks Creek.
Native Americans moved into the Broad River valley about 12,000 years ago. Their populations remained relatively low throughout their occupation and their impact on the environment was limited. Small groups of European settlers first moved into the project area in the 1750s.They were primarily farmers who cultivated level terrain along the major streams and rivers. An influx of settlement followed the American Revolution with these settlers moving into the uplands. Cotton agriculture started in the early 1800's and continued as the main staple crop in the Piedmont until the early 1900's. Extensive tracts of erosion prone land were cleared for cultivation. Fields that were allowed to lay fallow after the growing season were soon subjected to sheet erosion which quickly became gullies. When federal acquisition began in the 1930s, the South Carolina Piedmont was one of the most severely eroded regions in the United States (SNF Cultural Resources Overview 2006). Sediment covers Piedmont stream valleys in varying depths up to several feet and has inundated once pristine stream and wetland systems (SNF Component Final Mitigation Plan 2012). Streams within the Project Area reflect past land management practices that have led to the deteriorated conditions and reduced stream function.
Past land abuses as described above within the Project Area have led to deeply incised streambeds that are subject to reduced floodplain interactions and ongoing water quality and aquatic habitat degradation (Forest Service 2004). Streams are incised and disconnected from an active floodplain, which exacerbates in-stream channel erosion and further down-cutting, and substantially limits the hydrologic, physical, chemical, and biological function that would likely occur when a stream has access to its floodplain.
This proposal is consistent with the 2004 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, Sumter National Forest (Plan) that provides goals and objectives for the Project Area.
Restoring and enhancing the historic hydrologic and aquatic functions in the Project Area would help meet the following goals and objectives in the Plan.
Goal 1 Watersheds are managed (and where necessary restored) to provide resilient and stable conditions to ensure the quality and quantity of water necessary to protect ecological functions and support intended beneficial water uses.
• Objective 1.01—Improve soil and water conditions on 1,500 acres through stabilization or rehabilitation of actively eroding areas such as gullies, barren areas, abandoned roads or trails, and unstable stream banks over the 10-year planning period.
Goal 2 Manage in-stream flows and water levels, by working with other agencies if possible, to protect stream processes, aquatic and riparian habitats and communities, and recreation and aesthetic values.
• Objective 2.01—The in-stream flows needed to protect stream processes, aquatic and riparian habitats and communities, and recreation and aesthetic values will be determined on 50 streams.
Goal 3 Riparian ecosystems, wetlands, and aquatic systems are managed (and where necessary restored) to protect and maintain their physical, chemical, and biological integrity.
Goal 4 Maintain or restore natural aquatic and riparian communities or habitat conditions in amounts, arrangements, and conditions to provide suitable habitats for riparian dependent and migratory species, especially aquatic species including fish, amphibians, and water birds within the planning area. Perennial and intermittent streams are managed in a manner that emphasizes and recruits large woody debris.
• Objective 4.01—Create and maintain dense understory of native vegetation on 1–5 percent of the total riparian corridor acreage during the 10-year planning period.
Goal 6 Cooperate with landowners and other partners to address watershed needs and participate in efforts to identify stream problems, watershed planning, BMP (Best Management Practice(s)) and Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) implementation with the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, South Carolina Forestry Commission and other agencies.
Goal 9 Provide habitats to sustain the diversity and distribution of resident reptile and amphibian species as well as breeding, wintering, and migration staging and stopover habitat for migratory birds in ways that contributes to their long-term conservation.
Goal 11:
• Objective 2—Restore and enhance stream habitat and aquatic communities in 50 miles of streams. This includes woody debris, stream bank stabilization, brook trout restoration, and in stream habitat improvement.
Goal 14 Manage forest ecosystems and associated communities to maintain or restore composition, structure, function and productivity over time.
The Proposed Action is to restore and enhance the hydrologic and aquatic functions on approximately 18 miles of streams within the Project Area's four watersheds, namely McCluney Branch, Little Turkey Creek, Clarks Creek, and an unnamed tributary to Clarks Creek). The Proposed Action represents an effort to restore ecosystem functions across multiple watersheds and at a landscape-scale, which when completed would provide regionally-significant ecological benefits.
To accomplish the restoration work, the following restoration design approaches would be used: Floodplain reconnection (FR), floodplain excavation (FE), and floodplain benches (FB). The stream restoration approaches are summarized in Table 1; definitions for the design approaches are provided in Table 2.
Selection of a restoration approach is made for each stream segment based on individual stream and floodplain conditions, and a combination of approaches is typically employed within an individual watershed to meet site conditions. An understanding of the approach can be used to generally describe the project footprint, the amount of excavation and fill material needed to complete the work, and the ecological outcome of the proposed project. Implementation would ultimately require more detailed designs that identify specific construction details (e.g., channel patterns, longitudinal profiles, cross-sections, in-stream channel structures for aquatic species habitat (e.g., large wood, rock substrate), substrate modifications, planting native vegetation, and restoration of work areas). The proposed stream restoration approaches for the various stream reaches are identified in Table 1.
For the four watersheds, the restoration would include a variety of methods to return natural channel form, floodplain function and habitat conditions. Restoration would involve some earthmoving and shaping of the channel and floodplain and to the extent possible, soil borrow and disposal areas would occur within these small watersheds. Activities would include some temporary roads and repair or replacement of facilities such as roads, culverts and bridges. Other restoration activities would involve some removal of trees and vegetation to accommodate the restoration work. Stream restoration would include planting native tree, shrub, and herbaceous vegetation to help stabilize the stream banks and adjacent areas, provide habitat improvements and to speed recovery within the areas temporarily disturbed by construction activities. Mitigation measures would be chosen to accelerate stabilization rates to limit erosion and restore native forest and vegetation types.
•
•
•
•
The proposed action includes a non-significant forest plan amendment to the
Proposed Forest Plan changes would:
1. Allow heavy equipment within project stream channels during implementation and maintenance activities.
2. Allow removal of trees and other vegetation on project stream banks during implementation and maintenance activities.
3. Allow removal of hardwood inclusions (
4. Allow removal of trees in areas with old growth characteristics where necessary during implementation of the steam restoration project.
5. Allow removal of healthy shortleaf pine in areas where necessary during implementation of the steam restoration project.
6. Allow stream restoration project work to take place on plastic soils with approval of the forest soil scientist on a case-by-case basis.
7. In the short term, change the scenic integrity objective for stream restoration work to moderate in management prescriptions 6.C, 7.D, 7.E.1, 7.E.2, 9.A.3, 9F, and 11 in the project area to allow the restoration work to be completed.
8. Allow temporary removal of large woody material during restoration and maintenance work.
9. Allow minimal impacts to rare communities during stream restoration and maintenance work.
The following activities would be conducted in connection with stream restoration and enhancement activities.
• Road Reconstruction and Maintenance: Road maintenance and/or reconstruction would be needed on existing Forest Service system roads. Reconstruction work would consist of but not be limited to graveling road surfaces, replacing culverts—including replacements for aquatic organism passage, ditch cleaning, removing brush and trees along road rights-of-way, installing, repairing or replacing gates and correcting road safety hazards. Bridge replacements may be necessary on some roads to accommodate the restored stream. Road maintenance would consist of spot gravel replacement, blading, cleaning culverts, light brushing and mowing.
• Temporary Roads: Stream restoration work would require the construction of temporary roads during project implementation work. Upon completion of restoration activities, temporary roads would be closed, obliterated and adequate erosion and stormwater control measures completed. Road surfaces would be replanted with native and desirable non-native vegetation.
• Soil Borrow and Soil Deposition Areas: Implementation of the project would generate the need for soil borrow to fill in and shape the new channels and adjacent areas. Likewise, sediment deposited by past land erosion would be removed in some locations, generating soil that would need to be deposited elsewhere. Soil borrow and deposition areas would be established on national forest system lands within the project area and transported to the stream restoration areas as needed.
• Merchantable Timber: The project would result in the removal of trees within the stream restoration areas and from the soil borrow and deposition areas. Merchantable timber would likely be sold. Some of the woody material would be utilized in the restoration work. Trees would be cut down and skidded to landings where it would be transported off site or used in the restoration work. All landings and skid trails would be closed, water-barred, and reseeded.
To view project vicinity, location map and more detailed information about proposed treatments go to:
The United States Army, Corps of Engineers—Regulatory Division, Charleston District, Charleston, South Carolina will be a cooperating agency on this project.
The Forest Supervisior for the Francis Marion/Sumter National Forests.
Whether or not to implement the action as proposed or an alternative way to achieve the desired outcome.
This notice of intent initiates the scoping process, which guides the development of the environmental impact statement. A public scoping meeting will be held in Chester County at the West Chester Community Center, located at 2684 West Chester School Road, Chester, SC 29706 on April 28, 2014 from 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.
It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such manner that they are useful to the agency's preparation of the environmental impact statement. Therefore, comments should be provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewer's concerns and contentions.
Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will also be accepted and considered, however.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar (SSB) from Spain. The period of review (POR) is March 1, 2012, through February 28, 2013. The review covers one producer/exporter of the subject merchandise, Gerdau Aceros Especiales Europa, S.L. (Gerdau).
Sandra Dreisonstok or Minoo Hatten, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0768, and (202) 482–1690, respectively.
The merchandise subject to the order is SSB. The SSB subject to the order is currently classifiable under subheadings 7222.10.00, 7222.11.00, 7222.19.00, 7222.20.00, 7222.30.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes.
The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically
The Department conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Export price is calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Normal value is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that a weighted-average dumping margin of 0.00 percent exists for Gerdau for the period March 1, 2012, through February 28, 2013.
We intend to disclose the calculations performed to parties in this proceeding within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c), interested parties may submit case briefs not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the date for filing case briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically
Upon completion of the administrative review, the Department shall determine and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. If Gerdau's 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 Gerdau for which it did not know its 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,
We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.
The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of SSB from Spain entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Gerdau 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 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 recent period; (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 recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 25.77 percent, the all-others rate established in the
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce
Andrew Huston, Office VII, Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4261.
On November 1, 2013, the Department of Commerce (Department) published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet and strip from the United Arab Emirates covering the period November 1, 2012, through October 31, 2013.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Secretary will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party that requested the review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. Petitioners' March 31, 2014 withdrawal request was submitted within the 90-day period and thus is timely.
The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess ADs on all appropriate entries. Subject merchandise of Flex will be assessed ADs at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated ADs required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of this notice.
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers for whom this review is being rescinded, as of the publication date of this notice, of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of ADs 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 the ADs occurred and the subsequent assessment of double ADs.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to 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, 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 terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) and the International Trade Commission (the ITC) determined that revocation of the antidumping duty (AD) orders on uncovered innerspring units from the People's Republic of China (PRC), South Africa, and Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States. Therefore, the Department is publishing a notice of continuation of these AD orders.
Sandra Dreisonstok or Minoo Hatten, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW.,
On November 1, 2013, the Department published the notice of initiation of the first sunset reviews of the AD orders on uncovered innerspring units from the PRC, South Africa, and Vietnam, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
The merchandise covered by these orders is uncovered innerspring units composed of a series of individual metal springs joined together in sizes corresponding to the sizes of adult mattresses (
Uncovered innerspring units are suitable for use as the innerspring component in the manufacture of innerspring mattresses, including mattresses that incorporate a foam encasement around the innerspring. Pocketed and non-pocketed innerspring units are included in this definition. Non-pocketed innersprings are typically joined together with helical wire and border rods. Non-pocketed innersprings are included in this definition regardless of whether they have border rods attached to the perimeter of the innerspring. Pocketed innersprings are individual coils covered by a “pocket” or “sock” of a nonwoven synthetic material or woven material and then glued together in a linear fashion.
Uncovered innersprings are classified under subheading 9404.29.9010 and have also been classified under subheadings 9404.10.0000, 7326.20.0070, 7320.20.5010, or 7320.90.5010 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). On January 11, 2011, the Department included HTSUS classification numbers 9404.29.9005 and 9404.29.9011 to the customs case reference file, pursuant to a request by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). On January 7, 2013, the Department included the HTSUS classification 7326.20.0071 number to the customs case reference file, pursuant to a request by CBP. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes only; the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.
As a result of the determinations by the Department and the ITC that revocation of the AD orders would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act, the Department hereby orders the continuation of the antidumping orders on uncovered innerspring units from the PRC, South Africa, and Vietnam. CBP will continue to collect AD cash deposits at the rates in effect at the time of entry for all imports of subject merchandise. The effective date of the continuation of the orders will be the date of publication in the
These sunset reviews and this notice are in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and published pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on circular welded carbon steel pipe and tube products from Turkey (steel pipe) for the period of review (POR) of January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2012. The review covers one producer/exporter of subject merchandise that the Department selected for individual examination: Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (BMB), and Borusan Istikbal Ticaret T.A.S. (Istikbal), (collectively, the Borusan Companies). Additionally, this review covers two firms that were not individually examined: Erbosan Erciyas Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Erbosan AS) and Erbosan Erciyas Pipe Industry and Trade Co. Kayseri Free Zone Branch (Erbosan FZB), (collectively Erbosan), and Tosyali dis Ticaret A.S. (Tosyali) and Toscelik Profil ve Sac Endustrisi A.S. (Toscelik Profil), (collectively, Toscelik). We preliminarily determine that the Borusan Companies received countervailable subsidies during the POR but that the total net subsidy rate is less than 0.5 percent
Jolanta Lawska, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
The products covered by this order are certain welded carbon steel pipe and tube with an outside diameter of 0.375 inch or more, but not over 16 inches, of any wall thickness (pipe and tube) from Turkey. These products are currently provided for under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) as item numbers 7306.30.10, 7306.30.50, and 7306.90.10. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive.
Umran Celik Born Sanayii A.S. (also known as Umran Steel Pipe Inc.) (Umran), Yucel Group and all affiliates including Yucel Boru ye Profil Endustrisi A.S, Yucelboru Ihracat Ithalat ye Pazarlama A.S, and Cayirova Born Sanayi ye Ticaret A.S.) (collectively, Yucel), and Guven Steel Pipe (also known as Guven Celik Born San. Ve Tic. Ltd.) (Guven) submitted letters to the Department on May 6, 2013, May 17, 2013, and June 4, 2013, respectively, timely certifying that they had no sales, shipments, or entries, directly or indirectly, of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR.
The Department conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, we preliminarily determine that there is a subsidy,
The Preliminary 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
The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.
The Department determined that the following preliminary net subsidy rates exist for the period January 1, 2012, through, December 31, 2012:
The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review. If the final results remain the same as these preliminary results, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to CVDs all shipments of subject merchandise produced by the Borusan Companies and Erbosan, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption from January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2012. The Department will also instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of zero percent on shipments of the subject merchandise produced by the Borusan Companies and Erbosan, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this review.
If the final results remain the same as these preliminary results, the Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review to liquidate shipments of subject merchandise by Toscelik entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2012, at the
We will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits for non-reviewed companies at the most recent company-specific or country-wide rate applicable to the company. Accordingly, the cash deposit rates that will be applied to companies covered by this order, but not examined in this review, are those established in the most recently completed administrative proceeding for each company. These rates shall apply to all non-reviewed companies until a review of a company assigned these rates is requested.
The Department will disclose to parties to this proceeding the calculations performed in reaching the preliminary results within five days of the date of publication of these preliminary results.
Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically using IA ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic records system, IA ACCESS, by 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
Unless the deadline is extended pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act, the Department intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues raised by the parties in their comments, within 120 days after issuance of these preliminary results.
These preliminary results of review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Notice of Issuance (97–12A003) of an amended Export Trade Certificate of Review to the Association for the Administration of Rice Quotas, Inc.
The U.S. Department of Commerce issued an amended Export Trade Certificate of Review to Association for the Administration of Rice Quotas, Inc. “AARQ”.
Joseph Flynn, Director, Office of Trade and Economic Analysis, International Trade Administration, (202) 482–5131 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Title III of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 (15 U.S.C. 4001–21) (“the Act”) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to issue Export Trade Certificates of Review. The regulations implementing Title III are found at 15 CFR part 325 (2013). The Office of Trade and Economic Analysis (“OTEA”) is issuing this notice pursuant to 15 CFR 325.6(b), which requires the Secretary of Commerce to publish a summary of the
1. Remove the following member companies from AARQ Certificate: Newfield Rice, Inc., Miramar, Florida and The Connell Company for the activities of itself and its two divisions, Connell Rice & Sugar Co. and Connell International Company, Berkeley Heights, New Jersey.
2. Change the names of the following AARQ members: Commodity Specialists Company, Minneapolis, Minnesota to Sinamco Trading Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota and Nidera US LLC, Wilton, Connecticut (a subsidiary of Nidera Handelscompagnie BV (Netherlands) to Nidera US LLC, Wilton, Connecticut (a subsidiary of Nidera BV (Netherlands)).
AARQ's Export Trade Certificate of Review complete amended membership is listed below:
The amended Certificate of Review is effective from January 7, 2014, the date on which the application for an amendment was deemed submitted.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, 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.
Written comments must be submitted on or before June 23, 2014.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to David Ulmer, (757) 723–0303 or
This request is for extension of a current information collection.
Federally-permitted dealers, and any individual acting in the capacity of a dealer, must submit to the Regional Administrator or to the official designee a detailed report of all fish purchased or received for a commercial purpose, other than solely for transport on land by one of the available electronic reporting mechanisms approved by National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The information obtained is used by economists, biologists, and managers in the management of the fisheries. The data collection parameters are consistent with the current requirements for Federal dealers under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
Dealers submit purchase information through an electronic process by either the web-based system as administered by the Atlantic Coast Cooperative Statistics Program, the computer based
Comments are invited 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 (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
Office of the Secretary, Department of Defense (DoD).
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 May 23, 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:
•
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.
Pentagon Force Protection Agency, DoD.
Notice.
In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by June 23, 2014.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Pentagon Force Protection Agency Project Integration Directorate (PFPA\PID), 9000 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301–9000, ATTN: PID, or email at
Respondents are tenants and visitors who are provided identification badges, submit biometric attributes for collection, and/or have access privileges assigned. The PMP collects data which is stored in the PMP database at the time of enrollment. Having qualified agents provide credentialing and enrollment services is essential to maintaining daily operations and access rights to various installations throughout the NCR.
Office of Innovation and Improvement, Department of Education.
Notice.
Investing in Innovation Fund—Scale-up grants Notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2014.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.411A (Scale-up grants).
As importantly, all i3 projects are required to generate additional evidence of effectiveness. All i3 grantees must use part of their budgets to conduct independent evaluations (as defined in this notice) of their projects. This ensures that projects funded under the i3 program contribute significantly to improving the information available to practitioners and policymakers about which practices work, for which types of students, and in what contexts.
The Department awards three types of grants under this program: “Development” grants, “Validation” grants, and “Scale-up” grants. These grants differ in terms of the level of prior evidence of effectiveness required for consideration of funding, the level of scale the funded project should reach, and, consequently, the amount of funding available to support the project.
This notice invites applications for Scale-up grants only. The notice inviting applications for Validation grants is published elsewhere in this issue of the
Scale-up grants provide funding to support expansion of projects supported by strong evidence of effectiveness (as defined in this notice) to the national level (as defined in this notice). In addition to improving outcomes for an increasing number of high-need students, Scale-up grants will generate information about the students and contexts for which a practice is most effective. We expect that Scale-up grants will increase practitioners' and policymakers' understanding of strategies that allow organizations or practices to expand quickly and efficiently while maintaining their effectiveness.
All Scale-up grantees must evaluate the effectiveness of the i3-supported practice that the project implements and expands. This is particularly important in instances in which the proposed project includes changing the i3-supported practice in order to more efficiently reach the proposed level of scale (for example, by developing technology-enabled training tools). The evaluation of a Scale-up grant must
We remind LEAs of the continuing applicability of the provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) for students who may be served under i3 grants. Any grants in which LEAs participate must be consistent with the rights, protections, and processes established under IDEA for students who are receiving special education and related services or are in the process of being evaluated to determine their eligibility for such services.
As described later in this notice, in connection with making competitive grant awards, an applicant is required, as a condition of receiving assistance under this program, to make civil rights assurances, including an assurance that its program or activity will comply with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Department's section 504 implementing regulations, which prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability. Regardless of whether a student with disabilities is specifically targeted as a “high-need student” (as defined in this notice) in a particular grant application, recipients are required to comply with all legal nondiscrimination requirements, including, but not limited to the obligation to ensure that students with disabilities are not denied access to the benefits of the recipient's program because of their disability. The Department also enforces Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), as well as the regulations implementing Title II of the ADA, which prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability by public entities.
Furthermore, Title VI and Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin, and sex, respectively. On December 2, 2011, the Departments of Education and Justice jointly issued guidance that explains how educational institutions can promote student diversity or avoid racial isolation within the framework of Title VI (e.g., through consideration of the racial demographics of neighborhoods when drawing assignment zones for schools or through targeted recruiting efforts). The “Guidance on the Voluntary Use of Race to Achieve Diversity and Avoid Racial Isolation in Elementary and Secondary Schools” is available on the Department's Web site at
Through its competitions, the i3 program strives to improve the academic achievement of high-need students by accelerating the identification of promising solutions to pressing challenges in kindergarten through grade 12 (K–12) education, supporting the evaluation of the efficacy of such solutions, and developing new approaches to scaling effective practices to serve more students. The i3 program aims to build a portfolio of solutions and corresponding evidence regarding different approaches to addressing critical challenges in education. When selecting the priorities for a given competition, the Department considers several factors, including the Department's policy priorities, the need for new solutions in a particular priority area, the extent of the evidence in the field supporting effective practices in a particular priority area, whether other available funding exists for a particular priority area, and the results and lessons learned from prior i3 competitions.
We include five absolute priorities in the FY 2014 Scale-up competition. The Department encourages applicants to propose projects that address pressing needs under these priorities.
First, we include an absolute priority on improving the effectiveness of teachers or principals because research continually indicates that teachers and principals are the most critical in-school factors in improving student achievement.
Second, we include an absolute priority on improving low-performing schools (e.g., schools with the lowest academic performance in the State or schools with the largest within-school performance gaps between student subgroups; see the requirements related to this priority for a full description of the schools that must be served by projects addressing it) to help more students receive a high-quality K–12 education. Applicants may propose a variety of approaches to address this priority, including changes to staff roles and how classrooms or schools are structured. This priority aims to ultimately improve student outcomes by supporting projects that are designed to rapidly improve low-performing schools and, when appropriate, their feeder schools.
Third, we include an absolute priority aimed at improving science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education. Ensuring that all students can access and excel in STEM fields is essential to our Nation's economy and future prosperity.
Fourth, we include an absolute priority focused on implementing
Finally, we include an absolute priority that focuses on serving rural communities. Students living in rural communities face unique challenges. This year's competition welcomes applicants applying under this priority to address one of the other four absolute priorities for the FY 2014 i3 Scale-up competition, as described above, while serving students enrolled in rural LEAs.
We also include three competitive preference priorities in the FY 2014 Scale-up competition. The Department encourages applicants to design projects that address these competitive preference priorities in their applications.
First, we include a competitive preference priority focusing on improving cost-effectiveness and productivity. Improvements in operational, organizational, and instructional processes and structures will enable organizations to achieve the best possible results in the most efficient manner. Applicants should provide detailed information about how they aim to modify their processes and structures to improve productivity and how they will evaluate whether the proposed projects are cost-effective when implemented. Further, in order to receive competitive preference points, applicants addressing this priority must provide a detailed budget, an examination of different types of costs, and a plan to monitor and evaluate cost savings, all of which are essential to improving productivity.
Second, we include a competitive preference priority for projects that enable the broad adoption of effective practices. This competitive preference priority rewards applicants that will implement systematic methods for identifying and supporting the expansion of these practices. While Scale-up grantees must codify the core elements of their i3-supported practices, we are interested in projects that have a particular focus in this area. In addition, the education field needs access to strong, reliable data to make informed decisions about effective practices that could replace less effective practices. This competitive preference priority supports strategies that identify key elements of effective practices and that capture lessons learned about the implementation of the practices. In addition, an applicant addressing this priority must commit to implementing the practice in other settings and locations in order to ensure that the practice can be successfully replicated.
Third, in order to expand the reach of the i3 program and encourage entities that have not previously received an i3 grant to apply, the Department includes a competitive preference priority for novice i3 applicants. A novice i3 applicant is an applicant that has never received a grant under the i3 program. An applicant must identify whether it is a novice applicant when completing the applicant information sheet. Instructions on how to complete the applicant information sheet are included in the application package.
Finally, we include one invitational priority. High-quality early learning programs can improve children's vocabulary, improve their social and emotional development so they arrive at school ready to learn, and help them stay on track and engaged in early elementary grades.
In summary, applications must address one of the absolute priorities for this competition and propose projects designed to implement practices that serve students who are in grades K–12 at some point during the funding period. Additionally, applicants must be able to show strong evidence of effectiveness for the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice included in their applications. Applicants should carefully review all of the requirements in the
The i3 program includes a statutory requirement for a private-sector match for all i3 grantees. For Scale-up grants, an applicant must obtain matching funds or in-kind donations from the private sector equal to at least five percent of its grant award. Each highest-rated application, as identified by the Department following peer review of the applications, must submit evidence of at least 50 percent of the required private-sector match prior to the awarding of an i3 grant. An applicant must provide evidence of the remaining 50 percent of the required private-sector match no later than six months after the project start date (i.e., for the FY 2014 competition, six months after January 1, 2015, or by July 1, 2015). The grant will be terminated if the grantee does not secure its private-sector match by the established deadline.
This notice also includes selection criteria for the FY 2014 Scale-up competition that are designed to ensure that applications selected for funding have the best potential to generate substantial improvements in student achievement (and other key outcomes), and include well-articulated plans for the implementation and evaluation of the proposed projects. Applicants should review the selection criteria and submission instructions carefully to ensure their applications address this year's criteria.
An entity that submits an application for a Scale-up grant must include the following information in its application: an estimate of the number of students to be served by the project; evidence of the applicant's ability to implement and appropriately evaluate the proposed project; and information about its capacity (e.g., management capacity, financial resources, qualified personnel) to implement the project at a national level, working directly or through partners. We recognize that LEAs are not typically responsible for taking their practices, strategies, or programs to scale; however, all applicants can and should partner with others to disseminate their effective practices, strategies, and programs and take them to scale.
The Department will screen applications that are submitted for Scale-up grants in accordance with the requirements in this notice and determine which applications meet the eligibility and other requirements. Peer reviewers will review all applications
Applicants should note, however, that we may screen for eligibility at multiple points during the competition process, including before and after peer review; applicants that are determined to be ineligible will not receive a grant award regardless of peer reviewer scores or comments. If we determine that a Scale-up grant application is not supported by strong evidence of effectiveness, or that the applicant does not demonstrate the required prior record of improvement, or does not meet any other i3 requirement, the application will not be considered for funding.
An applicant for a Scale-up grant must choose one of the five absolute priorities contained in this notice and address that priority in its application. Each applicant must clearly identify the specific absolute priority that the proposed project addresses. Applicants that choose to submit an application under the absolute priority for Serving Rural Communities must identify an additional absolute priority.
These priorities are:
Under this priority, we provide funding to projects addressing pressing needs related to improving teacher or principal effectiveness.
Under this priority, we provide funding to projects addressing pressing needs related to improving low-performing schools.
To meet this priority, a project must serve schools among (1) the lowest-performing schools in the State on academic performance measures; (2) schools in the State with the largest within-school performance gaps between student subgroups described in section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA; or (3) secondary schools in the State with the lowest graduation rate over a number of years or the largest within-school gaps in graduation rates between student subgroups described in section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA. Additionally, projects funded under this priority must complement the broader turnaround efforts of the school(s), LEA(s), or State(s) where the projects will be implemented.
Under this priority, we provide funding to projects addressing pressing needs for improving STEM education.
Under this priority, we provide funding to projects that are designed to support the implementation of internationally benchmarked, college- and career-ready academic standards held in common by multiple States and to improve instruction and learning, including strategies that translate the standards into classroom practice.
Under this priority, we provide funding to projects addressing one of the absolute priorities established for the 2014 Scale-up i3 competition and under which the majority of students to be served are enrolled in rural local educational agencies (as defined in this notice).
Applicants may address more than one of the competitive preference priorities. An applicant must identify in the project narrative section of its application the priority or priorities it wishes the Department to consider for purposes of earning competitive preference priority points.
The Department will not review or award points under any competitive preference priority that the applicant fails to clearly identify as the competitive preference priority or priorities the applicant wishes the Department to consider for purposes of earning competitive preference priority points.
These priorities are:
Under this priority, we provide funding to projects that address one of the following areas:
(a) Substantially improving student outcomes without commensurately increasing per-student costs.
(b) Maintaining student outcomes while substantially decreasing per-student costs.
(c) Substantially improving student outcomes while substantially decreasing per-student costs.
An application addressing this priority must provide—
(1) A clear and coherent budget that identifies expected student outcomes before and after the practice, the cost per student for the practice, and a clear calculation of the cost per student served;
(2) A compelling discussion of the expected cost-effectiveness of the practice compared with alternative practices;
(3) A clear delineation of one-time costs versus ongoing costs and a plan for sustaining the project, particularly ongoing costs, after the expiration of i3 funding;
(4) Identification of specific activities designed to increase substantially the cost-effectiveness of the practice, such as re-designing costly components of the practice (while maintaining efficacy) or testing multiple versions of the practice in order to identify the most cost-effective approach; and
(5) A project evaluation that addresses the cost-effectiveness of the proposed practice.
Under this priority, we provide funding to projects that enable broad adoption of effective practices. An application proposing to address this priority must, as part of its application:
(a) Identify the practice or practices that the application proposes to prepare for broad adoption, including formalizing the practice (i.e., establish and define key elements of the practice), codifying (i.e., develop a guide or tools to support the dissemination of information on key elements of the practice), and explaining why there is a need for formalization and codification.
(b) Evaluate different forms of the practice to identify the critical components of the practice that are crucial to its success and sustainability, including the adaptability of critical components to different teaching and learning environments and to diverse learners.
(c) Provide a coherent and comprehensive plan for developing materials, training, toolkits, or other supports that other entities would need in order to implement the practice effectively and with fidelity.
(d) Commit to assessing the replicability and adaptability of the practice by supporting the implementation of the practice in a variety of locations during the project period using the materials, training, toolkits, or other supports that were developed for the i3-supported practice.
Eligible applicants that have never directly received a grant under this program.
This priority is:
The Secretary encourages applicants to propose projects that improve the coordination and alignment between early learning and development systems and elementary education systems in order to improve transitions for children from birth through third grade.
These definitions are from the 2013 i3 NFP. We may apply these definitions in any year in which this program is in effect.
This notice invites applications for Scale-up grants. The following definitions apply to all three types of grants under the i3 program (Development, Validation, and Scale-up). Therefore, some of the definitions included in this section, primarily those related to demonstrations of evidence, may be more applicable to applications for Validation or Development grants.
(a) There is at least one study that is either a—
(1) Correlational study with statistical controls for selection bias;
(2) Quasi-experimental study (as defined in this notice) that meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with reservations;
(3) Randomized controlled trial (as defined in this notice) that meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with or without reservations;
(b) Such a study found a statistically significant or substantively important (defined as a difference of 0.25 standard deviations or larger), favorable association between at least one critical component and one relevant outcome presented in the logic model for the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice.
(a) There is at least one study of the effectiveness of the process, product, strategy, or practice being proposed that: Meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without reservations;
(b) There is at least one study of the effectiveness of the process, product, strategy, or practice being proposed that: Meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with reservations;
(a) There is at least one study of the effectiveness of the process, product, strategy, or practice being proposed that: Meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without reservations;
(b) There are at least two studies of the effectiveness of the process, product, strategy, or practice being proposed, each of which: meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with reservations;
(a) For grades and subjects in which assessments are required under ESEA section 1111(b)(3): (1) A student's score on such assessments and may include (2) other measures of student learning, such as those described in paragraph (b), provided they are rigorous and comparable across schools within an LEA.
(b) For grades and subjects in which assessments are not required under ESEA section 1111(b)(3): Alternative measures of student learning and performance such as student results on pre-tests, end-of-course tests, and objective performance-based assessments; student learning objectives; student performance on English language proficiency assessments; and other measures of student achievement that are rigorous and comparable across schools within an LEA.
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Division A, Section 14007, Pub. L. 111–5.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian tribes.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education only.
These estimated available funds are the total available for all three types of grants under the i3 program (Development, Validation, and Scale-up grants).
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of the applications received, we may make additional awards in FY 2015 or later years from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition.
Development grants: Up to $3,000,000.
Validation grants: Up to $12,000,000.
Scale-up grants: Up to $20,000,000.
Development grants: $3,000,000.
Validation grants: $11,500,000.
Scale-up grants: $19,000,000.
Development grants: 10–20 awards.
Validation grants: 4–8 awards.
Scale-up grants: 0–2 awards.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1.
2.
3.
(a) An LEA.
(b) A partnership between a nonprofit organization and—
(1) One or more LEAs; or
(2) A consortium of schools.
(a)(1) Have significantly closed the achievement gaps between groups of students described in section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA (economically disadvantaged students, students from major racial and ethnic groups, students with limited English proficiency, students with disabilities); or
(2) Have demonstrated success in significantly increasing student academic achievement for all groups of students described in that section;
(b) Have made significant improvements in other areas, such as high school graduation rates (as defined in this notice) or increased recruitment and placement of high-quality teachers and principals, as demonstrated with meaningful data;
(c) Demonstrate that it has established one or more partnerships with the private sector, which may include philanthropic organizations, and that organizations in the private sector will provide matching funds in order to help bring results to scale; and
(d) In the case of an eligible applicant that includes a nonprofit organization, provide in the application the names of the LEAs with which the nonprofit organization will partner, or the names
An entity submitting an application should provide, in Appendix C, under “Other Attachments Form,” of its application, information addressing the eligibility requirements described in this section. An applicant must provide, in its application, sufficient supporting data or other information to allow the Department to determine whether the applicant has met the eligibility requirements. Note that in order to address the statutory eligibility requirement above, applicants must provide data that demonstrate a change. In other words, applicants must provide data for at least two points in time when addressing this requirement in Appendix C of their applications. If the Department determines that an applicant has provided insufficient information in its application, the applicant will not have an opportunity to provide additional information.
For purposes of this program, an LEA is an LEA located within one of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
The authorizing statute specifies that an eligible applicant that includes a nonprofit organization meets the requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the eligibility requirements for this program if the nonprofit organization has a record of significantly improving student achievement, attainment, or retention. For an eligible applicant that includes a nonprofit organization, the nonprofit organization must demonstrate that it has a record of significantly improving student achievement, attainment, or retention through its record of work with an LEA or schools. Therefore, an eligible applicant that includes a nonprofit organization does not necessarily need to include as a partner for its i3 grant an LEA or a consortium of schools that meets the requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the eligibility requirements in this notice.
In addition, the authorizing statute specifies that an eligible applicant that includes a nonprofit organization meets the requirements of paragraph (c) of the eligibility requirements in this notice if the eligible applicant demonstrates that it will meet the requirement for private-sector matching.
4.
The Secretary may consider decreasing the matching requirement on a case-by-case basis, and only in the most exceptional circumstances. An eligible applicant that anticipates being unable to meet the full amount of the private-sector matching requirement must include in its application a request that the Secretary reduce the matching-level requirement, along with a statement of the basis for the request.
An applicant that does not provide a request for a reduction of the matching-level requirement in its application may not submit that request at a later time.
5.
•
An applicant should identify up to four study citations to be reviewed against What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards for the purposes of meeting the i3 evidence standard requirement. An applicant should clearly identify these citations in Appendix D, under the “Other Attachments Form,” of its application. The Department will not review a study citation that an applicant fails to clearly identify for review. In addition to the four study citations, applicants should include a description of the intervention(s) the applicant plans to implement and the intended student outcomes that the intervention(s) attempts to impact in Appendix D.
An applicant must either ensure that all evidence is available to the Department from publicly available sources and provide links or other guidance indicating where it is available; or, in the application, include copies of evidence in Appendix D. If the Department determines that an applicant has provided insufficient information, the applicant will not have an opportunity to provide additional information at a later time.
The evidence standards apply to the prior research that supports the effectiveness of the proposed project. The i3 program does not restrict the source of prior research providing evidence for the proposed project. As such, an applicant could cite prior research in Appendix D for studies that were conducted by another entity (i.e., an entity that is not the applicant) so long as the prior research studies cited in the application are relevant to the effectiveness of the proposed project.
•
•
•
•
In addition, the grantee and its independent evaluator must agree to cooperate with any technical assistance provided by the Department or its contractor and comply with the requirements of any evaluation of the program conducted by the Department. This includes providing to the Department, within 100 days of a grant award, an updated comprehensive evaluation plan in a format and using such tools as the Department may require. Grantees must update this evaluation plan at least annually to reflect any changes to the evaluation. All of these updates must be consistent with the scope and objectives of the approved application.
•
•
1.
You can contact ED Pubs at its Web site, also:
If you request an application from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this program or competition as follows: CFDA number 84.411A.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) by contacting the person or team listed under
2. a.
Deadline for Notice of Intent to Submit Application: May 13, 2014.
We will be able to develop a more efficient process for reviewing grant applications if we know the approximate number of applicants that intend to apply for funding under this competition. Therefore, the Secretary strongly encourages each potential applicant to notify us of the applicant's intent to submit an application by completing a web-based form. When completing this form, applicants will provide (1) the applicant organization's name and address and (2) the one absolute priority the applicant intends to address. Applicants may access this form online at
Page Limit: The application narrative (Part III of the application) is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. Applicants should limit the application narrative [Part III] for a Scale-up grant application to no more than 50 pages. Applicants are also strongly encouraged not to include lengthy appendices that contain information that they were unable to include within the page limits for the narrative. Applicants should use the following standards:
• A “page” is 8.5″ × 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions.
• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).
• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial.
The page limit for the application does not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract, the resumes, the bibliography, or the letters of support of the application. However, the page limit does apply to all of the application narrative section [Part III] of the application.
b.
Given the types of projects that may be proposed in applications for the i3 program, some applications may include business information that applicants consider proprietary. The Department's regulations define “business information” in 34 CFR 5.11.
Consistent with the process followed in the prior i3 competitions, we plan on posting the project narrative section of funded i3 applications on the Department's Web site so you may wish to request confidentiality of business information. Identifying proprietary information in the submitted application will help facilitate this public disclosure process.
Consistent with Executive Order 12600, please designate in your application any information that you feel is exempt from disclosure under Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act. In the appropriate Appendix section of your application, under “Other Attachments Form,” please list the page number or numbers on which we can find this information. For additional information please see 34 CFR 5.11(c).
3.
Informational Meetings: The i3 program intends to hold webinars designed to provide technical assistance to interested applicants for all three types of grants. Detailed information regarding these meetings will be provided on the i3 Web site at
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: June 24, 2014.
Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov). For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, please refer to section IV. 7.
We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.
Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under
4.
5.
6.
a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);
b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the System for Award Management (SAM) (formerly the Central Contractor Registry (CCR)), the Government's primary registrant database;
c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and
d. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period.
You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet. A DUNS number can be created within one-to-two business days.
If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow 2–5 weeks for your TIN to become active.
The SAM registration process can take approximately seven business days, but may take upwards of several weeks, depending on the completeness and accuracy of the data entered into the SAM database by an entity. Thus, if you think you might want to apply for Federal financial assistance under a program administered by the Department, please allow sufficient time to obtain and register your DUNS number and TIN. We strongly recommend that you register early.
Once your SAM registration is active, you will need to allow 24 to 48 hours for the information to be available in Grants.gov and before you can submit an application through Grants.gov.
If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your registration annually. This may take three or more business days.
Information about SAM is available at www.SAM.gov. To further assist you with obtaining and registering your DUNS number and TIN in SAM or updating your existing SAM account, we have prepared a SAM.gov Tip Sheet, which you can find at:
In addition, if you are submitting your application via Grants.gov, you must (1) be designated by your organization as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and (2) register yourself with Grants.gov as an AOR. Details on these steps are outlined at the following Grants.gov Web page:
7.
Applications for grants for the i3 program must be submitted electronically unless you qualify for an exception to this requirement in accordance with the instructions in this section.
a.
Applications for grants under the i3 program, CFDA number 84.411A (Scale-up grants), must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at www.Grants.gov. Through this site, you will be able to download a copy of the application package, complete it offline, and then upload and submit your application. You may not email an electronic copy of a grant application to us.
We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement
You may access the electronic grant application for the i3 program at www.Grants.gov. You must search for the downloadable application package for this program this competition by the CFDA number. Do not include the CFDA number's alpha suffix in your search (e.g., search for 84.411, not 84.411A).
Please note the following:
• When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation.
• Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not accept your application if it is received—that is, date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system—after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date.
• The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov.
• You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for this competition to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov under News and Events on the Department's G5 system home page at
• You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor
• You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: The Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.
• You must upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to your application as files in a PDF (Portable Document) read-only, non-modifiable format. Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only, non-modifiable PDF or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material.
• Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice.
• After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. (This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department.) The Department then will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send a second notification to you by email. This second notification indicates that the Department has received your application and has assigned your application a PR/Award number (an ED-specified identifying number unique to your application).
• We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.
If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice.
If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed under
The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed to fully register to submit your application to Grants.gov before the application deadline date and time or if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov system.
• You do not have access to the Internet; or
• You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the Grants.gov system;
• No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevent you from using the Internet to submit your application.
If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.
Address and mail or fax your statement to: Kelly Terpak, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 4W111, Washington, DC 20202–5930. FAX: (202) 205–5631.
Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.
b.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.411A), LBJ Basement Level 1, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202–4260.
You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.
If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A private metered postmark.
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
If your application is postmarked after the application deadline date, we will not consider your application.
The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.
c.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.411A), 550 12th Street SW., Room 7039, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202–4260.
If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—
(1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in
(2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245–6288.
1.
The points assigned to each criterion are indicated in the parenthesis next to the criterion. An applicant may earn up to a total of 100 points based on the selection criteria for the application.
An applicant must provide information on how its proposed project addresses the selection criteria in the project narrative section of its application. In responding to the selection criteria, applicants should keep in mind that peer reviewers may consider only the information provided in the written application when scoring and commenting on the application. Therefore, applicants should structure their applications with the goal of helping peer reviewers understand:
• What the applicant is proposing to do, including the absolute priority (or, if the applicant has selected the absolute priority for Serving Rural Communities, the absolute priorities) under which the applicant intends the application to be reviewed;
• How the proposed project will reach a national scale that the applicant was previously unable to reach; and
• What the outcomes of the project will be if it is successful, including how those outcomes will be evaluated.
In determining the significance of the project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(1) The extent to which the proposed project addresses a national need.
(2) The extent of the expected impact of the project on relevant outcomes (as defined in this notice), including the estimated impact of the project on student outcomes (particularly those related to student achievement (as defined in this notice) and the breadth of the project's impact, compared with alternative practices or methods of addressing similar needs.
(3) The likelihood that the project will have the estimated impact, including the extent to which the applicant demonstrates that unmet demand for the proposed project or the proposed services will enable the applicant to reach the proposed level of scale.
In responding to this criterion, the Secretary encourages applicants to explain how the proposed project will address a national need and how the applicant determined an unmet demand for the proposed project exists. Additionally, the Secretary encourages applicants to quantify the expected impact of their proposed project if it is successful, and explain why the applicant expects the proposed project to have the described impact. Applicants are also encouraged to explain how the expected impact of the proposed project on student outcomes compares to other practices.
In determining the quality of the proposed project design, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(1) The extent to which the project would build the capacity of the applicant to scale up and sustain the project or would create an organization capable of expanding if successful outcomes are achieved.
(2) The extent to which the applicant will use grant funds to address a particular barrier or barriers that prevented the applicant, in the past, from reaching the level of scale proposed in the application.
(3) The sufficiency of the resources to support effective project implementation, including the project's plan for ensuring funding after the period of the Federal grant.
In responding to this criterion, the Secretary encourages applicants to explain how the proposed project will build capacity so that the proposed project can be scaled to and sustained at a national level. The Secretary also encourages applicants to address how the proposed project will overcome barriers that prevented the applicant from previously scaling the project. Lastly, the Secretary encourages applicants to consider the resources necessary for project implementation to ensure that the proposed project continues after the grant period ends.
In determining the quality of the management plan and personnel for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(1) The extent to which the management plan articulates key responsibilities and well-defined objectives, including the timelines and milestones for completion of major project activities, the metrics that will be used to assess progress on an ongoing basis, and annual performance targets the applicant will use to monitor whether the project is achieving its goals.
(2) The clarity and coherence of the applicant's multi-year financial and operating model and accompanying plan to operate the project at a national level (as defined in this notice) during the project period.
(3) The extent to which the applicant demonstrates that it will have the resources to operate the project at the proposed level of scale during the project period and beyond the length of the grant, including the demonstrated commitment of any partners and evidence of broad support from stakeholders critical to the project's long-term success (e.g., State educational agencies, teachers' unions).
(4) The extent to which the project director has experience managing large, complex, and rapidly growing projects.
In responding to this criterion, the Secretary encourages applicants to address how the project team will evaluate the success or challenges of the project and use that feedback to make improvements to the project. Applicants are encouraged to explain the organization's plan that will enable the project to operate at a national level during and after the life of the grant. Applicants are also encouraged to address how the project director's past experience demonstrates an ability to manage large, complex, and rapidly growing projects, such as an i3 Scale-up grant.
In determining the quality of the project evaluation to be conducted, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(1) The clarity and importance of the key questions to be addressed by the project evaluation, and the appropriateness of the methods for how each question will be addressed.
(2) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will, if well implemented, produce evidence about the project's effectiveness that would meet the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without reservations.
(3) The extent to which the evaluation will study the project at the proposed level of scale, including, where appropriate, generating information about potential differential effectiveness of the project in diverse settings and for diverse student population groups.
(4) The extent to which the evaluation plan includes a clear and credible analysis plan, including a proposed sample size and minimum detectable effect size that aligns with the expected
(5) The extent to which the evaluation plan clearly articulates the key components and outcomes of the project, as well as a measurable threshold for acceptable implementation.
(6) The extent to which the proposed project plan includes sufficient resources to carry out the project evaluation effectively.
In responding to this criterion, the Secretary encourages applicants to describe the key evaluation questions and address how the proposed evaluation methodologies will allow the project to answer those questions. The applicant should address whether the methods for evaluation would meet What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards and how the evaluation design will ensure the project will be evaluated at the proposed level of scale. The response to this criterion should include a description of the proposed sample size and the estimated project impacts as well as the key components of the proposed project for implementation. Finally, applicants should also address whether sufficient resources, which may include the qualifications of the independent evaluator, are included in the project budget to carry out the evaluation effectively.
We encourage eligible applicants to review the following technical assistance resources on evaluation:
(1) What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards Handbook:
(2) IES/NCEE Technical Methods papers:
2.
We will use independent peer reviewers with varied backgrounds and professions, such as pre-kindergarten-grade 12 teachers and principals, college and university educators, researchers and evaluators, social entrepreneurs, strategy consultants, grant makers and managers, and others with education expertise for the peer review process. All reviewers will be thoroughly screened for conflicts of interest to ensure a fair and competitive review process.
Peer reviewers will read, prepare a written evaluation, and score the assigned applications, using the selection criteria provided in this notice. For Scale-up grant applications, the Department intends to conduct a single tier review. If an eligible applicant has chosen to address either of the first two competitive preference priorities (Improving Cost-Effectiveness and Productivity or Enabling Broad Adoption of Effective Practices) in order to earn competitive preference priority points, reviewers will review and score these competitive preference priorities. If competitive preference priority points are awarded, those points will be included in the eligible applicant's overall score. If an eligible applicant chooses to address the last competitive preference priority (Supporting Novice i3 Applicants) to earn competitive preference priority points, the Department will review its list of previous i3 grantees in scoring this competitive preference priority.
We remind potential applicants that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition, the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as the applicant's use of funds, achievement of project objectives, and compliance with grant conditions. The Secretary may also consider whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or submitted a report of unacceptable quality.
Finally, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary also requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
3.
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multi-year award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to
4.
5.
Kelly Terpak, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 4W111, Washington, DC 20202–5930. Telephone: (202) 453–7122. FAX: (202) 205–5631 or by email:
If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the Federal Relay Service, toll free, at 1–800–877–8339.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice.
Each year, the Training Program projects must offer training covering every topic listed within the applicable priority or priorities. And, each year, one or more Training Program projects must provide training for new project directors. Each applicant must identify in its application how it will meet this requirement as provided in 34 CFR 642.11.
These priorities are:
Competitive Preference Priorities:
For FY 2014 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition, these priorities are competitive preference priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i), we award up to an additional five points to an application that meets Competitive Preference Priority 1 and up to an additional five points to an application that meets Competitive Preference Priority 2, depending on how well the application meets each of these priorities. An applicant submitting an application under Absolute Priorities 1, 2, 3, or 5 may apply using only Competitive Preference Priority 2. An applicant submitting an application under Absolute Priority 4 may apply using one or both of the Competitive Preference Priorities. Therefore, the maximum number of competitive preference points an application under Absolute Priorities 1, 2, 3, or 5 can receive under this competition is 5 while the maximum number of competitive preference points an application under Absolute Priority 4 can receive under this competition is 10.
These priorities are:
Meeting the President's goal of restoring the United States to first in the world in the percentage of citizens holding college degrees or other postsecondary credentials will require significantly increasing the number of high-need students who graduate from high school prepared to succeed in higher education and careers and who have access to college or rigorous postsecondary career or technical training leading to a degree or certificate. It will also require increasing the rates at which young people and adults enroll in, persist in, and complete college or other postsecondary training. This priority is designed to support efforts to reach the President's goal.
We are using Competitive Preference Priority 1—Increasing Postsecondary Success because the Department believes that the TRIO programs can play an important role in improving the postsecondary outcomes of its participants by placing greater emphasis on providing innovative college selection counseling strategies to match students with more selective institutions. Research indicates that many high-achieving low-income students do not enroll in the most selective colleges for which they are qualified, but that, when they do enroll in such institutions, they tend to have greater success.
The Department encourages projects that provide training to TRIO staff on college selection counseling strategies to assist TRIO program participants in applying for, and enrolling in, institutions of higher education that are most closely aligned with the participant's levels of academic preparation. For example, applicants could describe the extent to which their projects combine training on traditional approaches to college advising, such as assistance with test preparation, research and admissions applications, and financial aid applications, with training on strategies to match students to institutions that are appropriate for their qualifications.
Projects that are designed to increase the number and proportion of high-need students who persist in and complete college or other postsecondary education and training.
We are using Competitive Preference Priority 2—Improving Productivity because we believe that it is more important than ever to support TRIO projects that are designed to significantly increase efficiency in the use of resources while improving student outcomes. A key performance measure for the Training Program is its cost effectiveness, based on the number of TRIO project personnel receiving training each year. Furthermore, cost per participant is considered in all TRIO programs. Applicants proposing projects designed to offer increased opportunities for high-quality training for more individuals—that is, to decrease the training cost per participant while improving participant outcomes—will be more likely to perform well on this efficiency measure.
The Department continues to emphasize productivity in all TRIO programs for 2014. Accordingly, both new and current grantees will need assistance learning about, selecting, and implementing strategies that can help them be more productive while improving student outcomes. In light of this emphasis, we are interested in Training Program projects that propose to work with TRIO projects on strategies that improve productivity.
Projects that are designed to significantly increase efficiency in the use of time, staff, money, or other resources while improving student learning or other educational outcomes (i.e., outcome per unit of resource). Such projects may include innovative and sustainable uses of technology, modification of school schedules and teacher compensation systems, use of open educational resources (as defined in this notice), or other strategies.
The types of projects identified above are suggestions for ways to improve productivity. We recognize that some of these examples, such as modification of teacher compensation systems, may not be relevant within the context of a particular application. Therefore, applicants addressing this priority may explain how they will provide training opportunities to the same or an increased number of individuals at a lower cost per participant while improving the quality of their training support. Applicants might also want to consider how they will provide training to TRIO staff to serve the same or an increased number of program participants at a lower cost per participant while improving the quality of their services.
For example, an application for a grant under Absolute Priority 1 must address only training described under that priority.
This definition is from the notice of final supplemental priorities and definitions for discretionary grant programs, published in the
20 U.S.C. 1070a-11 and 1070a–17.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian tribes.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education only.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2015 from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition.
• Absolute Priority 1: $250,000.
• Absolute Priority 2: $250,000.
• Absolute Priority 3: $325,000.
• Absolute Priority 4: $250,000.
• Absolute Priority 5: $325,000.
The Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education may change the maximum award amount through a notice published in the
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1.
2.
1.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877–8339.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) by contacting the program contact person listed in this section.
2.
Page Limit: The application narrative is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. You must limit the application narrative (Part III) to no more than 50 pages. However, any application addressing the competitive preference priorities may include up to four additional pages for each priority addressed in a separate section of the application submission to discuss how the application meets the competitive preference priority or priorities. These additional pages cannot be used for or transferred to the project narrative. Partial pages will count as a full page toward the page limit. For the purpose of determining compliance with the page limit, each page on which there are words will be counted as one full page. Applicants must use the following standards:
• A “page” is 8.5″ × 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides. Page numbers and an identifier may be within the 1″ margin.
• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the project narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in figures and graphs. Text in charts and tables may be single-spaced. You should also include a table of contents in the project narrative, which will not be counted against the page limit.
• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger, or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).
• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial. An application submitted in any other font (including Times Roman and Arial Narrow) will not be accepted.
The page limit does not apply to Part I—the Application for Federal Assistance face sheet (SF 424); Part II—the Budget Information Summary form (ED Form 524); Part III–A—the Program Profile form; Part III–B—the one-page Project Abstract form; and Part IV—the Assurances and Certifications. If you include any attachments or appendices, these items will be counted as part of Part III—the Project Narrative for the purpose of the page-limit requirement. You must include your complete response to the selection criteria and priorities in Part III—the Project Narrative.
We will reject your application if you exceed the page limit.
3.
Applications for grants under this program must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov). For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by
We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.
Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact one of the program contact persons listed under
5.
6.
a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);
b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the System for Award Management (SAM) (formerly the Central Contractor Registry (CCR)), the Government's primary registrant database;
c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and
d. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period.
You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet. A DUNS number can be created within one to two business days.
If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow 2–5 weeks for your TIN to become active.
The SAM registration process can take approximately seven business days, but may take upwards of several weeks, depending on the completeness and accuracy of the data entered into the SAM database by an entity. Thus, if you think you might want to apply for Federal financial assistance under a program administered by the Department, please allow sufficient time to obtain and register your DUNS number and TIN. We strongly recommend that you register early.
Once your SAM registration is active, you will need to allow 24 to 48 hours for the information to be available in Grants.gov and before you can submit an application through Grants.gov.
If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your registration annually. This may take three or more business days.
Information about SAM is available at www.SAM.gov. To further assist you with obtaining and registering your DUNS number and TIN in SAM or updating your existing SAM account, we have prepared a SAM.gov Tip Sheet, which you can find at:
In addition, if you are submitting your application via Grants.gov, you must (1) be designated by your organization as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and (2) register yourself with Grants.gov as an AOR. Details on these steps are outlined at the following Grants.gov Web page:
7.
a.
Applications for grants under the Training Program, CFDA Number 84.103A, must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at www.Grants.gov. Through this site, you will be able to download a copy of the application package, complete it offline, and then upload and submit your application. You may not email an electronic copy of a grant application to us.
We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement
You may access the electronic grant application for the Training Program at www.Grants.gov. You must search for the downloadable application package for this program by the CFDA number. Do not include the CFDA number's alpha suffix in your search (e.g., search for 84.103, not 84.103A).
Please note the following:
• When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation.
• Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not accept your application if it is received—that is, date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system—after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date.
• The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov.
• You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for this program to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to
• You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format.
• You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: the Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.
• You must upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to your application as files in a PDF (Portable Document Format) read-only, non-modifiable format. Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only, non-modifiable PDF or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material.
• Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice.
• After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. (This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department.) The Department then will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send a second notification to you by email. This second notification indicates that the Department has received your application and has assigned your application a PR/Award number (an ED-specified identifying number unique to your application).
• We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.
If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice.
If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact one of the program contact persons listed under
The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed to fully register to submit your application to Grants.gov before the application deadline date and time or if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov system.
• You do not have access to the Internet; or
• You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the Grants.gov system;
• No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevents you from using the Internet to submit your application.
If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.
Address and mail or fax your statement to: Eileen Bland, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street, NW., Room 7000, Washington, DC 20006–8510. FAX: (202) 502–7857.
Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.
b.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address:
You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.
If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A private metered postmark.
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
If your application is postmarked after the application deadline date, we will not consider your application.
The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.
c.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address:
The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between
If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—
(1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and
(2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245–6288.
Applicants must include in the one-page abstract submitted with the application a statement indicating which competitive preference priorities they have addressed. The priorities addressed in the application must also be listed on the Training Program Profile Sheet.
1.
2.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary also requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
For this competition, a panel of non-Federal reviewers will review each application in accordance with the selection criteria in 34 CFR 642.21. The individual scores of the reviewers will be added and the sum divided by the number of reviewers to determine the peer review score received in the review process. Additionally, in accordance with 34 CFR 642.22, the Secretary will award prior experience points to eligible applicants by evaluating the applicant's current performance under its expiring Training Program grant. Pursuant to 34 CFR 642.22(b)(1), prior experience points, if any, will be added to the application's averaged peer review score to determine the total score for each application.
Under Section 402A(c)(3) of the HEA, the Secretary is not required to make awards under the Training Program in the order of the scores received.
In the event a tie score exists, the Secretary will select for funding the applicant that has the greatest capacity to provide training to eligible participants in all regions of the Nation in order to assure accessibility to the greatest number of prospective training participants, consistent with 34 CFR 642.20(e).
3.
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multi-year award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to
4.
5.
Suzanne Ulmer or, if unavailable, Eileen S. Bland, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street NW., Room 7000,
If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the FRS, toll free, at 1–800–877–8339.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Office of Innovation and Improvement, Department of Education.
Notice.
Investing in Innovation Fund—Validation grants
Notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2014.
As importantly, all i3 projects are required to generate additional evidence of effectiveness. All i3 grantees must use part of their budgets to conduct independent evaluations (as defined in this notice) of their projects. This ensures that projects funded under the i3 program contribute significantly to improving the information available to practitioners and policymakers about which practices work, for which types of students, and in what contexts.
The Department awards three types of grants under this program: “Development” grants, “Validation” grants, and “Scale-up” grants. These grants differ in terms of the level of prior evidence of effectiveness required for consideration of funding, the level of scale the funded project should reach, and, consequently, the amount of funding available to support the project.
This notice invites applications for Validation grants only. The notice inviting applications for Scale-up grants is published elsewhere in this issue of the
Validation grants provide funding to support expansion of projects supported by moderate evidence of effectiveness (as defined in this notice) to the national level (as defined in this notice) or regional level (as defined in this notice). Validation grants must further assess the effectiveness of the i3-supported practice through a rigorous evaluation, with particular focus on the populations for, and the contexts in, which the practice is most effective. We expect and consider it appropriate that each applicant proposes to use the Validation funding to build its capacity to deliver the i3-supported practice, particularly early in the funding period, to successfully reach the level of scale proposed in its application. Additionally, we expect each applicant to address any specific barriers to the growth or scaling of the organization or practice (including barriers related to cost-effectiveness) in order to deliver the i3-supported practice at the proposed level of scale and provide strategies to address these barriers as part of its proposed scaling plan.
All Validation grantees must evaluate the effectiveness of the practice that the supported project implements and expands. We expect that these evaluations will be conducted in a variety of contexts and for a variety of students, will identify the core elements of the practice, and will codify the practices to support adoption or replication by the applicant and other entities.
We remind LEAs of the continuing applicability of the provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) for students who may be served under i3 grants. Any grants in which LEAs participate must be consistent with the rights, protections, and processes established under IDEA for students who are receiving special education and related services or are in the process of being evaluated to determine their eligibility for such services.
As described later in this notice, in connection with making competitive grant awards, an applicant is required, as a condition of receiving assistance under this program, to make civil rights
Furthermore, Title VI and Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin, and sex, respectively. On December 2, 2011, the Departments of Education and Justice jointly issued guidance that explains how educational institutions can promote student diversity or avoid racial isolation within the framework of Title VI (e.g., through consideration of the racial demographics of neighborhoods when drawing assignment zones for schools or through targeted recruiting efforts). The “Guidance on the Voluntary Use of Race to Achieve Diversity and Avoid Racial Isolation in Elementary and Secondary Schools” is available on the Department's Web site at
Through its competitions, the i3 program strives to improve the academic achievement of high-need students by accelerating the identification of promising solutions to pressing challenges in kindergarten through grade 12 (K–12) education, supporting the evaluation of the efficacy of such solutions, and developing new approaches to scaling effective practices to serve more students. The i3 program aims to build a portfolio of solutions and corresponding evidence regarding different approaches to addressing critical challenges in education. When selecting the priorities for a given competition, the Department considers several factors, including the Department's policy priorities, the need for new solutions in a particular priority area, the extent of the evidence in the field supporting effective practices in a particular priority area, whether other available funding exists for a particular priority area, and the results and lessons learned from prior i3 competitions. The Department also considers the existing evidence of effectiveness when selecting the priorities and subparts for Validation competitions.
We include four absolute priorities in the FY 2014 Validation competition. For some of these priorities, we identify multiple subparts. In these instances, an applicant must select one subpart that the proposed project will address in order to meet the absolute priority.
First, we include an absolute priority on improving the effectiveness of teachers or principals. It is well established that teachers and principals are the most critical in-school factors in improving student achievement,
Rivkin, S.G., Hanushek, E.A., Kain, J.F. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Economerica, 73(2):417–458.
Leithwood, K., Louis, K.S., Anderson, S., and Wahlstrom, K. (2004). Review of research: How leadership influences student learning. University of Minnesota, Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement. Available at:
Specifically, we include a subpart under this priority for projects that develop and implement models of induction and support for improving the knowledge and skills of novice teachers or novice principals. Although the Department funds several i3 projects that focus on teacher recruitment or content-specific professional development for teachers, relatively few of these projects focus on supporting current teachers in their early years of teaching. Given that many of the Nation's teachers are novice teachers, and given the rates at which novice teachers leave the profession, we are interested in expanding the number of projects in the i3 portfolio that improve the effectiveness and retention of novice teachers. Similarly, few of the current i3 projects focus on novice principals; as such, we include this subpart to encourage applicants to propose projects that are designed to provide support and development opportunities that enable novice principals to improve their schools' instructional programs and operations.
The second subpart of this priority aims to support projects that are designed to extend highly effective teachers' reach to serve more students. Applicants are encouraged to propose projects that identify highly effective teachers and that implement innovative ways to extend their reach so that they are serving more students, without necessarily increasing the workload of such teachers. Applicants might consider, for example, using technology-enabled learning opportunities to facilitate student access to highly effective teachers in subject areas that a school may not offer, or offering highly effective teachers relief from some of their administrative responsibilities in order to allow them to teach additional students. As such, projects addressing this subpart could implement changes to how schools and classrooms are designed to increase the reach of the most effective teachers. This subpart provides the opportunity for applicants to change the operating conditions within schools and districts in ways that professionalize teaching and improve outcomes for high-need students. It also supports increased efficiencies at the school and district levels.
Second, we include an absolute priority focused on implementing internationally benchmarked, college- and career-ready elementary and secondary academic standards. As reports, such as the 2012 Brown Center Report on American Education point out, the implementation of such standards is crucial to their effectiveness in improving student achievement.
Third, we include an absolute priority focused on improving academic outcomes for students with disabilities. The priority encourages applicants to implement projects that are designed to improve student achievement for students with disabilities in inclusive and general education settings. It is essential that students with disabilities are provided opportunities to participate and progress in inclusive and general education settings and that all students are held to, and meet,
In addition, while the negative effects (e.g., removing students from instruction) of exclusionary school discipline policies are not confined to students with disabilities, students with disabilities are disproportionately removed from the instructional environment. This priority is particularly focused on the effect of these policies on students with disabilities and the use of behavioral frameworks to reduce the use of exclusionary school discipline with these students.
Finally, we include an absolute priority that focuses on serving rural communities. Students living in rural communities face unique challenges. Applicants applying under this priority must also address one of the other three absolute priorities established for the FY 2014 i3 Validation competition, as described above, while serving students enrolled in rural local educational agencies (as defined in this notice).
We also include three competitive preference priorities in the FY 2014 Validation competition. The Department encourages applicants to design projects that address these competitive preference priorities in their applications.
First, we include a competitive preference priority focusing on improving cost-effectiveness and productivity. Improvements in operational, organizational, and instructional processes and structures will enable organizations to achieve the best possible results in the most efficient manner. Applicants should provide detailed information about how they aim to modify their processes and structures to improve productivity and how they will evaluate whether the proposed projects are cost-effective when implemented. Further, in order to receive competitive preference points, applicants addressing this priority must provide a detailed budget, an examination of different types of costs, and a plan to monitor and evaluate cost savings, all of which are essential to improving productivity.
Second, we include a competitive preference priority for projects that enable the broad adoption of effective practices. This competitive preference priority rewards applicants that will implement systematic methods for identifying and supporting the expansion of these practices. While Validation grantees must codify the core elements of their i3-supported practices, we are interested in projects that have a particular focus in this area. In addition, the education field needs access to strong, reliable data to make informed decisions about effective practices that could replace less effective practices. This competitive preference priority supports strategies that identify key elements of effective practices and that capture lessons learned about the implementation of the practices. In addition, an applicant addressing this priority must commit to implementing the practice in other settings and locations in order to ensure that the practice can be successfully replicated.
Third, in order to expand the reach of the i3 program and encourage entities that have not previously received an i3 grant to apply, the Department includes a competitive preference priority for novice i3 applicants. A novice i3 applicant is an applicant that has never received a grant under the i3 program. An applicant must identify whether it is a novice applicant when completing the applicant information sheet. Instructions on how to complete the applicant information sheet are included in the application package.
Finally, we include one invitational priority. High-quality early learning programs can improve children's vocabulary, improve their social and emotional development so they arrive in school ready to learn, and help them stay on track and engaged in early elementary grades.
In summary, applications must address one of the absolute priorities for this competition and propose projects designed to implement practices that serve students who are in grades K–12 at some point during the funding period. Additionally, applicants must be able to show moderate evidence of effectiveness for the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice included in their applications. Applicants should carefully review all of the requirements in the
The i3 program includes a statutory requirement for a private-sector match for all i3 grantees. For Validation grants, an applicant must obtain matching funds or in-kind donations from the private sector equal to at least 10 percent of its grant award. Each highest-rated application, as identified by the Department following peer review of the applications, must submit evidence of at least 50 percent of the required private-sector match prior to the awarding of an i3 grant. An applicant must provide evidence of the remaining 50 percent of the required private-sector match no later than six months after the project start date (i.e., for the FY 2014 competition, six months after January 1, 2015, or by July 1, 2015). The grant will be terminated if the grantee does not secure its private-sector match by the established deadline.
This notice also includes selection criteria for the FY 2014 Validation competition that are designed to ensure that applications selected for funding have the best potential to generate substantial improvements in student achievement (and other key outcomes), and include well-articulated plans for the implementation and evaluation of the proposed projects. Applicants should review the selection criteria and submission instructions carefully to ensure their applications address this year's criteria.
An entity that submits an application for a Validation grant must include the following information in its application: An estimate of the number of students to be served by the project; evidence of the applicant's ability to implement and appropriately evaluate the proposed project; and information about its capacity (e.g., management capacity, financial resources, and qualified personnel) to implement the project at a State or regional level, working directly or through partners. We
The Department will screen applications that are submitted for Validation grants in accordance with the requirements in this notice and determine which applications meet the eligibility and other requirements. Peer reviewers will review all applications for Validation grants that are submitted by the established deadline.
Applicants should note, however, that we may screen for eligibility at multiple points during the competition process, including before and after peer review; applicants that are determined to be ineligible will not receive a grant award regardless of peer reviewer scores or comments. If we determine that a Validation grant application is not supported by moderate evidence of effectiveness, or that the applicant does not demonstrate the required prior record of improvement, or does not meet any other i3 requirement, the application will not be considered for funding.
Under the Validation grant competition, each of the four absolute priorities constitutes its own funding category. The Secretary intends to award grants under each absolute priority for which applications of sufficient quality are submitted.
An applicant for a Validation grant must choose one of the four absolute priorities. Applications will be peer reviewed and scored; scores will be rank ordered by absolute priority, so an applicant must clearly identify the specific absolute priority and subpart that the proposed project addresses. Applicants that choose to submit an application under the absolute priority for Serving Rural Communities must identify an additional absolute priority. The peer-reviewed scores for applications submitted under the Serving Rural Communities priority will be ranked with other applications under the Serving Rural Communities priority and not included in the ranking for the additional priority that the applicant identifies. This design helps to ensure that applicants under the Serving Rural Communities priority receive an “apples to apples” comparison with other rural applicants.
These priorities are:
Under this priority, we provide funding to projects that address one of the following priority areas:
(a) Developing and implementing models of induction and support for improving the knowledge and skills of novice teachers or novice principals to accelerate student performance, including but not limited to strategies designed to increase teacher retention or improve teacher or principal effectiveness.
(b) Extending highly effective teachers' reach to serve more students, including strategies such as new course designs, staffing models, technology platforms, or new opportunities for collaboration that allow highly effective teachers to reach more students, or approaches or tools that reduce administrative and other burden while maintaining or improving effectiveness.
Under this priority, we provide funding to projects that are designed to support the implementation of internationally benchmarked, college- and career-ready academic standards held in common by multiple States and to improve instruction and learning, including strategies that translate the standards into classroom practice.
Under this priority, we provide funding to projects that address the following priority area:
Designing and implementing strategies that improve student achievement (as defined in this notice) for students with disabilities in inclusive settings, including strategies that improve learning and developmental outcomes (i.e., academic, social, emotional, or behavioral) and the appropriate transition from restrictive settings to inclusive settings or general education classes or programs, and appropriate strategies to prevent unnecessary suspensions and expulsions.
Under this priority, we provide funding to projects addressing one of the absolute priorities established for the 2014 Validation i3 competition and under which the majority of students to be served are enrolled in rural local educational agencies (as defined in this notice).
Applicants may address more than one of the competitive preference priorities. An applicant must identify in the project narrative section of its application the priority or priorities it wishes the Department to consider for purposes of earning competitive preference priority points.
The Department will not review or award points under any competitive preference priority that the applicant fails to clearly identify as the competitive preference priority or priorities the applicant wishes the Department to consider for purposes of earning competitive preference priority points.
These priorities are:
Under this priority, we provide funding to projects that address one of the following areas:
(a) Substantially improving student outcomes without commensurately increasing per-student costs.
(b) Maintaining student outcomes while substantially decreasing per-student costs.
(c) Substantially improving student outcomes while substantially decreasing per-student costs.
An application addressing This Priority must provide—
(1) A clear and coherent budget that identifies expected student outcomes before and after the practice, the cost per student for the practice, and a clear calculation of the cost per student served;
(2) A compelling discussion of the expected cost-effectiveness of the practice compared with alternative practices;
(3) A clear delineation of one-time costs versus ongoing costs and a plan for sustaining the project, particularly ongoing costs, after the expiration of i3 funding;
(4) Identification of specific activities designed to increase substantially the cost-effectiveness of the practice, such as re-designing costly components of the practice (while maintaining efficacy) or testing multiple versions of the practice in order to identify the most cost-effective approach; and
(5) A project evaluation that addresses the cost-effectiveness of the proposed practice.
Under this priority, we provide funding to projects that enable broad adoption of effective practices. An application proposing to address this priority must, as part of its application:
(a) Identify the practice or practices that the application proposes to prepare for broad adoption, including formalizing the practice (i.e., establish and define key elements of the practice), codifying (i.e., develop a guide or tools to support the dissemination of information on key elements of the practice), and explaining why there is a need for formalization and codification.
(b) Evaluate different forms of the practice to identify the critical components of the practice that are crucial to its success and sustainability, including the adaptability of critical components to different teaching and learning environments and to diverse learners.
(c) Provide a coherent and comprehensive plan for developing materials, training, toolkits, or other supports that other entities would need in order to implement the practice effectively and with fidelity.
(d) Commit to assessing the replicability and adaptability of the practice by supporting the implementation of the practice in a variety of locations during the project period using the materials, training, toolkits, or other supports that were developed for the i3-supported practice.
Eligible applicants that have never directly received a grant under this program.
This priority is:
The Secretary encourages applicants to propose projects that improve the coordination and alignment between early learning and development systems and elementary education systems in order to improve transitions for children from birth through third grade.
These definitions are from the 2013 i3 NFP. We may apply these definitions in any year in which this program is in effect.
This notice invites applications for Validation grants. The following definitions apply to all three types of grants under the i3 program (Development, Validation, and Scale-up). Therefore, some of the definitions included in this section, primarily those related to demonstrations of evidence, may be more applicable to applications for Scale-up or Development grants.
(a) There is at least one study that is either a—
(1) Correlational study with statistical controls for selection bias;
(2) Quasi-experimental study (as defined in this notice) that meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with reservations;
(3) Randomized controlled trial (as defined in this notice) that meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with or without reservations;
(b) Such a study found a statistically significant or substantively important (defined as a difference of 0.25 standard deviations or larger), favorable association between at least one critical component and one relevant outcome presented in the logic model for the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice.
(a) There is at least one study of the effectiveness of the process, product, strategy, or practice being proposed that: Meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without reservations;
(b) There is at least one study of the effectiveness of the process, product, strategy, or practice being proposed that: Meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with reservations,
(a) There is at least one study of the effectiveness of the process, product, strategy, or practice being proposed that: Meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without reservations;
(b) There are at least two studies of the effectiveness of the process, product, strategy, or practice being proposed, each of which: Meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with reservations;
(a) For grades and subjects in which assessments are required under ESEA section 1111(b)(3): (1) A student's score on such assessments and may include (2) other measures of student learning, such as those described in paragraph (b), provided they are rigorous and comparable across schools within an LEA.
(b) For grades and subjects in which assessments are not required under ESEA section 1111(b)(3): alternative measures of student learning and performance such as student results on pre-tests, end-of-course tests, and objective performance-based assessments; student learning objectives; student performance on English language proficiency assessments; and other measures of student achievement that are rigorous and comparable across schools within an LEA.
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Division A, Section 14007, Pub. L. 111–5.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian tribes.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education only.
These estimated available funds are the total available for all three types of grants under the i3 program (Development, Validation, and Scale-up grants).
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of the applications received, we may make additional awards in FY 2015 or later years from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition.
Development grants: Up to $3,000,000.
Validation grants: Up to $12,000,000.
Scale-up grants: Up to $20,000,000.
Development grants: $3,000,000.
Validation grants: $11,500,000.
Scale-up grants: $19,000,000.
Development grants: 10–20 awards.
Validation grants: 4–8 awards.
Scale-up grants: 0–2 awards.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1.
2.
3.
(a) An LEA.
(b) A partnership between a nonprofit organization and—
(1) One or more LEAs; or
(2) A consortium of schools.
(a)(1) Have significantly closed the achievement gaps between groups of students described in section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA (economically disadvantaged students, students from major racial and ethnic groups, students with limited English proficiency, students with disabilities); or
(2) Have demonstrated success in significantly increasing student academic achievement for all groups of students described in that section;
(b) Have made significant improvements in other areas, such as high school graduation rates (as defined in this notice) or increased recruitment and placement of high-quality teachers and principals, as demonstrated with meaningful data;
(c) Demonstrate that it has established one or more partnerships with the private sector, which may include philanthropic organizations, and that organizations in the private sector will provide matching funds in order to help bring results to scale; and
(d) In the case of an eligible applicant that includes a nonprofit organization, provide in the application the names of the LEAs with which the nonprofit organization will partner, or the names of the schools in the consortium with which it will partner. If an eligible applicant that includes a nonprofit organization intends to partner with additional LEAs or schools that are not named in the application, it must describe in the application the demographic and other characteristics of these LEAs and schools and the process it will use to select them.
An entity submitting an application should provide, in Appendix C, under “Other Attachments Form,” of its application, information addressing the eligibility requirements described in this section. An applicant must provide, in its application, sufficient supporting data or other information to allow the Department to determine whether the applicant has met the eligibility requirements. Note that in order to address the statutory eligibility requirement above, applicants must provide data that demonstrate a change. In other words, applicants must provide data for at least two points in time when addressing this requirement in Appendix C of their applications. If the Department determines that an applicant has provided insufficient information in its application, the applicant will not have an opportunity to provide additional information.
For purposes of this program, an LEA is an LEA located within one of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
The authorizing statute specifies that an eligible applicant that includes a nonprofit organization meets the requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the eligibility requirements for this program if the nonprofit organization has a record of significantly improving student achievement, attainment, or retention. For an eligible applicant that includes a nonprofit organization, the nonprofit organization must demonstrate that it has a record of significantly improving student achievement, attainment, or retention through its record of work with an LEA or schools. Therefore, an eligible applicant that includes a nonprofit organization does not necessarily need to include as a partner for its i3 grant an LEA or a consortium of schools that meets the requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the eligibility requirements in this notice.
In addition, the authorizing statute specifies that an eligible applicant that includes a nonprofit organization meets the requirements of paragraph (c) of the eligibility requirements in this notice if the eligible applicant demonstrates that it will meet the requirement for private-sector matching.
4.
The Secretary may consider decreasing the matching requirement on a case-by-case basis, and only in the most exceptional circumstances. An eligible applicant that anticipates being unable to meet the full amount of the private-sector matching requirement must include in its application a request that the Secretary reduce the matching-level requirement, along with a statement of the basis for the request.
An applicant that does not provide a request for a reduction of the matching-level requirement in its application may not submit that request at a later time.
5.
•
An applicant should identify up to two study citations to be reviewed against What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards for the purposes of meeting the i3 evidence standard requirement. An applicant should clearly identify these citations in Appendix D, under the “Other Attachments Form,” of its application. The Department will not review a study citation that an applicant fails to clearly identify for review. In addition to the two study citations, applicants should include a description of the intervention(s) the applicant plans to implement and the intended student outcomes that the intervention(s) attempts to impact in Appendix D.
An applicant must either ensure that all evidence is available to the Department from publicly available sources and provide links or other guidance indicating where it is available; or, in the application, include copies of evidence in Appendix D. If the Department determines that an applicant has provided insufficient information, the applicant will not have an opportunity to provide additional information at a later time.
The evidence standards apply to the prior research that supports the effectiveness of the proposed project. The i3 program does not restrict the source of prior research providing evidence for the proposed project. As such, an applicant could cite prior research in Appendix D for studies that were conducted by another entity (i.e., an entity that is not the applicant) so long as the prior research studies cited in the application are relevant to the effectiveness of the proposed project.
•
•
•
•
In addition, the grantee and its independent evaluator must agree to cooperate with any technical assistance provided by the Department or its contractor and comply with the requirements of any evaluation of the program conducted by the Department. This includes providing to the Department, within 100 days of a grant award, an updated comprehensive evaluation plan in a format and using such tools as the Department may require. Grantees must update this evaluation plan at least annually to reflect any changes to the evaluation. All of these updates must be consistent with the scope and objectives of the approved application.
•
•
1.
You can contact ED Pubs at its Web site, also:
If you request an application from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this program or competition as follows: CFDA number 84.411B.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) by contacting the person or team listed under
2. a.
Deadline for Notice of Intent to Submit Application: May 13, 2014.
We will be able to develop a more efficient process for reviewing grant applications if we know the approximate number of applicants that intend to apply for funding under this competition. Therefore, the Secretary strongly encourages each potential applicant to notify us of the applicant's intent to submit an application by completing a web-based form. When completing this form, applicants will provide (1) the applicant organization's name and address and (2) the one absolute priority the applicant intends to address. Applicants may access this form online at
Page Limit: The application narrative (Part III of the application) is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. Applicants should limit the application narrative [Part III] for a Validation grant application to no more than 35 pages. Applicants are also strongly encouraged not to include lengthy appendices that contain information that they were unable to include within the page limits for the narrative. Applicants should use the following standards:
• A “page” is 8.5″ × 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions.
• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).
• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial.
The page limit for the application does not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract, the resumes, the bibliography, or the letters of support of the application. However, the page limit does apply to all of the application narrative section [Part III] of the application.
b.
Given the types of projects that may be proposed in applications for the i3 program, some applications may include business information that applicants consider proprietary. The Department's regulations define “business information” in 34 CFR 5.11.
Consistent with the process followed in the prior i3 competitions, we plan on posting the project narrative section of
Consistent with Executive Order 12600, please designate in your application any information that you feel is exempt from disclosure under Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act. In the appropriate Appendix section of your application, under “Other Attachments Form,” please list the page number or numbers on which we can find this information. For additional information please see 34 CFR 5.11(c).
3.
Informational Meetings: The i3 program intends to hold webinars designed to provide technical assistance to interested applicants for all three types of grants. Detailed information regarding these meetings will be provided on the i3 Web site at
Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov). For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, please refer to section IV. 7.
We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.
Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under
Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: August 21, 2014.
4.
5.
6.
a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);
b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the System for Award Management (SAM) (formerly the Central Contractor Registry (CCR)), the Government's primary registrant database;
c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and
d. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period.
You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet. A DUNS number can be created within one-to-two business days.
If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow 2–5 weeks for your TIN to become active.
The SAM registration process can take approximately seven business days, but may take upwards of several weeks, depending on the completeness and accuracy of the data entered into the SAM database by an entity. Thus, if you think you might want to apply for Federal financial assistance under a program administered by the Department, please allow sufficient time to obtain and register your DUNS number and TIN. We strongly recommend that you register early.
Once your SAM registration is active, you will need to allow 24 to 48 hours for the information to be available in Grants.gov and before you can submit an application through Grants.gov.
If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your registration annually. This may take three or more business days.
Information about SAM is available at
In addition, if you are submitting your application via Grants.gov, you must (1) be designated by your organization as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and (2) register yourself with Grants.gov as an AOR. Details on these steps are outlined at the following Grants.gov Web page:
7.
Applications for grants for the i3 program must be submitted electronically unless you qualify for an exception to this requirement in accordance with the instructions in this section.
a.
Applications for grants under the i3 program, CFDA number 84.411B (Validation grants), must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at
We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement
You may access the electronic grant application for the i3 program at
Please note the following:
• When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation.
• Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your
• The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov.
• You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for this competition to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov under News and Events on the Department's G5 system home page at
• You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format.
• You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: The Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.
• You must upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to your application as files in a PDF (Portable Document) read-only, non-modifiable format. Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only, non-modifiable PDF or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material.
• Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice.
• After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. (This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department.) The Department then will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send a second notification to you by email. This second notification indicates that the Department has received your application and has assigned your application a PR/Award number (an ED-specified identifying number unique to your application).
• We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.
If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice.
If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed under
The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed to fully register to submit your application to Grants.gov before the application deadline date and time or if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov system.
• You do not have access to the Internet; or
• You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the Grants.gov system; and
• No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevent you from using the Internet to submit your application.
If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.
Address and mail or fax your statement to: Kelly Terpak, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., room 4W111, Washington, DC 20202–5930. FAX: (202) 205–5631.
Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.
b.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.411B), LBJ Basement Level 1, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202–4260.
You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.
If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A private metered postmark.
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
If your application is postmarked after the application deadline date, we will not consider your application.
The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.
c.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.411B), 550 12th Street SW., Room 7039, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202–4260.
The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.
If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—
(1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your +application; and
(2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245–6288.
1.
The points assigned to each criterion are indicated in the parenthesis next to the criterion. An applicant may earn up to a total of 100 points based on the selection criteria for the application.
An applicant must provide information on how its proposed project addresses the selection criteria in the project narrative section of its application. In responding to the selection criteria, applicants should keep in mind that peer reviewers may consider only the information provided in the written application when scoring and commenting on the application. Therefore, applicants should structure their applications with the goal of helping peer reviewers understand:
• What the applicant is proposing to do, including the absolute priority (or, if the applicant has selected the absolute priority for Serving Rural Communities, the absolute priorities) under which the applicant intends the application to be reviewed;
• How the proposed project will reach a national or regional level of scale that the applicant was previously unable to reach; and
• What the outcomes of the project will be if it is successful, including how those outcomes will be evaluated.
In determining the significance of the project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(1) The extent to which the proposed project addresses the national need and priorities the applicant is seeking to meet.
(2) The likelihood that the project will have the estimated impact, including the extent to which the applicant demonstrates that unmet demand for the proposed project or the proposed services will enable the applicant to reach the proposed level of scale.
(3) The feasibility of national expansion if favorable outcomes are achieved.
In responding to this criterion, the Secretary encourages applicants to address the unmet needs within the context of the absolute priority. Additionally, the Secretary encourages applicants to explain how the proposed project will address unmet demands and enable the applicant to reach the proposed level of scale. Applicants are also encouraged to explain how the applicant will ensure future scaling should the proposed project have positive results.
In determining the quality of the proposed project design, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(1) The clarity, completeness, and coherence of the project goals and whether the application includes a description of project activities that constitute a complete plan for achieving those goals, including the identification of potential risks to project success and strategies to mitigate those risks.
(2) The extent to which the applicant will use grant funds to address a particular barrier or barriers that prevented the applicant, in the past, from reaching the level of scale proposed in the application.
In responding to this criterion, the Secretary encourages applicants to develop a clear set of goals as well as the applicant's plan for achieving those goals. In designing this plan, applicants should consider the risks that could prevent success and what strategies they will implement to counteract those risks to ensure the proposed project is implemented successfully and will achieve its goals. Further, applicants are encouraged to identify barriers to scaling the proposed project and address how they will overcome the identified barriers.
In determining the quality of the management plan and personnel for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(1) The extent to which the management plan articulates key responsibilities and well-defined objectives, including the timelines and milestones for completion of major project activities, the metrics that will be used to assess progress on an ongoing basis, and annual performance targets the applicant will use to monitor whether the project is achieving its goals.
(2) The clarity and coherence of the applicant's multi-year financial and operating model and accompanying plan to operate the project at a national or regional level (as defined in this notice) during the project period.
(3) The extent to which the project director has experience managing large, complex projects.
In responding to this criterion, the Secretary encourages applicants to address how the project team will evaluate both the successes and challenges of the project and use the lessons from their ongoing monitoring and evaluation of the project to improve the project. Applicants also are encouraged to explain the organization's plan to operate the project at a national level or regional level during and after the life of the grant. Applicants are also encouraged to think about how the project director's past experience demonstrates an ability to manage large, complex projects, such as an i3 Validation grant.
In determining the quality of the project evaluation to be conducted, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(1) The clarity and importance of the key questions to be addressed by the
(2) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will, if well implemented, produce evidence about the project's effectiveness that would meet the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without reservations.
(3) The extent to which the evaluation will study the project at the proposed level of scale, including, where appropriate, generating information about potential differential effectiveness of the project in diverse settings and for diverse student population groups.
(4) The extent to which the evaluation plan includes a clear and credible analysis plan, including a proposed sample size and minimum detectable effect size that aligns with the expected project impact, and an analytic approach for addressing the research questions.
(5) The extent to which the evaluation plan clearly articulates the key components and outcomes of the project, as well as a measurable threshold for acceptable implementation.
(6) The extent to which the proposed project plan includes sufficient resources to carry out the project evaluation effectively.
In responding to this criterion, the Secretary encourages applicants to describe the key evaluation questions and address how the proposed evaluation methodologies will allow the project to answer those questions. The applicant should address whether the methods for evaluation would meet What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards and how the evaluation design will ensure the project will be evaluated at the proposed level of scale. The response to this criterion should include a description of the proposed sample size and the estimated project impacts as well as the key components of the proposed project for implementation. Finally, applicants should also address whether sufficient resources, which may include the qualifications of the independent evaluator, are included in the project budget to carry out the evaluation effectively.
We encourage eligible applicants to review the following technical assistance resources on evaluation:
(1) What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards Handbook:
(2) IES/NCEE Technical Methods papers:
2.
We will use independent peer reviewers with varied backgrounds and professions, such as pre-kindergarten-grade 12 teachers and principals, college and university educators, researchers and evaluators, social entrepreneurs, strategy consultants, grant makers and managers, and others with education expertise for the peer review process. All reviewers will be thoroughly screened for conflicts of interest to ensure a fair and competitive review process.
Peer reviewers will read, prepare a written evaluation, and score the assigned applications, using the selection criteria provided in this notice. For Validation grant applications, the Department intends to conduct a single tier review. If an eligible applicant has chosen to address either of the first two competitive preference priorities (Improving Cost-Effectiveness and Productivity or Enabling Broad Adoption of Effective Practices) in order to earn competitive preference priority points, reviewers will review and score these competitive preference priorities. If competitive preference priority points are awarded, those points will be included in the eligible applicant's overall score. If an eligible applicant chooses to address the last competitive preference priority (Supporting Novice i3 Applicants) to earn competitive preference priority points, the Department will review its list of previous i3 grantees in scoring this competitive preference priority.
We remind potential applicants that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition, the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as the applicant's use of funds, achievement of project objectives, and compliance with grant conditions. The Secretary may also consider whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or submitted a report of unacceptable quality.
Finally, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary also requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
3.
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multi-year award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on
4.
5.
Kelly Terpak, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 4W111, Washington, DC 20202–5930. Telephone: (202) 453–7122. FAX: (202) 205–5631 or by email:
If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the Federal Relay Service, toll free, at 1–800–877–8339.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education, Department of Education; Administration for Children and Families, Department of Health and Human Services; Employment and Training Administration, Department of Labor.
Request for Information.
Through this Request for Information (RFI), the Departments of Education (ED), Health and Human Services (HHS), and Labor (DOL) (the Departments) seek to further support the development of high-quality career pathways systems by jointly soliciting information and recommendations from a broad array of stakeholders in the public and private sectors, as well as in State, regional, tribal, and local areas.
The Departments will analyze the career pathways information collected from the RFI to: (1) Inform and coordinate policy development, strategic investments, and technical assistance activities; and (2) improve coordination of Federal policy development with investments at the State, tribal and local levels.
Responses must be received by June 9, 2014.
Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal or via U.S. mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not accept comments 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 and the term “Career Pathways RFI” at the top of your comments.
If you are submitting comments electronically, we strongly encourage you to submit any comments or attachments in Microsoft Word format. If you must submit a comment in Portable Document Format (PDF), we strongly encourage you to convert the PDF to print-to-PDF format or to use some other commonly used searchable text format.
Alicia Bolton, U.S. Department of Education, 550 12th Street SW., Room 11108, PCP, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 245–6868 or by email at:
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.
Ensuring robust economic growth, a thriving middle class, and broadly shared prosperity will require a significant expansion of the skills and knowledge of American workers over the next few decades. However, even as millions more Americans seek the postsecondary education and training necessary to secure good jobs that pay family-sustaining wages,
In April 2012, the Departments issued a joint letter on career pathways
• Alignment of systems: secondary, postsecondary and workforce development;
• Rigorous, sequential, connected, and efficient coursework that connects basic education and skills training and integrates education and training;
• Multiple entry and exit points;
• Comprehensive support services, such as career counseling, childcare, and transportation;
• Financial supports or flexibility to accommodate the demands of the labor market in order to allow individuals to meet their ongoing financial needs and obligations;
• Active engagement of business in targeted industry sectors that aligns with the skill needs of industries important to the local, regional, and/or State economies;
• Appropriate curriculum and instructional strategies that make work a central context for learning and work readiness skills;
• Credit for prior learning and the adoption of other strategies that accelerate the educational and career advancement of the participant;
• Organized services to meet the particular needs of adults, including accommodating work schedules with flexible and non-semester-based scheduling, alternative class times and locations, and the innovative use of technology;
• A focus on secondary and postsecondary industry-recognized credentials, sector-specific employment, and advancement over time in education and employment within that sector; and
• A collaborative partnership among workforce, education, human service agencies, business and other community stakeholders to manage the system.
One of the hallmarks of a career pathways system is its potential to provide an effective strategy for integrating educational instruction, workforce development, and human services and linking them to labor market trends and employer needs. The Departments believe that the more career pathways systems are aligned at the State, local, regional, and tribal
The joint letter was the Departments' first step to formally adopt a common definition and shared vision for career pathways systems, with the expectation that a common language would facilitate the forging of cross-agency partnerships and systems development. The joint letter was also the first time each of the Departments overseeing the major Federal funding streams for employment, training, education, and support services formally recognized their shared support for career pathways approaches. The impetus for the joint letter came from the awareness among Federal leaders of a growing convergence of strategies for promoting skills acquisition and labor market successes that fit loosely under the rubric of career pathways.
While there are differences in emphasis and terminology, the Departments are using discretionary and formula funding
ED implemented a variety of national activities, including “Designing Instruction for Career Pathways”
Each of the Departments has also made investments in research on the effectiveness of career pathways programs, including the HHS ten-year Innovative Strategies for Increasing Self-Sufficiency (ISIS)
Career pathways systems have demonstrated promise for meeting the distinct but complementary goals of a number of Federal agencies, including the DOL goals for increasing credential attainment rates and helping individuals secure good jobs at family-sustainable wages, ED's goal of increasing college success and career-readiness, and HHS's goal of supporting family self-sufficiency and stability. Thus, this RFI builds on the joint letter and on related efforts across the Federal government to better coordinate investments in human capital and economic development while reducing waste and duplication.
A subcommittee of the IWG, comprised of the Departments' leaders and staff, developed the RFI questions and will jointly analyze the responses. This RFI marks the first time that the Departments are jointly collecting and analyzing information, a process that we believe will yield important insights on: (1) The challenges to aligning diverse funding streams, programs, and stakeholders; and (2) efforts to serve low-income youth and adults, low-skilled youth and adults, out-of-school youth, individuals with disabilities, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program
We invite practitioners, policy makers, funders, business and industry associations, and researchers to provide information, including those who are, or those who work in:
• Employers, Businesses, and/or Associations of Employers, such as local and regional employers and businesses, trade/industry associations, and others.
• Education, such as State and local agencies; adult education, corrections/re-entry, elementary/secondary special education, and career and technical education programs; community and technical colleges; institutions of higher education; tribal, community, and faith-based organizations; youth service providers; and student organizations.
• Workforce Development, such as State, regional, tribal and local agencies; youth service providers; State and local workforce investment boards; training providers; community- and faith-based organizations; workforce intermediaries; sector-based training partnerships; American Job Centers; Registered Apprenticeship programs; student organizations (career-focused); and others in the workforce development field.
• Human Services, such as State, tribal, and local TANF agencies; and community- and faith-based organizations.
• Economic Development, such as State and local agencies, regional skills partnerships, planning and development organizations, area development districts, councils of governments, economic development associations, and economic development corporations.
• Others, such as research organizations, philanthropic funders, advocacy organizations, think tanks, and associations.
We strongly recommend that you limit the narrative in your electronic word document, or hard copy submission to the equivalent of no more than 10 pages using the following standards:
• A “page” is 8.5″ × 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs.
• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).
• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial.
• If submitting electronically, please do not upload attachments, but you may include hyperlinks to additional materials you would like reviewed.
On page 1 of your submission, please indicate your name, the name of your organization (if applicable), and your contact information (including phone number, postal address, and email address). While not required, it would assist us in reviewing your information if you also included the type of organization you represent (public, private, not-for-profit, or philanthropic), the field(s) in which you work (education, workforce development, human services, economic development, or other), and the level at which you operate (national, State, regional, local or tribal).
Through this RFI, the Departments are soliciting ideas and information from a broad array of stakeholders on improving outcomes for youth and adults through the use of career pathways approaches, including how to facilitate comprehensive, multi-system approaches and how to use existing resources in more coordinated and comprehensive ways. Responses to this RFI will inform the work of each Department as they design investments, policies, and legislative strategies to improve outcomes for youth and adults. This RFI is for information and planning purposes only and should not be construed as a solicitation or as an obligation on the part of the participating Federal agencies.
We ask respondents to address the following questions, where possible, in the context of the discussion in this document. You do not need to address every question and you should focus on those where you have relevant expertise. You may also provide relevant information that is not directly responsive to a particular topic but may nevertheless be helpful. Please clearly indicate which question(s) you are addressing in your response.
1. Using the list of key components of career pathways discussed in the Background section of this RFI as a general guideline, please describe any Federal, State, or local policies, frameworks, or initiatives of which you are aware that have been used to support the development of career pathways systems.
2. What factors, in your opinion, have facilitated the implementation of career pathways systems at the State or local level (e.g., the use of key resources or technical assistance tools)? What factors have made career pathways systems difficult to implement and/or replicate on a large scale?
3. What Federal, State, or local governmental and non-governmental funding streams are you aware of that have been used to support career pathways initiatives? If applicable, to what extent is your State or local area aligning or braiding
4. For your career pathways system, please describe the roles and responsibilities of each of the following partners with whom you work (please answer only for those that are applicable). What factors facilitate and/or create obstacles to successful partnership efforts?
a. Businesses/employers and industry associations
b. Education providers (e.g. K–12 education, special education, institutions of higher education including but not limited to community and technical colleges, and/or other training providers)
c. Workforce development agencies (e.g. Workforce Investment Boards and American Job Centers)
d. Community-based organizations and human service providers that address barriers to employment (e.g. cash assistance/TANF, child care, transportation, housing, food assistance/SNAP
e. Philanthropic organizations/intermediaries
f. State, regional, local, and/or tribal government agencies
g. Other (please describe)
5. Is your career pathways system connected to a State, regional, local, or tribal economic development strategy? If so, how?
6. How do you ensure that your career pathways system is staying current with labor market trends, particularly current demand, to respond to the need for particular skills and credentials in emerging industry sectors?
7. How can career pathways systems be made accessible to diverse populations and responsive to their needs beyond education and training (e.g., support services such as childcare, transportation, housing, etc.)? We are particularly, but not exclusively, interested in learning about efforts to serve low-income youth and adults, low-skilled youth and adults, out-of-school youth, individuals with disabilities, TANF recipients, tribal communities, English language learners, immigrants, rural populations, veterans, currently and formerly incarcerated individuals, dislocated workers, and trade-affected workers.
8. Which populations would you like to serve, but are unable to serve or face special challenges in serving? What are the barriers to serving these particular populations and what are the strategies, recommendations, or lessons learned that can be used to achieve positive outcomes in serving these populations?
9. What are the challenges and/or facilitators to building and/or offering stackable and portable, industry-recognized credentials?
Examples of credentials include: (1) Educational Diplomas and Certificates (typically for one academic year or less of study); (2) Educational Degrees, such as an associate's (2-year) or bachelor's (4-year) degree; (3) Registered Apprenticeship Certificate; (4) Occupational Licenses (typically, but not always, awarded by State government agencies); and (5) Industry-recognized or professional association certifications; also known as personnel certifications; and Other certificates of skills completion. For more details, see U.S. Department of Labor Training and Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL) No. 15–10,
10. How are participants' outcomes measured, and to what extent are the data used to monitor and improve the strength of your career pathways system? Please indicate if there are any other data points or ongoing evaluation efforts used to improve the strength of your career pathways system.
11. How do performance measures associated with specific Federal funding statutes/streams (i.e., WIA, Perkins, TANF, etc.) facilitate or impede the tracking of participant outcomes?
12. Do you have any suggestions for how Federal, State, regional, tribal, and local governments could support the development of high-quality career pathways systems and/or address gaps in current efforts? If so, please describe the specific changes that would be necessary in each of the following categories (please answer only for those that are applicable):
a. Legislation, statutes and/or regulations; for example,
(i) Administrative flexibility (i.e., waivers on use of funds or program eligibility)
(ii) Expanded eligibility for financial aid and/or other support services
(iii) Changes to performance measurement and program accountability rules
b. Technical assistance activities and/or non-regulatory guidance;
c. Funding strategies;
d. Research and evaluation activities;
e. Other proposed changes.
13. For business and industry respondents only,
By submitting material (e.g., descriptions of use or barriers to use of career pathways approaches) in response to this RFI, the respondent is agreeing to grant the Departments a worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive license to use the material and to make it publicly available. Further, the respondent agrees that it owns, has a valid license, or is otherwise authorized to provide the material to the Department. The Departments will not provide any compensation for material submitted in response to this RFI.
To make the best use of the information submitted in response to this RFI and to make it easier for interested parties to search the responses, the Departments will include specific words or phrases—also known as “keywords” or metadata “tags”—with the material submitted. Therefore, you are strongly encouraged to use keywords or tags to identify components of the strategies described in your responses. The keywords or tags should be linked to, and accurately reflect substantial components of, the strategies, practices, programs, or other activities described in your submission. To simplify searches of the responses, Appendix A of this RFI provides a list of standard keywords and tags. You are encouraged to select from among these standard keywords and tags to the greatest extent possible. In the event that none of the words or phrases in Appendix A is sufficiently precise for the strategy that is the subject of your response, you may substitute other keywords or tags. Please do not provide more than eight keywords or tags for each strategy, and please limit each tag to no more than three words per tag and 28 characters per word.
You may also access documents of the Departments published in the
20 U.S.C. 3402(2) and (4) and 20 U.S.C. 2324(c)(1); 42 U.S.C. 1310; and 29 U.S.C. 2811.
• At-Risk Youth
• Disadvantaged Youth
• Dropouts
• Foster Youth
• Homeless Youth
• In-school Youth
• Incarcerated individuals
• Individuals with Disabilities
• Out-of-School Youth
• Runaway Youth
• Vulnerable
• Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Youth
• Youth in Adult Education
• Young Adults
• Adults
• Basic-skills Deficient
• Dislocated Workers
• Immigrants
• Limited English Proficient (LEP)/English Language Learner (ELL)/English as a Second Language (ESL)
• Long-term Unemployed
• Low-skilled Adults
• Low-skilled Youth
• Low-income Adults
• Low-Income Youth
• Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Adult
• Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) Recipients
• Trade-Adjusted (TA) Workers
• Trade-affected Workers
• Tribal Communities
• Unemployed
• Veterans
• Accommodations
• Adult Basic Education (ABE)
• Adult Education (AE)
• Apprenticeship
• Basic Skills
• Career and Technical Education (CTE)
• Career Pathways
• Immigrant Integration
• Reentry
• Special Education
• Workforce Development
• Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Youth Services
• Wrap Around Services
• Youth and Basic Skills
• Youth Development
• Youth Service
• Youth Workforce Development
• Alignment
• Articulation
• Career Ladders
• Career Lattices
• Career Pathways
• Certificates
• Certifications
• Collaboration
• Competency-based Education
• Competency Models
• Credentials
• Dual Enrollment
• Employer Engagement
• Holistic
• Innovation
• Integrated
• Integrated Education and Training
• Outreach
• Partnerships
• Pay For Success Funding
• Performance-Based Funding
• Professional Development
• Sector Strategies Shared
Department of Energy.
Notice of Open Meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Nevada. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Wednesday, May 21, 2014; 5:00 p.m.
Bob Ruud Community Center, 150 N. Highway 160, Pahrump, Nevada 89060.
Barbara Ulmer, Board Administrator, 232 Energy Way, M/S 505, North Las Vegas, Nevada 89030. Phone: (702) 630–0522; Fax (702) 295–5300 or Email:
Department of Energy.
Notice of Open Meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Savannah River Site. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Monday, May 19, 2014; 1:00 p.m.–5:00 p.m. Tuesday, May 20, 2014; 8:30 a.m.–5:00 p.m.
Hilton Garden Inn Savannah Midtown, 5711 Abercorn Street, Savannah, GA 31405.
Gerri Flemming, Office of External Affairs, Department of Energy, Savannah River Operations Office, P.O. Box A, Aiken, SC, 29802; Phone: (803) 952–7886.
Monday, May 19, 2014:
1:00 p.m.—Combined Committees Session.
• Strategic & Legacy Management
• Administrative & Outreach
• Nuclear Materials
• Waste Management
• Facilities Disposition & Site Remediation
4:45 p.m.—Public Comments Session.
5:00 p.m.—Adjourn.
Tuesday, May 20, 2014:
8:30 a.m.—Opening, Pledge, Approval of Minutes, Chair and Agency Updates.
10:00 a.m.—Recommendation & Work Plan Status.
10:15 a.m.—Public Comments Session.
Break (10:30 a.m.)
Strategic & Legacy Management Report.
Waste Management Report.
12:45 p.m.—Public Comments Session.
1:00 p.m.—Lunch Break.
2:30 p.m.—Facilities Disposition & Site Remediation Report.
Nuclear Materials Report.
Administrative & Outreach Report.
4:45 p.m.—Public Comments Session.
5:00 p.m.—Adjourn.
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following open access transmission tariff filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests,
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA issued a cancellation order in the
Susan Bartow, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone number: (703) 603–0065; fax number: (703) 308–8005; email address:
This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–OPP–2005–0123, is available at
Methyl bromide is a broad-spectrum fumigant chemical that can be used as an acaricide, fungicide, herbicide, insecticide, nematicide, and vertebrate control agent. It is used most prevalently as a soil fumigant, but is also used as a postharvest treatment of commodities. In the
Table 2 of this unit includes the names and addresses of record for the registrants of the products listed in Table 1 of this unit, in sequence by EPA company number. This number corresponds to the first part of the EPA registration numbers of the products listed in Table 1 of this unit.
Soil Chemicals Corporation D/B/A Cardinal Professional Products, and Trical, Inc. have asked EPA to extend the last allowable date for the sale and distribution of existing stocks of the products identified above (as defined in the May 20, 2011 order) for use on golf courses from April 30, 2014 to November 30, 2014 to allow sale and distribution during the 2014 golf course use season.
EPA hereby modifies the May 20, 2011 cancellation order to permit the sale and distribution of existing stocks of the methyl bromide registrations identified in Table 1 of Unit II for use on golf courses. This notice:
1. Allows sale and distribution of existing stocks of the affected products until November 30, 2014;
2. Allows use of existing stocks of the products purchased prior to April 30, 2014 according to the directions on the label for the product until those stocks are exhausted; and
3. Allows use of existing stocks that were purchased after April 30, 2014 only on golf courses according to the directions for that use on the label for the product until those stocks are exhausted.
Provisions in the May 20, 2011 cancellation order that do not relate to use on golf courses are not affected by this revision.
Section 6(a)(1) of FIFRA provides that the Administrator may permit the continued sale and use of existing stocks of a pesticide whose registration is canceled to such extent, under such conditions, and for such uses as the Administrator determines that such sale or use is not inconsistent with the purposes of the Act. In the May 20, 2011 cancellation order, EPA established various conditions and expiration dates for sale and use of existing stocks of methyl bromide products based on different use sites. This authority also allows EPA to revise those conditions so long as the continued sale and use of existing stocks of the canceled pesticides will not be inconsistent with the purposes of FIFRA.
Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Association of American Pesticide Control Officials (AAPCO)/State FIFRA Issues Research and Evaluation Group (SFIREG), Environmental Quality Issues (EQI) Committee) and the Pesticide
The meeting will be held on Monday, May 12, 2014, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and 8:30 a.m. to 12 noon on Tuesday, May 13, 2014. To request accommodation of a disability, please contact the person listed under
The meeting will be held at: EPA, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 4th Floor, South Conference Room, 2777 Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA.
Ron Kendall, Field External Affairs Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. (7506P), NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone number: (703) 305–5561; fax number: (703) 305–5884; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are interested in pesticide regulation issues affecting States and any discussion between EPA and SFIREG on FIFRA field implementation issues related to human health, environmental exposure to pesticides, and insight into EPA's decision-making process. You are invited and encouraged to attend the meetings and participate as appropriate. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
Those persons who are or may be required to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act (FFDCA), or the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and those who sell, distribute or use pesticides, as well as any Non Government Organization.
If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
The docket for this action, identified by docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2014–0002 is available at
1. Sub-Group Pollinator Protection Discussions Related to Incidents, Documentation and Impacts.
2. Formation of a compost joint sub-group, Label Questions, Laboratory Methods, especially Analytical Methods and Guideline Development.
3. Drift-Specific bad label language; National Association of State Departments of Agriculture Support.
4. EPA explanation of Pesticide Registration Improvement Act 3- Conditional Registration vs. Notification.
5. Project Officer Training Update.
6. Worker Protection Standard Use Inspections.
7. Cover Crop Issues.
8. Nutrient Management Issues.
9. Marijuana, illegal pesticide use, Possible 24c's.
10. Endangered Species Act Update.
11. 25b Workgroup Next Steps.
12. National Pesticide Information Center Grant Update.
13. Fumigant Stakeholder Sub-Committee Progress.
14. NIOSH Sensor Data for Pesticides.
15. Air Sensor Development Applicability to Pesticide Monitoring.
This meeting is open for the public to attend. You may attend the meeting without further notification.
Environmental protection.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of tentative approval.
Notice is hereby given that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has tentatively approved revisions to the State of Ohio's public water system supervision program. Ohio EPA has revised two of its rules to comply with the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations, including the Long-Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT1ESWTR) and the Lead and Copper Rule Short-Term Revisions and Clarifications. EPA has determined that these revisions are consistent with and no less stringent than the corresponding federal regulations. Therefore, EPA intends to approve these revisions to the State of Ohio's public water system supervision program, thereby giving Ohio EPA primary enforcement responsibility for these regulations. Ohio EPA has been implementing the LT1ESWTR since August 3, 2004, and Ohio EPA has been administering the revised lead and copper requirements since July 24, 2009.
Any interested party may request a public hearing. A request for a public hearing must be submitted by May 23, 2014 to the Regional Administrator at the EPA Region 5 address shown below. The Regional Administrator may deny frivolous or insubstantial requests for a hearing. However, if a substantial request for a public hearing is made by May 23, 2014 EPA Region 5 will hold a public hearing, and a notice of such hearing will be given in the
All documents relating to this determination are available for inspection at the following offices: Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Drinking and Ground Waters, 50 West Town Street, Suite 700, Columbus, Ohio 43215, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Ground Water and Drinking Water Branch (WG–15J), 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday.
Wendy Drake, EPA Region 5, Ground Water and Drinking Water Branch, at the address given above, by telephone at (312) 886–6705, or at
Section 1413 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. 300g–2, and the federal regulations implementing Section 1413 of the Act set forth at 40 CFR part 142.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, this notice advises interested persons that the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Technological Advisory Council will hold a meeting on Tuesday, June 10, 2014, in the Commission Meeting Room, from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. at the Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
Tuesday, June 10, 2014.
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
Walter Johnston, Chief, Electromagnetic Compatibility Division, 202–418–0807;
The FCC Technological Advisory Council will discuss progress on its work program for 2014. The FCC will attempt to accommodate as many people as possible. However, admittance will be limited to seating availability. Meetings are also broadcast live with open captioning over the Internet from the FCC Live Web page at
Federal Communications Commission.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
The Commission announces the next meeting date, time, and agenda of its Consumer Advisory Committee (Committee). The purpose of the Committee is to make recommendations to the Commission regarding matters within the jurisdiction of the Commission and to facilitate the participation of all consumers in proceedings before the Commission.
May 19, 2014, 2:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Room TW–C438/468, Washington, DC 20554.
Scott Marshall, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, (202) 418–2809 (voice or TTY), or email
This is a summary of the Commission's document DA 14–501 released April 15, 2014, announcing the agenda, date, and time of the Committee's next meeting.
At its May 19, 2014 meeting, the Committee will reaffirm recommendations adopted at its March 28, 2014 meeting regarding the IP transition, E-rate, a workshop to assess requirements for wireless medical test beds, and a commendation to the Commission regarding its recent TV caption quality rule. This reaffirmation is necessary because timely notice of action on these recommendations in the
Alternatively, Members of the public may send written comments to: Scott Marshall, Designated Federal Officer of the Committee at the address provided above.
The meeting is open to the public and the site is fully accessible to people using wheelchairs or other mobility aids. The meeting is open to the public, and the site is fully accessible to people using wheelchairs or other mobility aids. Reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities, such as sign language interpreters, open captioning, assistive listening devices, and Braille copies of the agenda are available upon request. The request should include a detailed description of the accommodation needed and contact information. Please provide as much advance notice as possible; last minute requests will be accepted, but may not be possible to fill. To request an accommodation, send an email to
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Notice and request for comment.
The FDIC, 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 the renewal of an existing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). On February 13, 2014, (79 FR 8714), the FDIC requested comment for 60 days on a proposal to renew the following information collection: Interagency Bank Merger Application, OMB Number: 3064–0015, described below. No comments were received. The FDIC hereby gives notice of its plan to submit to OMB a request to approve the renewal of this collection, and again invites comment on this renewal.
Comments must be submitted on or before May 23, 2014.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to the FDIC by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
All comments should refer to the relevant OMB control number. A copy of the comments may also be submitted to the OMB desk officer for the FDIC: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
Gary A. Kuiper, at the FDIC address above.
Proposal to renew the following currently-approved collection of information:
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Federal Housing Finance Agency.
Notice.
The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) is announcing the Federal Home Loan Bank (Bank) members it has selected for the 2014–2015 Review Cycle—1st Round under the FHFA's community support requirements regulation. This notice also prescribes the deadline by which Bank members selected for review must submit Community Support Statements to FHFA.
Bank members selected for the review cycle under the FHFA's community support requirements regulation must submit completed Community Support Statements to FHFA on or before June 9, 2014.
Bank members selected for the 2014–2015 Review Cycle—1st Round under the FHFA's community support requirements regulation must submit completed Community Support Statements to FHFA either by electronic mail at
Melissa Allen, Senior Program Analyst, 202–658–9266 or
Section 10(g)(1) of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act (Bank Act) requires FHFA to promulgate regulations establishing standards of community investment or service Bank members must meet in order to maintain access to long-term advances.
Under the rule, FHFA selects approximately one-eighth of the members in each Bank district for community support review each calendar quarter. 12 CFR 1290.2(a). FHFA will not review an institution's community support performance until it has been a Bank member for at least one year. Selection for review is not, nor should it be construed as, any indication of either the financial condition or the community support performance of the member.
Each Bank member selected for review must complete a Community Support Statement and submit it to FHFA by the June 9, 2014 deadline prescribed in this notice. 12 CFR 1290.2(b)(1)(ii) and (c). On or before May 7, 2014, each Bank will notify the members in its district that have been selected for the 2014–2015 Review Cycle—1st Round community support review that they must complete and submit to FHFA by the deadline a Community Support Statement. 12 CFR 1290.2(b)(2)(i). The member's Bank will provide a blank Community Support Statement Form (OMB No. 2590–0005), which also is available on the FHFA's Web site:
FHFA has selected the following members for the 2014–2015 Review Cycle—1st Round community support review:
To encourage the submission of public comments on the community support performance of Bank members, on or before May 7, 2014, each Bank will notify its Advisory Council and nonprofit housing developers, community groups, and other interested parties in its district of the members selected for community support review in the 2014–2015 Review Cycle—1st Round. 12 CFR 1290.2(b)(2)(ii). In reviewing a member for community support compliance, FHFA will consider any public comments it has received concerning the member. 12 CFR 1290.2(d). To ensure consideration by FHFA, comments concerning the community support performance of members selected for the 2014–2015 Review Cycle—1st Round must be delivered to FHFA, either by hard-copy mail at the Federal Housing Finance Agency, Ninth Floor, Housing Mission and Goals (DHMG), 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20024, or by electronic mail to
The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreements to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within twelve days of the date this notice appears in the
By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
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 May 8, 2014.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (E. Ann Worthy, Vice President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201–2272:
1.
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 May 8, 2014.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (E. Ann Worthy, Vice President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201–2272:
1. Central Texas Financial Corp., Cameron, Texas, to acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of Citcamco Incorporated, and indirectly acquire Peoples Finance Company, both in Cameron, Texas, and thereby engage in extending credit and servicing loans, pursuant to section 225.28(b)(1).
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than May 19, 2014.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Yvonne Sparks, Community Development Officer) P.O. Box 442, St. Louis, Missouri 63166–2034:
1.
2.
Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP), General Services Administration (GSA).
Notice.
The Chief Acquisition Officers Council (CAOC), in coordination with the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council (FAR Council), the Chief Information Officers Council (CIOC), the General Services Administration (GSA) and the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Office
Interested parties may participate in the dialogue through an online platform by reviewing the information and participation dates posted at
Mr. Jim Wade, OFPP, 202–395–2181 or
The President's Management Agenda lays the foundation for creating a 21st century government that delivers better results to the American people. This foundation includes an efficient and effective acquisition system that maximizes the value of every taxpayer dollar.
The federal acquisition system is governed by a myriad of rules, both administrative and statutory, that are designed to help agencies maximize results from their contracts, make sure that contractors are qualified to do business with the federal government, and ensure consistency with key economic and social policies. Efforts to streamline, modernize, and improve requirements may allow contractors and agencies to execute in a more efficient and effective manner, while still supporting the execution of these policies.
The CAOC, in collaboration with the FAR Council, the CIOC, GSA and OFPP, seeks to conduct an open conversation to identify specific rules and requirements, tools, procedures, and practices that impact the efficiency and effectiveness of federal procurement and ways to improve them. The CAOC is interested in hearing about proposed improvements that can be accomplished through executive (regulatory, administrative, or management) action, as well as potential legislative proposals where requirements are based in statute. Dialogue will be encouraged in each of the following areas:
•
•
•
To facilitate feedback, an online platform is being launched so that interested parties may submit ideas, respond to questions posed by moderators, and comment on other ideas—including those that they think are most promising and impactful. Information on the platform and the dates for participating in the dialogue are posted at
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces the intention of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve the proposed information collection project:
Comments on this notice must be received by June 23, 2014.
Written comments should be submitted to: Doris Lefkowitz, Reports Clearance Officer, AHRQ, by email at
Copies of the proposed collection plans, data collection instruments, and specific details on the estimated burden can be obtained from the AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer.
Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer, (301) 427–1477, or by email at
This evaluation of HHS' Healthcare Associated Infections National Action Plan will assess the efficacy, efficiency and coordination of federal efforts to mitigate and prevent Healthcare Associated Infections (HAIs). As such, the evaluation represents a critical component of AHRQ's mission to promote health care quality improvement.
HAIs are infections that patients acquire while receiving treatment for other conditions while in a healthcare setting. They affect care in hospitals-hereafter referred to as “acute care”, ambulatory care settings, and long-term care facilities, and represent a significant cause of illness and death in the United States. Over one million HAIs occur across health care settings every year.
In 2008, amidst growing demands on the healthcare system, rising healthcare costs, and increasing concerns about antimicrobial-resistant pathogens, HHS established a senior-level Steering Committee for the Prevention of HAIs. Charged with improving coordination and maximizing the efficiency of prevention efforts across HHS, the Steering Committee released the first “National Action Plan to Prevent Health Care-Associated Infections” (HAI NAP) in 2009. This plan outlined a systematic and phased approach to reducing HAIs and associated morbidity, mortality, and costs. Phase One of HAI NAP, which concluded in 2012, focused on HAI prevention in acute care hospitals, where data on prevention and the capacity to measure improvement were most complete.
Additionally, the plan set specific targets for reducing rates of six high priority HAIs or specific causative organisms: Surgical site infection (SSI),
Phase II of the Action Plan, entitled
The current evaluation will expand upon this initial effort, encompassing the additional health care settings outlined in Phases II and III of the HAI NAP.
The goals of this Phase II evaluation are to:
1. Identify commonalities, gaps, themes, and opportunities for collaboration across six Federal quality improvement and patient safety efforts to eliminate HAIs; and
2. highlight actionable opportunities across HHS to collaborate and efficiently utilize resources in these quality improvement and patient safety efforts; and
3. assess the unique and aggregate contributions of each quality improvement and patient safety effort to the mitigation and prevention of HAIs.
This study is being conducted by AHRQ through its contractor, Insight Policy Research, Inc. and its subcontractors, IMPAQ International and RAND Corporation, pursuant to AHRQ's statutory authority to conduct and support research and evaluations on healthcare and on systems for the delivery of such care, including activities with respect to the quality, effectiveness, efficiency, appropriateness and value of healthcare services and with respect to quality measurement and improvement. 42 U.S.C. 299a(a)(1) and (2).
To achieve the goals of the HAI NAP evaluation, the following data collections will be implemented:
AHRQ will use the interview data to assess the processes and methods used, results achieved, and lessons learned from patient quality and safety programs that are directed at reducing the incidence of HAIs. This information will enable AHRQ to identify redundancies in program efforts and provide effective approaches for coordinating and aligning Federal efforts to prevent the incidence of HAIs. Finally, collecting data from these stakeholders will allow AHRQ to detect gaps in the HAI science base and opportunities for funding additional projects focused on generating and implementing knowledge on preventing HAIs.
The information gathered through the key informant interviews will be presented to members of a Federal Action Working Group (FAWG), comprising representatives from the various federal agencies and operating divisions of HHS who are actively involved in the HAI NAP. Presentations to the FAWG will provide continual and rapid-cycle feedback on evaluation findings. This feedback will accomplish several goals—namely, it will apprise the FAWG members of the study's formative findings, provide a medium to obtain feedback from the FAWG regarding the unique and aggregate impact of the national programs, and engage the FAWG in a discussion about gaps and future requirements.
Ultimately, the information gathered through this data collection effort will appear in annual reports, along with results of secondary data analyses. These reports will provide AHRQ and HHS with comprehensive, evaluative findings across and within individual patient safety programs as well as findings specific to the HAI NAP, and the extent to which the goals outlined in the plan have been achieved.
Exhibit 1 shows the estimated annualized burden hours for the respondents' time to participate in this evaluation. The total burden hours are estimated to be 66, which covers two years of interviews. The exhibits below indicate annualized burden hours in one year.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on AHRQ's information collection are requested with regard to any of the following: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of AHRQ health care research and health care information dissemination functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of AHRQ's estimate of burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection(s) of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information upon the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the Agency's subsequent request for OMB approval of the proposed information collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HHS.
Notice.
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2), announcement is made of an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Special Emphasis Panel (SEP) meeting on
May 15–16, 2014 (
Gaithersburg Marriott Washingtonian Center, 9751 Washingtonian Boulevard, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20878.
Anyone wishing to obtain a roster of members, agenda or minutes of the non-confidential portions of this meeting should contact:
Agenda items for this meeting are subject to change as priorities dictate.
A Special Emphasis Panel is a group of experts in fields related to health care research who are invited by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), and agree to be available, to conduct on an as needed basis, scientific reviews of applications for AHRQ support. Individual members of the Panel do not attend regularly-scheduled meetings and do not serve for fixed terms or a long period of time. Rather, they are asked to participate in particular review meetings which require their type of expertise.
Each SEP meeting will commence in open session before closing to the public for the duration of the meeting. The SEP meeting referenced above will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in 5 U.S.C. App. 2, section 10(d), 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6). Grant applications for the “AHRQ RFA–HS14–007, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research (PCOR) for Deliberative Approaches: Patient and Consumer Input for Implementing Evidence-Based Health Care (R21)” are to be reviewed and discussed at this meeting. 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.
The meeting announced below concerns Conducting Public Health Research in South Africa by the National Health Laboratory Service (NHLS), Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) GH12–004; and Strengthening National Capacity in Malaria and Other Infectious Disease Operations Research, FOA GH14–003, initial review.
In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the aforementioned meeting:
Time and Date: 10:00 a.m.–12:00 p.m., May 13, 2014 (Closed).
The meeting announced below concerns “Provider Input on Critical Immunization Issues”, Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) IP14–003, initial review.
In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the aforementioned meeting:
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
The meeting announced below concerns Addressing Emerging Infectious Diseases in Bangladesh, Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) GH14–002, initial review.
In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the aforementioned meeting:
In accordance with section 10(a) (2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announces the following meeting of the aforementioned committee.
Limited teleconference access is also available. Login information is as follows:
Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
The meeting announced below concerns Conducting Public Health Research in Thailand by the Ministry of Public Health (MOPH), Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) GH11–002; Conducting Public Health Research in China, FOA GH12–005, initial review.
In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the aforementioned meeting:
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 May 23, 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.
Section 741 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 379j–21) establishes three different kinds of user fees: (1) Fees for certain types of abbreviated applications for generic new animal drugs, (2) annual fees for certain generic new animal drug products, and (3) annual fees for certain sponsors of abbreviated applications for generic new animal drugs and/or investigational submissions for generic new animal drugs (21 U.S.C. 379j–21(a)). Because concurrent submission of user fees with applications is required, the review of an application cannot begin until the fee is submitted. Form FDA 3728 is the Animal Generic Drug User Fee Act (AGDUFA) Cover Sheet, which is designed to provide the minimum necessary information to determine whether a fee is required for review of an application, to determine the amount of the fee required, and to account for and track user fees.
The Animal Generic Drug User Fee Amendments of 2013, signed by the President on June 13, 2013 (AGDUFA II) (Title II of Pub. L. 113–14), amended the FD&C Act authorizing FDA to collect user fees for certain abbreviated applications for generic new animal drugs, for certain generic new animal drug products, and for certain sponsors of such abbreviated applications for generic new animal drugs and/or investigational submissions for generic new animal drugs. To implement changes under the reauthorization by their effective date of October 1, 2013, FDA sought and received OMB approval to update its Form FDA 3728 as described as follows:
On page 1 of the electronic questions under “Select an Application Type” users must select “Original” and then choose either, “Abbreviated New Animal Drug Application (ANADA)—under provisions of 512(b)(2) of FFDCA [the FD&C Act]” (21 U.S.C. 360b(b)(2)); or “Abbreviated New Animal Drug Application (ANADA)—for certain combination pioneer products approved under provisions of 512(d)(4) of FD&C Act.” If they select the first ANADA type, they will be charge 100 percent of the application fee. If they select the second ANADA type, they will be charged at a rate of 50 percent of the original application fee. To facilitate the application process in this regard, on Form FDA 3728 we have added a line in section 3 that allows applicants to select the option, “3.2 Original Abbreviated New Animal Drug Application (ANADA)—for certain combination pioneer products approved under provisions of section 512(d)(4) of the FD&C Act.”
In the
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Respondents to this collection of information are generic animal drug applicants. Based on data for the past 3 years, FDA estimates there are approximately 20 submissions annually and a total of 3.2 burden hours.
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 May 23, 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.
We have regulatory oversight for color additives used in foods, drugs, cosmetics, and medical devices. Section 721(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 379e(a)) provides that a color additive shall be deemed to be unsafe unless it meets the requirements of a listing regulation, including any requirement for batch certification, and is used in accordance with the regulation. We list color additives that have been shown to be safe for their intended uses in Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). We require batch certification for all color additives listed in 21 CFR part 74 and for all color additives provisionally listed in 21 CFR part 82. Color additives listed in 21 CFR part 73 are exempted from certification.
The requirements for color additive certification are described in 21 CFR part 80. In the certification procedure, a representative sample of a new batch of color additive, accompanied by a “request for certification” that provides information about the batch, must be submitted to FDA's Office of Cosmetics and Colors. FDA personnel perform chemical and other analyses of the representative sample and, providing the sample satisfies all certification requirements, issue a certification lot number for the batch. We charge a fee for certification based on the batch weight and require manufacturers to keep records of the batch pending and after certification.
Under § 80.21, a request for certification must include: Name of color additive, manufacturer's batch number and weight in pounds, name and address of manufacturer, storage conditions, statement of use(s), certification fee, and signature of person requesting certification. Under § 80.22, a request for certification must include a sample of the batch of color additive that is the subject of the request. The sample must be labeled to show: Name of color additive, manufacturer's batch number and quantity, and name and address of person requesting certification. Under § 80.39, the person to whom a certificate is issued must keep complete records showing the disposal of all of the color additive covered by the certificate. Such records are to be made available upon request to any accredited representative of FDA until at least 2 years after disposal of all of the color additive.
The purpose for collecting this information is to help us assure that only safe color additives will be used in foods, drugs, cosmetics, and medical devices sold in the United States. The required information is unique to the batch of color additive that is the subject of a request for certification. The
In the
We estimate the burden of this collection of information as follows:
We base our estimate on our review of the certification requests received over the past 3 fiscal years (FY). The annual burden estimate for this information collection is 3,273 hours. The estimated reporting burden for this information collection is 1,532 hours and the estimated recordkeeping burden for this information collection is 1,741 hours. From FY 2011 to FY 2013, we processed an average of 6,954 responses (requests for certification of batches of color additives) per year. There were 35 different respondents, corresponding to an average of approximately 199 responses from each respondent per year. Using information from industry personnel, we estimate that an average of 0.22 hour per response is required for reporting (preparing certification requests and accompanying samples) and an average of 0.25 hour per response is required for recordkeeping.
Our web-based Color Certification information system allows submitters to request color certification online, follow their submissions through the process, and obtain information on account status. The system sends back the certification results electronically, allowing submitters to sell their certified color before receiving hard copy certificates. Any delays in the system result only from shipment of color additive samples to FDA's Office of Cosmetics and Colors for analysis.
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 May 23, 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.
Under Section 740 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 379j–12), as amended by Animal Drug User Fee Act (ADUFA) (Pub. L. 108–130), FDA has the authority to assess and collect for certain animal drug user fees. Because concurrent submission of user fees with applications and supplements is required, review of an application cannot begin until the fee is submitted. The types of fees that require a cover sheet are certain animal drug application fees and certain supplemental animal drug application fees. The ADUFA cover sheet (Form FDA 3546) is designed to provide the minimum necessary information to determine whether a fee is required for the review of an application or supplement, to determine the amount of the fee required, and to assure that each animal drug user fee payment and each animal drug application for which payment is made is appropriately linked to the payment that is made. The form, when completed electronically, will result in the generation of a unique payment identification number used in tracking the payment. FDA will use the information collected to initiate administrative screening of new animal drug applications and supplements to determine if payment has been received.
In the
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Respondents to this collection of information are new animal drug applicants or manufacturers. Based on FDA's database system, there are an estimated 173 manufacturers of products or sponsors of new animal drugs potentially subject to ADUFA. However, not all manufacturers or sponsors will have any submissions in a given year and some may have multiple submissions. The total number of annual responses is based on the average number of submissions received by FDA in fiscal years 2011–2013. The estimated hours per response are based on past FDA experience with the various submissions. The hours per response are based on the average of these estimates.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is announcing the availability of the draft guidance entitled “Balancing Premarket and Postmarket Data Collection for Devices Subject to Premarket Approval.” This draft guidance clarifies FDA's current policy on balancing premarket and postmarket data collection during the Agency's review of premarket approval applications (PMA). Specifically, this guidance outlines how FDA considers the role of postmarket information in determining the appropriate type and amount of data that should be collected in the premarket setting to support premarket approval, while still meeting the statutory standard of safety and effectiveness. FDA believes this guidance will improve patient access to safe and effective medical devices that are important to public health by improving the predictability, consistency, transparency, and efficiency of the premarket process. This draft guidance is not final nor is it in effect at this time.
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 July 22, 2014.
An electronic copy of the guidance document is available for download from the Internet. See the
Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance to
Office of the Center Director, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, rm. 5431, Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002, 301–796–5900 or Stephen Ripley, Center for
FDA has long applied postmarket controls as a way to reduce premarket data collection, where appropriate, while assuring that the statutory standard for approval of reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness is still met. The right balance of premarket and postmarket data collection facilitates timely patient access to important new technology without undermining patient safety.
In this draft guidance, FDA describes existing statutory requirements under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, its implementing regulations, and FDA policies that support the policy on balancing premarket and postmarket data collection during review of PMA applications. In addition, FDA clarifies how the Agency considers postmarket data as part of the benefit-risk framework described in FDA's guidance “Factors to Consider When Making Benefit-Risk Determinations in Medical Device Premarket Approval and De Novo Classifications,” issued on March 28, 2012. This guidance provides a resource for industry and FDA staff on how FDA determines when it is appropriate for a sponsor of a PMA to collect some data (clinical or non-clinical) in the postmarket setting, rather than premarket.
Elsewhere in this issue of the
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 balancing premarket and postmarket data collection for devices subject to premarket approval. 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 statute and regulations.
Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the draft guidance may do so by downloading an electronic copy from the Internet. A search capability for all Center for Devices and Radiological Health guidance documents is available at
This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 812 have been approved under OMB control number 0910–0078; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814 have been approved under OMB control number 0910–0231; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 820 have been approved under OMB control number 0910–0073; and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 822 have been approved under OMB control number 0910–0449.
Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is announcing the availability of the draft guidance entitled “Expedited Access for Premarket Approval Medical Devices Intended for Unmet Medical Need for Life Threatening or Irreversibly Debilitating Disease or Conditions.” This draft guidance outlines FDA's proposal for a new, voluntary program for certain medical devices that demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for life threatening or irreversibly debilitating diseases or conditions and are subject to premarket approval applications (PMA). FDA believes that the Expedited Access PMA (EAP) program will help patients have more timely access to these medical devices by expediting their development, assessment, and review, while preserving the statutory standard of reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness for premarket approval, consistent with the Agency's mission to protect and promote public health. The document also discusses how the EAP program approaches the balance of premarket and postmarket data collection and incorporates a benefit-risk framework. This draft guidance is not final nor is it in effect at this time.
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 July 22, 2014.
An electronic copy of the guidance document is available for download from the Internet. See the
Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance to
Office of the Center Director, Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, rm. 5431, Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002, 301–796–5900; or Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (HFM–17), Food and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, Suite 200N, Rockville, MD 20852–1448, 301–827–6210.
FDA's proposed EAP program contains features from CDRH's Innovation Pathway, piloted in 2011 to facilitate the development and expedite the review of breakthrough technologies. In addition, the proposed EAP program is based in part on FDA's experience with the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research and Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research programs that are intended to facilitate and expedite development and review of new drugs to address unmet medical needs in the treatment of serious or life-threatening conditions (“FDA drug expedited programs”). However, while the EAP program incorporates some features of the FDA drug expedited programs, it is a separate and distinct program tailored to devices and intended to further speed the availability of certain safe and effective devices that address unmet public health needs.
As part of the EAP program, FDA intends to provide more interactive communications during device development and more interactive review of Investigational Device Exemption applications and PMA applications. This includes working with the sponsor to create a data development plan specific to the device, which would outline all data the sponsor intends to collect in support of device approval, and identifying what data would be collected premarket and postmarket. In addition, FDA intends to work interactively with the sponsor within the benefit-risk framework discussed in the FDA guidance, “Factors to Consider When Making Benefit-Risk Determinations in Medical Device Premarket Approvals and De Novo Classifications,” issued on March 28, 2012, and in accordance with statutory and regulatory requirements, to determine whether certain data may be collected postmarket rather than premarket. This guidance details the EAP process which will only be utilized at the request of the sponsor and with FDA's agreement.
Elsewhere in this issue of the
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 expedited access for premarket approval medical devices intended for unmet medical need for life threatening or irreversibly debilitating diseases or conditions. 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 statute and regulations.
Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the draft guidance may do so by downloading an electronic copy from the Internet. A search capability for all Center for Devices and Radiological Health guidance documents is available at
This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 812 have been approved under OMB control number 0910–0078, the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814 have been approved under OMB control number 0910–0231, the collections of information in 21 CFR part 820 have been approved under OMB control number 0910–0073, and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 822 have been approved under OMB control number 0910–0449.
Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Interpreting Sameness of Monoclonal Antibody Products Under the Orphan Drug Regulations.” The purpose of this guidance is to provide sponsors and manufacturers FDA's current thinking on the criteria by which two monoclonal antibody products would be considered the same under the Orphan Drug Act and implementing regulations.
Submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time.
Submit written requests for single copies of this guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, rm. 2201, Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Submit electronic comments on the guidance to
Marjorie Shapiro, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (HFD–123), Food and Drug Administration, 9000 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301–827–0710, or Henry Startzman, Office of Orphan Products Development, Office of Special Medical Programs, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301–796–8660.
FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Interpreting Sameness of Monoclonal Antibody Products Under the Orphan Drug Regulations.”
On July 26, 1999 (64 FR 40381), FDA announced the availability of the draft version of this guidance. The public comment period closed on October 25, 1999. A number of comments were received from the public, all of which the Agency considered carefully as it finalized the guidance and made appropriate changes. Any changes to the guidance were minor and made to clarify statements in the draft guidance.
In the
Macromolecules include a variety of structures including proteins, nucleic acids, carbohydrates and closely related, complex, partly definable drugs such as live viral vaccines. The current definition of sameness for protein drugs (§ 316.3(b)(13)(ii)(A)), however, does not consider the unique nature of antibodies. This final document is intended to describe FDA's thinking on the criteria by which two monoclonal antibody products would be considered the same under the Orphan Drug Act and its implementing regulations.
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the Agency's current thinking on Interpreting Sameness of Monoclonal Antibody Products Under the Orphan Drug Regulations. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
Interested persons may submit either written comments regarding this document to the Division of Dockets Management (see
This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520) and have been approved under OMB control numbers 0910–0167 (21 CFR part 316), 0910–0001 (21 CFR part 314), and 0910–0014 (21 CFR part 312).
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
As part of the Transparency Initiative, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a report entitled “Food and Drug Administration Transparency Initiative: Increasing Public Access to FDA's Compliance and Enforcement
Daniel W. Sigelman, Office of the Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, rm. 4254, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301–796–4706, FAX: 301–847–8616, email:
FDA is announcing the availability of a report entitled “FDA Transparency Initiative: Increasing Public Access to FDA's Compliance and Enforcement Data.” FDA is responsible for a broad range of compliance and enforcement activities. Increasing the transparency of these activities enhances the public's understanding of the Agency's decisions and promotes accountability of the Agency and the regulated industry.
On October 3, 2011, FDA issued a report entitled, “Food and Drug Administration Transparency Initiative: Draft Proposals for Public Comment to Increase Transparency by Promoting Greater Access to the Agency's Compliance and Enforcement Data.” The report advanced eight draft proposals for making FDA's publicly available compliance and enforcement data more accessible and user-friendly (available at:
To develop plans for addressing the eight initiatives, FDA established eight working groups with representatives from all of FDA's centers and several of its offices. Each group was asked to draft a report on its initiative and to include recommendations for moving forward. These efforts culminated in the preparation of this report, which summarizes the eight initiatives and the recommendations from the relevant working groups for enhancing the transparency and public accessibility of FDA's compliance and enforcement data.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering.
The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, including consideration of personal qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
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 a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research.
The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National Institute of Dental & Craniofacial Research, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
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 a meeting of the National Advisory Dental and Craniofacial Research Council.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and/or 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 grant applications and/or contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
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:
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for the Department's Fiscal Year (FY) 2014–FY 2015 Housing Counseling Training Grant Program.
This notice announces that HUD has posted on
Questions regarding specific program requirements should be directed to
Today's
Approximately $2 million is expected to be available for eligible applicants under this NOFA for FY 2014 through the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2014. Alternatively, HUD reserves the right to issue a supplemental or independent NOFA in FY 2015, perhaps limited to new Applicants, or for a specific housing counseling training related activity, for example to support HUD's efforts to embed housing counseling in FHA programs. The application deadline date is May 5, 2014. Applications must be received by
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 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 April 30, 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 May 23, 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 Hope Grey at
Under 50 CFR 20.20, migratory bird hunters must register for the Migratory Bird Harvest Information Program (HIP) in each State in which they hunt each year. State natural resource agencies must send names and addresses of all migratory bird hunters to us annually.
The Migratory Bird Hunter Survey is based on the Migratory Bird Harvest Information Program. We randomly select migratory bird hunters and ask them to report their harvest. The resulting estimates of harvest per hunter are combined with the complete list of migratory bird hunters to provide estimates of the total harvest for the species surveyed.
The Parts Collection Survey estimates the species, sex, and age composition of the harvest, and the geographic and temporal distribution of the harvest. Randomly selected successful hunters who responded to the Migratory Bird Hunter Survey the previous year are asked to complete and return a form if they are willing to participate in the Parts Collection Survey. We provide postage-paid envelopes to respondents before the hunting season and ask them to send in a wing or the tail feathers from each duck or goose that they harvest, or a wing from each mourning dove, woodcock, band-tailed pigeon, snipe, rail, or gallinule that they harvest. We use the wings and tail feathers to identify the species, sex, and age of the harvested sample. We also ask respondents to report on the envelope the date and location of harvest for each bird. We combine the results of this survey with the harvest estimates obtained from the Migratory Bird Hunter Survey to provide species-specific national harvest estimates.
The combined results of these surveys enable us to evaluate the effects of season length, season dates, and bag limits on the harvest of each species, and thus help us determine appropriate hunting regulations.
The Sandhill Crane Harvest Survey is an annual questionnaire survey of people who obtained a sandhill crane hunting permit. At the end of the hunting season, we randomly select a sample of permit holders and ask them to report the date, location, and number of birds harvested for each of their sandhill crane hunts. Their responses provide estimates of the temporal and geographic distribution of the harvest as well as the average harvest per hunter, which, combined with the total number of permits issued, enables us to estimate the total harvest of sandhill cranes. Based on information from this survey, we adjust hunting regulations as needed.
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.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of intent to prepare a comprehensive conservation plan revision and environmental assessment; request for comments.
We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), intend to prepare a comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) revision and associated National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents for Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), located in Collier County in southwest Florida. We provide this notice in compliance with
To ensure consideration of your comments in the development of the refuge's CCP revision, we must receive your written comments by May 23, 2014. One or more public scoping meetings will be scheduled to help engage the public in this planning process; please contact Florida Panther NWR for the date(s):
An online public engagement platform will be used for the engagement of the public and the submission of public comments; to access this forum, please visit:
You may also send comments, questions, and requests for information to Cheri Ehrhardt, AICP, Natural Resource Planner, P.O. Box 2683, Titusville, FL 32781–2683;
With this notice, we initiate our process for developing a CCP revision for Florida Panther NWR in Collier County, Florida. This notice complies with our CCP policy to: (1) Advise other Federal and State agencies, Native-American tribes, and the public of our intention to conduct detailed planning on this refuge and (2) obtain suggestions and information on the scope of issues to consider in the environmental document and during development of the CCP.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd–668ee) (Administration Act), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, requires us to develop a CCP for each national wildlife refuge. The original CCP for Florida Panther NWR was completed in 2000. Since much has changed in the intervening time, the Service has determined that the CCP for Florida Panther NWR needs to be revised. The purpose for revising the CCP is to provide refuge managers with an updated 15-year plan for achieving refuge purposes and contributing toward the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife management, conservation, legal mandates, and our policies. In addition to outlining broad management direction on conserving wildlife and their habitats, CCPs identify wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities available to the public, including opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation. We will review and update the CCP at least every 15 years in accordance with the Administration Act.
Each unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System was established for specific purposes. We use these purposes as the foundation for developing and prioritizing the management goals and objectives for each refuge within the National Wildlife Refuge System mission, and to determine how the public can use each refuge. The planning process is a way for us and the public to evaluate management goals and objectives for the best possible conservation approach to this important wildlife habitat, while providing for wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities that are compatible with the refuge's establishing purposes and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
Our CCP process provides participation opportunities for Tribal, State, and local governments; agencies; organizations; and the public. We encourage input in the form of issues, concerns, ideas, and suggestions for the future management of Florida Panther NWR.
We will conduct the environmental review of this project in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321
Established in 1989 and encompassing 26,605 acres, Florida Panther NWR's purposes are to conserve fish, wildlife, and plants that are listed as threatened or endangered species (Endangered Species Act of 1973) and for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956). Two key Service documents played a strong role in defining the purposes of Florida Panther NWR; they prioritize the protection and recovery of the Florida panther: (1) The 1985 Fakahatchee Strand Environmental Assessment, which clearly states that the refuge area should be acquired for the benefit and recovery of the endangered Florida panther; and (2) the 1995 and subsequent 2008 revisions of the Florida Panther Recovery Plan, which states that the refuge is essential to the survival of the Florida panther and that the refuge should enhance habitat conditions for the panther and its prey species.
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.
This notice is published under the authority of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce a joint meeting between the Trinity Adaptive Management Working Group (TAMWG) and Trinity Management Council (TMC). The TAMWG is a Federal advisory committee that affords stakeholders the opportunity to give policy, management, and technical input concerning Trinity River (California) restoration efforts to the Trinity Management Council (TMC). The TMC interprets and recommends policy, coordinates and reviews
The in-person meeting will be held at the Weaverville Victorian Inn, 2015 Main Street, Weaverville, CA 96093. You may participate in person or by teleconference.
Elizabeth W. Hadley, Redding Electric Utility, 777 Cypress Avenue, Redding, CA 96001; telephone: 530–339–7327; email:
In accordance with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., this notice announces a joint meeting of the TAMWG and TMC.
The TAMWG affords stakeholders the opportunity to give policy, management, and technical input concerning Trinity River (California) restoration efforts to the TMC. The TMC interprets and recommends policy, coordinates and reviews management actions, and provides organizational budget oversight.
• Discussion on common items of interest to the Trinity River Restoration Program
The final agenda will be posted on the Internet at
Interested members of the public may submit relevant information or questions for the TAMWG to consider during the meeting. Written statements must be received by the date listed in “Public Input,” so that the information may be available to the TAMWG for their consideration prior to this teleconference. Written statements must be supplied to Elizabeth Hadley in one of the following formats: One hard copy with original signature, or one electronic copy with a digital signature via email (acceptable file formats are Adobe Acrobat PDF, MS Word, PowerPoint, or rich text file).
Registered speakers who wish to expand on their oral statements, or those who wished to speak but could not be accommodated on the agenda, may submit written statements to Elizabeth Hadley up to 7 days after the meeting.
Summary minutes of the meeting will be maintained by Elizabeth Hadley (see
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The purpose of this notice is to reopen the request for public nominations for certain Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Advisory Committees that have member terms expiring this year. These Advisory Committees provide advice and recommendations to the BLM on land use planning and management of the National System of Public Lands within their respective geographic areas. The Advisory Committees covered by this request for nominations are identified below. The BLM will accept public nominations for 30 days after the publication of this notice.
All nominations must be received no later than May 23, 2014.
See
Lauren Luckey, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Correspondence, International, and Advisory Committee Office, 1849 C Street NW., MS–MIB 5070, Washington, DC 20240; 202–208–3806.
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) directs the Secretary of the Interior to involve the public in planning and issues related to management of lands administered by the BLM. Section 309 of FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1739) directs the Secretary to establish 10- to 15-member citizen-based advisory councils that are consistent with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). As required by FACA, Resource Advisory Council (RAC) membership must be balanced and representative of the various interests concerned with the management of the public lands. The rules governing RACs are found at 43 CFR subpart 1784 and include the following three membership categories:
Individuals may nominate themselves or others. Nominees must be residents of the State in which the RAC has jurisdiction. The BLM will evaluate nominees based on their education, training, experience, and knowledge of the geographical area of the RAC. Nominees should demonstrate a commitment to collaborative resource decision-making. The Obama Administration prohibits individuals who are currently federally registered lobbyists from being appointed or re-
This request for public nominations also applies to the Steens Mountain Advisory Council (SMAC) in Oregon established pursuant to Section 131 of the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act of 2000. The SMAC advises the Secretary of the Interior in managing the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area.
The following must accompany all nominations for the RACs and SMAC:
Simultaneous with this notice, BLM state offices will issue press releases providing additional information for submitting nominations, with specifics about the number and categories of member positions available for each RAC in the State and the Steens Mountain Advisory Council in Oregon. If you have already submitted your RAC nomination materials for 2014 you will not need to resubmit. Nominations for the following RACs should be sent to the appropriate BLM offices as noted below:
Thom Jennings, Alaska State Office, BLM, 222 West 7th Avenue, #13, Anchorage, AK 99513, 907–271–3335.
Kyle Sullivan, Royal Gorge Field Office, BLM, 3028 East Main Street, Cañon City, CO 81212, 719–269–8553.
Suzanne Endsley, Coeur d'Alene District Office, BLM, 3815 Schreiber Way, Coeur d'Alene, ID 83815, 208–769–5004.
Christine Horton, Farmington District Office, BLM, 6251 College Boulevard, Farmington, NM 87402, 505–564–7633.
Jonathan Moor, Lewistown Field Office, BLM, 920 Northeast Main Street, Lewistown, MT 59457, 406–538–1943.
David Abrams, Butte Field Office, BLM, 106 North Parkmont, Butte, MT 59701, 406–533–7617.
Stephen Baker, Oregon State Office, BLM, 1220 SW. 3rd Avenue, Portland, OR 97204, 503–808–6306.
43 CFR 1784.4–1.
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
Notice and request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) is announcing our intention to request renewed approval for the collection of information for states or indian tribes, pursuant to an approved reclamation program, to use police powers, if necessary, to effect entry upon private lands to conduct reclamation activities or exploratory studies if the landowner's consent is refused or the landowner is not available. The collection described below has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The information collection request describes the nature of the information collection and the expected burdens and costs.
OMB has up to 60 days to approve or disapprove the information collection but may respond after 30 days. Therefore, your comments should be submitted to OMB by May 23, 2014, in order to be assured of consideration.
Your comments should be submitted to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Department of the Interior Desk Officer, via email to
To receive a copy of the information collection request contact John Trelease at (202) 208–2783, or electronically to
OMB regulations at 5 CFR 1320, which implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13), require that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities [see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)]. We have submitted a request to OMB to approve the collection of information for 30 CFR 877—Rights of Entry. We are requesting a 3-year term of approval for this information collection activity.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control number for this collection of information is displayed in 30 CFR 877.10 (1029–0055).
As required under 5 CFR 1320.8(d), we published a
Send comments on the need for the collection of information for the performance of the functions of the agency; the accuracy of the agency's burden estimates; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and ways to minimize the information collection burden on respondents, such as use of automated means of collection of the information, to the addresses listed under
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.
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Department of the Interior.
Notice and request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) is announcing that the information collection request for its Technical Evaluation customer surveys has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The information collection request describes the nature of the information collection and the expected burden and cost. The OMB control number for this collection of information is 1029–0114 and is on the forms along with the expiration date.
OMB has up to 60 days to approve or disapprove the information collection but may respond after 30 days. Therefore, public comments should be submitted to OMB by May 23, 2014, in order to be assured of consideration.
Submit comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Department of the Interior Desk Officer, by telefax at (202) 395–5806 or via email to
To receive a copy of the information collection request contact John Trelease at (202) 208–2783, or electronically at
OMB regulations at 5 CFR 1320, which implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13), require that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities [see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)]. OSM has submitted a request to OMB to renew its approval of the collection of information contained in a series of technical evaluation customer surveys. OSM is requesting a 3-year term of approval for the information collection activity.
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 OMB control number for this collection of information is 1029–0114.
As required under 5 CFR 1320.8(d), a
Send comments on the need for the collection of information for the performance of the functions of the agency; the accuracy of the agency's burden estimates; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and ways to minimize the information collection burdens on respondents, such as use of automated means of collections of the information, to the addresses listed under
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.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined that there is a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337) by respondents IPtronics A/S of Roskilde, Denmark; IPtronics Inc. of Menlo Park, California; FCI USA, LLC, of Etters, Pennsylvania; FCI Deutschland GmbH of Berlin, Germany; FCI SA of Guyancourt, France; Mellanox Technologies, Inc. of Sunnyvale, California; and Mellanox Technologies Ltd. of Yokneam, Israel (collectively, “Respondents”) in the above-captioned investigation. The Commission has issued remedial orders directed to the Respondents' infringing products and has terminated the investigation.
Michael Liberman, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205–3115. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at
This investigation was instituted on October 30, 2012, based upon a complaint filed by Avago Technologies Fiber IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. of Singapore; Avago Technologies General IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. of Singapore; and Avago Technologies U.S. Inc. of San Jose, California (collectively, “Complainants”), alleging a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation, sale for importation, or sale within the United States after importation of certain optoelectronic devices for fiber optic communications, components thereof, and products containing the same by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,947,456 (“the '456 patent”) and 5,596,595 (“the '595 patent”). 77 FR 65713 (Oct. 30, 2012). In addition to the private parties named as respondents, the Commission named the Office of Unfair Import Investigations as a party in this investigation.
The final Initial Determination (“ID”) on violation was issued on December 13, 2013. The ALJ issued his recommended determination on remedy, the public interest and bonding on the same day. The ALJ found that a violation of section 337 has occurred in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain optoelectronic devices for fiber optic communications, components thereof, and products containing the same by reason of infringement of certain claims of the '595 patent. All the parties to this investigation filed timely petitions for review of various portions of the final ID, as well as timely responses to the petitions. The ALJ recommended that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order directed to Respondents' accused products that infringe the '595 patent. The ALJ also recommended that the Commission issue cease and desist orders against the Mellanox and FCI respondents.
On January 15, 2014, Complainants filed a post-RD statement on the public interest pursuant to Commission Rule 201.50(a)(4). On the same day, respondents Mellanox Technologies, Inc. and Mellanox Technologies, Ltd. also filed a submission pursuant to the rule. No responses from the public were received in response to the post-RD Commission Notice issued on December 16, 2013.
On February 12, 2014, the Commission issued notice of its determination to review the final ID in part (“the Commission Notice”). 79 FR 9764–65 (Feb. 20, 2014). In the Notice, the Commission also set a schedule for the filing of written submissions on the issues under review, including certain questions posed by the Commission, and on remedy, the public interest, and bonding. The Commission also invited briefing from the parties, interested government agencies, and other interested parties with respect to the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding. The parties have briefed, with initial and reply submissions, the issues under review and the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding. No other submissions were received regarding remedy, the public interest, or bonding.
Having examined the record in this investigation, including the parties' submissions filed in response to the Commission's Notice, the Commission has determined as follows:
(I) With respect to the '595 patent:
(a) To affirm the ALJ's claim construction of the limitation “current-spreading layer” and infringement and domestic industry (technical prong) determinations relating to that limitation with certain modifications; and
(b) to affirm the ALJ's finding that the Complainants met the economic prong under 19.
U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C), and thus not reach the issue of whether the economic prong was met under 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(A) and (B).
(II) With respect to the '456 patent:
(a) To affirm the ALJ's infringement and domestic industry (technical prong) determinations with certain modifications in his rationale; and
(b) to affirm the ALJ's finding that the Complainants met the economic prong under 19.
U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C), and thus not reach the issue of whether the economic prong was met under 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(A) and (B).
The Commission has determined that the appropriate relief in this investigation includes:
(1) A limited exclusion order prohibiting the unlicensed entry of certain optoelectronic devices for fiber optic communications, components thereof, and products containing the same covered by one or more of claims 14 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 5,596,595 and that are manufactured abroad by or on behalf of, or imported by or on behalf of, respondents IPtronics A/S; IPtronics Inc.; FCI SA; FCI Deutschland GmbH; FCI USA, LLC; Mellanox Technologies, Ltd.; and Mellanox Technologies, Inc.; and (2) cease and desist orders prohibiting importing, selling, marketing, advertising, distributing, transferring (except for exportation), and soliciting U.S. agents or distributors for, optoelectronic devices for fiber optic communications, components thereof, and products containing the same covered by one or more of claims 14 and
The Commission has further determined that the public interest factors enumerated in section 337(d)(l) and (f)(1) (19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(l), (f)(1)) do not preclude issuance of the limited exclusion order. Finally, the Commission determined that Respondents are required to post a bond in the amount of 3 percent of the entered value of the products covered by the exclusion order and cease and desist orders during the period of Presidential review. The Commission's orders were delivered to the President and the United States Trade Representative on the day of their issuance.
The Commission has therefore terminated this investigation. The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR Part 210).
By order of the Commission.
Employment and Training Administration (ETA), Labor.
Final Finding of No Significant Impact Tongue Point Job Corps Center Medical/Dental Building located at 37573 Old Highway 30 in Astoria, Oregon.
Pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR part 1500–08) implementing procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Department of Labor, ETA, in accordance with 29 CFR 11.11(d), gives final notice of the proposed construction of the Medical/Dental Building at the Tongue Point Job Corps Center, and that this project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. Public scoping was initiated with a notice in the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon on July 25, 2013. The scoping period extended for 30 days, ending on August 25, 2013. No public responses were received. No changes to the text of the environmental assessment (EA) have been made.
Implementation of the selected alternative will not have significant impacts on the human environment. The determination is sustained by the analysis in the EA, agency consultation, the inclusion and consideration of public review, and the capability of mitigations to reduce or avoid impacts. Any adverse environmental impacts that could occur are no more than minor in intensity, duration and context and less-than-significant. As described in the EA, there are no highly uncertain or controversial impacts, unique or unknown risks, significant cumulative effects or elements of precedence. There are no previous, planned, or implemented actions, which in combination with the selected alternative would have significant effects on the human environment. Requirements of NEPA have been satisfied and preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is not required.
William A. Dakshaw, Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N–4460, Washington, DC 20210 (202) 693–2867 (this is not a toll free number).
Employment and Training Administration (ETA), Labor.
Final finding of no significant impact Shreveport Job Corps Center redevelopment located at 2815 Lillian Street, Shreveport, Louisiana.
Pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR part 1500–08) implementing procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Department of Labor, ETA, in accordance with 29 CFR 11.11(d), gives final notice of the proposed redevelopment at the Shreveport Job Corps Center, and that this project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. Public scoping was initiated with a notice in the Times in Shreveport, Louisiana on August 17, 2013. The scoping period extended for 30 days, ending on September 16, 2013. No public responses were received. No changes to the text of the environmental assessment (EA) have been made.
Implementation of the selected alternative will not have significant impacts on the human environment. The determination is sustained by the analysis in the EA, agency consultation, the inclusion and consideration of public review, and the capability of mitigations to reduce or avoid impacts. Any adverse environmental impacts that could occur are no more than minor in intensity, duration and context and less-than-significant. As described in the EA, there are no highly uncertain or controversial impacts, unique or unknown risks, significant cumulative effects or elements of precedence. There are no previous, planned, or implemented actions, which in combination with the selected alternative would have significant effects on the human environment. Requirements of NEPA have been satisfied and preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is not required.
William A Dakshaw, Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N–4460, Washington, DC 20210 (202) 693–2867 (this is not a toll-free number).
Employment and Training Administration (ETA), Labor.
Final finding of no significant impact Detroit Job Corps Center Phase II located at 11801 Woodrow Wilson Street, Detroit, Michigan.
Pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR part 1500–08) implementing procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Department of Labor, ETA, in accordance with 29 CFR 11.11(d), gives final notice of the proposed construction of the Phase II project at the Detroit Job Corps Center, and that this project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. Public scoping was initiated with a notice in the Southfield Sun in Detroit, Michigan on August 21, 2013. The scoping period extended for 30 days, ending on September 20, 2013. No public responses were received. No changes to the text of the environmental assessment (EA) have been made.
Implementation of the selected alternative will not have significant impacts on the human environment. The determination is sustained by the analysis in the EA, agency consultation, the inclusion and consideration of public review, and the capability of mitigations to reduce or avoid impacts. Any adverse environmental impacts that could occur are no more than minor in intensity, duration and context and less-than-significant. As described in the EA, there are no highly uncertain or controversial impacts, unique or unknown risks, significant cumulative effects or elements of precedence. There are no previous, planned, or implemented actions, which in combination with the selected alternative would have significant effects on the human environment. Requirements of NEPA have been satisfied and preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is not required.
William A Dakshaw, Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N–4460, Washington, DC 20210, (202) 693–2867 (this is not a toll free number).
Employment and Training Administration (ETA), Labor.
Final Finding of No Significant Impact Cassadaga Job Corps Center New Cafeteria located at 8115 Glasgow Rd, Cassadaga, New York.
Pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR part 1500–08) implementing procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Department of Labor, ETA, in accordance with 29 CFR 11.11(d), gives final notice of the proposed construction of the Cafeteria at the Cassadaga Job Corps Center, and that this project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. Public scoping was initiated with a notice in the Post Journal in Jamestown, New York on July 6, 2013. The scoping period extended for 30 days, ending on August 7, 2013. No public responses were received. No changes to the text of the environmental assessment (EA) have been made.
Implementation of the selected alternative will not have significant impacts on the human environment. The determination is sustained by the analysis in the EA, agency consultation, the inclusion and consideration of public review, and the capability of mitigations to reduce or avoid impacts. Any adverse environmental impacts that could occur are no more than minor in intensity, duration and context and less-than-significant. As described in the EA, there are no highly uncertain or controversial impacts, unique or unknown risks, significant cumulative effects or elements of precedence. There are no previous, planned, or implemented actions, which in combination with the selected alternative would have significant effects on the human environment. Requirements of NEPA have been satisfied and preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is not required.
William A Dakshaw, Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N–4460, Washington, DC 20210 (202) 693–2867 (this is not a toll free number).
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of pending NRC action to submit an information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and solicitation of public comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) invites public comment about our intention to request the OMB's approval for renewal of an existing information collection that is summarized below. We are required to publish this notice in the
Information pertaining to the requirement to be submitted:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Submit, by June 23, 2014, comments that address the following questions:
1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility?
2. Is the burden estimate accurate?
3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?
4. How can the burden of the information collection be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology?
The public may examine and have copied for a fee publicly-available documents, including the draft supporting statement, at the NRC's Public Document Room, Room O–1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC's Web site:
Comments submitted in writing or in electronic form will be made available for public inspection. Because your comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information, the NRC cautions you against including any information in your submission that you do not want to be publicly disclosed. Comments submitted should reference Docket No. NRC–2014–0078. You may submit your comments by any of the following methods: Electronic comments go to
Questions about the information collection requirements may be directed to the Acting NRC Clearance Officer, Kristen Benney (T–5 F50), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415–6355; or by email to
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of the OMB review of information collection and solicitation of public comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has recently submitted to OMB for review the following proposal for the collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The NRC published a
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
The public may examine and have copied for a fee publicly-available documents, including the final supporting statement, at the NRC's Public Document Room, Room O–1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The OMB clearance requests are available at
Comments and questions should be directed to the OMB reviewer listed below by May 23, 2014. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given to comments received after this date.
Danielle Y. Jones, Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (3150–0044), NEOB–10202, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.
Comments can also be emailed to
The Acting NRC Clearance Officer is Kristen Benney, telephone: 301–415–6355.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Combined license application; availability and corrections.
On September 18, 2008, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received an application for a combined license (COL) submitted by Detroit Edison Company. The NRC published a notice of receipt and availability for an application for a COL in the
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2008–0566 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may access publicly-available information related to this action by the following methods:
•
•
•
Adrian Muniz, Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415–4093, email:
On September 18, 2008, Detroit Edison Company (renamed DTE Electric Company as of January 1, 2013) filed with the NRC, pursuant to Section 103 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and Part 52 of Title 10 of the
An applicant may seek a COL in accordance with Subpart C of 10 CFR part 52. The information submitted by the applicant includes certain administrative information, such as financial qualifications submitted pursuant to 10 CFR 52.77, as well as technical information submitted pursuant to 10 CFR 52.79. This notice is being provided in accordance with the requirements in 10 CFR 50.43(a)(3).
A copy of the application is available for public inspection at the NRC's PDR, and online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at
This is the third of four notices related to this action that will be published in the FR. The first notice was published on April 9, 2014 (79 FR 19659), and the second notice was published on April 16, 2014 (79 FR 21493). This notice corrects the date of the December 21, 2013, letter from Detroit Edison Company that notified the NRC that, effective January 1, 2013, the name of the company would be changed to “DTE Electric Company.”
In the FR of April 9, 2014, in Fr. Doc. 2014–07958, on page 19659, in the second column, first paragraph, seventh line, replace the date “December 21, 2013” with the date “December 21, 2012.”
In the FR of April 16, 2014, in Fr. Doc. 2014–08545, on page 21493, in the third column, first paragraph, ninth line, replace the date “December 21, 2013” with the date “December 21, 2012.”
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Temporary exemption; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing a temporary exemption from certain NRC financial assurance requirements to Cameco Resources (Cameco) in response to its annual financial assurance update for the Smith Ranch Highland uranium in-situ recovery (ISR) project. Issuance of this temporary exemption will not remove the requirement for Cameco to provide adequate financial assurance through an approved mechanism, but will allow the NRC staff to further evaluate whether the State of Wyoming's separate account provision for financial assurance instruments it holds is consistent with the NRC's requirement for a standby trust agreement.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2014–0092 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:
•
•
•
Douglas Mandeville, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs; U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415–0724; email:
NRC materials license SUA–1548, License Condition 9.5, requires Cameco to submit to the NRC for review and approval an annual update of the financial surety to cover third-party costs for decommissioning and decontamination, pursuant to 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 9, for the Smith Ranch Highland ISR project and its related satellite facilities at Gas Hills, North Butte, and Ruth. Smith Ranch Highland is located in Converse County, Wyoming and its related satellite facilities are located in Natrona and Fremont; Campbell; and Johnson Counties, Wyoming, respectively. By letters dated July 30 and August 5, 2013, Cameco submitted to the NRC its Smith Ranch annual surety update for 2013–2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13225A115) and its Gas Hills annual surety update (ADAMS Accession No. ML13225A012). The NRC's staff reviewed the annual financial surety updates and found the values reasonable for the required reclamation activities (ADAMS Accession No. ML14016A054). Cameco maintains approved financial assurance instruments in favor of the State of Wyoming; however, it does not have a standby trust agreement (STA) in place, as required by 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 9.
As of December 17, 2012, the NRC's uranium milling licensees, which are regulated under 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 9, are required to have an STA in place. Criterion 9 provides that if a licensee does not use a trust as its financial assurance mechanism, then the licensee is required to establish a standby trust fund to receive funds in the event the Commission or State regulatory agency exercises its right to collect the funds provided for by surety or letter of credit. The purpose of an STA is to provide a separate account to hold decommissioning funds in the event of a default. Cameco has not established an STA, nor has it requested an exemption from the requirement to do so. However, the NRC has the discretion, under 10 CFR 40.14(a), to grant an exemption from the requirements of a regulation in 10 CFR Part 40 on its own initiative, if the NRC determines the exemption is authorized by law and will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security and is otherwise in the public interest.
Wyoming law requires that a separate account be set up to receive forfeited decommissioning funds, but does not specifically require an STA. Section 35–11–424(a) of the Code of Wyoming states that “[a]ll forfeitures collected under the provisions of this act shall be deposited with the State treasurer in a separate account for reclamation purposes.” Under Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ) financial assurance requirements, WDEQ holds permit bonds in a fiduciary fund called an agency fund. If a bond is forfeited, the forfeited funds are moved to a special revenue account. Although the special revenue account is not an STA, the special revenue account serves a similar purpose in that forfeited funds are not deposited into the State treasury for general fund use, but instead are set aside in the special revenue account to be used exclusively for reclamation [decommissioning] purposes.
NRC has elected to grant Cameco an exemption to the STA requirements in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 9, for the current surety arrangement until the 2015 review cycle to allow the NRC to evaluate whether the financial assurance standby trust requirements in the NRC regulations and the financial assurance requirements in Wyoming regulations are comparable.
The NRC staff concluded that the proposed exemption is authorized by law as 10 CFR 40.14(a) expressly allows for an exemption to the requirements of the regulation in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 9, and the proposed exemption would not be contrary to any provision of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
The exemption is related to the financial surety. The requirement that the licensee provide adequate financial assurance through an approved
The proposed exemption would not involve or implicate the common defense or security. Therefore, granting the exemption will have no effect on the common defense and security.
The proposed exemption would enable the NRC staff to evaluate the State of Wyoming's separate account provision and the NRC's STA requirement to determine if they are comparable. The evaluation process will allow the NRC to determine whether the licensee's compliance with the state law provision will sufficiently address the NRC requirement as well, and therefore provide clarity on the implementation of the NRC regulation in this instance. Therefore, granting the exemption is in the public interest.
The NRC staff has determined that granting of an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 9 belongs to a category of regulatory actions which the NRC, by regulation, has determined do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the environment, and as such do not require an environmental assessment. The exemption from the requirement to have an STA in place is eligible for categorical exclusion under 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(iv)(H), which provides that exemptions from surety, insurance, or indemnification requirements are categorically excluded if the exemption would not result in any significant hazards consideration; change or increase in the amount of any offsite effluents; increase in individual or cumulative public or occupational radiation exposure; construction impacts; or increase in the potential for or consequence from radiological accidents. The staff finds that the STA exemption involves surety, insurance and/or indemnity requirements and that granting Cameco this temporary exemption from the requirement of establishing a standby trust arrangement would not result in any significant hazards or increases in offsite effluents, radiation exposure, construction impacts, or potential radiological accidents. Therefore, an environmental assessment is not required.
Accordingly, the NRC has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 40.14(a), the proposed exemption is authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, is consistent with the common defense and security, and is in the public interest. NRC hereby grants Cameco Resources an exemption from the requirement in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 9 to set up a standby trust to receive funds in the event the NRC or the State regulatory agency exercises is right to collect the surety. This exemption will expire on July 2, 2015, for Smith Ranch-Highland Uranium Project and on August 10, 2015, for the Gas Hills Project. At that time, Cameco Resources will be required to ensure that its financial assurance arrangement includes an STA to receive decommissioning funds.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing requesting the addition of a Global Plus 2C negotiated service agreement to the competitive product list. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202–789–6820.
On April 16, 2014, the Postal Service filed notice that it has entered into an additional Global Plus 2C negotiated service agreement (Agreement).
To support its Notice, the Postal Service filed a copy of the Agreement, a copy of the Governors' Decision authorizing the product, a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a), and an application for non-public treatment of certain materials. It also filed supporting financial workpapers.
The Commission establishes Docket No. CP2014–46 for consideration of matters raised by the Notice.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's filing is consistent with 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than April 25, 2014. The public portions of the filing can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints Pamela A. Thompson to serve as Public Representative in this docket.
1. The Commission establishes Docket No. CP2014–46 for consideration of the matters raised by the Postal Service's Notice.
2. Comments are due no later than April 25, 2014.
3. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Pamela A. Thompson is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in this proceeding (Public Representative).
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Pursuant to Section 17(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Section 19(g)(1) of the Act,
Section 17(d)(1) of the Act
To implement Section 17(d)(1), the Commission adopted two rules: Rule 17d–1 and Rule 17d–2 under the Act.
To address regulatory duplication in these and other areas, the Commission adopted Rule 17d–2 under the Act.
On May 14, 2007, the Commission declared effective the Plan entered into between NASD (n/k/a FINRA) and CBOE for allocating regulatory responsibility pursuant to Rule 17d–2
On March 24, 2014, the parties submitted a proposed amendment to the
AGREEMENT [BETWEEN NASD AND]
This Agreement, by and [between the National Association of Securities Dealers]
WHEREAS, [NASD and CBOE]
WHEREAS, [NASD and CBOE]
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained hereinafter, [NASD and CBOE]
1. Definitions. Unless otherwise defined in this Agreement or the context otherwise requires, the terms used in this Agreement shall have the same meaning as they have under the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder. As used in this Agreement, the following terms shall have the following meanings:
(a) [“
(b) “
(c) [“
(d) “
(e) “
(f) “
2. Regulatory and Enforcement Responsibilities. [NASD]
(a) Surveillance and enforcement with respect to trading activities or practices involving CBOE's
(b) registration pursuant to [its]
(c) discharge of [its]
(d) any CBOE Rules
3. [Dual]
4. No Charge. There shall be no charge to CBOE
5. Reassignment of Regulatory Responsibilities. Notwithstanding any provision hereof, this Agreement shall be subject to any statute, or any rule or order of the Commission, or industry agreement, restructuring the regulatory framework of the securities industry or reassigning Regulatory Responsibilities between self-regulatory organizations. To the extent such action is inconsistent with this Agreement, such action shall supersede the provisions hereof to the extent necessary for them to be properly effectuated and the provisions hereof in that respect shall be null and void.
6. Notification of Violations. In the event that [NASD]
7. Continued Assistance. [NASD]
8. [Dual]
(a) [Dual]
(b) [Dual]
(c) When as a result of processing such submissions [NASD]
(d) Notwithstanding the foregoing, [NASD]
9. Branch Office Information. [NASD]
10. Customer Complaints. CBOE
11. Advertising. [NASD]
12. No Restrictions on Regulatory Action. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall restrict or in any way encumber the right of [either]
13. Termination. This Agreement may be terminated by [CBOE or NASD]
14. Effective Date. This Agreement shall be effective upon approval of the Commission.
15. Arbitration. In the event of a dispute [between]
16. Separate Agreement. This Agreement is wholly separate from the
17. Notification of Members. [CBOE and NASD]
18. Amendment. This Agreement may be amended in writing duly approved by each party. All such amendments must be filed with and approved by the Commission before they become effective.
19. Limitation of Liability. [Neither NASD nor CBOE]
20. Relief from Responsibility. Pursuant to Sections 17(d)(1)(A) and 19(g) of the Exchange Act and Rule 17d–2 thereunder, [NASD]
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each party has executed or caused this Agreement to be executed on its behalf by a duly authorized officer as of the date first written above.
CBOE
Pursuant to Section 17(d)(1) of the Act
In order to assist the Commission in determining whether to approve the proposed 17d–2 Plan and to relieve CBOE and C2 of the responsibilities which would be assigned to FINRA, interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing. 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 Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice of application for an order pursuant to section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Act”) granting exemptions from section 8(b)(1)(E) and section 22(e) of the Act, and rule 22c–1 under the Act, and pursuant to section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act granting exemptions from sections 12(d)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, and pursuant to sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act, granting an exemption from section 17(a) of the Act.
Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090. Applicants: the Fund, the Matthews Funds, and the Adviser, Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 550, San Francisco, CA 94111; the UCITS Funds, 6, route de Treves, L–2633 Senningerberg, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg; and the Irish Fund, Brooklawn House, Crampton Avenue/Shelbourne Road, Ballsbridge, Dublin 4, Ireland.
Steven I. Amchan, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551–6826, or Janet M. Grossnickle, Assistant Director, 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 an Applicant using the Company name box, at
1. The Fund, a Delaware limited liability company registered as an open-end management investment company under Act, is organized as a series investment company, and will be operated as an extended payment fund, as discussed below. The Fund is designed to be a viable and economical means to permit the Matthews Funds, Other Funds and separate accounts managed by the Adviser to invest in China A Shares. Each investing Matthews Fund, Other Fund, or separate account will own all of the Interests offered by a particular Series, and investors in the Fund's Series will be exclusively entities advised or managed by the Adviser. Interests will not be registered under the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”); they will be offered only in private placement transactions to “accredited investors,” as defined in Regulation D under the Securities Act, that are also “qualified purchasers,” as defined in section 2(a)(51) of the Act and the rules thereunder (“Qualified Purchasers”).
2. The Matthews Funds are organized as series of a Delaware statutory trust, which is registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company. The UCITS Funds are organized as the separate series of Matthews Asia Funds SICAV under the laws of Luxembourg. The Irish Fund is organized as a private limited company, and regulated as an open-ended umbrella investment company with variable capital that may be offered and sold only to qualifying investors under the laws of the Republic of Ireland. Both the UCITS Funds and the Irish Fund are not sold to United States residents, are not registered under the Act, and the offering of their interests have not been registered under the Securities Act.
3. The Adviser is registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”). The Adviser will serve as investment adviser to the Fund and its Series, and serves as investment adviser to the Matthews Funds, Other Funds and separate accounts. Matthews Global Investors (U.S.), LLC (“MGI”), a Delaware LLC and an affiliate of the Adviser, acts as managing member of the Fund.
4. Applicants state that a significant majority of publicly traded Chinese companies list their shares on one or more of three stock exchanges—the Shanghai, Shenzhen and Hong Kong Stock Exchanges. The Shanghai and Shenzhen exchanges are located in mainland China and there are two categories of stock that are listed on these exchanges: China “A Shares” which trade in the currency of China, the renminbi, and “B Shares” which trade in foreign currencies. “H Shares” and “red chip” shares are listed and traded on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange.
5. The Matthews Funds and Other Funds currently invest in China through “H Shares” or “red chip” stocks. Applicants state that for a variety of reasons, China A Shares are a more attractive means to invest in Chinese companies than H Shares, red chip stocks, or China B Shares. Applicants state that, while it is not practical or feasible for a Matthews Fund, Other Fund, or separate account to individually invest in China A Shares, a pooled investment vehicle, the Fund, would allow them to obtain exposure to China A Shares.
6. The Fund has a board of directors (“Board”), a majority of which will be comprised of persons who are not “interested persons” (as defined by section 2(a)(19) of the Act). Each Series will have a portfolio manager or team of portfolio managers. The portfolio manager(s) for a Series are expected to be the same individual(s) as the portfolio manager(s) of the Matthews Fund, Other Fund or separate account investing in that Series. Accordingly, the portfolio manager(s) will be able to select China A Shares most suited for the investor's investment style and strategy, consistent with the remainder of the investor's portfolio. As portfolio manager(s) of a Series, the portfolio manager(s) will have responsibilities to the Series and be overseen by the Board. The portfolio manager(s) also will have responsibilities, in their capacity as Matthews Fund, Other Fund or separate account portfolio manager(s), to the applicable investor for investing the non-Series portion of the portfolio.
7. The Adviser may charge advisory fees to the Series; however, if advisory fees are charged to a Series used by a Matthews Fund, any assets of a Matthews Fund invested in that Series will not be counted for purposes of calculating the Matthews Fund's advisory fee payable to the Adviser so that the Adviser will not receive separate fees for managing the same assets, except that any such assets will be applied and counted as a Matthews Fund's assets for purposes of applying breakpoints. Fees paid by an Other Fund or separate account would be negotiated with the Other Fund or separate account and structured in an appropriate manner such that, unless additional services are provided, the Adviser would not receive separate fees for managing the same assets. Fee arrangements for the Series will be subject to review and approval by the Fund's Board, including its independent members, in accordance with section 15(c) of the Act, and their impact on overall fees for the Adviser's client will be fully disclosed to the Applicant client, including the Matthews Funds.
8. Expenses of each Series, which would include basic fees and expenses of service providers, such as the Adviser, administrator, accountant, local custodian and legal counsel, will be charged to the Series receiving the services generating the expense and accrued on a daily basis. Applicants state that because the Fund's limited liability company agreement does not provide to the contrary, the Delaware Limited Liability Company Act provides that each Series (holding distinct China A Shares) will have its own debts, liabilities, obligations and expenses, and such items will not be enforceable against any other Series. The Fund's books and those of the Series will be accounted for under standard accounting principles and in accordance with U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), and they will be audited annually by a nationally recognized and PCAOB-registered audit firm in accordance with U.S. Generally Accepted Auditing Standards.
9. The Fund's custodial arrangements will be overseen by the Fund's Board in accordance with rule 17f–5 under the Act. The Series used by Matthews Funds will not lever themselves through borrowing, but Series used by Other Funds or separate accounts may, or in the future may be permitted to, use leverage. Applicants state that the Fund will value its holdings daily in accordance with section 2(a)(41) of the Act, and the value will take into account all relevant facts and circumstances, including (if relevant) the length of time before proceeds can be repatriated (as discussed below), and will be applied under the oversight of the Fund's valuation committee in accordance with delegated authority and procedures approved by the Fund's Board. The Fund also has a chief compliance officer and will implement and maintain a compliance program in accordance with rule 38a–1 under the Act.
10. Applicants state that access by the Adviser's clients to the quota (
11. Applicants note that the significant majority (at least 85%) of the China A Shares to be held by the Fund would be able to be disposed of in the ordinary course of business since the China A Share market is liquid, and thus holdings would meet the liquidity requirements in the context of a fund's ability to dispose of an asset. However, while the China A Shares could be sold in a timely manner in exchange for renminbi, the investing Matthews Fund, Other Fund or separate account would only be able to repatriate the proceeds weekly,
12. Applicants state that the repatriation restrictions may prevent the Fund from being able to redeem its Interests within the time period otherwise required by the Act. As an extended payment fund, the Fund would pay redemption proceeds no less frequently than on one day each month (any such date, a “Redemption Payment Date”). Redemption payments would be based on the Fund's NAV on the Redemption Payment Date, and redemption payments would only be made for redemptions requested on or before the Redemption Payment Date and time for that particular month (or shorter period). The Fund will adopt a fundamental policy specifying its redemption procedures, and this policy will be disclosed in the Fund's registration statement.
13. The Fund will establish, and the Board will approve, written procedures reasonably designed to ensure that the Fund's portfolio assets are sufficiently liquid so that the Fund can comply with its fundamental policy on redemptions, taking into account current market conditions and regulatory requirements and the Fund's investment objectives. The Board will review the procedures and the overall composition of the portfolio at least annually and on such other occasions as may be necessary in light of changes in the markets for the Fund's portfolio assets and applicable regulatory requirements concerning, among other matters, repatriation restrictions.
Applicants request an order to exempt the Fund from section 22(e) of the Act and rule 22c–1 thereunder to the extent necessary to permit the Fund to operate as an extended payment fund. Applicants also request that the order exempt the Fund from section 8(b)(1)(E) of the Act and the requirement that the Fund disclose a concentration policy regarding investments in any industry or group of industries. Instead, the order would require that the Fund disclose that it does not have a concentration policy and require that any registered investment company that invests in a Series will aggregate the Series' holdings with its own holdings for purposes of evaluating its concentration policy. Applicants further request that the order grant an exemption from sections 12(d)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, and an exemption from section 17(a) of the Act, to the extent necessary to permit the Fund and its Series to sell their Interests to, and redeem their Interests from, the Other Funds.
1. Rule 22c–1 under the Act generally requires a registered open-end investment company to sell, redeem, or repurchase its securities at the price based on the current NAV of such security next computed after receipt of a tender of such security for redemption. Applicants state that rule 22c–1 was designed primarily to address the practice of “backward pricing” of fund shares. That practice involved pricing fund shares for purchase or redemption based on the NAV determined
2. Applicants propose that the Fund will price Interests tendered for redemption at the close of business on the Redemption Payment Date, which will be no less frequently than one day each month. The Fund will redeem Interests on a given Redemption Payment Date only for redemptions requested on or before the close of business (generally 4:00 p.m. Eastern time) on the redemption pricing date (which will be the Redemption Payment Date). Applicants assert that their proposal does not raise the concern of “backward pricing” because shares will be priced only after a tender for redemption is received. Applicants state that the Fund's pricing timeline will be clearly disclosed and is consistent with the Act because it will treat all investors equally and not dilute non-redeeming shareholders' interests. In addition, all investors in the Fund will be Qualified Purchasers, who are capable of
3. Section 22(e) of the Act provides that a registered investment company may not suspend the right of redemption or postpone the date of payment or satisfaction upon redemption of any redeemable security in accordance with its terms for more than seven days after the tender of the security to the company. Applicants state that the Redemption Payment Date, which will be no less frequent than one day each month, may be more than seven days from the time that a shareholder of a Series tenders Interests to the Series. Thus, Applicants are requesting relief from section 22(e) to permit the Fund and its Series to pay redemption proceeds more than seven days from the tender of such Interests.
4. Applicants state that the primary purpose of section 22(e) is to address the abusive practices of early open-end companies that claimed that their securities were redeemable, only to then institute barriers to redemption. Applicants represent that the Fund's policies will not raise the possibility of such abuses. The Fund's redemption policy will be a fundamental policy changeable only by a majority vote of its shareholders and the approval of the Commission or its staff. Applicants undertake to disclose the Fund's redemption policy on the cover page of its offering memorandum and in any marketing materials, and to refrain from holding itself out as a “mutual fund.” Most importantly, the Fund will limit its investors to Qualified Purchasers, who are highly sophisticated investors capable of understanding the Fund's redemption policy and its associated risks.
5. In 1992, the Commission proposed rule 22e–3 under the Act that set forth an “extended payment fund” structure similar to that proposed for the Fund. The Commission's proposal was designed to permit a registered investment company that could both offer redeemable securities and invest in assets, including less liquid foreign securities, that did not meet the seven-day liquidity standard for traditional open-end funds. Under proposed rule 22e–3, an open-end fund could make payment upon redemption of its securities up to 31 days after tender of the securities to the fund at NAV determined on the next redemption pricing date following the tender, provided that: (a) The fund did so pursuant to a fundamental policy, setting forth the number of days between a tender and the next redemption pricing and payment dates, changeable only with approval of a majority of the fund's outstanding voting securities; (b) at least 85% of the fund's assets consisted of assets that either (i) may be sold in the ordinary course of business at approximately the price used to compute the fund's NAV, within the period between the tender and the next redemption payment date, or (ii) mature by the next redemption payment date; and (c) the fund does not hold itself out to investors as a mutual fund. Applicants assert that the Fund will comply with requirements that are designed to achieve the same goals, but which account for the repatriation restrictions discussed above.
6. Section 6(c) of the Act permits the Commission to exempt any person or transaction from any provision of the Act if the exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policies of the Act. Applicants believe that the relief is appropriate because the Fund can provide a convenient and cost-effective means of obtaining tailored exposure to China A Shares for investing Matthews Funds, Other Funds and separate accounts. Applicants also believe that the requested relief is consistent with the protection of investors because shares of the Fund will be available only to Qualified Purchasers. Finally, Applicants state that the relief is consistent with the purposes intended by the policies of the Act because, as discussed above, it does not raise the concerns addressed by section 22(e) of the Act and rule 22c–1 under the Act.
1. Section 8(b)(1)(E) of the Act provides that every registered investment company shall file with the Commission a recital of its policy in respect of concentrating investments in a particular industry or group of industries. Form N–1A implements the section 8(b) requirement to disclose a fund's concentration policy: Instruction 4 to Item 9 of Form N–1A requires a fund to “[d]isclose any policy to concentrate in securities of issuers in a particular industry or group of industries (i.e., investing more than 25% of a fund's net assets in a particular industry or group of industries).” Applicants state that the Commission's staff has taken the position that statements of concentration policy pursuant to which registrants reserve the right to concentrate in particular industries without limitation if deemed advisable and in the best interests of the shareholders do not comply with section 8(b)(1). Applicants assert that the primary purposes of the industry concentration test include preventing a fund's investment adviser from inappropriately concentrating a fund's investments contrary to investor expectations and from reserving freedom of action to concentrate the fund's investments, which may not provide investors with sufficient clarity to form expectations about concentration.
2. Applicants state that the application of section 8(b)(1)(E) at the Series level imposes a barrier to the efficient operation of the Series when conducting otherwise routine portfolio changes, contrary to the expectations of Matthews Fund or Other Fund shareholders. For a Series with a limited number of holdings, routine portfolio changes could frequently result in a Series “concentrating” its investments in different industries or groups of industries, using the Commission's 25% threshold for determining concentration, even though such Series' “concentration” would have little or no meaningful impact on the industry concentration of the investing Matthews Fund's or Other Fund's'overall portfolio. Applicants state that absent relief and assuming a policy to concentrate in the particular industry has not been disclosed in the Series' registration statement, any routine portfolio change that results in a Series “concentrating” its investments (measured solely at the Series' level) would need the approval of a majority of the outstanding voting securities of the Series in accordance with section 13 of the Act. Applicants submit that while a Series could obtain a shareholder vote every time it crossed the 25% “concentration” threshold since each Series will be owned by a client of the Adviser, this result would be unnecessary, cumbersome, and serve no policy objective.
3. Applicants propose that, due to the structure, nature and purpose of the Fund, each Series be exempt from section 8(b)(1)(E) and the requirement to disclose a policy of concentrating in a particular industry or group of industries. Applicants have proposed conditions that would require each Series to disclose that it does not have a concentration policy and that any registered investment company that invests in a Series will aggregate the Series' holdings with its own holdings for purposes of evaluating its concentration policy. Applicants state that an investor in a Matthews Fund should have expectations regarding the industry concentration of the portfolio taken as a whole of the Matthews Fund in which s/he has invested, and s/he is protected by the requirement that the
1. Section 12(d)(1)(A) provides that no registered investment company may acquire securities of another investment company if such securities represent more than 3% of the acquired company's outstanding voting stock, more than 5% of the acquiring company's total assets, or if such securities, together with the securities of other investment companies, represent more than 10% of the acquiring company's total assets. Section 12(d)(1)(B) provides that no registered open-end investment company, its principal underwriter or any broker or dealer may sell the company's securities 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 cause more than 10% of the acquired company's voting stock to be owned by investment companies.
2. Section 12(d)(1)(G) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that section 12(d)(1) will not apply to the securities of a registered open-end investment company purchased by another registered open-end investment company, if: (a) The acquiring company and the acquired company are part of the same group of investment companies; (b) the acquiring company holds only securities of acquired companies that are part of the same group of investment companies, government securities and short-term paper; (c) the aggregate sales loads and distribution-related fees of the acquiring company and the acquired company are not excessive under rules adopted pursuant to section 22(b) or section 22(c) of the Act by a securities association registered under section 15A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or by the Commission; and (d) the acquired company has a policy that prohibits it from acquiring securities of registered open-end management investment companies or registered unit investment trusts in reliance on section 12(d)(1)(F) or (G) of the Act. Applicants state that section 12(d)(1)(G) is unavailable largely due to the Other Funds not being “registered” under the Act; its unavailability is not due to any difference that relates to the policies supporting section 12(d)(1). Applicants further state that if the Other Funds were registered in the United States as open-end funds, they, like the Matthews Funds, would be entitled to rely on section 12(d)(1)(G) and the rules thereunder to invest in the Series, if they were part of the same “group of investment companies,” as defined in Section 12(d)(1)(G)(ii).
3. Section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or transaction from any provision of section 12(d)(1), if the exemption is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors. Applicants seek an exemption under section 12(d)(1)(J) to permit the Other Funds to purchase Interests of Series which, as discussed herein, would result in an Other Fund owning 100% of the Interests of a particular Series.
4. Applicants state that the proposed arrangement will not raise the policy concerns underlying sections 12(d)(1)(A) and (B), including undue influence by a fund of funds over underlying funds, excessive layering of fees and overly complex fund structures. Accordingly, Applicants believe that the requested exemption is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors.
5. Applicants contend that the proposed arrangement will not result in undue influence by an Other Fund over the Fund because, as manager of the Other Funds, the Adviser will act to prevent undue influence.
6. Applicants do not believe that the proposed arrangement will involve excessive layering of fees. Applicants state that, among other protections described above, fee arrangements for the Series will be subject to review and approval by the Fund's Board, including its independent members, in accordance with Section 15(c) of the Act, and their impact on overall fees for the Adviser's client will be fully disclosed to the client. With respect to Other Funds that invest in the Fund, no sales load will be charged by the Fund. Other sales charges and service fees, as defined in NASD Conduct Rule 2830,
7. Applicants contend that the proposed arrangement will not create an overly complex fund structure. Condition 10 provides that no Series of the Fund 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 of section 12(d)(1)(A), except to the extent that such Series of the Fund acquires, or is deemed to have acquired, the securities pursuant to exemptive relief from the Commission permitting such Series of the Fund to (a) acquire securities of one or more affiliated investment companies or companies relying on section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) for short-term cash management purposes, or (b) engage in interfund borrowing and lending transactions.
1. Section 17(a) of the Act generally prohibits purchases and sales of securities, on a principal basis, between a registered investment company and any affiliated person of the company, and affiliated persons of such persons. Section 2(a)(3) of the Act defines an “affiliated person” of another person to include, among other things, any person directly or indirectly owning, controlling or holding with power to vote 5% or more of the other's outstanding voting securities; any person 5% or more of whose outstanding voting securities are directly or indirectly owned, controlled or held with power to vote by the other person; any person directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by or under common control with the other person; and any investment adviser to an investment company. Applicants describe several bases of potential affiliation in the Application, and state that if the Other Funds and the Fund are deemed affiliates of each other, or even second-tier affiliates, the sale of Interests of the Fund to the Other Funds, and the redemption of such Interests by the Other Funds, could be prohibited under section 17(a) of the Act.
2. Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to grant an order permitting a transaction otherwise prohibited by section 17(a) if it finds that (a) the terms of the proposed transaction, including the consideration to be paid or received, are fair and reasonable and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned, (b) the proposed transaction is consistent with the policies of each registered investment company involved, and (c) the proposed
3. Applicants seek an exemption under sections 6(c) and 17(b) to allow the proposed transactions. Applicants state that the transactions satisfy the standards for relief under sections 6(c) and 17(b). Specifically, Applicants state that the terms of the transactions are fair and reasonable and do not involve overreaching. Applicants note that the consideration paid and received for the sale and redemption of Interests of the Fund will be based on the NAV of the Fund and, no sales load will be charged by the Fund, and other sales charges and service fees, if any, will only be charged at the Fund level or the Other Fund level, but not both. In addition, Applicants represent that the proposed transactions will be consistent with the policies of each registered investment company involved, and the general purposes of the Act.
Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the following conditions:
1. The Fund's outstanding securities will be owned exclusively by persons who are Qualified Purchasers, as defined in section 2(a)(51) of the Act and the rules thereunder.
2. The Fund will adopt a fundamental policy, which may be changed only by a majority vote of the outstanding voting securities of the Fund and only upon approval by the Commission or its staff, that will specify the circumstances in which the Fund will redeem its Interests, such that the Fund (a) will pay redemptions no less frequently than on one day each month (each such day, a Redemption Payment Date), (b) will calculate its NAV applicable to a redemption request received in good order in accordance with procedures set forth in the Fund's prospectus as of the close of business on the next redemption pricing date and time following such redemption request, which will be on the same day as the Redemption Payment Date, and (c) will redeem Interests in a given month only for redemptions requested on or before the redemption pricing date and time for that Redemption Payment Date.
3. At least 85% of the assets of the Fund will consist of assets:
(a) That the Fund reasonably believes may be sold or disposed of in local currency in the ordinary course of business, at approximately the price used in computing the Fund's NAV, within seven days, or
(b) that mature by the next Redemption Payment Date.
4. The Board of the Fund, including a majority of the disinterested trustees, will adopt written procedures designed to ensure that the Fund will comply with the terms and conditions of the requested order. The Board will review these procedures at least annually and approve such changes as it deems necessary.
5. The Fund will not hold itself out as a “mutual fund.” The Fund will disclose its redemption policy on the cover page of its offering memorandum and in any marketing materials.
6. Each Series will disclose in its registration statement that it does not have a concentration policy regarding investments in any industry or group of industries.
7. Any registered investment company that invests in a Series will aggregate the Series' holdings with its own holdings for purposes of evaluating its concentration policy regarding investments in any industry or group of industries.
8. With respect to Other Funds that invest in the Fund, no sales load will be charged by the Fund. Other sales charges and service fees, as defined in NASD Conduct Rule 2830, if any, will only be charged at the Fund level or at the Other Fund level, not both. With respect to other investments in the Fund, any sales charges and/or service fees charged with respect to Interests of the Fund or its Series will not exceed the limits applicable to a fund of funds set forth in such Rule 2830.
9. The Adviser will be an investment adviser or manager to each series of the Matthews Funds, Other Fund, or separate account that invests in the Fund.
10. No Series of the Fund 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 that such Series of the Fund acquires, or is deemed to have acquired, the securities pursuant to exemptive relief from the Commission permitting such Series of the Fund to (a) acquire securities of one or more affiliated investment companies or companies relying on section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the Act for short-term cash management purposes, or (b) engage in interfund borrowing and lending transactions.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice of application for an order under section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Act”) for an exemption from sections 12(d)(1)(A), (B) and (C) of the Act, and under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act for an exemption from section 17(a) of the Act.
Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090. Applicants: 207 Reber Street, Suite 201, Wheaton, Illinois 60187.
Steven I. Amchan, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551–6826, or David P. Bartels, Branch Chief, at (202) 551–6821 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
The following is a summary of the
1. The Trust is a UIT registered under the Act.
2. Applicants request relief to permit a Series to invest in registered investment companies or series thereof (“Funds”) that are (a) part of the same “group of investment companies” (as that term is defined in section 12(d)(1)(G) of the Act) as the Series (“Affiliated Funds”), and (b) not part of the same group of investment companies as the Series (“Unaffiliated Funds”). Each of the Funds will be registered as a closed-end management investment company (“Closed-end Fund”), an open-end management investment company (“Open-end Fund”) or a UIT. An Unaffiliated Fund that is a UIT is referred to as an “Unaffiliated Underlying Trust.” An Unaffiliated Fund that is a Closed-end Fund or Open-end Fund is referred to as an “Unaffiliated Underlying Fund.” Certain of the Funds may be registered as Open-end Funds or UITs, but have received exemptive relief in order that their shares may be traded at “negotiated prices” on a national securities exchange in the same manner as other equity securities (the “Exchange-traded Funds”). Shares of Exchange-traded Funds and Closed-end Funds will be deposited in a Series at prices which are based on the market value of the securities, as determined by an evaluator. The Depositor does not have discretion as to when portfolio securities of a Series will be sold, except that the Depositor is authorized to sell securities in extremely limited circumstances described in the Series' prospectus.
3. Applicants state that the requested relief will provide investors with a practical, cost-efficient means of investing in a professionally selected, diversified portfolio of securities of investment companies. Each Series may also make investments in securities that are not issued by registered investment companies.
1. Section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act prohibits a registered investment company from acquiring shares of an investment company if the securities represent more than 3% of the total outstanding voting stock of the acquired company, more than 5% of the total assets of the acquiring company, or, together with the securities of any other investment companies, more than 10% of the value 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 and any broker or dealer (“Broker”) from selling the shares of the investment company 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. Section 12(d)(1)(C) prohibits an investment company, other investment companies having the same investment adviser, and companies controlled by such investment companies, from acquiring more than 10% of the outstanding voting stock of a registered closed-end investment company.
2. Section 12(d)(1)(G) provides, in relevant part, that section 12(d)(1) will not apply to securities of a registered open-end investment company or UIT acquired by a registered UIT if the acquired company and the acquiring company are part of the same group of investment companies, provided that certain other requirements contained in section 12(d)(1)(G) are met, including that the only other investments held by the acquiring company are government securities and short-term paper. Applicants state that they may not rely on section 12(d)(1)(G) because a Series will invest in Unaffiliated Funds and securities other than government securities and short-term paper in addition to Affiliated Funds.
3. 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. Applicants seek an exemption under section 12(d)(1)(J) to permit a Series to purchase or otherwise acquire shares of the Funds in excess of the percentage limitations of sections 12(d)(1)(A) and (C), and the Open-end Funds, their principal underwriters and any Broker to sell their shares to the Series in excess of the percentage limitations of section 12(d)(1)(B).
4. Applicants state that the proposed arrangement will not give rise to the policy concerns underlying sections 12(d)(1)(A), (B), and (C), which include concerns about undue influence by a fund of funds over underlying funds, excessive layering of fees, and overly complex fund structures. Accordingly, Applicants believe that the requested exemption is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors.
5. Applicants state that the concern about undue control does not arise with respect to a Series' investment in Affiliated Funds, as reflected in section 12(d)(1)(G) of the Act. Applicants also state that the proposed arrangement will not result in undue influence by a Series or its affiliates over Unaffiliated Funds. Applicants have agreed that (a) the Depositor, (b) any person controlling, controlled by or under common control with the Depositor, and (c) any investment company and any issuer that would be an investment company but for section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the Act, sponsored or advised by the Depositor (or any person controlling, controlled by or under common control with the Depositor) (collectively, the “Group”) will not control (individually or in the aggregate) an Unaffiliated Fund within the meaning section 2(a)(9) of the Act. Applicants also note that conditions 2, 3, 5 and 6 set forth below will address the concern about undue influence with respect to the Unaffiliated Funds.
6. As an additional assurance that an Unaffiliated Underlying Fund understands the implications of an investment by a Series under the requested order, prior to a Series' investment in the Unaffiliated Underlying Fund in excess of the limit in section 12(d)(1)(A)(i), the Series and the Unaffiliated Underlying Fund will execute an agreement stating, without limitation, that the Depositor and Trustee and the board of directors or
7. Applicants do not believe that the proposed arrangement will involve excessive layering of fees. Applicants state that any sales charges and/or service fees, as those terms are defined in Rule 2830 of the Conduct Rules of the NASD, Inc. (“NASD Conduct Rules”),
8. Applicants state 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), 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. Applicants also represent that a Series' prospectus and sales literature will contain concise, “plain English” disclosure designed to inform investors of the unique characteristics of the trust of funds structure, including, but not limited to, its expense structure and the additional expenses of investing in Funds.
1. 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”), acting as principal, from selling any security or other property to or acquiring any security or other property from the company. Section 2(a)(3) of the Act defines an “affiliated person” of another person to include (a) 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; (b) any person 5% or more of whose outstanding voting securities are directly or indirectly owned, controlled, or held with power to vote by the other person; and (c) any person directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the other person.
2. Applicants state that a Series and an Affiliated Fund might be deemed to be under the common control of the Depositor or an entity controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the Depositor. Applicants also state that a Series and a Fund might become “affiliated persons” if the Series acquires more than 5% of the Fund's outstanding voting securities. The sale or redemption by a Fund of its shares to or from a Series therefore could be deemed to be a principal transaction prohibited by Section 17(a) of the Act.
3. Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to grant an order permitting a transaction otherwise prohibited by section 17(a) if it finds that (a) the terms of the proposed transaction are fair and reasonable and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned; (b) the proposed transaction is consistent with the policies of each registered investment company involved; and (c) the proposed transaction is consistent with the general purposes of the Act. Section 6(c) of the Act permits the Commission to exempt any person or transactions from any provision of the Act if 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.
4. Applicants submit that the proposed transactions satisfy the standards for relief under sections 17(b) and 6(c) of the Act. Applicants state that the terms of the proposed transactions are fair and reasonable and do not involve overreaching. Applicants note that the consideration paid for the sale and redemption of shares of the Open-end Funds and Funds that are UITs will be based on the net asset values of the Funds. Finally, applicants state that the proposed transactions will be consistent with the policies of each Series and Fund, and with the general purposes of the Act.
Applicants agree that the order granting the requested relief shall be subject to the following conditions:
1. The members of the Group will not control (individually or in the aggregate) an Unaffiliated 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 an Unaffiliated Fund, the Group, in the aggregate, becomes a holder of more than 25% of the outstanding voting securities of the Unaffiliated Fund, the Group will vote its shares of the Unaffiliated Fund in the same proportion as the vote of all other holders of the Unaffiliated Fund's shares.
2. No Series or its Depositor, promoter, principal underwriter, or any person controlling, controlled by, or under common control with any of those entities (each, a “Series Affiliate”) will cause any existing or potential investment by the Series in an Unaffiliated Fund to influence the terms of any services or transactions between the Series or Series Affiliate and the Unaffiliated Fund or its investment adviser(s), sponsor, promoter, principal underwriter, or any person controlling, controlled by, or under common control with any of those entities.
3. Once an investment by a Series in the securities of an Unaffiliated Underlying Fund exceeds the limit in section 12(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, the board of directors or trustees of the Unaffiliated Underlying Fund, including a majority of the disinterested board members, will determine that any consideration paid by the Unaffiliated Underlying Fund to the Series or Series Affiliate in connection with any services
4. The Trustee or Depositor will waive fees otherwise payable to it by the Series, in an amount at least equal to any compensation (including fees received pursuant to any plan adopted by an Unaffiliated Underlying Fund under rule 12b–1 under the Act) received from an Unaffiliated Fund by the Trustee or Depositor, or an affiliated person of the Trustee or Depositor, other than any advisory fees paid to the Trustee or Depositor or its affiliated person by an Unaffiliated Underlying Fund, in connection with the investment by a Series in the Unaffiliated Fund.
5. No Series or Series Affiliate (except to the extent it is acting in its capacity as an investment adviser to an Unaffiliated Underlying Fund or sponsor to an Unaffiliated Underlying Trust) will cause an Unaffiliated Fund to purchase a security in an offering of securities during the existence of any underwriting or selling syndicate of which a principal underwriter is the Depositor or a person of which the Depositor is an affiliated person (each, an “Underwriting Affiliate,” except any person whose relationship to the Unaffiliated Fund is covered by section 10(f) of the Act is not an Underwriting Affiliate). An offering of securities during the existence of an underwriting or selling syndicate of which a principal underwriter is an Underwriting Affiliate is an “Affiliated Underwriting.”
6. The board of an Unaffiliated Underlying Fund, including a majority of the disinterested board members, will adopt procedures reasonably designed to monitor any purchases of securities by the Unaffiliated Underlying Fund in an Affiliated Underwriting once an investment by a Series in the securities of the Unaffiliated Underlying 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 of the Unaffiliated Underlying Fund will review these purchases periodically, but no less frequently than annually, to determine whether the purchases were influenced by the investment by the Series in the Unaffiliated Underlying Fund. The board of the Unaffiliated Underlying Fund will consider, among other things: (a) Whether the purchases were consistent with the investment objectives and policies of the Unaffiliated Underlying Fund; (b) 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 (c) whether the amount of securities purchased by the Unaffiliated Underlying Fund in Affiliated Underwritings and the amount purchased directly from an Underwriting Affiliate have changed significantly from prior years. The board of the Unaffiliated Underlying Fund 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 interests of shareholders.
7. An Unaffiliated Underlying 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 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 a Series in the securities of the Unaffiliated Underlying Fund exceeds the limit of section 12(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, setting forth from whom the securities were acquired, the identity of the underwriting syndicate's members, the terms of the purchase, and the information or materials upon which the determinations of the board of the Unaffiliated Underlying Fund were made.
8. Before investing in an Unaffiliated Underlying Fund in excess of the limit in section 12(d)(1)(A)(i), each Series and the Unaffiliated Underlying Fund will execute a Participation Agreement stating, without limitation, that the Depositor and Trustee, and the board of directors or trustees of the Unaffiliated Underlying Fund and the investment adviser(s) to the Unaffiliated Underlying Fund, 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 an Unaffiliated Underlying Fund in excess of the limit in section 12(d)(1)(A)(i), a Series will notify the Unaffiliated Underlying Fund of the investment. At such time, the Series also will transmit to the Unaffiliated Underlying Fund a list of the names of each Series Affiliate and Underwriting Affiliate. The Series will notify the Unaffiliated Underlying Fund of any changes to the list of names as soon as reasonably practicable after a change occurs. The Unaffiliated Underlying Fund and the Series will maintain and preserve a copy of the order, the Participation Agreement, and the list with any updated information for the duration of the investment, and for a period not less than six years thereafter, the first two years in an easily accessible place.
9. Any sales charges and/or service fees charged with respect to Units of a Series will not exceed the limits applicable to a fund of funds as set forth in Rule 2830 of the NASD Conduct Rules.
10. No Fund will acquire securities of any other 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, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice of an application for an order pursuant to (a) section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Act”) granting an exemption from sections 18(f) and 21(b) of the Act; (b) section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act granting an exemption from section 12(d)(1) of the Act; (c) sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the
Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090; Applicants: P.O. Box 2600, V26, Valley Forge, PA 19482.
Steven I. Amchan, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551–6826 or David P. Bartels, 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. Each Trust is organized as a Delaware statutory trust and is registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company. Each Trust consists of one or more series (“Funds”). Certain of the Funds hold themselves out as money market funds in reliance on rule 2a–7 under the Act (the “Money Market Funds”). Vanguard, a Pennsylvania corporation, is registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended (“Advisers Act”), and as a transfer agent under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Vanguard is wholly and jointly owned by 35 investment companies (including each Trust except for Vanguard CMT Funds and Vanguard Institutional Index Funds). Vanguard provides each of the Funds with corporate management, administrative, transfer agency, and, in some cases, investment advisory services.
2. At any particular time, while some Funds are entering into repurchase agreements or investing cash balances in Money Market Funds or other short-term instruments, other Funds may need to borrow money for temporary purposes to satisfy redemption requests, to cover unanticipated cash shortfalls such as a trade “fail” in which cash payment for a security sold by a Fund has been delayed, or for other temporary purposes. Presently, the Funds have access to uncommitted bank loans from their custodian banks, for temporary purposes. These loans are available at the custodian bank's discretion in the amounts that the bank chooses to make available at the time of the loan.
3. If a Fund borrows from its custodian bank, it normally pays interest on the loan at a rate that is higher than the rate that is earned by other (non-borrowing) Funds on investments in repurchase agreements, Money Market Funds, and other short-term instruments of the same maturity as the bank loan. Applicants assert that this differential represents the profit earned by the lender on loans and is not attributable to any material difference in the credit quality or risk of such transactions.
4. The Trusts seek to enter into master interfund lending agreements (“Interfund Lending Agreements”) with each other on behalf of the Funds that would permit each Fund to lend money directly to and borrow directly from other Funds through a credit facility for temporary purposes (an “Interfund Loan”). Money Market Funds typically will not participate as borrowers in the proposed credit facility. Applicants state that the proposed credit facility would both reduce the Funds' potential borrowing costs and enhance the ability of the lending Funds to earn higher rates of interest on their short-term lendings. Although the proposed credit facility would reduce the Funds' need to borrow from banks, the Funds would be free to establish and maintain committed lines of credit or other borrowing arrangements with unaffiliated banks.
5. Applicants anticipate that the proposed credit facility would provide a borrowing Fund with significant savings at times when the cash position of the borrowing Fund is insufficient to meet temporary cash requirements. This situation could arise when shareholder redemptions exceed anticipated volumes and certain Funds have insufficient cash on hand to satisfy such redemptions. When the Funds liquidate portfolio securities to meet redemption requests, they often do not receive payment in settlement for up to three days (or longer for certain foreign transactions). However, redemption requests normally are effected immediately. The proposed credit facility would provide a source of immediate, short-term liquidity pending
6. Applicants also anticipate that a Fund could use the proposed credit facility when a sale of securities “fails” due to circumstances beyond the Fund's control, such as a delay in the delivery of cash to the Fund's custodian or improper delivery instructions by the broker effecting the transaction. “Sales fails” may present a cash shortfall if the Fund has undertaken to purchase a security using the proceeds from securities sold. Alternatively, the Fund could “fail” on its intended purchase due to lack of funds from the previous sale, resulting in additional cost to the Fund, or sell a security on a same-day settlement basis, earning a lower return on the investment. Use of the proposed credit facility under these circumstances would enable the Fund to have access to immediate short-term liquidity.
7. While bank borrowings generally could supply needed cash to cover unanticipated redemptions and sales fails, under the proposed credit facility, a borrowing Fund would pay lower interest rates than those that would be payable under short-term loans offered by banks. In addition, Funds making short-term cash loans directly to other Funds would earn interest at a rate higher than they otherwise could obtain from investing their cash in repurchase agreements or money market funds. Thus, applicants assert that the proposed credit facility would benefit both borrowing and lending Funds.
8. The interest rate to be charged to the Funds on any Interfund Loan (the “Interfund Loan Rate”) would be the average of the “Repo Rate” and the “Bank Loan Rate,” both as defined below. The Repo Rate for any day would be the highest or best (after giving effect to factors such as the credit quality of the counterparty) rate available to a lending Fund from investment in overnight repurchase agreements with counterparties approved by Vanguard. The Bank Loan Rate for any day would be calculated by Vanguard's Fund Financial Services Department (as defined below) each day an Interfund Loan is made according to a formula established by each Fund's board of trustees (the “Trustees”) intended to approximate the lowest interest rate at which bank short-term loans would be available to the Funds. The formula would be based upon a publicly available rate (
9. The proposed credit facility would be administered by the officers and employees of Vanguard's Fund Financial Services Department (the “Fund Financial Services Department”), which Applicants state is responsible for, among other things, projecting Fund available cash balances on any given day, reporting such information to Fund portfolio managers, ensuring accurate calculation of Fund net asset values, and preparing Fund financial statements and other reports. No portfolio manager of any Fund will serve in the Fund Financial Services Department.
10. The Fund Financial Services Department on each business day would collect data on the uninvested cash and borrowing requirements of all participating Funds.
11. Applicants state that the Fund Financial Services Department would allocate borrowing demand and cash available for lending among the Funds on what the Fund Financial Services Department believes to be an equitable basis, subject to certain administrative procedures applicable to all Funds, such as the time of filing requests to participate, minimum loan lot sizes, and the need to minimize the number of transactions and associated administrative costs. To reduce transaction costs, each loan normally would be allocated in a manner intended to minimize the number of participants necessary to complete the loan transaction. The method of allocation and related administrative procedures would be approved by each Fund's Trustees, including a majority of Trustees who are not “interested persons” of the Fund, as that term is defined in section 2(a)(19) of the Act (“Independent Trustees”), to ensure that both borrowing and lending Funds participate on an equitable basis.
12. The Fund Financial Services Department would: (a) Monitor the Interfund Loan Rate and the other terms and conditions of the loans; (b) limit the borrowings and loans entered into by each Fund to ensure that they comply with the Fund's investment policies and limitations; (c) ensure equitable treatment of each Fund; and (d) make quarterly reports to the Trustees concerning any transactions by the Funds under the proposed credit facility and the Interfund Loan Rate charged.
13. Vanguard, through the Fund Financial Services Department, would administer the proposed credit facility as a disinterested fiduciary as part of its duties under the relevant management or service agreement with each Fund and would receive no additional fee as compensation for its services in connection with the administration of the proposed credit facility. No investment adviser to a Fund will collect any pricing, record keeping, bookkeeping or accounting fees associated with the transfer of cash and/or securities in connection with the transactions effected through the proposed credit facility.
14. No Fund may participate in the proposed credit facility unless: (a) The Fund has obtained shareholder approval for its participation, if such approval is required by law; (b) the Fund has fully disclosed all material information concerning the credit facility in its prospectus and/or statement of additional information; and (c) the Fund's participation in the credit facility is consistent with its investment objectives, limitations and organizational documents.
15. In connection with the credit facility, applicants request an order under section 6(c) of the Act exempting them from the provisions of sections 18(f) and 21(b) of the Act; under section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act exempting them from section 12(d)(1) of the Act; under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act exempting them from sections 17(a)(1), 17(a)(2), and 17(a)(3) of the Act; and under section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d–1 under the Act to permit certain joint arrangements.
1. Section 17(a)(3) of the Act generally prohibits any affiliated person of a
2. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that an exemptive order may be granted where an 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) provided that the terms of the transaction, including the consideration to be paid or received, are fair and reasonable and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned, and the transaction is consistent with the policy of the investment company as recited in its registration statement and with the general purposes of the Act. Applicants believe that the proposed arrangements satisfy these standards for the reasons discussed below.
3. Applicants assert that sections 17(a)(3) and 21(b) of the Act were intended to prevent a party with strong potential adverse interests to, and some influence over the investment decisions of, a registered investment company from causing or inducing the investment company to engage in lending transactions that unfairly inure to the benefit of such party and that are detrimental to the best interests of the investment company and its shareholders. Applicants assert that the proposed credit facility transactions do not raise these concerns because: (a) Vanguard, through the Fund Financial Services Department, would administer the program as a disinterested fiduciary as part of its duties under the relevant management or service agreement with each Fund; (b) all Interfund Loans would consist only of uninvested cash reserves that the lending Fund otherwise would invest in short-term repurchase agreements or other short-term instruments either directly or through a money market fund; (c) the Interfund Loans would not involve a significantly greater risk than such other investments; (d) the lending Fund would receive interest at a rate higher than it could otherwise obtain through such other investments; and (e) the borrowing Fund would pay interest at a rate lower than otherwise available to it under its bank loan agreements and avoid some up-front commitment fees associated with committed lines of credit. Moreover, applicants assert that the other terms and conditions that applicants propose also would effectively preclude the possibility of any Fund obtaining an undue advantage over any other Fund.
4. Section 17(a)(1) of the Act generally prohibits an affiliated person of a registered investment company, or any affiliated person of such a person, from selling securities or other property to the investment company. Section 17(a)(2) of the Act generally prohibits an affiliated person of a registered investment company, or any affiliated person of such a person, from purchasing securities or other property from the investment company. Section 12(d)(1) of the Act generally prohibits a registered investment company from purchasing or otherwise acquiring any security issued by any other investment company except in accordance with the limitations set forth in that section.
5. Applicants state that the obligation of a borrowing Fund to repay an Interfund Loan could be deemed to constitute a security for the purposes of sections 17(a)(1) and 12(d)(1). Applicants also state that any pledge of assets in connection with an Interfund Loan could be construed as a purchase of the borrowing Fund's securities or other property for purposes of section 17(a)(2) of the Act. Section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt persons or transactions from any provision of section 12(d)(1) if and to the extent that such exemption is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors. Applicants contend that the standards under sections 6(c), 17(b), and 12(d)(1)(J) are satisfied for all the reasons set forth above in support of their request for relief from sections 17(a)(3) and 21(b) and for the reasons discussed below. Applicants also state that the requested relief from section 17(a)(2) of the Act meets the standards of section 6(c) and 17(b) because any collateral pledged to secure an Interfund Loan would be subject to the same conditions imposed by any other lender to a Fund that imposes conditions on the quality of or access to collateral for a borrowing (if the lender is another Fund) or the same or better conditions (in any other circumstance).
6. Applicants state that section 12(d)(1) was intended to prevent the pyramiding of investment companies in order to avoid imposing on investors additional and duplicative costs and fees attendant upon multiple layers of investments. Applicants submit that the proposed credit facility does not involve these abuses. Applicants note that there will be no duplicative costs or fees to the Funds or their shareholders, and that Vanguard will receive no additional compensation for its services in administering the credit facility. Applicants also note that the purpose of the proposed credit facility is to provide economic benefits for all the participating Funds and their shareholders.
7. Section 18(f)(1) of the Act prohibits open-end investment companies from issuing any senior security except that a company is permitted to borrow from any bank, provided, that immediately after the borrowing, there is asset coverage of at least 300 per centum for all borrowings of the company. Under section 18(g) of the Act, the term “senior security” generally includes any bond, debenture, note or similar obligation or instrument constituting a security and evidencing indebtedness. Applicants request exemptive relief under section 6(c) from section 18(f)(1) to the limited extent necessary to implement the proposed credit facility (because the lending Funds are not banks).
8. Applicants believe that granting relief under section 6(c) is appropriate because the Funds would remain subject to the requirement of section 18(f)(1) that all borrowings of a Fund, including combined interfund and bank borrowings, have at least 300% asset coverage. Based on the conditions and safeguards described in the application, applicants also submit that to allow the Funds to borrow from other Funds pursuant to the proposed credit facility is consistent with the purposes and policies of section 18(f)(1).
9. Section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d–1 under the Act generally prohibit an affiliated person of a registered investment company, or any affiliated person of such a person, when acting as principal, from effecting any joint transaction in which the investment company participates, unless, upon application, the transaction has been approved by the Commission. Rule 17d–
10. Applicants assert that the purpose of section 17(d) is to avoid overreaching by and unfair advantage to insiders. Applicants assert that the proposed credit facility is consistent with the provisions, policies and purposes of the Act in that it offers both reduced borrowing costs and enhanced returns on loaned funds to all participating Funds and their shareholders. Applicants note that each Fund would have an equal opportunity to borrow and lend on equal terms consistent with its investment policies and fundamental investment limitations. Applicants assert that each Fund's participation in the proposed credit facility would be on terms that are no different from or less advantageous than that of other participating Funds.
Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the following conditions:
1. The Interfund Loan Rate will be the average of the Repo Rate and the Bank Loan Rate.
2. On each business day, the Fund Financial Services Department will compare the Bank Loan Rate with the Repo Rate and will make cash available for Interfund Loans only if the Interfund Loan Rate is: (a) More favorable to the lending Fund than the Repo Rate and, if applicable, the yield of any money market fund in which the lending Fund could otherwise invest; and (b) more favorable to the borrowing Fund than the Bank Loan Rate.
3. If a Fund has outstanding bank borrowings, any Interfund Loans to the Fund: (a) Will be at an interest rate equal to or lower than the interest rate of any outstanding bank loan; (b) will be secured at least on an equal priority basis with at least an equivalent percentage of collateral to loan value as any outstanding bank loan that requires collateral; (c) will have a maturity no longer than any outstanding bank loan (and in any event not over seven days); and (d) will provide that, if an event of default by the Fund occurs under any agreement evidencing an outstanding bank loan to the Fund, that event of default will automatically (without need for action or notice by the lending Fund) constitute an immediate event of default under the Interfund Lending Agreement entitling the lending Fund to call the Interfund Loan (and exercise all rights with respect to any collateral) and that such call will be made if the lending bank exercises its right to call its loan under its agreement with the borrowing Fund.
4. A Fund may make an unsecured borrowing through the proposed credit facility if its outstanding borrowings from all sources immediately after the interfund borrowing total 10% or less of its total assets, provided that if the Fund has a secured loan outstanding from any other lender, including but not limited to another Fund, the Fund's interfund borrowing will be secured on at least an equal priority basis with at least an equivalent percentage of collateral to loan value as any outstanding loan that requires collateral. If a Fund's total outstanding borrowings immediately after an interfund borrowing would be greater than 10% of its total assets, the Fund may borrow through the proposed credit facility only on a secured basis. A Fund may not borrow through the proposed credit facility or from any other source if its total outstanding borrowings immediately after such borrowing would be more than 33
5. Before any Fund that has outstanding interfund borrowings may, through additional borrowings, cause its outstanding borrowings from all sources to exceed 10% of its total assets, the Fund must first secure each outstanding Interfund Loan by the pledge of segregated collateral with a market value at least equal to 102% of the outstanding principal value of the loan. If the total outstanding borrowings of a Fund with outstanding Interfund Loans exceed 10% of its total assets for any other reason (such as a decline in net asset value or because of shareholder redemptions), the Fund will within one business day thereafter: (a) Repay all of its outstanding Interfund Loans; (b) reduce its outstanding indebtedness to 10% or less of its total assets; or (c) secure each outstanding Interfund Loan by the pledge of segregated collateral with a market value at least equal to 102% of the outstanding principal value of the loan until the Fund's total outstanding borrowings cease to exceed 10% of its total assets, at which time the collateral called for by this condition 5 shall no longer be required. Until each Interfund Loan that is outstanding at any time that a Fund's total outstanding borrowings exceed 10% is repaid or the Fund's total outstanding borrowings cease to exceed 10% of its total assets, the Fund will mark the value of the collateral to market each day and will pledge such additional collateral as is necessary to maintain the market value of the collateral that secures each outstanding Interfund Loan at least equal to 102% of the outstanding principal value of the Interfund Loan.
6. No Fund may lend to another Fund through the proposed credit facility if the loan would cause its aggregate outstanding loans through the proposed credit facility to exceed 15% of the lending Fund's current net assets at the time of the loan.
7. A Fund's Interfund Loans to any one Fund shall not exceed 5% of the lending Fund's net assets.
8. The duration of Interfund Loans will be limited to the time required to receive payment for securities sold, but in no event more than seven days. Loans effected within seven days of each other will be treated as separate loan transactions for purposes of this condition.
9. A Fund's borrowings through the proposed credit facility, as measured on the day when the most recent loan was made, will not exceed the greater of 125% of the Fund's total net cash redemptions for the preceding seven calendar days or 102% of the Fund's sales fails for the preceding seven calendar days.
10. Each Interfund Loan may be called on one business day's notice by a lending Fund and may be repaid on any day by a borrowing Fund.
11. A Fund's participation in the proposed credit facility must be consistent with its investment objectives and limitations and organizational documents.
12. The Fund Financial Services Department will calculate total Fund borrowing and lending demand through the proposed credit facility, and allocate loans on an equitable basis among the Funds, without the intervention of any portfolio manager of the Funds. The Fund Financial Services Department will not solicit cash for the proposed credit facility from any Fund or prospectively publish or disseminate loan demand data to portfolio managers. The Fund Financial Services Department will invest any amounts remaining after satisfaction of borrowing demand in accordance with the standing instructions of the portfolio managers or such remaining amounts will be invested directly by the portfolio managers of the Funds.
13. The Fund Financial Services Department will monitor the Interfund Loan Rate and the other terms and conditions of the Interfund Loans and will make a quarterly report to the Trustees of each Fund concerning the
14. The Trustees of each Fund, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, will:
(a) review, no less frequently than quarterly, the Fund's participation in the proposed credit facility during the preceding quarter for compliance with the conditions of any order permitting such transactions;
(b) establish the Bank Loan Rate formula used to determine the interest rate on Interfund Loans and review, no less frequently than annually, the continuing appropriateness of the Bank Loan Rate formula; and
(c) review, no less frequently than annually, the continuing appropriateness of the Fund's participation in the proposed credit facility.
15. In the event an Interfund Loan is not paid according to its terms and such default is not cured within two business days from its maturity or from the time the lending Fund makes a demand for payment under the provisions of the Interfund Lending Agreement, Vanguard will promptly refer such loan for arbitration to an independent arbitrator selected by the Trustees of each Fund involved in the loan who will serve as arbitrator of disputes concerning Interfund Loans.
16. Each Fund will maintain and preserve for a period of not less than six years from the end of the fiscal year in which any transaction by it under the proposed credit facility occurred, the first two years in an easily accessible place, written records of all such transactions setting forth a description of the terms of the transactions, including the amount, the maturity and the Interfund Loan Rate, the rate of interest available at the time each Interfund Loan is made on overnight repurchase agreements and commercial bank borrowings, the yield of any money market fund in which the lending Fund could otherwise invest, and such other information presented to the Fund's Trustees in connection with the review required by conditions 13 and 14.
17. The Fund Financial Services Department will prepare and submit to the Trustees for review an initial report describing the operations of the proposed credit facility and the procedures to be implemented to ensure that all Funds are treated fairly. After the commencement of the proposed credit facility, the Fund Financial Services Department will report on the operations of the proposed credit facility at the Trustees' meetings on a quarterly basis.
Each Fund's chief compliance officer, as defined in rule 38a–1(a)(4) under the Act, shall prepare an annual report for its Trustees each year that the Fund participates in the proposed credit facility, that evaluates the Fund's compliance with the terms and conditions of the application and the procedures established to achieve such compliance. Each Fund's chief compliance officer will also annually file a certification pursuant to Item 77Q3 of Form N–SAR as such Form may be revised, amended or superseded from time to time, for each year that the Fund participates in the proposed credit facility, that certifies that the Fund, and Vanguard have established procedures reasonably designed to achieve compliance with the terms and conditions of the order. In particular, such certification will address procedures designed to achieve the following objectives:
(a) that the Interfund Loan Rate will be higher than the Repo Rate, and, if applicable, the yield of the money market funds, but lower than the Bank Loan Rate;
(b) compliance with the collateral requirements as set forth in the application;
(c) compliance with the percentage limitations on interfund borrowing and lending;
(d) allocation of interfund borrowing and lending demand in an equitable manner and in accordance with procedures established by the Trustees; and
(e) that the Interfund Loan Rate does not exceed the interest rate on any third party borrowings of a borrowing Fund at the time of the Interfund Loan.
Additionally, each Fund's independent public accountants, in connection with their audit examination of the Fund, will review the operation of the proposed credit facility for compliance with the conditions of the application and their review will form the basis, in part, of the auditor's report on internal accounting controls in Form N–SAR.
18. No Fund will participate in the proposed credit facility upon receipt of requisite regulatory approval unless it has fully disclosed in its prospectus and/or statement of additional information all material facts about its intended participation.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice of application for an order under sections 6(b) and 6(e) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) exempting the applicants from all provisions of the Act, except section 9 and sections 36 through 53, and the rules and regulations under the Act. With respect to sections 17 and 30 of the Act, and the rules and regulations thereunder, and rule 38a–1 under the Act, the exemption would be limited as set forth in the application.
Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090. Applicants, 677 Washington Boulevard, Stamford, CT 06901.
Jaea F. Hahn, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551–6870, or David P. Bartels, 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. UBS is a bank established under the laws of Switzerland that offers a range of financial services including private banking, asset management and investment banking services.
2. UBS has organized CLP1, a Cayman Island limited partnership, and Feeder L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, as the Initial Funds. UBS intends to organize additional Funds from time to time for the benefit of highly compensated current and former employees, officers and directors of UBS and its affiliates (as defined in rule 12b–2 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”)) (collectively, the “UBS Group”) who have been approved to purchase interests by UBS (“Eligible Employees”). Each Fund will be an “employees' securities company” within the meaning of section 2(a)(13) of the Act and will operate as a closed-end, management investment company, which may be diversified or nondiversified. Applicants state that the Funds are designed primarily to create capital appreciation opportunities that are competitive with those at other financial services firms and to facilitate the recruitment and retention of high caliber professionals. Applicants assert that participation by Eligible Employees in the Funds may allow them to diversify their investments or to participate in investments that might not otherwise be available to them or that might be beyond their individual means. The investment objectives and policies for each Fund may vary from Fund to Fund, and participation in a Fund will be voluntary.
3. Applicants state that each Fund will be organized as a limited partnership, a limited liability company, a corporation, or another appropriate entity, in each case organized under the laws of a state of the United States or of a jurisdiction outside the United States. Applicants state that, because a large portion of Eligible Employees reside outside of the United States, applicants expect that most, if not all, of the Funds will be organized under the laws of jurisdictions outside of the United States for various tax, regulatory, and other reasons.
4. Each Fund will be managed, operated and controlled by a general partner that is controlled, directly or indirectly, by UBS (a “General Partner”).
5. The Investment Manager may, from time to time, be presented with investment opportunities by one or more investment advisers (“Investment Advisers”) that are engaged by the Investment Manager that may be affiliated or not affiliated with UBS (any such non-affiliated Investment Adviser being referred to as an “Outside Investment Adviser”). If the Investment Manager elects to enter into any side-by-side investment with a party that is not a member of the UBS Group, the Investment Manager will be permitted to engage as an Investment Adviser the Outside Investment Adviser responsible for the management of such side-by-side investment. In each of the foregoing cases, however, all decisions with respect to the purchase, holding or disposition of investments by each Fund will be made by either the General Partner or the Investment Manager alone, and not by any Investment Adviser.
6. Interests in the Funds (“Interests”) will be offered without registration in reliance on section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”), or Regulation D under the Securities Act, and will be sold only to Qualified Participants, as defined below, and members of the UBS Group.
7. An Eligible Employee must be either (a) an “accredited investor” as defined in rule 501(a)(6) or 501(a)(5) of Regulation D under the Securities Act (an “Accredited Investor”) or (b) one of not more than 35 employees of the UBS Group who meets the salary and other requirements as described below (“Other Investors”). Each Other Investor
8. An Eligible Employee or a Qualified Family Member may purchase an Interest through a Qualified Investment Vehicle only if either (a) such investment vehicle is an “accredited investor,” as defined in rule 501(a) of Regulation D under the Securities Act or (b) such Eligible Employee or Qualified Family Member is a settlor and principal investment decision-maker with respect to such investment vehicle. Prior to offering Interests to an Eligible Employee or Qualified Family Member, UBS must reasonably believe that such individual has such knowledge, sophistication and experience in business and financial matters to be capable of evaluating the merits and risks of participating in the Fund, is able to bear the economic risk of such investment and is able to afford a complete loss of such investment.
9. Applicants represent that the material terms of investment in a Fund, including without limitation, the terms and conditions of any and all transfers of Interests in any Fund, will be fully disclosed to each Qualified Participant and member of the UBS Group when Interests are offered to that person. The specific investment objectives and strategies for a particular Fund will be set forth in a private placement memorandum relating to the Interests offered by a Fund. In connection with an investment in a Fund, each Qualified Participant and member of the UBS Group will receive the private placement memorandum, form of application and the limited partnership agreement (or other constitutive document) of the Fund. Each Fund will send its investors (“Investors”) annual reports, which will contain audited financial statements, as soon as practicable after the end of each fiscal year.
10. Interests in a Fund will not be transferable by an Investor except with the prior written consent of UBS or a Fund's General Partner and then only to Qualified Participants or to members of the UBS Group. Applicants expect that interests in the Funds will generally not be redeemable at the option of an Investor (except on liquidation of a Fund) but state that it is possible that one or more Funds may offer Interests with certain redemption rights. With respect to certain Funds, UBS may have the right, but not the obligation, to repurchase or cancel the Interest of an Eligible Employee who ceases to be an employee, officer or director of any member of the UBS Group for any reason. Upon repurchase or cancellation, such Investor's Interest will be purchased by the General Partner for cash in an amount at least equal to the lesser of (a) the amount of such Investor's capital contributions less prior distributions from the Fund (plus interest, as determined by UBS) or (b) the value of the Interest, as determined by UBS in good faith as of the date of termination. For other Funds, UBS AG may be permitted to exercise this right only under particular circumstances, such as if an employee resigns to join a competitor of the UBS Group, or not at all.
11. UBS may establish one or more deferred compensation plans in connection with the Funds. Applicants state that Eligible Employees may be able to defer compensation and receive a return on such deferred compensation determined by reference to the performance of a Fund. The deferred compensation plans and/or an Eligible Employee's interest in such plans: (a) Will be subject to the applicable terms and conditions of the application;
12. The General Partner or Investment Manager of a Fund may charge the Fund an annual management fee, a flat administrative charge or an expense reimbursement, but will not charge a carried interest. Any expense reimbursement may cover out-of-pocket expenses of the General Partner or Investment Manager, including allocable portions of the salaries of UBS Group employees who work on the Funds' affairs. Directors or officers of the General Partner or Investment Manager, or of any entity controlling the General Partner or Investment Manager, may also be compensated for their services to the General Partner or Investment Manager, including reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses. A Fund will not pay both a fee to the General Partner of the Fund and a fee to the Investment Manager of the Fund for providing the same services or bearing the same expenses. An Investment Adviser to the Investment Manager may charge the Fund an advisory fee; however, such advisory fee will not be duplicative of any fees paid to the General Partner. No fee of any kind will be charged in connection with the sale of Interests.
13. If a Fund becomes a limited partner or otherwise holds an interest in an investment fund organized or managed by the UBS Group in which affiliated third parties also are limited partners or otherwise hold interests (a “Client Fund”), the Fund may be obligated to pay a pro rata share of any fees (including carried interest) charged to the unaffiliated limited partners or interest holders of such Client Fund. A Fund may also invest in funds managed or advised by an Outside Investment Adviser, which may be entitled to fees (including carried interest) from the Fund. In all such cases, the Fund will enter into commercially reasonable arm's length arrangements with respect to the payment of the fees, and the potential for payment of any such
14. Subject to the terms of the applicable limited partnership agreement (or other constitutive documents), a Fund will be permitted to enter into transactions involving (a) a UBS Group entity, (b) a Client Fund or other portfolio company, (c) any Investor or any person or entity affiliated with an Investor, or (d) any partner or other investor in any entity in which a Fund invests. These transactions may include a Fund's purchase or sale of an investment or an interest from or to any UBS Group entity or Client Fund, acting as principal. Prior to entering into these transactions, the General Partner (or the Investment Manager, to whom the General Partner may delegate this responsibility) must determine that the terms are fair to Investors.
15. A Fund will not invest more than 15% of its assets in securities issued by registered investment companies except for temporary investments in money market funds. A Fund will not acquire any security issued by a registered investment company if, immediately after the acquisition, the Fund will own more than 3% of the outstanding voting stock of the registered investment company. Applicants state that a Fund may also invest in Client Funds that are not registered under the Act by virtue of section 3(c)(1) or section 3(c)(7) of the Act.
16. Members of the UBS Group and/or unaffiliated third parties may make loans to Funds and/or to Investors in connection with their purchase of Interests, provided that a Fund will not borrow from any person if the borrowing would cause any person not named in section 2(a)(13) of the Act to own outstanding securities of the Fund (other than short-term paper). Members of the UBS Group may also make preferred capital contributions to the Funds. In connection with any leverage of the Fund or preferred capital contributions, Eligible Employees will not have any personal liability in excess of the amounts payable under their respective subscription agreements for the repayment of the loan or preferred capital contribution, including in the event that, upon liquidation of the Fund, the assets of the Fund are insufficient to permit the Fund to repay such loan preferred capital contribution in full. Any leverage or preferred capital contributions will bear interest at a rate no less favorable to a Fund or its Investors than that could be obtained on an arm's length basis. The terms of any leverage or preferred capital contribution provided by any member of the UBS Group (or third party lender) will be described in the applicable private placement memorandum and partnership agreement (or other constitutive documents) as appropriate.
1. Section 6(b) of the Act provides, in part, that the Commission will exempt employees' securities companies from the provisions of the Act to the extent that the exemption is consistent with the protection of investors. Section 6(b) provides that the Commission will consider, in determining the provisions of the Act from which the company should be exempt, the company's form of organization and capital structure, the persons who will own and control the company's voting securities, evidences of indebtedness and other securities, the prices at which securities issued by the company will be sold and any applicable sales load, the disposition of the proceeds of the securities issued by the company, the character of securities in which those proceeds will be invested, and any relationship between the company and the issuers of the securities. Section 2(a)(13) defines an employees' securities company, in relevant part, as any investment company all of whose securities are beneficially owned (a) by current or former employees, or persons on retainer, of one or more affiliated employers, (b) by immediate family members of such persons, or (c) by such employer or employers, together with any of the persons in (a) or (b).
2. Section 7 of the Act generally prohibits investment companies that are not registered under section 8 of the Act from selling or redeeming their securities. Section 6(e) provides that, in connection with any order exempting an investment company from any provision of section 7, certain provisions of the Act, as specified by the Commission, will be applicable to the company and other persons dealing with the company as though the company were registered under the Act. Applicants request an order under sections 6(b) and 6(e) of the Act exempting the Funds from all provisions of the Act, except section 9 and sections 36 through 53 of the Act, and the rules and regulations thereunder. With respect to sections 17 and 30 of the Act, and the rules and regulations thereunder, and rule 38a–1 under the Act, the exception is limited as set forth in the application.
3. Section 17(a) generally prohibits any affiliated person of a registered investment company, or any affiliated person of that person, acting as principal, from knowingly selling or purchasing any security or other property to or from the company. Applicants request an exemption from section 17(a) to permit: (a) A member of the UBS Group or a Client Fund, acting as principal, to engage in any transaction directly or indirectly with any Fund or entity controlled by such Fund; (b) a Fund to invest in or engage in any transaction with any entity, acting as principal (i) in which such Fund, any company controlled by such Fund, or any entity within the UBS Group or a Client Fund has invested or will invest or (ii) with which such Fund, any company controlled by such Fund or any entity within the UBS Group or a Client Fund is or will otherwise become affiliated; and (c) a partner or other investor in any entity in which a Fund invests, acting as principal, to engage in transactions directly or indirectly with the related Fund or any company controlled by such Fund.
4. Applicants state that an exemption from section 17(a) is consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes of the Funds. Applicants state that the Investors in each Fund will be informed of the possible extent of the Fund's dealings with the UBS Group and of the potential conflicts of interest that may exist. Applicants also assert that the community of interest among the Investors and UBS Group will serve to reduce any risk of abuse in transactions involving a Fund and the UBS Group. Applicants represent that the requested relief will not extend to any transaction between a Fund and an Outside Investment Adviser or an affiliated person of the Outside Investment Adviser, or between a Fund and who is not a member of the UBS Group or an employee, officer or director of a member of the UBS Group and is an affiliated person of the Fund as defined in section 2(a)(3)(E) of the Act (“Advisory Person”) or any affiliated person of such person.
5. Section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d–1 under the Act prohibit any affiliated person of a registered investment company, or any affiliated person of an affiliated person, acting as principal, from participating in any joint enterprise, or other joint arrangement, unless approved by the Commission. Applicants request relief to permit affiliated persons of each Fund, or affiliated persons of such persons, to
6. Applicants assert that compliance with section 17(d) could cause a Fund to forego investment simply because an affiliate of the Fund has made, or is contemplating making, the same investment. Applicants also submit that the types of investment opportunities considered by a Fund often require each investor to make funds available in an amount that may be substantially greater than what a Fund may make available on its own. Applicants state that the possibility that permitting co-investments by an affiliated person or an affiliated person of an affiliated person might lead to less advantageous treatment of the Fund is minimal in light of (a) the UBS Group's intention in establishing a Fund so as to reward Eligible Employees and to attract and retain highly qualified personnel, (b) the UBS Group's capital contributions to the Funds, and (c) the fact that a majority of the directors of the General Partner or Investment Manager or of the entity controlling the General Partner or Investment Manager may themselves invest in the Fund.
7. Applicants believe that the interests of the Eligible Employees participating in a Fund will be adequately protected in situations where condition 3 in the application does not apply. Applicants state that a Fund may co-invest with an investment fund or separate account, organized for the benefit of investors who are not affiliated with the UBS Group, over which a member of the UBS Group exercises investment discretion (a “Third-Party Fund”). Applicants assert that, in structuring a Third-Party Fund, it is common for unaffiliated investors of such fund to require that the UBS Group invest its own capital in fund investments, either through the fund or on a side-by-side basis, and that such UBS Group investment be subject to substantially the same terms as those applicable to the fund's investment. Applicants state that it is important to the UBS Group that the interests of the Third-Party Fund take priority over the interests of the Funds, and that the activities of the Third-Party Fund not be burdened or otherwise affected by the activities of the Funds. In addition, applicants contend that the relationship of a Fund to a Third-Party Fund, in the context of this application, is fundamentally different from such Fund's relationship to the UBS Group. Applicants assert that the focus of, and the rationale for, the protections contained in condition 3 are to protect the Funds from any overreaching by the UBS Group in the employer/employee context, whereas the same concerns are not present with respect to the Funds vis-à-vis the investors of a Third-Party Fund.
8. Section 17(e) of the Act and rule 17e–1 under the Act limit the compensation an affiliated person may receive when acting as agent or broker for a registered investment company. Applicants request an exemption from section 17(e) to permit a UBS Group member (including the General Partner) acting as agent or broker, to receive placement fees, financial advisory fees or other compensation in connection with the purchase or sale by a Fund of securities, subject to the requirement that placement fees, financial advisory fees or other compensation is deemed “usual and customary.” Applicants state that for the purposes of the application, fees and other compensation that is being charged or received by the UBS Group entity will be deemed “usual and customary” only if (a) the Fund is purchasing or selling securities with other unaffiliated third parties, (b) the fees or compensation being charged to the Fund are also being charged to the unaffiliated third parties, and (c) the amount of securities being purchased or sold by the Fund does not exceed 50% of the total amount of securities being purchased or sold by the Fund and unaffiliated third parties.
9. Applicants assert that compliance with section 17(e) would prevent a Fund from participating in a transaction in which a member of the UBS Group does not, for other business reasons, wish a Fund to be treated in a more favorable manner (in terms of lower fees) than unaffiliated third parties also participating in the transaction. Applicants assert that the concerns of overreaching and abuse that section 17(e) and rule 17e–1 were designed to prevent are alleviated by the conditions that ensure that fees or other compensation paid to members of the UBS Group are the same as those negotiated at arm's length with unaffiliated third parties, and the unaffiliated third parties have as great or greater interest as the Fund in the transaction as a whole.
10. Rule 17e–1(b) requires that a majority of directors who are not “interested persons” (as defined by section 2(a)(19) of the Act) take actions and make approvals regarding commissions, fees, or other remuneration. Applicants request an exemption from rule 17e–1 to the extent necessary to permit each Fund to comply with the rule without having a majority of the directors of the General Partner who are not interested persons take actions and make determinations as set forth in paragraph (b) of the rule. Applicants state that because all of the directors of a General Partner will be affiliated persons, without the relief requested, a Fund could not comply with rule 17e–1. Applicants state that each Fund will comply with rule 17e–1(b) by having a majority of the directors of the General Partner take actions and make approvals as set forth in rule 17e–1. Applicants state that each Fund will otherwise comply with the requirements of rule 17e–1.
11. Section 17(f) designates the entities that may act as investment company custodians, and rule 17f–1 imposes certain requirements when the custodian is a member of a national securities exchange. Applicants request an exemption from section 17(f) and rule 17f–1(a) to the extent necessary to permit a member of the UBS Group to act as custodian for a Fund without a written contract. Applicants also request an exemption from the rule 17f–1(b)(4) requirement that an independent accountant periodically verify the assets held by the custodian . Applicants further request an exemption from rule 17f–1(c)'s requirement of transmitting to the Commission a copy of any contract executed pursuant to rule 17f–1. Applicants believe that, because of the community of interest of all of the parties involved and the requirement to provide annual audited financial reports, compliance with these requirements would be unnecessary. Applicants state that they will comply with rule 17f–1(d), provided that ratification by the General Partner of any Fund will be deemed to be ratification by a majority of a board of directors. Applicants state that they will comply with all other requirements of rule 17f–1.
12. Section 17(g) and rule 17g–1 generally require the bonding of officers and employees of a registered investment company who have access to its securities or funds. Rule 17g–1 requires that a majority of directors who are not interested persons take certain actions and give certain approvals relating to fidelity bonding. Applicants request relief to the extent necessary to permit the General Partner's officers and directors, who may be deemed to be interested persons, to take the actions and make the determinations set forth in the rule. Applicants also request an exemption from the requirements of paragraph (g) of rule 17g–1 relating to the filing of copies of fidelity bonds and
13. Section 17(j) and paragraph (b) of rule 17j–1 make it unlawful for certain enumerated persons to engage in fraudulent or deceptive practices in connection with the purchase or sale of a security held or to be acquired by a registered investment company. Rule 17j–1 also requires that every registered investment company adopt a written code of ethics and that every access person of a registered investment company report personal securities transactions. Applicants request an exemption from the provisions of rule 17j–1, except for the antifraud provisions of paragraph (b), asserting that these provisions are unnecessarily burdensome because of the community of interest among the Investors. The relief requested will only extend to members of the UBS Group and is not requested with respect to any Outside Investment Adviser or Advisory Person.
14. Applicants request an exemption from the requirements in sections 30(a), 30(b) and 30(e), and the rules under those sections, that registered investment companies prepare and file with the Commission and mail to their shareholders certain periodic reports and financial statements. Applicants contend that the forms prescribed by the Commission for periodic reports have little relevance to the Funds and would entail administrative and legal costs that outweigh any benefit to the Investors. Applicants request exemptive relief to the extent necessary to permit each Fund to report annually to its Investors. Applicants also request an exemption from section 30(h) to the extent necessary to exempt the General Partner of each Fund and any other person who may be deemed to be a member of an advisory board of a Fund from filing Forms 3, 4, and 5 under section 16(a) of the Exchange Act with respect to their ownership of Interests in a Fund. Applicants assert that, because there will be no trading market and the transfers of Interests will be severely restricted, these filings are unnecessary for the protection of investors and burdensome to those required to make them.
15. Rule 38a–1 requires investment companies to adopt, implement and periodically review written policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent violation of the federal securities laws, appoint a chief compliance officer and maintain certain records. Applicants state that the Funds will comply with rule 38a–1(a), (c) and (d), except that (a) the board of directors of the General Partner of each Fund will fulfill the responsibilities assigned to the Fund's board of directors under the rule, (b) because all members of the board of directors of the General Partner would be considered interested persons of the Funds, approval by a majority of the disinterested directors required by rule 38a–1 would not be obtained, and (c) because the board of directors of the General Partner do not have any disinterested members, the Funds will comply with the requirement in rule 38a–1(a)(4)(iv) that the chief compliance officer meet with the independent directors by having the chief compliance officer meet with the board of directors of the General Partner as constituted. Applicants assert that, in view of the community of interest between the Funds and the General Partners and Investment Managers, there is no significant benefits to be gained from imposing the costs of compliance with the other aspects of the rule on the Funds.
Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the following conditions:
1. Each proposed transaction to which a Fund is a party otherwise prohibited by section 17(a) or section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d–1 thereunder (the “Section 17 Transactions”) will be effected only if the General Partner determines that: (a) The terms of the Section 17 Transaction, including the consideration to be paid or received, are fair and reasonable to the Investors and do not involve overreaching of the Fund or its Investors on the part of any person concerned; and (b) the Section 17 Transaction is consistent with the interests of the Investors, the Fund's organizational documents, and the Fund's reports to its Investors. In addition, the General Partner will record and preserve a description of the Section 17 Transactions, the General Partner's findings, the information or materials upon which the General Partner's findings are based, and the basis therefore. All such records will be maintained for the life of the Fund and at least six years thereafter, and will be subject to examination by the Commission and its staff. Each Fund will preserve the accounts, books and other documents required to be maintained in an easily accessible place for the first two years.
2. In connection with the Section 17 Transactions, the General Partner of each Fund will adopt, and periodically review and update, procedures designed to ensure that reasonable inquiry is made, before the consummation of any such transaction, with respect to the possible involvement in the transaction of any affiliated person or promoter of or principal underwriter for the Funds, or any affiliated person of such a person, promoter, or principal underwriter.
3. The General Partner of each Fund will not invest the funds of the Funds in any investment in which an “Affiliated Co-Investor” (as defined below) has acquired or proposes to acquire the same class of securities of the same issuer, where the investment involves a joint enterprise or other joint arrangement within the meaning of rule 17d–1 in which the Fund and an Affiliated Co-Investor are participants, unless any such Affiliated Co-Investor, prior to disposing of all or part of its investment, (a) gives the General Partner sufficient, but not less than one day's notice, of its intent to dispose of its investment, and (b) refrains from disposing of its investment unless the Fund has the opportunity to dispose of the Fund's investment prior to or concurrently with, on the same terms as, and pro rata with the Affiliated Co-Investor. The term “Affiliated Co-Investor” with respect to a Fund means (a) an “affiliated person,” as such term is defined in section 2(a)(3) of the Act, of the Fund (other than a Third-Party Fund or a person that is an affiliated person of the Fund solely because of section 2(a)(3)(B) of the Act); (b) the UBS Group; (c) an officer or director of a member of the UBS Group; or (d) an entity (other than a Third-Party Fund) in which a member of the UBS Group acts as a general partner or has a similar capacity to control the sale or other disposition of an entity's securities. The restrictions contained in this condition, however, shall not be deemed to limit or prevent the disposition of an investment by an Affiliated Co-Investor: (a) to its direct or indirect wholly-owned subsidiary, to any company (a “Parent”) of which the Affiliated Co-Investor is a direct or indirect wholly-owned subsidiary, or to a direct or indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of its Parent; (b) to immediate family
4. Each Fund and its General Partner will maintain and preserve, for the life of each such Fund and at least six years thereafter, such accounts, books, and other documents as constitute the record forming the basis for the audited financial statements that are to be provided to the Investors, and each annual report of the Fund required to be sent to the Investors, and agree that all such records will be subject to examination by the Commission and its staff. Each Fund will preserve the accounts, books and other documents required to be maintained in an easily accessible place for the first two years.
5. The General Partner of each Fund will send to each Investor who had an Interest in the Fund, at any time during the fiscal year then ended, Fund financial statements that have been audited by independent accountants. At the end of each fiscal year, the General Partner will make a valuation or have a valuation made of all of the assets of the Fund as of such fiscal year end in a manner consistent with customary practice with respect to the valuation of assets of the kind held by the Fund. In addition, within 90 days after the end of each fiscal year of each of the Funds or as soon as practicable thereafter, the General Partner of each Fund shall send a report to each person who was a Investor at any time during the fiscal year then ended, setting forth such tax information as shall be necessary for the preparation by the Investor of his or her federal and state income tax returns and a report of the investment activities of the Fund during that year.
6. If purchases or sales are made by a Fund from or to an entity affiliated with the Fund solely by reason of a partner or employee of the UBS Group (a) serving as officer, director, general partner or investment adviser of the entity, or (b) having a 5% or more investment in such entity, such individual will not participate in the Fund's determination of whether or not to effect the purchase or sale.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
FINRA is proposing to adopt FINRA Rule 2081 to prohibit member firms and associated persons from conditioning or seeking to condition settlement of a dispute with a customer on, or to otherwise compensate the customer for, the customer's agreement to consent to, or not to oppose, the firm's or associated person's request to expunge such customer dispute information from the Central Registration Depository (CRD®).
The text of the proposed rule change is available 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.
The CRD system is the central licensing and registration system for the U.S. securities industry and its regulators. In general, the information in the CRD system is submitted by registered securities firms and regulatory authorities in response to questions on the uniform registration forms. These forms collect administrative and disciplinary information about registered personnel, including customer complaints, arbitration claims, and court filings made by customers, and the arbitration awards or court judgments that may result from those claims or filings (
Brokers who wish to have customer dispute information removed from the CRD system (and thereby, from BrokerCheck) because, for example, they believe that the allegations made against them are unfounded or that they have been incorrectly identified, must seek expungement pursuant to FINRA Rule 2080 (formerly NASD Rule 2130).
FINRA has long had concerns about the practice of firms and associated persons conditioning settlement agreements for the purpose of obtaining expungement relief and, thereby, potentially removing from the CRD system information that helps protect investors. Over the years, FINRA has taken numerous steps towards addressing these concerns. For example, in proposing NASD Rule 2130, FINRA (then NASD) stated that the Rule's affirmative determination requirement imposed on arbitrators would reduce, if not eliminate, the risk of expunging information that is critical to investor protection and regulatory interests based on an agreement between the parties.
In 2008, FINRA adopted FINRA Rule 12805 to require arbitrators to perform additional fact finding before recommending expungement of customer dispute information from the CRD system.
In 2013, because of FINRA's concerns about the high percentage of expungement recommendations made in connection with settled arbitration claims, FINRA sent to arbitrators and published on FINRA's Web site guidance (the “Guidance”) stating that, in determining whether to recommend expungement relief in settled arbitration claims, arbitrators should inquire whether a party conditioned settlement on an agreement not to oppose a request for expungement relief.
Despite previous steps to discourage the practice of firms and associated persons conditioning settlement agreements for the purpose of obtaining expungement relief, FINRA continues to have concerns regarding such conduct. These concerns extend to any settlements involving customer disputes, not only to those related to arbitration claims. FINRA believes such agreements should be prohibited even if the customer offers not to oppose expungement as part of negotiating a settlement agreement. Further, FINRA believes that firms and associated persons should be prohibited from otherwise compensating customers in return for the customer's agreement not to oppose expungement of customer dispute information from the CRD system.
Accordingly, FINRA is proposing to adopt FINRA Rule 2081 to prohibit expressly such conduct. Specifically, FINRA Rule 2081 would provide that no member or associated person shall condition or seek to condition settlement of a dispute with a customer on, or to otherwise compensate the customer for, the customer's agreement to consent to, or not to oppose, the member's or associated person's request to expunge such customer dispute information from the CRD system.
The proposal's prohibition would apply to both written and oral agreements. In addition, as indicated above, the proposal would apply to agreements entered into during the course of settlement negotiations, as well as to any agreements entered into separate from such negotiations. For example, the proposed rule change would preclude a firm or associated person from conditioning the settlement of a customer's claim on the customer's agreement to consent to, or not to oppose, the firm's or associated person's request for expungement. In addition, the proposed rule change would preclude a firm or associated person, following settlement of the underlying customer dispute, from compensating the customer in return for the customer not opposing the firm's or associated person's expungement request.
As an alternative to proposed FINRA Rule 2081, some industry representatives suggested that FINRA consider enhanced arbitrator training as a means of addressing concerns regarding the conditioning of settlement agreements for the purpose of obtaining expungement relief. Since adopting NASD Rule 2130 in 2004, FINRA has required all arbitrators to take a training course on expungement. Recently, FINRA significantly revised its arbitrator expungement training. The
FINRA will announce the effective date of the proposed rule change in a
FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,
As discussed above, the information in the CRD system is used by FINRA, state and other regulators in connection with their licensing and regulatory activities. Firms also use the information to help them make informed hiring decisions. In addition, the information that is provided to the public through FINRA BrokerCheck is derived from the CRD system. BrokerCheck is part of FINRA's ongoing effort to help investors make informed choices about member firms and associated persons with which investors may conduct business. Thus, it is critical to investor protection that the CRD system includes accurate and complete customer dispute information.
In addition, FINRA has stated repeatedly that expungement is extraordinary relief that should be granted only when the expunged information is unfounded and has no meaningful regulatory or investor protection value.
FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change would result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. FINRA understands that altering the terms available as part of a settlement might impact the settlement itself. For example, some industry representatives have questioned whether the proposal would result in a reduction in the number of customer disputes that will settle, thereby potentially increasing the costs to all parties involved. Specifically, these representatives have raised concerns that some firms may choose not to settle because a customer claimant may subsequently oppose a request for expungement, notwithstanding settlement of the underlying customer dispute. Industry representatives also have questioned whether the proposal would result in a reduction in the size of settlements offered by firms and associated persons.
FINRA believes such impacts are likely to be small. Specifically, FINRA understands that some firms already prohibit the use of such conditions as part of their settlement agreements. These firms have indicated that such a practice has not substantially impacted their ability to reach settlement or affected the terms of their settlement agreements in material ways. Further, those firms that have already adopted this practice would bear no significant additional costs as a result of the proposed rule change.
Notwithstanding the concerns noted above, FINRA believes that parties to a settlement agreement should not be able to “bargain for” expungement relief as a condition to a settlement agreement, or otherwise. By prohibiting such conduct, the proposed rule change would help ensure that judicial and arbitral determinations regarding requests for expungement relief are based solely on the facts of the underlying customer dispute. In addition, the CRD system would more accurately reflect customer dispute information, permitting customers, potential customers, regulators, and firms to better assess an associated person's record.
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
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.62 (Certain Types of Orders Defined) to remove the size restriction on contra-party participation on a Qualified Contingent Cross Order (“QCC Order”). The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The purpose of this rule filing is to amend [sic] 6.62 to remove the size restriction on contra-party participation on a QCC Order. The proposed rule change, which mirrors a recently adopted rule by the International Securities Exchange (“ISE”)
Rule 6.62(bb) provides that a QCC Order must be comprised of an order to buy or sell at least 1,000 contracts
The Exchange adopted the QCC Order type on March 17, 2011.
As discussed above, the Exchange now proposes to amend Rule 6.62(bb) to remove the size limitation placed on each contra-party to a QCC Order.
In connection with this proposal, the Exchange represents that it will track and monitor QCC Orders to determine which is the originating side of the order and which is the contra-side(s) of the order to ensure that OTP Holders and/or OTP Firms (collectively, “OTPs”) are complying with the minimum 1,000 contract size requirement on the originating side of the QCC Order. In this regard, the Exchange will monitor whether OTPs are aggregating multiple orders to meet the 1,000 contract minimum on the originating side of the trade in violation of the requirements of the rule. The rule requires that the originating side of the trade consist of one party who is submitting a QCC Order for at least 1,000 contracts. The Exchange represents that it will enforce compliance with this portion of the rule by checking to see if an OTP breaks up the originating side of the order in a post trade allocation to different Clearing Members, allocating less than 1,000 contracts to a party or multiple parties. For example, an OTP Holder enters a QCC Order into the system for 1,500 contracts and receives an execution. Subsequent to the execution, the OTP Holder allocates the originating side of the order to two different clearing firms on a post trade allocation basis, thereby allocating 500 contracts to one Clearing Member and 1,000 contracts to another Clearing Member. The Exchange states that this type of transaction would not meet the requirements of a QCC Order under the current rule. With regard to order entry, the Exchange notes that OTPs must designate orders entered in the system as either the originating side or the contra-side(s). The Exchange will monitor order entries to ensure that OTPs are properly entering QCC Orders into the system.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, in that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
Specifically, because the proposal removes the size restriction placed on each contra-party to a QCC Order, but leaves unchanged the minimum size requirement for the originating order, the Exchange believes that the proposal should provide more opportunity to participate in QCC trades, consistent with the key principles behind the QCC Order.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act, as it will enable the Exchange to compete with other options exchanges, including the ISE,
Furthermore, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change should improve the utility of the QCC Order without raising novel regulatory issues, because the proposal does not impact the fundamental aspects of the QCC Order type. Rather, the proposal merely permits multiple contra-parties, regardless of size, on one side, while preserving the 1,000 contract minimum on the originating QCC Order.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In fact, the proposal is intended to relieve a burden on competition, which results from different exchanges interpreting their rules differently. Among the options exchanges, the Exchange believes that the proposal to remove the size requirement of at least 1,000 contracts (or, in the case of mini-options, 10,000 contracts), as described above, should foster competition for filling the contra-side of a QCC Order and thereby result in potentially better prices for such orders. In addition, the proposal will enable the Exchange to more effectively compete with other option exchanges like the ISE that have already implemented similar rule changes.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b–4(f)(6)
The Commission notes that, given the differing requirements as between the originating side and contra-side for QCC Orders, it is essential that the Exchange be able to clearly identify and monitor—throughout the life of a QCC Order, beginning at time of order entry on the Exchange through the post-trade allocation process—each side of the QCC Order and ensure that the requirements of the order type are being satisfied including, importantly, those relating to the originating side. The Commission believes this to be critical so that the Exchange can ensure that market participants are not able to circumvent the requirements of the QCC Order (as amended by this proposed rule change), each of which the Commission continues to believe are critical to ensuring that the QCC Order is narrowly drawn.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
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 Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend its ROOC routing option under Rule 11.9(b)(2)(n) to include the ability to route orders to participate in the listing market's re-opening process following a halt, suspension or pause. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Internet Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its ROOC routing option under Rule 11.9(b)(2)(n) to include the ability to route orders to participate in the listing market's re-opening process following a halt, suspension or pause. The Exchange offers its Users
The Exchange currently offers a routing option, known as ROOC, which allows Users to route orders to participate in the opening or closing process of the listing market (New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”), Nasdaq, NYSE MKT,
The Exchange proposes to amend the ROOC routing option to allow Users to route orders to participate in the listing market's re-opening process following a halt, suspension or pause,
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, the Exchange believes that the proposal will promote competition by enhancing the value of the Exchange's available routing options. However, since the use of the Exchange's routing options is voluntary and Users have numerous alternative mechanisms for order routing, the changes will not impair the ability of Users to use other means to access competing trading venues.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b–4(f)(6) under the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 900.3NY (Orders Defined) to remove the size restriction on contra-party participation on a Qualified Contingent Cross Order (“QCC Order”). The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The purpose of this rule filing is to amend Rule 900.3NY to remove the size restriction on contra-party participation on a QCC Order. The proposed rule change, which mirrors a recently adopted rule by the International Securities Exchange (“ISE”),
Rule 900.3NY(y) provides that a QCC Order must be comprised of an order to
The Exchange adopted the QCC Order type on March 17, 2011.
As discussed above, the Exchange now proposes to amend Rule 900.3(y) to remove the size limitation placed on each contra-party to a QCC Order.
In connection with this proposal, the Exchange represents that it will track and monitor QCC Orders to determine which is the originating side of the order and which is the contra-side(s) of the order to ensure that ATP Holders are complying with the minimum 1,000 contract size requirement on the originating side of the QCC Order. In this regard, the Exchange will monitor whether ATP Holders are aggregating multiple orders to meet the 1,000 contract minimum on the originating side of the trade in violation of the requirements of the rule. The rule requires that the originating side of the trade consist of one party who is submitting a QCC Order for at least 1,000 contracts. The Exchange represents that it will enforce compliance with this portion of the rule by checking to see if an ATP Holder breaks up the originating side of the order in a post trade allocation to different Clearing Members, allocating less than 1,000 contracts to a party or multiple parties. For example, an ATP Holder enters a QCC Order into the system for 1,500 contracts and receives an execution. Subsequent to the execution, the ATP Holder allocates the originating side of the order to two different clearing firms on a post trade allocation basis, thereby allocating 500 contracts to one Clearing Member and 1,000 contracts to another Clearing Member. The Exchange states that this type of transaction would not meet the requirements of a QCC Order under the current rule. With regard to order entry, the Exchange notes that ATP Holders must designate orders entered in the system as either the originating side or the contra-side(s). The Exchange will monitor order entries to ensure that ATP Holders are properly entering QCC Orders into the system.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, in that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade,remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
Specifically, because the proposal removes the size restriction placed on each contra-party to a QCC Order, but leaves unchanged the minimum size requirement for the originating order, the Exchange believes that the proposal should provide more opportunity to participate in QCC trades, consistent with the key principles behind the QCC Order.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act, as it will enable the Exchange to compete with other options exchanges, including the ISE,
Furthermore, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change should improve the utility of the QCC Order without raising novel regulatory issues, because the proposal does not impact the fundamental aspects of the QCC Order type. Rather, the proposal merely permits multiple contra-parties, regardless of size, on one side, while preserving the 1,000 contract minimum on the originating QCC Order.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In fact, the proposal is intended to relieve a burden on competition, which results from different exchanges interpreting their rules differently. Among the options exchanges, the Exchange believes that the proposal to remove the size requirement of at least 1,000 contracts (or, in the case of mini-options, 10,000 contracts), as described above, should foster competition for filling the contra-side of a QCC Order and thereby result in potentially better prices for such orders. In addition, the proposal will enable the Exchange to more effectively compete with other option exchanges
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b–4(f)(6)
The Commission notes that, given the differing requirements as between the originating side and contra-side for QCC Orders, it is essential that the Exchange be able to clearly identify and monitor—throughout the life of a QCC Order, beginning at time of order entry on the Exchange through the post-trade allocation process—each side of the QCC Order and ensure that the requirements of the order type are being satisfied including, importantly, those relating to the originating side. The Commission believes this to be critical so that the Exchange can ensure that market participants are not able to circumvent the requirements of the QCC Order (as amended by this proposed rule change), each of which the Commission continues to believe are critical to ensuring that the QCC Order is narrowly drawn.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
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 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”),
(a) The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 4754 governing the NASDAQ Closing Cross (“Cross”) to accommodate changes in market structure triggered by Phase 2 of the Plan To Address Extraordinary Market Volatility submitted to the Commission pursuant to Rule 608 of Regulation NMS (“LULD Plan”). Specifically, NASDAQ proposes to clarify the rule governing the operation of the Cross in circumstances where a pause triggered under the LULD Plan would be triggered after 3:50 p.m. EST.
Changes to the rule text are shown in the attached Exhibit 5.
(b) Not applicable.
(c) Not applicable.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
Under Phase 2 (Amendment No. 6) of the Plan,
During the testing conducted to date, NASDAQ has identified several minor, technical clarifications to the approved rule governing the LULD Closing Cross, NASDAQ Rule 4754(b)(6), as well as the description of that rule in SR–NASDAQ–2014–004. First, NASDAQ is clarifying the timing of the commencement of the After Hours Trading session and the treatment of Good-til-Cancelled (“GTC”) orders in the event the LULD Closing Cross is delayed until 5:00 p.m. due to continuing volatility. In the approved proposal, NASDAQ stated:
If this condition persists until 5:00 p.m., NASDAQ will not conduct an LULD Closing Cross in that security and shall instead use the last-sale on NASDAQ as the NASDAQ Official Closing Price in that security for that trading day. In that event, all orders will be cancelled back to the entering firms, and after hours trading will begin at 5:00 p.m.
In fact, the process of cancelling orders would not be instantaneous, and After Hours Trading would begin only when the process is complete. Moreover, all orders are not automatically cancelled back to the entering firm. GTC orders require special treatment due to the fact that firms presume that they will remain on the book overnight, potentially over many nights. The actual process is better described as follows:
If this condition persists until 5:00 p.m., NASDAQ will not conduct an LULD Closing Cross in that security and shall instead use the last-sale on NASDAQ as the NASDAQ Official Closing Price in that security for that trading day. In that event, NASDAQ will commence a process of cancelling all orders (other than orders with a time-in-force of good-till-cancelled) back to the entering firms, and after hours trading will commence upon the completion of that process. In the case of both Market Hours GTC orders and Good-til-Market Close orders, the orders will
The second clarification relates to the entry of orders during an LULD Trading Pause prior to and after 4:00 p.m. Rule 4754, as approved, states that:
During the pause and prior to 4:00 p.m., entry of
In fact, NASDAQ should have said that entry of market pegged orders, rather than market orders, is prohibited after 4:00 p.m. As provided in Rule 4751, a market pegged order is an order whose price is pegged to the opposite side of the market. In addition, NASDAQ rules do not currently define a market order. By omitting the word “pegged”, the proposal improperly implied that NASDAQ's system otherwise accepts market orders at this or any other time of day. Accordingly, NASDAQ is proposing to modify the text of the rule to make this clarification.
The third clarification also relates to the entry of orders during the LULD Trading Pause. Rule 4754, as approved, states that:
During the pause and prior to 4:00 p.m., new market and limit orders of any order type and any time in force may be entered, modified, and cancelled and may participate in the LULD Closing Cross.
During the pause and prior to 4:00 p.m., new orders (other than MOC and LOC orders, which may not be submitted after 3:50) may be entered, modified, and cancelled and may participate in the LULD Closing Cross.
NASDAQ believes that this modification will make clearer to members that, as in all circumstances, MOC and LOC orders cannot be cancelled after 3:50 p.m. without special intervention by NASDAQ personnel, and that they cannot be cancelled after 3:55 p.m. under any circumstances.
Finally, NASDAQ is modifying the text of Rule 4754(b)(6) to replace a statement that a stock subject to a Trading Pause will “open” with a more accurate statement that the stock will “resume trading” and is amending Rule 4754(b)(6)(C)(iii) to correct a typographical error.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, the proposal is specifically designed to comply with the LULD Plan and, thereby, to ensure cooperation between and among all national securities exchanges and FINRA to promote uniform and effective regulation of the national market system. In actuality, the proposal is pro-competitive because it promotes fair and orderly markets and investor protection, which in turn will buttress investor confidence and attract more investors into U.S. equities markets.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because it will ensure that the text of Rule 4754 fully conforms to the operation of the LULD Closing Cross upon launch. For this reason, the Commission waives the operative delay and designates the proposed rule change to be operative upon filing.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings
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 Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”)
The Exchange proposes to revise the schedule for implementing the Exchange's recently approved Retail Liquidity Program (“Program”) pursuant to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.44. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange is proposing to revise the schedule for implementing the Exchange's recently approved Retail Liquidity Program (“Program”) pursuant to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.44.
When the Exchange filed to adopt the Program, it stated that it would announce via Trader Update the implementation date of the Program.
NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.44(j) currently provides, that “[a]n identifier shall be disseminated through the Consolidated Quotation System, the UTP Quote Data Feed, and the Exchange's proprietary data feed when RPI interest priced at least $0.001 better than the PBB or PBO for a particular security is available in Exchange systems (`Retail Liquidity Identifier').” In connection with the planned implementation of the Program, the Exchange will be disseminating the Retail Liquidity Identifier through the Consolidated Quotation System and the UTP Quote Data Feed (the “public data feeds”). However, because of the differing technology associating [sic] with disseminating data via the Exchange's proprietary data feed, the Exchange will not be able to disseminate the Retail Liquidity Identifier via the Exchange's proprietary data feed on the proposed initial implementation date of the Program. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes a separate implementation date for disseminating the Retail Liquidity Identifier via the Exchange's proprietary data feed and will announce that date via Trader Update.
The Exchange is proposing this rule change simply to be clear that the implementation schedule regarding the dissemination of the Retail Liquidity Identifier pursuant to Rule 7.44(j) will be staggered. The Exchange proposes that the implementation date for disseminating the Retail Liquidity Indicator via the Exchange's proprietary
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that announcing the implementation date of new trading systems such as the Program via Trader Update removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market because it provides notice of when a new program is being implemented. The Exchange further believes that providing for a later implementation date for disseminating the Retail Liquidity Identifier via the Exchange's proprietary data feeds is consistent with the Act because the Retail Liquidity Identifier will be disseminated via the public data feeds on the initial implementation date of the Program. Accordingly, the proposed staggered implementation date for Rule 7.44(j) would protect investors and the public interest because information about Retail Liquidity Identifiers will be available on the initial date of Program implementation via the public data feeds.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the Program is designed to increase competition among execution venues, encourage additional liquidity, and offer the potential for price improvement to retail investors. The Exchange notes that notwithstanding the proposed staggered implementation schedule for how the Retail Liquidity Identifier will be disseminated, such information will be available via the public data feeds from the initial date of Program implementation and therefore market participants will have access to information regarding the Retail Liquidity Identifiers.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b–4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of this proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend this rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend its ROOC routing option under Rule 11.9(b)(2)(n) to include the ability to route orders to participate in the listing market's re-opening process following a halt, suspension or pause. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Internet Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its ROOC routing option under Rule 11.9(b)(2)(n) to include the ability to route orders to participate in the listing market's re-opening process following a halt, suspension or pause. The Exchange offers its Users
The Exchange currently offers a routing option, known as ROOC, which allows Users to route orders to participate in the opening or closing process of the listing market (New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”), Nasdaq, NYSE MKT,
The Exchange proposes to amend the ROOC routing option to allow Users to route orders to participate in the listing market's re-opening process following a halt, suspension or pause,
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b–4(f)(6) under the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On February 14, 2014, Miami International Securities Exchange LLC (the “Exchange” or “MIAX”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes a number of revisions to MIAX Rules 515 and 529, which govern the execution and routing of orders. The primary purpose of the proposal is to amend the existing “price protection” provisions in those rules that apply to non-Market Maker orders to permit market participants to specify the level of price protection on an order by order basis and allow for executions of non-Market Maker orders at additional price points. The Exchange also proposes several conforming changes to other provisions in order to accommodate the amended price protection process. Finally, the Exchange's proposal amends Rule 529 to provide an additional situation in which MIAX will immediately route a Public Customer to an away market for execution.
MIAX Rule 515(c) governs the execution of non-Market Maker orders that cannot be executed on MIAX, in whole or in part, at the National Best Bid or Offer (“NBBO”) upon receipt. Currently, Rule 515(c)(1) provides that certain non-Market Maker orders are subject to price protection, which prevents an order from executing at a price that is more than one minimum price variation (“MPV”) inferior to the NBBO prevailing at the time the order is received (the “original NBBO”). Under the current price protection rules, MIAX imposes across-the-board price protection and will cancel the remaining portion of any order that can potentially trade at a price that is more than one MPV away from the original NBBO.
MIAX has proposed to modify the one-size-fits-all price protection process so that market participants may instead choose to allow their orders to execute at more than one MPV away from the original NBBO. Specifically, MIAX will allow market participants to designate, on an order-by-order basis, price protection instructions that are expressed in units of MPV away from the NBBO at the time of the order's receipt, or the MIAX Best Bid or Offer (“MBBO”) if the Away Best Bid or Offer (“ABBO”) is crossing the MBBO at the time order is received.
Similar to how the price protection process operates under MIAX's current rules, when an order reaches its price protection limit (either the number of MPVs designated by the market participant for the order or the default of one MPV if a limit was not specified), MIAX will cancel the remaining portion of the order. Market participants can then determine whether to resubmit the order. In the Notice, MIAX represented that under both the existing and proposed price protection process, MIAX will not execute orders at prices inferior to the NBBO.
In the Notice, MIAX explained how the new price protection process will apply to both routable and non-routable non-Market Maker orders.
For non-routable non-Market Maker orders,
To accommodate the proposed changes to MIAX's price protection process as described above, MIAX's proposal also revises its “Liquidity
Much of the Liquidity Refresh Pause process remains the same under the proposal. However, because orders with custom price protection instructions may now trade at multiple price points, MIAX proposes to trigger a Liquidity Refresh Pause either at the time it receives the order, or when MIAX “reevaluates” an order at the various price points at which it may execute. In addition, as a result of the proposed “reevaluation” of orders at different price points, MIAX's proposal revises the message that it will disseminate during the Liquidity Refresh Pause. Currently, MIAX disseminates a message to announce the Liquidity Refresh Pause that includes, in addition to a description of the option and the size and side of the order, “the original NBBO price, which has been exhausted.”
MIAX's proposal also will change the way MIAX handles new quotes or orders that it receives during the Liquidity Refresh Pause on the same side of the market as the initiating order's remaining contracts. Currently, when new quotes or orders are received during a Liquidity Refresh Pause on the same side as the order that initiated the pause, with a price that would lock or cross the original NBBO, MIAX adds the orders and quotes to its MBBO and the pause continues to run.
The Exchange also proposes to amend MIAX Rules 515(e) and 515(f) to permit market participants to also be able to designate custom price protection instructions on an order by order basis for Immediate or Cancel (“IOC”) and Fill or Kill (“FOK”) order types, respectively.
Finally, the proposal would revise MIAX Rule 529, which governs the routing of orders to other markets. Currently, MIAX does not route Public Customer orders once they are resting on the MIAX book. As proposed, however, Rule 529 will provide that a resting Public Customer order will not initiate a route timer, but instead may be routed together with an incoming Public Customer order that separately has initiated a Route Timer. Specifically, when applicable, MIAX will immediately route the initiating Public Customer order, together with any routable resting interest on the same side of the market, to the opposite side ABBO, and the orders will be processed in the order in which they were received.
The Commission has carefully reviewed the proposed rule change and finds that it consistent with the requirements of the Act.
The Commission believes that the Exchange's proposed revised price protection process, which is more flexible and customizable than the current fixed one-MPV price protection
In addition to providing market participants greater control over the execution of their orders, the Commission believes that the proposal also could facilitate more order interaction. By allowing orders to execute at multiple price points, up or down to their price protection limit or limit price, and to route to away markets at multiple price points, the proposal will allow market participants to interact with greater liquidity both on MIAX and on away markets and increase the opportunity for their orders to receive an execution. Importantly, as is the case under the current price protection functionality, the Commission notes that under the revised process, MIAX will not execute incoming orders at prices inferior to the then-current NBBO.
The Commission believes that the change regarding terminating a Liquidity Refresh Pause when a new quote or order is received during a Liquidity Refresh Pause on the same side of the market as the initiating orders' remaining contracts that locks or crosses the original NBBO is consistent with the Act. The Commission notes that terminating the pause in such a situation allows the displayed opposite side of the MBBO to receive an immediate execution. Further, the Commission notes that, as under the current MIAX rules, orders will then be processed in the order in which they were received.
Finally, the Commission believes that the proposed change to permit immediate routing in an additional situation (
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Valley Forge Composite Technologies, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended September 30, 2012.
The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above-listed company. Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the above-listed company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on April 21, 2014, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on May 2, 2014.
By the Commission.
The Social Security Administration (SSA) publishes a list of information collection packages requiring clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with Public Law (Pub. L.) 104–13, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, effective October 1, 1995. This notice includes revisions of OMB-approved information collections and one new information collection.
SSA is soliciting comments on the accuracy of the agency's burden estimate; the need for the information; its practical utility; ways to enhance its quality, utility, and clarity; and ways to minimize burden on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Mail, email, or fax your comments and recommendations on the information collection(s) to the OMB Desk Officer and SSA Reports Clearance Officer at the following addresses or fax numbers.
I. The information collections below are pending at SSA. SSA will submit them to OMB within 60 days from the date of this notice. To be sure we consider your comments, we must
1. Farm Arrangement Questionnaire—20 CFR 404.1082(c)—0960–0064. When self-employed workers submit earnings data to SSA, they cannot count rental income from a farm unless they demonstrate “material participation” in the farm's operation. A material participation arrangement means the farm owners must perform a combination of physical duties, management decisions, and capital investment in the farm they are renting out. SSA uses Form SSA–7157, the Farm Arrangement Questionnaire, to document material participation. The respondents are workers who are renting farmland to others; are involved in the operation of the farm; and want to claim countable income from work they perform relating to the farm.
Type of Request: Revision of an OMB-approved information collection.
2. Plan for Achieving Self-Support (PASS)—20 CFR 416.110(e), 416.1180–1182, 416.1225–1227—0960–0559. The Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program encourages recipients to return to work. One of the program's objectives is to provide incentives and opportunities that help recipients work toward employment. The PASS provision allows individuals to use available income or resources (such as business equipment, education, or specialized training) to enter or re-enter the workforce and become self-supporting. In turn, SSA does not count the income or resources recipients use to fund a PASS when determining an individual's SSI eligibility or payment amount. An SSI recipient who wants to use available income and resources to obtain education or training to become self-supporting completes Form SSA–545. SSA uses the information from the SSA–545 to evaluate the recipient's PASS, and to determine eligibility under the provisions of the SSI program. The respondents are SSI recipients who are blind or disabled and want to develop a return-to-work plan.
Type of Request: Revision of an OMB-approved information collection.
3. Help America Vote Act—0960–0706. H.R. 3295, the Help America Vote Act of 2002, mandates that States verify the identities of newly registered voters. When newly registered voters do not have drivers' licenses or State-issued ID cards, they must supply the last four digits of their Social Security Number to their local State election agencies for verification. The election agencies forward this information to their State Motor Vehicle Administration (MVA), which inputs the data into the American Association of MVAs, a central consolidation system that routes the voter data to SSA's Help America Vote Verification (HAVV) system. Once SSA's HAVV system confirms the identity of the voter, the information returns along the same route in reverse until it reaches the State election agency. The official respondents for this collection are the State MVAs.
Type of Request: Revision of an OMB-approved information collection.
II. SSA submitted the information collections below to OMB for clearance. Your comments regarding the information collections would be most useful if OMB and SSA receive them 30 days from the date of this publication. To be sure we consider your comments, we must receive them no later than May 23, 2014. Individuals can obtain copies of the OMB clearance packages by writing to
The Promoting Readiness of Minors in SSI (PROMISE) demonstration pursues positive outcomes for children with disabilities who receive SSI and their families by reducing dependency on SSI. The Department of Education (ED) awarded six cooperative agreements to states to improve the provision and coordination of services and support for children with disabilities who receive SSI and their families to achieve improved education and employment outcomes. ED awarded PROMISE funds to five single-state projects, and to one six-state consortium.
With support from the Department of Labor (DOL) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), SSA will evaluate the six PROMISE projects.
Under PROMISE, targeted outcomes for youth include an enhanced sense of self-determination; achievement of secondary and post-secondary educational credentials; an attainment of early work experiences culminating with competitive employment in an integrated setting; and long-term reduction in reliance on SSI. Outcomes of interest for families include heightened expectations for and support of the long-term self-sufficiency of their youth; parent or guardian attainment of education and training credentials; and increases in earnings and total income. To achieve these outcomes, we expect the PROMISE projects to make better use of existing resources by improving service coordination among multiple state and local agencies and programs.
ED, SSA, DOL, and HHS intend the PROMISE projects to address key limitations in the existing service system for youth with disabilities. By intervening early in the lives of these young people, at ages 14–16, the projects will engage the youth and their families well before critical decisions regarding the age 18 redetermination are upon them. We expect the required partnerships among the various state and Federal agencies that serve youth with disabilities to result in improved integration of services and fewer dropped handoffs as youth move from one agency to another. By requiring the programs to engage and serve families and provide youth with paid work experiences, the initiative is mandating the adoption of critical best practices in promoting the independence of youth with disabilities.
SSA is requesting clearance for the collection of data needed to implement and evaluate PROMISE. The evaluation will provide empirical evidence on the impact of the intervention for youth and their families in several critical areas, including: (1) Improved educational attainment; (2) increased employment skills, experience, and earnings; and (3) long-term reduction in use of public benefits. We will base the PROMISE evaluation on a rigorous design that will entail the random assignment of approximately 2,000 youth in each of the six projects to treatment or control groups (12,000 total). Youth in the treatment groups will be eligible for enhanced services from the demonstration programs, whereas youth in the control groups will be eligible only for those services already available in their communities independent of the interventions.
The evaluation will assess the effect of PROMISE services on educational attainment, employment, earnings, and reduced receipt of disability payments. The three components of this evaluation include:
• The process analysis, which will document program models, assess the relationships among the partner organizations, document whether the programs are implemented as planned, identify features of the programs that may account for their impacts on youth and families, and identify lessons for future programs with similar objectives.
• The impact analysis, which will determine whether youth and families in the treatment groups receive more services than their counterparts in the control groups. It will also determine whether treatment group members have better results than control group members with respect to the targeted outcomes noted above.
• The cost-benefit analysis, which will assess whether the benefits of PROMISE, including increases in employment and reductions in benefit receipt, are large enough to justify its costs. We will conduct this assessment from a range of perspectives, including those of the participants, state and Federal governments, SSA, and society as a whole.
SSA planned several data collection efforts for the evaluation. These include: (1) Follow-up interviews with youth and their parent or guardian 18 months and 5 years after enrollment; (2) phone and in-person interviews with local program administrators, program supervisors, and service delivery staff at two points in time over the course of the demonstration; (3) two rounds of focus groups with participating youth in the treatment group; (4) two rounds of focus groups with parents or guardians of participating youth; and (5) collection of administrative data.
At this time, SSA requests clearance only for the interviews we will conduct with program staff and the focus group discussions we will conduct with youth and parents or guardians. We will conduct these interviews and group discussions twice: Once in 2014, and once in 2016. SSA will request clearance for the 18-month and 5-year survey interviews in a future submission. The respondents are PROMISE program staff, the youth participants in the PROMISE program, and the parents or guardians of the youth participants.
This is a correction notice. When we previously published this information on February 10, 2014, at 79 FR 7736, we inadvertently neglected to publish the cost burden on the respondents. We are correcting that oversight here.
Type of Request: This is a new information collection.
2. Request for Medical Treatment in an SSA Employee Health Facility: Patient Self-Administered or Staff Administered Care—0960–0772. SSA operates onsite Employee Health Clinics (EHC) in eight different States. These clinics provide health care for all SSA employees including treatments of personal medical conditions when authorized through a physician. Form SSA–5072 is the employee's personal physician's order form. The information we collect on Form SSA–5072 gives the nurses the guidance they need by law to perform certain medical procedures and to administer prescription medications such as allergy immunotherapy. In addition, the information allows the SSA medical officer to determine whether the treatment can be administered safely and appropriately in the SSA EHCs. Respondents are physicians of SSA employees who need to have medical treatment in an SSA EHC.
Type of Request: Revision of an OMB-approved information collection.
Office of the Secretary, DOT.
Notice of availability.
The United States Department of Transportation (Department) has prepared a document listing Federal environmental statutes, regulations, and Executive Orders that establish requirements applicable to the development and review of transportation infrastructure projects. The Department strives to ensure compliance with these requirements in a manner that is both environmentally sound and expeditious. The goal of this document is to contribute to this important effort by providing a brief description of the primary statutes, regulations, and Executive Orders applicable to the development and review of these transportation infrastructure projects.
Amy Coyle, Senior Attorney Advisor, U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of the General Counsel; 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202–366–0691.
The United States Department of Transportation (Department or DOT) has prepared a document listing Federal environmental statutes, regulations, and Executive Orders that establish requirements applicable to the development and review of transportation infrastructure projects that receive financial support from the Department. DOT strives to meet these requirements in a manner that is both environmentally sound and expeditious. The goal of this list is to contribute to this important effort by providing a brief description of the primary statutes, regulations, and Executive Orders applicable to the development and review of these transportation infrastructure projects. Additionally, many agencies have developed guidance to assist in implementation of the law, and this document references certain guidance. This summary is not, and should not be relied upon as, a complete list of statutes, regulations, and Executive Orders that could apply to a transportation infrastructure project or an official or independent interpretation or expression of policy on the matters summarized. This document replaces the notice, “Federal Environmental Laws and Executive Orders Applicable to Development and Review of Transportation Infrastructure Projects,” 69 FR 25451, May 6, 2004.
The document is available online at
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.
Rescind notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA), in cooperation with the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA), is issuing this notice to advise the public that the Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed transportation improvements on the Red and Purple lines between Belmont Station in Chicago and Linden terminal in Wilmette, Illinois is being rescinded.
Mr. Reginald Arkell, Community Planner, Federal Transit Administration, Region V, 200 West Adams Street, Suite 320, Chicago, IL 60606, phone 312–886–3704, email
The FTA, as the lead federal agency, in cooperation with the CTA published a NOI in the
Comments and questions concerning the proposed actions should be directed to FTA at the address provided above.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of Transportation (DOT) invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. We are required to publish this notice in the
Written comments should be submitted by June 23, 2014.
You may submit comments [identified by Docket No. DOT–MARAD–2014–0063] through one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Russell Alan Krause, 202–366–1031, Division of Sealift Operations, W23–102–306, Maritime Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Number of Respondents: 3,998.
Frequency: Every 48 hours.
Number of Responses: 731,634.
Total Annual Burden: 51,214.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1:93.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of Transportation (DOT) invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. We are required to publish this notice in the
Written comments should be submitted by June 23, 2014.
You may submit comments [identified by Docket No. DOT–MARAD–2014–0064] through one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Norman Serlin, 202–366–8159, Office of Marine Financing, MAR–720, Maritime Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, 20590.
Number of Respondents: 10.
Frequency: Annually.
Number of Responses: 10.
Total Annual Burden: 1500.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1:93.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of Transportation (DOT) invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. The collection involves collecting, analyzing, and interpreting information to identify strengths and weaknesses of current services and make improvements in service delivery based on feedback. If this information is not collected, vital feedback from customers and stakeholders on the Agency's services will be unavailable. We are required to
Written comments should be submitted by June 23, 2014.
You may submit comments [identified by Docket No. DOT–MARAD–2014–0062] through one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Barbara Jackson, 202–366–0615, Office of Management and Administrative Services, Maritime Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Number of Respondents: 8696.
Frequency: Once per request.
Number of Responses: 8696.
Total Annual Burden: 1449.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.93.
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice: Ship Disposal Request for Comments.
The Maritime Administration (MARAD) plans to dispose of an obsolete vessel the ex-USNS COMET, which is currently located at its Suisun Bay Reserve Fleet in Benicia, California. This action constitutes an undertaking as defined under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470
All comments must be received on or before July 22, 2014.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD–2014–0052 by any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
• Email:
• Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Room W12–140, Washington, DC 20590. If you would like to know that your comments reached the facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope.
• Hand Delivery/Courier: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Room W12–140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Management Facility is open 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except on Federal holidays.
If you mail or hand deliver your comment we recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission. If you submit your comment by mail or hand delivery, submit the comment in an unbound format, no larger than 8
For more information about the ex-USNS COMET, please visit:
MARAD, in consultation with the California State Historic Preservation Officer, determined that the ex-USNS COMET is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion c. The ex-USNS COMET is considered to be the first purpose-built oceangoing “roll-on/roll-off” vessel. Roll-on/roll-off, or Ro/Ro, describes how wheeled-vehicular cargo is loaded and unloaded. This method was first developed during WWII for amphibious assault operations using short range landing craft. In the postwar period, the concept was refined and expanded beyond the assault class to include the rapid delivery by ship of vehicles carrying military supplies and equipment that could be immediately driven into forward staging areas. This eventually led to the development of the commercial Ro/Ro trade, particularly for cars and light trucks. The ex-USNS COMET has been nicknamed the “Mother of All Ro/Ros” in honor of its pioneering design.
Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket number in your comments. MARAD encourages you to provide concise comments. However, you may attach necessary additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments. Please submit your comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
If you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, Office of Legislation and Regulations, MAR–225, W24–220, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. When you send comments containing information claimed to be confidential information, you should include a cover letter setting forth with specificity the basis for any such claim.
MARAD will consider all comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under
For access to the docket to read background documents, including those referenced in this document, or to submit or read comments received, please go to the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Room W12–140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Management Facility is open 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except on Federal holidays. To review documents, read comments or to submit comments, the docket is also available online at
Please note that even after the comment period has closed, MARAD will continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes available. Accordingly, MARAD recommends that you periodically check the Docket for new material.
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 the DOT Privacy Act system of records notice for the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) in the
A regulation identifier number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. The RIN number contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross-reference this action with the Unified Agenda.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, § 3512 of Public Law 108–136 and the National Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 470
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Chai Trust Company, LLC (Chai Trust), EGI-Fund (14–16) Investors, L.L.C. (EGI-Fund), and EGI–IPH Investors, L.L.C. (EGI–IPH) (collectively, Chai-EGI), all noncarriers, have filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(2) to acquire control of Iowa Pacific Holdings, LLC (IPH), which directly and indirectly controls 10 Class III rail carriers.
According to Chai-EGI, Chai Trust controls EGI Fund, which controls EGI–IPH, a noncarrier holding company that was formed to acquire a controlling share of the membership interests of IPH. IPH is a noncarrier short line railroad holding company that owns 100% of Permian Basin Railways, Inc. (PBR), another noncarrier short line railroad holding company. Through PBR, IPH indirectly controls nine common carrier short line railroads.
Chai-EGI will, pursuant to an agreement,
Chai-EGI certifies that: (1) None of the rail lines and carriers to be controlled pursuant to this notice of exemption connect with one another; (2) the subject control transaction is not a part of a series of anticipated transactions that would connect some or all of the rail lines; 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 pursuant to 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(2).
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. Section 11326(c), however, does not provide for labor protection for transactions under 11324 and 11325 that involve only Class III rail carriers. Accordingly, the Board may not impose labor protective conditions here, because all of the carriers involved are Class III carriers.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 35816, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423–0001. In addition, a copy must be served on Myles L. Tobin, Fletcher & Sippel LLC, 29 North Wacker Drive, Suite 920, Chicago, IL 60606–2832.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings.
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection requests to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13, on or after the date of publication of this notice.
Comments should be received on or before May 23, 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 emailing
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).
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, “Policy Communications Survey.” The OCC is also giving notice that it has sent the collection to OMB for review.
Comments must be submitted on or before May 23, 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: 1557–0226, 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.
Additionally, please send a copy of your comments by mail to: OCC Desk Officer, 1557–0226, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., #10235, Washington, DC 20503, or by email to:
Johnny Vilela or Mary H. Gottlieb, OCC Clearance Officers, (202) 649–5490, for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, TTY, (202) 649–5597, 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.
The OCC is proposing to extend OMB approval of the following information collection:
The OCC issued a 60-day
(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).
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, “Subordinated Debt.”
Comments must be submitted on or before June 23, 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: 1557–0320, 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.
Johnny Vilela or Mary H. Gottlieb, OCC Clearance Officers, (202) 649–5490, for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, TTY, (202) 649–5597, 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 interim final rule entitled “Basel III Conforming Amendments Related to Cross-References, Subordinated Debt and Limits Based on Regulatory Capital,”
The OCC uses the request for approval to issue or prepay subordinated debt or include subordinated debt in tier 2 capital, outlined in 12 CFR 5.47 and 163.81, to determine whether to grant or deny an institution's request. In addition, when the prepayment is in the form of a call option, the OCC uses the information provided to determine whether to require the institution to replace the instrument with an instrument that meets the criteria for tier 1 or tier 2 capital, and if so, whether the replacement instrument would qualify as tier 1 or tier 2 capital. The information collected is used to ensure compliance with legal and regulatory requirements. In the case of a prepayment in the form of a call option, the OCC uses the additional information collected to implement a requirement in the OCC's Basel III regulations, as described below.
Through the interim final rule, the OCC revised the requirements of § 5.47. Specifically, all national banks now must receive prior OCC approval in order to prepay subordinated debt that is included in tier 2 capital, and certain banks must receive prior approval to prepay subordinated debt that is
The OCC also revised the requirements of § 163.81 in the interim rule. Specifically, the prepayment of subordinated debt securities or mandatorily redeemable preferred stock (“covered securities”) included in tier 2 capital now requires prior OCC approval. If the prepayment is in the form of a call option, a Federal savings association must submit the information required for general prepayment requests under paragraph (j)(2)(i) and also comply with paragraph (j)(2)(ii)(A), which requires a Federal savings association to submit either: (1) a statement explaining why the Federal savings association believes that following the proposed prepayment the savings association would continue to hold an amount of capital commensurate with its risk; or (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. The OCC may require the Federal savings association to replace the subordinated debt instrument with an instrument of an equivalent amount that satisfies the requirements for a tier 1 or tier 2 capital instrument.
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.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury 's Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) is publishing the name of one individual whose property and interests in property has been blocked pursuant to the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act (“Kingpin Act”) (21 U.S.C. 1901–1908, 8 U.S.C. 1182).
The designation by the Director of OFAC of the one individual identified in this notice pursuant to section 805(b) of the Kingpin Act is effective on March 13, 2014.
This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available on OFAC's Web site at
The Kingpin Act became law on December 3, 1999. The Kingpin Act establishes a program targeting the activities of significant foreign narcotics traffickers and their organizations on a worldwide basis. It provides a statutory framework for the imposition of sanctions against significant foreign narcotics traffickers and their organizations on a worldwide basis, with the objective of denying their businesses and agents access to the U.S. financial system and the benefits of trade and transactions involving U.S. companies and individuals.
The Kingpin Act blocks all property and interests in property, subject to U.S. jurisdiction, owned or controlled by significant foreign narcotics traffickers as identified by the President. In addition, the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Homeland Security may designate and block the property and interests in property, subject to U.S. jurisdiction, of persons who are found to be: (1) Materially assisting in, or providing financial or technological support for or to, or providing goods or services in support of, the international narcotics trafficking activities of a person designated pursuant to the Kingpin Act; (2) owned, controlled, or directed by, or acting for or on behalf of, a person designated pursuant to the Kingpin Act; or (3) playing a significant role in international narcotics trafficking.
On March 13, 2014, the Director of OFAC designated the following one individual whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to section 805(b) of the Kingpin Act.
1. MENDOZA ROBLES, Eduardo (a.k.a. “ZETA 33”); DOB 05 Dec 1966; POB Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas, Mexico; citizen Mexico; R.F.C. MERE661205MQ3 (Mexico); C.U.R.P. MERE661205HTSNBD09 (Mexico) (individual) [SDNTK].