Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Forest Service
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Air Force Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Presidential Documents
Commission of Fine Arts
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Coast Guard
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
Drug Enforcement Administration
Justice Programs Office
Employment and Training Administration
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Transit Administration
Maritime Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Comptroller of the Currency
United States Mint
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this page for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of availability.
On November 13, 2013, the FAA sought comment on a proposed legal interpretation intended to clarify the qualification requirements for the pilot assigned as second in command on a flight in part 121 operations that require three or more pilots and the pilot who provides relief to the assigned second in command during the en route cruise portion of the flight. On April 29, 2014, the FAA issued a legal interpretation on these issues. This legal interpretation is available on the agency's Web site and in the docket for the proposed legal interpretation.
June 4, 2014.
You may review the public docket for the proposed legal interpretation (Docket No. FAA–2013–0944) on the Internet at
Sara Mikolop, Attorney, Regulations Division, Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: 202 267–3073.
On November 13, 2013, the FAA sought comment on a proposed legal interpretation intended to clarify the qualification requirements for (1) the pilot assigned as second in command (SIC) on a flight in part 121 operations that require three or more pilots and (2) the pilot who provides relief to the assigned SIC during the en route cruise portion of the flight.
On April 29, 2014, the FAA issued a legal interpretation on these issues. The legal interpretation was adopted as proposed with minimal clarifying information. It is available on the agency's Web site
Federal Trade Commission.
Final rule.
The Commission amends its rules and regulations under the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 (“Wool Rules” or “Rules”) to conform to the requirements of the Wool Suit Fabric Labeling Fairness and International Standards Conforming Act, which revised the labeling requirements for cashmere and certain other wool products, and align with the amended rules and regulations under the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act (“Textile Rules”).
The amended Rules are effective on July 7, 2014.
Robert M. Frisby, Attorney, (202) 326–2098, Federal Trade Commission, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.
As part of its ongoing regulatory review program, the Commission published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Request for Public Comment (“ANPR”) in January 2012
The Wool Act and Rules
The Commission received six comments
The Commission received seven comments
In this section, the Commission summarizes the main points made by the comments. Comments addressing the issue favored amending the Rules to implement the Conforming Act but urged the Commission to limit the use of “Super” and “S” to describe certain very fine wool products. The comments also generally favored aligning the Rules with the amended Textile Rules or were silent on this issue.
Four comments addressed implementation of the Conforming Act by adding the Act's definitions of very fine wool. The Conforming Act provides that wool products described by certain terms (
Three comments expressed support for the Commission's proposal to allow certain hang-tags identifying a fiber even though they do not disclose a product's full fiber content.
Two comments addressed issues relating to continuing guaranties. AAFA opposed the proposal to have continuing guaranties expire after one year unless revoked earlier. It disagreed with the Commission's assertion that requiring annual renewal of continuing guaranties would impose minimal costs on industry. One AAFA member estimates spending 5–8 hours on each continuing guaranty it files. AAFA explained that most companies file dozens of such guaranties and many file hundreds. As a result, AAFA argued, the requirement may be unmanageable for many companies. AAFA also noted that filing guaranties is not the only relevant cost. It stated that vendors face a “clerical nightmare of keeping up with the guaranties” and buyers have difficulty obtaining guaranties from the Commission in a timely fashion. None of the comments expressed support for amending the Rules to have continuing guaranties expire after one year.
Another comment opposed the automatic incorporation of a recent amendment to the Textile Rules replacing the requirement that guarantors sign continuing guaranties under penalty of perjury with a certification requirement.
The record supports modifying and clarifying the Rules as the Commission proposed, except for the proposal that continuing guaranties expire after one year unless revoked earlier.
The Commission amends the Rules' fiber content disclosure provisions to: (1) Incorporate the Wool Act's new definitions for cashmere and very fine wools; (2) clarify § 300.20's descriptions of products containing virgin or new wool; and (3) revise §§ 300.8(d) and 300.24(b) to allow certain hang-tags disclosing fiber trademarks and performance even if they do not disclose the product's full fiber content.
The Conforming Act amended the Wool Act by defining “cashmere” and wool products composed of very fine wool (
The Wool Act now provides that a product “stamped, tagged, labeled, or otherwise identified as cashmere” is misbranded unless: (1) It is composed of fine (dehaired) undercoat fibers from a cashmere goat; (2) its fibers have an average diameter of no more than 19 microns; and (3) it contains no more than 3 percent cashmere fibers with average diameters that exceed 30 microns.
In the NPRM, the Commission stated that fibers from the cashmere goat should be labeled as wool if they do not meet the Conforming Act's definition of cashmere. The two comments addressing this issue agreed with the Commission.
The Conforming Act defined the average diameter of fibers required when labeling “very fine wools.” The Commission proposed to add a new § 300.20a to incorporate these definitions. Four commenters raised additional issues regarding the labeling of such wools, but the record provides an insufficient basis for proposing further changes to the Rules. The Commission addresses the labeling of very fine wool below.
The Conforming Act provides that wool products described by certain terms (
To make the Rules consistent with the amended Wool Act, the Commission adds a new § 300.20a, entitled “Labeling of very fine wool.” This section provides that wool products described by certain terms are misbranded unless the wool fibers comport with the amended Wool Act.
The Conforming Act provides that, “in each such case, the average fiber diameter of such wool product may be subject to such standards or deviations as adopted by regulation by the Commission.”
The Commission adopts the proposed amendments implementing the Conforming Act with regard to the use of “Super” and “S” numbers.
The Commission also lacks authority to prohibit the use of “Super” or “S” numbers where the wool fiber of a wool
Of course, the use of “Super” or “S” numbers to deceptively describe the fiber content of a wool product could result in “misbranding” under the Wool Act, which provides that a wool product is misbranded if it is deceptively stamped, tagged, labeled, or otherwise identified.
In addition, the Commission declines to amend the Rules to address wool fibers of differing fineness used in the warp and filling yarns of a fabric.
The Commission proposed amending § 300.20 so that it states that the terms “virgin” or “new” shall not be used when the product, fiber or part so described is not composed wholly of new or virgin fiber. None of the comments opposed this proposal, which involves a non-substantive clarification of the provision. The Commission recently adopted a similar amendment to the Textile Rules.
The Commission amends §§ 300.8(d) and 300.24(b) as proposed to allow certain hang-tags with fiber trademarks and performance information, even if they do not disclose the product's full fiber content. The Commission recently adopted a similar amendment to the Textile Rules.
AAFA and USFIA raised concerns about the proposed requirement that hang-tags for products with multiple fiber types disclose clearly and conspicuously that the hang-tag does not provide the product's full fiber content. AAFA questioned whether the disclosure is necessary, and sought clarification regarding how companies should make the disclosure clearly and conspicuously. USFIA explained that, in practice, all hang-tags will have to make the disclosure because suppliers will not know in advance whether the product contains other fibers. It suggested requiring the disclosure only where there is a demonstrable danger of deception, such as a circumstance where the product contains only a small amount of the fiber described in the hang-tag.
Accordingly, the Commission adopts the amendment to allow hang-tags that do not disclose full fiber content, which was unopposed, for two reasons. First, requiring full fiber percentages on hang-tags is redundant because the Rules mandate this information on the required textile label. Second, the requirement likely impedes the flow of truthful information to consumers because it effectively prevents suppliers and other marketers from identifying fibers and describing their performance on a hang-tag unless they know the full fiber content of the finished product.
Although AAFA and USFIA questioned the need for a disclosure on at least some hang-tags that do not disclose full fiber content, neither submitted any evidence regarding how consumers would interpret such hang-tags. The Commission continues to believe that, without the disclosure, some consumers would mistakenly assume that the hang-tag discloses full fiber content. Such consumers would have no reason to search for and examine the label disclosing full fiber content if the hang-tag leads them to believe that the product does not contain fibers other than those touted on the hang-tag. The Commission plans to provide informal guidance on how to make the disclosure clearly and conspicuously through its business education materials and by providing staff advice.
The Commission amends the Wool Rules as proposed to conform the country of origin disclosures and provisions discussing “invoice or other paper” with the recently amended Textile Rules. The Commission also declines to adopt its proposed amendment regarding the duration of continuing guaranties, which will conform the Wool Rules to the recently amended Textile Rules, because the Commission lacks sufficient evidence to conclude that any benefits of the amendment would exceed the costs. Again, aligning the two Rules will serve the public interest by reducing compliance burdens and making fiber content disclosures more consistent.
To promote consistency with the Textile Rules, the Commission proposed to update § 300.25(d) to state that an imported product's country of origin as determined under the laws and regulations enforced by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”) shall be the country where the product was processed or manufactured. The Commission also proposed to update § 300.25(f) by removing the outdated reference to the Treasury Department and instead referencing any Tariff Act and the regulations promulgated thereunder.
AAFA and USFIA supported this proposal, and Australia had no objection to it. None of the four remaining comments addressed it. Accordingly, the Commission adopts this amendment for the reasons explained in the NPRM.
To conform the Wool Rules to the amended Textile Rules, the Commission
The Commission proposed amending the definition of “invoice or other paper” in Wool Rules § 300.1(j) by changing it to “invoice or other document.” The Commission also proposed amending §§ 300.32(a) and 300.33(c), which relate to guaranties, to replace “invoice or other paper” with “invoice or other document” where these terms appear. These amendments clarify the fact that the Rules apply to electronic as well as paper documents. Finally, § 300.1(j), which defines the above terms, currently incorporates the definition in § 303.1(h) of the Textile Rules and would continue to do so. The Commission recently amended the definition in Textile Rules § 303.1(h) to clarify that invoices and other documents may be preserved electronically. None of the comments addressed these issues. Accordingly, the Commission adopts these amendments for the reasons explained in the NPRM.
As in the final Textile Rules, the Commission declines to amend the duration of continuing guaranties in § 300.33(a)(3).
The Commission proposed amending § 300.33(a)(3) to provide that continuing guaranties remain in effect for one year unless revoked earlier.
As noted above, the Commission decided not to adopt a similar amendment to the Textile Rules. As was the case for the Textile Rules, the Commission lacks sufficient evidence to conclude that annual renewal would increase the reliability of continuing guaranties. Assuming,
The Commission amended § 303.38(b) of the Textile Rules to modify the continuing guaranty form by replacing the requirement that sellers sign under penalty of perjury with a requirement that they certify that they will actively monitor and ensure compliance with the applicable Act and Rules (the Textile, Wool, and/or Fur Acts).
One comment addressed this certification requirement. It supported the requirement, but opposed dropping the requirement that guarantors sign under penalty of perjury.
Nonetheless, the Commission continues to share the commenter's concern about the reliability of continuing guaranties once guarantors no longer sign them under penalty of perjury. If the Commission obtains evidence that continuing guaranties have become less reliable, it will revisit this issue and consider amending the Rules' continuing guaranty provisions accordingly.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”)
The Commission believes that the amendments will not have a significant economic impact upon small entities that manufacture or import wool products, although they may affect a substantial number of small businesses. The amendments conform the Rules to the Wool Act as amended by the Conforming Act, clarify the Rules, provide more options for disclosing fiber trademarks and performance information on hang-tags, and update the Rules' guaranty provisions. Therefore, the Commission certifies that amending the Rules will not have a
The objective of the amendments is to conform the Rules to the Wool Act as amended by the Conforming Act; clarify the Rules; allow manufacturers and importers to disclose fiber trademarks and information about fiber performance on certain hang-tags affixed to wool products without including the product's full fiber content information on the hang-tag; and clarify and update the Rules' guaranty provisions. The Wool Act authorizes the Commission to implement its requirements through the issuance of rules.
In the NPRM's Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, the Commission concluded that the proposed amendments would not have a significant or disproportionate economic impact upon small entities that manufacture or import wool products, including their compliance costs. None of the comments disputed the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, with the exception of one comment from AAFA objecting to the proposal to amend § 300.33(a)(3) to provide that continuing guaranties are effective for one year unless revoked earlier. AAFA questioned the Commission's assertion that the proposed amendment would enhance the reliability of guaranties and contended that it would impose substantial unnecessary costs on industry. For the reasons explained above, the Commission has decided not to adopt this proposal. The Commission did not receive any comments from the Small Business Administration.
The Rules apply to various segments of the wool product industry, including manufacturers and wholesalers of wool products. Under the Small Business Size Standards issued by the Small Business Administration, wool apparel manufacturers qualify as small businesses if they have 500 or fewer employees. Clothing wholesalers qualify as small businesses if they have 100 or fewer employees.
The Commission's staff has estimated that approximately 8,000 wool product manufacturers and importers are covered by the Rules' disclosure requirements.
As noted earlier, the amendments conform the Rules to the Wool Act as amended by the Conforming Act, clarify the Rules, provide more options for disclosing fiber trademarks and performance information on hang-tags, and update the Rules' guaranty provisions. They do not impose any new reporting, recordkeeping, or disclosure requirements. The small entities potentially covered by the amendments will include all such entities subject to the Rules. The professional skills necessary for compliance with the Rules as modified by the amendments would include office and administrative support supervisors to determine label content and clerical personnel to draft and obtain labels and keep records.
The Commission has not proposed any specific small entity exemption or other significant alternatives, as the amendments simply conform the Rules to the Wool Act as amended by the Conforming Act; clarify the Rules; allow manufacturers and importers to disclose fiber trademarks and information about fiber performance on certain hang-tags affixed to wool products without including the product's full fiber content information on the hang-tag; and clarify and update the Rules' guaranty provisions. The amendment relating to hang-tags will allow greater compliance flexibility, and might reduce the cost of providing consumers with truthful, non-deceptive information about fiber content and performance. Under these limited circumstances, the Commission does not believe a special exemption for small entities or significant compliance alternatives are necessary or appropriate to minimize the compliance burden, if any, on small entities while achieving the intended purposes of the amendments.
The Rules contain various “collection of information” (
These amendments do not impose any additional collection of information requirements. For example, amending the Rules to conform to the Wool Act, as amended by the Conforming Act, would not impose any new requirements because businesses already must comply with the Wool Act. Businesses that prefer not to affix a hang-tag disclosing a fiber name or trademark without disclosing the product's full fiber content need not do so.
Labeling, Trade practices, Wool Products Labeling Act.
For the reasons set forth above, the Commission amends 16 CFR Part 300 as follows:
15 U.S.C. 68–68j.
(a) The term
(j) The terms
(a) * * *
(1) The fiber content of the product specified in section 4(a)(2)(A) of the Act. The generic names and percentages by weight of the constituent fibers present in the wool product, exclusive of permissive ornamentation, shall appear on such label with any percentage of fiber or fibers designated as “other fiber” or “other fibers” as provided by section 4(a)(2)(A)(4) of the Act appearing last.
(d) Where a generic name or a fiber trademark is used on any label, whether required or non-required, a full fiber content disclosure with percentages shall be made in accordance with the Act and regulations. Where a generic name or a fiber trademark is used on any hang-tag attached to a wool product that has a label providing required information and the hang-tag provides non-required information, such as a hang-tag stating only a generic fiber name or trademark or providing information about a particular fiber's characteristics, the hang-tag need not provide a full fiber content disclosure; however, if the wool product contains any fiber other than the fiber identified by the generic fiber name or trademark, the hang-tag must disclose clearly and conspicuously that it does not provide the product's full fiber content; for example:
“This tag does not disclose the product's full fiber content.” or
“See label for the product's full fiber content.”
(a)(1) In setting forth the required fiber content of a wool product, the term “cashmere” may be used for such fiber content only if:
(i) Such fiber consists of the fine (dehaired) undercoat fibers produced by a cashmere goat (capra hircus laniger);
(ii) The average diameter of such cashmere fiber does not exceed 19 microns; and
(iii) The cashmere fibers in such wool product contain no more than 3 percent (by weight) of cashmere fibers with average diameters that exceed 30 microns.
(2) The average fiber diameter may be subject to a coefficient of variation around the mean that shall not exceed 24 percent.
(b) In setting forth the required fiber content of a product containing hair of the Angora goat known as mohair or containing cashmere (as defined in paragraph (a) of this section), the term “mohair” or “cashmere,” respectively, may be used for such fiber in lieu of the word “wool,” provided the respective percentage of each such fiber designated as “mohair” or “cashmere” is given, and provided further that such term “mohair” or “cashmere” where used is qualified by the word “recycled” when the fiber referred to is “recycled wool” as defined in the Act. The following are examples of fiber content designations permitted under this section:
(c) Where an election is made to use the term “mohair” or “cashmere” in lieu of the term “wool” as permitted by this section, the appropriate designation of “mohair” or “cashmere” shall be used at any time reference is made to such fiber in either required or nonrequired information. The term “mohair” or “cashmere” or any words, coined words, symbols or depictions connoting or implying the presence of such fibers shall not be used in non-required information on the required label or on any secondary or auxiliary label attached to the wool product if the term “mohair” or “cashmere,” as the case may be, does not appear in the required fiber content disclosure.
The terms “virgin” or “new” as descriptive of a wool product, or any fiber or part thereof, shall not be used when the product, fiber or part so described is not composed wholly of new or virgin fiber which has never been reclaimed from any spun, woven, knitted, felted, braided, bonded, or otherwise manufactured or used product.
A wool product stamped, tagged, labeled, or otherwise identified in the manner described below is mislabeled:
(a) “Super 80's” or “80's,” if the average diameter of wool fiber of such wool product does not average 19.75 microns or finer;
(b) “Super 90's” or “90's,” if the average diameter of wool fiber of such wool product does not average 19.25 microns or finer;
(c) “Super 100's” or “100's,” if the average diameter of wool fiber of such wool product does not average 18.75 microns or finer;
(d) “Super 110's” or “110's,” if the average diameter of wool fiber of such wool product does not average 18.25 microns or finer;
(e) “Super 120's” or “120's,” if the average diameter of wool fiber of such wool product does not average 17.75 microns or finer;
(f) “Super 130's” or “130's,” if the average diameter of wool fiber of such wool product does not average 17.25 microns or finer;
(g) “Super 140's” or “140's,” if the average diameter of wool fiber of such wool product does not average 16.75 microns or finer;
(h) “Super 150's” or “150's,” if the average diameter of wool fiber of such wool product does not average 16.25 microns or finer;
(i) “Super 160's” or “160's,” if the average diameter of wool fiber of such wool product does not average 15.75 microns or finer;
(j) “Super 170's” or “170's,” if the average diameter of wool fiber of such wool product does not average 15.25 microns or finer;
(k) “Super 180's” or “180's,” if the average diameter of wool fiber of such wool product does not average 14.75 microns or finer;
(
(m) “Super 200's” or “200's,” if the average diameter of wool fiber of such wool product does not average 13.75 microns or finer;
(n) “Super 210's” or “210's,” if the average diameter of wool fiber of such wool product does not average 13.25 microns or finer;
(o) “Super 220's” or “220's,” if the average diameter of wool fiber of such wool product does not average 12.75 microns or finer;
(p) “Super 230's” or “230's,” if the average diameter of wool fiber of such wool product does not average 12.25 microns or finer;
(q) “Super 240's” or “240's,” if the average diameter of wool fiber of such wool product does not average 11.75 microns or finer; and
(r) “Super 250's” or “250's,” if the average diameter of wool fiber of such wool product does not average 11.25 microns or finer.
(b) Where a word, coined word, symbol, or depiction which connotes or implies the presence of a fiber is used on any label, whether required or non-required, a full fiber content disclosure with percentages shall be made on such label in accordance with the Act and regulations. Where a word, coined word, symbol, or depiction which connotes or implies the presence of a fiber is used on any hang-tag attached to a wool product that has a label providing required information and the hang-tag provides non-required information, such as a hang-tag providing information about a particular fiber's characteristics, the hang-tag need not provide a full fiber content disclosure; however, if the wool product contains any fiber other than the fiber identified on the hang-tag, the hang-tag must disclose clearly and conspicuously that it does not provide the product's full fiber content; for example:
“This tag does not disclose the product's full fiber content.” or
“See label for the product's full fiber content.”
(d) The country of origin of an imported wool product as determined under the laws and regulations enforced by United States Customs and Border Protection shall be considered to be the country where such wool product was processed or manufactured.
(f) Nothing in this rule shall be construed as limiting in any way the information required to be disclosed on labels under the provisions of any Tariff Act of the United States or regulations promulgated thereunder.
(a) The following are suggested forms of separate guaranties under section 9 of the Act which may be used by a guarantor residing in the United States on or as part of an invoice or other document relating to the marketing or handling of any wool products listed and designated therein and showing the date of such invoice or other document and the signature and address of the guarantor:
(1)
“We guarantee that the wool products specified herein are not misbranded under the provisions of the Wool Products Labeling Act and rules and regulations thereunder.”
(2)
“Based upon a guaranty received, we guarantee that the wool products specified herein are not misbranded under the provisions of the Wool Products Labeling Act and rules and regulations thereunder.”
(b) The mere disclosure of required information including the fiber content of wool products on a label or on an invoice or other document relating to its marketing or handling shall not be considered a form of separate guaranty.
(c) Any person who has a continuing guaranty on file with the Commission may, during the effective dates of the guaranty, give notice of such fact by setting forth on the invoice or other document covering the marketing or handling of the product guaranteed the following:
Continuing Guaranty under the Wool Products Labeling Act filed with the Federal Trade Commission.
By direction of the Commission.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a special local regulation on the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway in Bucksport, South Carolina during the Outboard Drag Boat Association (ODBA) Draggin' on the Waccamaw, a series of high-speed boat races. The event will take place on Saturday, June 21, 2014 and Sunday, June 22, 2014. Approximately 50 high-speed race boats are anticipated to participate in the races. This special local regulation is necessary to provide for the safety of life and property on navigable waters of the United States during the event. This special local regulation will temporarily restrict vessel traffic in a portion of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. Persons and vessels that are not participating in the races will be prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative.
This rule is effective from 11:00 a.m. on June 21, 2014 until 8:00 p.m. on June 22, 2014.
Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket USCG–2014–0097. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Chief Warrant Officer Christopher Ruleman, Sector Charleston Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (843) 740–3184, email
On March 26, 2014, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Special Local Regulations; ODBA Draggin' on the Waccamaw, Atlantic Intercoastal Waterway, Bucksport, SC in the
The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish special local regulations: 33 U.S.C. 1233. The purpose of the rule is to ensure safety of life and property on navigable waters of the United States during the ODBA Draggin' on the Waccamaw boat races.
On Saturday, June 21, 2014, and Sunday, June 22, 2014, the Outboard Drag Boat Association (ODBA) will host Draggin' on the Waccamaw, a series of high-speed boat races. The event will be held on a portion of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway in Bucksport, South Carolina. Approximately 50 high-speed race boats are anticipated to participate in the races.
The special local regulation encompasses certain waters of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway in Bucksport, South Carolina. The special local regulation will be enforced daily from 11:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m. on June 21, 2014 and June 22, 2014. The special local regulation consists of a regulated area around vessels participating in the event. The regulated area is as follows: All waters of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway encompassed within an Imaginary line connecting the following points; starting at point 1 in position 33°39′11.46″ N 079°05′36.78″ W; thence west to point 2 in position 33°39′12.18″ N 079°05′47.76″ W; thence south to point 3 in position 33°38′39.48″ N 079°05′37.44″ W; thence east to point 4 in position 33°38′42.3″ N 079°05′30.6″ W; thence north back to origin. All coordinates are North American Datum 1983. Persons and vessels that are not participating in the event are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated area unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative. Persons and vessels may request authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area by contacting the Captain of the Port Charleston by telephone at (843) 740–7050, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16 to seek authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area is granted by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such permission must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated areas by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and executive orders.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.
The economic impact of this rule is not anticipated to be significant for the following reasons: (1) Although persons and vessels will not be able to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the race area without authorization from the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, they may operate in the surrounding area during the effective period; (2) persons and vessels may still enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the race area if authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative; and (3) advance notification will be made to the local maritime community via broadcast notice to mariners.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within that portion that portion of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway encompassed within the regulated area from 11:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m. on June 21, 2014 and June 22, 2014. For the reasons discussed in the Regulatory Planning and Review section above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1–888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023–01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a special local regulation issued in conjunction with a regatta or marine parade. An environmental analysis checklist and a Categorical Exclusion Determination were completed for this event in previous years. Since this event has remained materially unchanged from the time of the prior determinations, a new environmental analysis checklist and Categorical Exclusion Determination were not completed for 2014. The previously completed environmental analysis checklist and Categorical Exclusion Determination can be found in docket folder for USCG–2013–0102 at
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1233.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) All persons and vessels, except those persons and vessels participating in the event, are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative.
(2) Nonparticipant persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area may contact the Captain of the Port Charleston by telephone at (843) 740–7050, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16 to seek authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area is granted by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such permission must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative.
(3) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area by Broadcast Notice to Mariners, Local Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.
(d)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in the navigable waters of Fourteenmile Slough near Stockton, CA in support of the Village West Marina 4th of July Fireworks Display on July 4, 2014. This safety zone is established to ensure the safety of participants and spectators from the dangers associated with the pyrotechnics. Unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or remaining in the safety zone without permission of the Captain of the Port or their designated representative.
This rule is effective on July 4, 2014. This rule will be enforced from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. on July 4, 2014.
Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket USCG–2014–0307. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Lieutenant Junior Grade Joshua Dykman, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Francisco; telephone (415) 399–3585 or email at
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.”
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The legal basis for the proposed rule is 33 U.S.C 1231; 46 U.S.C Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, 160.5; Public Law 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to establish safety zones.
Village West Marina will sponsor the Village West Marina 4th of July Fireworks Display on July 4, 2014, in Wright Tract over Fourteenmile Slough near Stockton, CA in approximate position 38°00′08″ N, 121°22′17″ W (NAD 83) as depicted in National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Chart 18663. Upon the commencement of the fireworks display, the safety zone will encompass the navigable waters around the launch site within a radius of 420 feet. The fireworks display is meant for entertainment purposes. This restricted area around the launch site is necessary to protect spectators, vessels, and other property from the hazards associated with the pyrotechnics.
The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone in navigable waters around the land based launch site in Wright Tract over Fourteenmile Slough near Stockton, CA. Upon the commencement of the 20 minute fireworks display, scheduled to begin at 9 p.m. on July 4, 2014, the safety zone will encompass the navigable waters around the fireworks launch site within a radius 420 feet from approximate position 38°00′08″ N, 121°22′17″ W (NAD 83) for the Village West Marina 4th of July Fireworks Display. At the conclusion of the fireworks display the safety zone shall terminate.
The effect of the temporary safety zone will be to restrict navigation in the vicinity of the launch site until the conclusion of the scheduled display. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the restricted area. These regulations are needed to keep spectators and vessels away from the immediate vicinity of the launch site to ensure the safety of participants, spectators, and transiting vessels.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 13 of these statutes and executive orders.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.
We expect the economic impact of this rule will not rise to the level of necessitating a full Regulatory Evaluation. The safety zone is limited in duration, and is limited to a narrowly tailored geographic area. In addition, although this rule restricts access to the waters encompassed by the safety zone, the effect of this rule will not be
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule may affect owners and operators of waterfront facilities, commercial vessels, and pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing. This safety zone would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This safety zone would be activated, and thus subject to enforcement, for a limited duration. When the safety zone is activated, vessel traffic could pass safely around the safety zone. The maritime public will be advised in advance of this safety zone via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1–888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023–01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone of limited size and duration. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2–1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR Part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(2) The safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the COTP or a designated representative.
(3) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone must contact the COTP or a designated representative to obtain permission to do so. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the COTP or a designated representative. Persons and vessels may request permission to enter the safety zone on VHF–23A or through the 24-hour Command Center at telephone (415) 399–3547.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule; technical correction.
EPA issued a final rule in the
This final rule correction is effective June 4, 2014.
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0384, 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:
The Agency included in the August 16, 2013 final rule a list of those who may be potentially affected by this action.
EPA issued a final rule in the
Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B)) provides that, when an Agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, the Agency may issue a final rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. EPA has determined that there is good cause for making this technical correction final without prior proposal and opportunity for comment, because the addition of a footnote to the tolerance table for the reason stated in Unit II, is not a significant change and does not affect the outcomes of the August 16, 2013 final rule. EPA finds that this constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).
All applicable statutory requirements were discussed in the final rule that was published on August 16, 2013.
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, 40 CFR part 180 is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
2. In § 180.490, amend the table in paragraph (a)(1) by revising the entry for “Sugarcane, cane” to read as follows:
(a)
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
Direct final rule.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published a direct final rule in the
Effective June 4, 2014.
Gloria Barnes, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs (
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published a direct final rule in the
Due to time constraints, a notice of withdrawal was not published prior to the direct final rule going into effect. As a result, HHS is now publishing this removal of the direct final rule, deleting Part 18 from Title 45, Subtitle A, subchapter A of the Code of Federal Regulations. HHS believes that it is appropriate for this removal to become effective on the date of its publication, and that notice and comment in this instance is unnecessary.
This rule does not meet the criteria for a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Thus, review by the Office of Management and Budget is not required.
This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis as provided by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, is not required.
Administrative practice and procedure, Logo and seal.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, and under the authority of 42 U.S.C. 3505 and 5 U.S.C. 301, HHS removes Part 18 to Title 45, Subtitle A, subchapter A of the Code of Federal Regulations.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; quota transfer.
NMFS announces that the State of North Carolina is transferring a portion of its 2014 commercial summer flounder quota to the Commonwealth of Virginia. NMFS is adjusting the quotas and announcing the revised commercial quota for each state involved. NMFS is also correcting the 2014 summer flounder quota for the State of New Jersey to account for quota transfers to date.
Effective May 30, 2014, through December 31, 2014.
Carly Bari, Fishery Management Specialist, 978–281–9224.
Regulations governing the summer flounder fishery are in 50 CFR part 648, and require annual specification of a commercial quota that is apportioned among the coastal states from North Carolina through Maine. The process to set the annual commercial quota and the percent allocated to each state are described in § 648.102.
The final rule implementing Amendment 5 to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan, which was published on December 17, 1993 (58 FR 65936), provided a mechanism for summer flounder quota to be transferred from one state to another. Two or more states, under mutual agreement and with the concurrence of the Administrator, Greater Atlantic Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), can transfer or combine summer flounder commercial quota under § 648.102(c)(2). The Regional Administrator is required to consider the criteria in § 648.102(c)(2)(i) to evaluate requests for quota transfers or combinations.
North Carolina has agreed to transfer 2,758 lb (1,251 kg) of its 2014 commercial quota to Virginia. This transfer was prompted by summer flounder landings of the F/V
The revised 2014 summer flounder specifications that published on May 22, 2014 (79 FR 29371), did not include quota transfers. This rule will also update the 2014 summer flounder quota for New Jersey to take into account all quota transfers to date. The revised
This action is taken under 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”), Treasury; Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (“Board”); and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”).
Notice of regulatory review; request for comments.
The OCC, Board, and FDIC (“we” or “Agencies”) are conducting a review of the regulations we have issued to identify outdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome regulations for insured depository institutions. This review is required by section 2222 of the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996 (“EGRPRA”). To facilitate this review, the Agencies have divided these regulations into 12 subject-matter categories and identified the regulations within each category. At regular intervals over the next two years, the Agencies will publish four
Written comments must be received no later than September 2, 2014.
Comments may be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal: “Regulations.gov.” You can reach this portal through the Agencies' EGRPRA Web site,
We encourage commenters to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, Regulations.gov, in accordance with the previous paragraph. Alternatively, comments may be emailed to
In general, the OCC will enter all comments received into the docket and publish them without change on Regulations.gov. Comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, as well as any business or personal information you provide, such as your name and address, email address, or phone number, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Therefore, please do not include any information with your comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.
You may inspect and photocopy in person all comments received by the OCC at 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20219. For security reasons, the OCC requires that visitors make an appointment to inspect or photocopy comments. You may make an appointment by calling (202) 649–6700. Upon arrival, visitors will be required to present valid government-issued photo identification and submit to a security screening.
We encourage commenters to submit comments regarding the Board's regulations by any of the following methods:
• Agency Web site
• Federal eRulemaking Portal, in accordance with the directions above.
• Email:
• FAX: (202) 452–3819.
• Mail: Robert deV. Frierson, Secretary, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20551.
In general, the Board will enter all comments received into the docket and publish them without change on Regulations.gov. Comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, as well as any business or personal information you provide, such as your name and address, email address, or phone number, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Therefore, please do not enclose any information with your comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.
You may inspect and photocopy in person all comments received by the Board at 20th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20551. For
We encourage commenters to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, “Regulations.gov,” in accordance with the directions above. Alternatively, you may submit comments by any of the following methods:
• Agency Web site:
• Email:
• Mail: Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary, Attention: Comments, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20429.
• Hand Delivery/Courier: Guard station at the rear of the 550 17th Street Building (located on F Street) on business days between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. (EST).
We will post all comments received to
Congress enacted section 2222 of EGRPRA
EGRPRA also requires the FFIEC or the Agencies to publish in the
The EGRPRA regulatory review provides an opportunity for the public and the Agencies to look at groups of related regulations and to identify opportunities for burden reduction. For example, the EGRPRA review may facilitate the identification of statutes and regulations that share similar goals or complementary methods where one or more Agencies could eliminate overlapping requirements. Alternatively, commenters may identify regulations or statutes that impose requirements that are no longer consistent with the way that business is conducted and that, therefore, the Agencies might eliminate.
The EGRPRA review also provides the Agencies and the public with an opportunity to consider how to reduce burden on community banks and other small, insured depository institutions or holding companies. We are keenly aware of the role that these institutions play in providing consumers and businesses across the nation with essential financial services and access to credit, and we are concerned about the impact of regulatory burden on these smaller institutions. We understand that when an Agency issues a new regulation or amends a current regulation, smaller institutions may have to devote considerable resources to determine if and how the regulation will affect them. Through the public comment process, the EGRPRA review can help the Agencies identify and target regulatory changes to reduce burden on these smaller institutions.
Burden reduction must, however, be compatible with the safety and soundness of insured depository institutions, their affiliates, and the financial system as a whole. It also must be consistent with the Agencies' statutory mandates, many of which require the issuance of regulations. EGRPRA recognizes that effective burden reduction may require legislative change. Accordingly, as part of this review, we specifically ask the public to comment on the relationship among burden reduction, regulatory requirements, and statutory mandates.
In addition, we note that the Agencies also consider regulatory burden each time we propose, adopt, or amend a rule. For example, under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Agencies assess each rulemaking with respect to the burdens the rule might impose. Furthermore, we invite the public to comment on every rule we propose, as
Taken together for purposes of EGRPRA, the Agencies' regulations covering insured depository institutions encompass more than 100 subjects.
Over the next two years, the Agencies plan to publish four
To assist the public's understanding of how we have organized the EGRPRA review, the Agencies have prepared a chart that lists the three categories of regulations for which we are currently requesting comments, as well as the remaining nine categories on which we will seek comment in the future. On the chart, the left column divides the categories into specific subject-matter areas. The headings at the top of the chart identify the types of institutions affected by the regulations.
After comments have been received, the Agencies will review the comments and decide whether further action is appropriate with respect to the regulations. The Agencies will make this decision jointly in the case of rules that we have issued on an interagency basis. Similarly, we will undertake any rulemaking to amend or repeal those rules on an interagency basis. For rules issued by a single agency, the issuing agency will review the comments received and independently determine whether amendments to or repeal of its rules are appropriate. If so, that Agency will initiate a rulemaking to effect such change. In all cases, the Agencies will provide the public with an opportunity to comment on any proposed amendment to or repeal of a regulation, as required by the APA.
As noted previously, the Agencies are asking the public to comment on regulations in three specific categories to identify outdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome requirements imposed on insured depository institutions and their regulated holding companies. Where possible, we ask commenters to cite to specific regulatory language or provisions. We also welcome suggested alternative provisions or language in support of a comment, where appropriate. Where implementation of a suggestion would require modification of a statute, we ask the commenter to identify the statute and the needed change, where possible.
However, the OCC has decided to propose integrating its Application and Reporting rules (also referred to as Licensing rules)
The OCC recognizes that the timing and substance of this NPR and the EGRPRA review of the Application and Reporting rules overlap. In an effort to provide the fullest opportunity for public comment, the OCC invites comment on its current Application and Reporting rules pursuant to this notice, on its proposed revisions to the Application and Reporting rules set forth in the NPR, or on both. The OCC will consider all comments it receives when it finalizes its integrated Application and Reporting rules.
The FDIC will consider public comments submitted either through the EGRPRA review process or through any notice and comment rulemaking related to the FDIC's determinations regarding the transferred OTS regulations.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
By order of the Board of Directors.
National Credit Union Administration.
Notice of regulatory review; request for comments.
The NCUA Board (Board) is beginning its second, comprehensive review of its regulations to identify outdated, unnecessary, or burdensome regulatory requirements imposed on federally insured credit unions, as contemplated by section 2222 of the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996 (EGRPRA). In accordance with EGRPRA, the Board has categorized its regulations for the purpose of the review and proposes to publish categories of regulations for public comment at regular intervals over the next two years. The categories, and the regulations that the Board considers to be part of those categories, are detailed below. This review presents a significant opportunity to consider the possibilities for burden reduction in groups of similar regulations. The Board welcomes comment on the categories, the order of review, and all other aspects of this initiative in order to maximize the review's effectiveness. In 2003, the Board commenced an initial review of all its regulations pursuant to EGRPRA, a process that ended in 2006. Today, the Board initiates its second EGRPRA review by issuing the first in a series of four requests for public comment, comprising two of the categories—“Applications and Reporting” and “Powers and Activities.” We will address the remaining eight categories in the next three requests for comment.
Comment must be received on or before September 2, 2014.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (Please send comments by one method only):
•
•
•
•
•
•
Ross P. Kendall, Special Counsel to the General Counsel, at the above address, or telephone: (703) 518–6562.
Congress enacted EGRPRA
NCUA is not technically required to participate in the EGRPRA review process, since NCUA is not an “appropriate Federal banking agency” as specified in EGRPRA. In keeping with the spirit of the law, however, the Board has once again elected to participate in the review process. Thus, NCUA has participated along with the Agencies in the planning process, but has developed its own regulatory categories that are comparable with those developed by the Agencies. Because of the unique circumstances of federally insured credit unions and their members, the Board is issuing a separate notice from the Agencies. NCUA's notice is consistent and comparable with the Agencies' notice, except on issues that are unique to credit unions.
In accordance with the objectives of EGRPRA, the Board asks the public to identify areas of its regulations that are outdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome. In addition to this initial notice, the Board will issue three more notices for comment over the course of the next two years, at regular intervals. The EGRPRA review supplements and complements the reviews of regulations that NCUA conducts under other laws and its internal policies.
In addition to the elimination of the Office of Thrift Supervision, another significant development since the first EGRPRA review is the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Created with the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010,
EGRPRA contemplates a two-part regulatory response. First, NCUA will publish in the
EGRPRA further requires the FFIEC to submit a report to the Congress within 30 days after NCUA and the Agencies publish the comment summary and analysis in the
This report must summarize any significant issues raised by the public comments and the relative merits of those issues. The report also must analyze whether the appropriate federal financial regulator involved is able to address the regulatory burdens associated with the issues by regulation, or whether the burdens must be addressed by legislation. The FFIEC report submitted to Congress following the initial EGRPRA review included an Agency section discussing banking sector issues and a separate section devoted to NCUA and credit union issues. It is likely that the FFIEC will follow a similar approach in this second EGRPRA review and report process.
The regulatory review contemplated by EGRPRA provides a significant opportunity for the public and the Board to consider groups of related regulations and identify possibilities for streamlining. The EGRPRA review's overall focus on the totality of regulations will offer a new perspective in identifying opportunities to reduce regulatory burden. For example, the EGRPRA review may facilitate the identification of regulatory requirements that are no longer consistent with the way business is conducted and that therefore might be eliminated. Of course, reducing regulatory burden must be consistent with ensuring the continued safety and soundness of federally insured credit unions and appropriate consumer protections.
EGRPRA also recognizes that burden reduction must be consistent with NCUA's statutory mandates, many of which currently require certain regulations. One of the significant aspects of the EGRPRA review program is the recognition that effective burden reduction in certain areas may require legislative change. The Board will be soliciting comment on, and reviewing the comments and regulations carefully for, the relationship among burden reduction, regulatory requirements, and statutory mandates. This will be a key aspect of the report to Congress.
The Board views the approach of considering the relationship of regulatory and statutory change on regulatory burden, in concert with EGRPRA's provisions calling for grouping regulations by type, to provide the potential for particularly effective burden reduction. The Board believes the EGRPRA review can also significantly contribute to its on-going efforts to reduce regulatory burden. Since 1987, a formally adopted NCUA policy has required the Board to review each of its regulations at least once every three years with a view toward eliminating, simplifying, or otherwise easing the burden of each regulation.
The Board is particularly sensitive to the impact of agency rules on small institutions. In 2013, the Board formally increased the threshold for meeting the “small” classification to having assets of $50 million or less. The Board is cognizant that each new or amended regulation has the potential for requiring significant expenditures of time, effort, and money to achieve compliance, and also that this burden can be particularly difficult for institutions of smaller asset size, with fewer resources available.
EGRPRA contemplates the categorization of regulations by “type.” During the initial EGRPRA review, the Board developed and published for comment ten categories for NCUA's rules, including some that had been issued jointly with the Agencies. The Board believes these initial categories worked well for the purpose of presenting a framework for the review and so is proposing to keep and use the same categories in this second review.
As the Board noted during the initial EGRPRA review, although there are other possible ways of categorizing its rules, these ten categories “are logical groupings that are not so broad such that the number of regulations presented in any one category would overwhelm potential commenters. The categories also reflect recognized areas of industry interest and specialization or are particularly critical to the health of the credit union system.” As was also noted during the initial review, some regulations, such as lending, pertain to
As with the initial EGRPRA review, the Board remains convinced that publishing its rules for public comment separately from the Agencies is the most effective method for achieving EGRPRA's burden reduction goals for federally insured credit unions. Owing to differences in the credit union system as compared to the banking system, there is not a direct, category by category, correlation between NCUA's rules and those of the Agencies. For example, credit unions deal with issues such as membership, credit union service organizations, and corporate credit unions, all of which are unique to credit union operations. Similarly, certain categories identified by the Agencies during the initial review process have limited or no applicability in the credit union sector, such as community reinvestment, international operations, and securities. The categories developed by the Board and the Agencies reflect these differences. The Board intends to maintain comparability with the Agencies' notices to the extent there is overlap or similarity in the issues and the categories.
As with the initial review process, with this first notice the Board is publishing two categories of rules for comment on burden reduction. The Board anticipates publishing the remaining eight categories for similar comment periods at regular intervals over the next two years. The Board welcomes recommendations on grouping the remaining categories and the order in which to publish them.
After the conclusion of the comment period for each EGRPRA notice published in the
The Board has prepared two charts to assist public understanding of the organization of its review. The first chart, set forth at Section V.A. below, presents the two categories of regulations on which NCUA is requesting burden reduction recommendations in this notice. The two categories are shown in the left column. In the middle column are the subject matters that fall within the categories and in the far right column are the regulatory citations. The second chart, set forth at Section V.B. below, presents the remaining eight categories in alphabetical order in a similar format.
The Board seeks public comment on regulations within the first two categories—“Applications and Reporting” and “Powers and Activities”—that may impose outdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome regulatory requirements on federally insured credit unions. Comments that cite particular provisions or language, and provide reasons why such provisions should be changed, would be most helpful to NCUA's review efforts. Suggested alternative provisions or language, where appropriate, would also be helpful. If the implementation of a comment would require modifying a statute that underlies the regulation, the comment should, if possible, identify the needed statutory change.
Specific issues for commenters to consider. While all comments related to any aspect of the EGRPRA review are welcome, the Board reiterates the posture adopted during the initial review process and specifically invites comment on the following issues:
• Need and purpose of the regulations. Do the regulations in these categories fulfill current needs? Has industry or other circumstances changed since a regulation was written such that the regulation is no longer necessary? Have there been shifts within the industry or consumer actions that suggest a re-focus of the underlying regulations? Do any of the regulations in these categories impose burdens not required by their authorizing statutes?
• Need for statutory change. Do the statutes impose unnecessary requirements? Are any of the statutory requirements underlying these categories redundant, conflicting or otherwise unduly burdensome?
• Overarching approaches/flexibility of the regulatory standards. Generally, is there a different approach to regulating that the Board could use that would achieve statutory goals while imposing less burden? Do any of the regulations in these categories or the statutes underlying them impose unnecessarily inflexible requirements?
• Effect of the regulations on competition. Do any of the regulations in these categories or the statutes underlying them create competitive disadvantages for credit unions compared to another part of the financial services industry?
• Reporting, recordkeeping and disclosure requirements. Do any of the regulations in these categories or the statutes underlying them impose particularly burdensome reporting, recordkeeping or disclosure requirements? Are any of these requirements similar enough in purpose and use so that they could be consolidated? What, if any, of these requirements could be fulfilled electronically to reduce their burden?
• Consistency and redundancy. Do any of the regulations in these categories impose inconsistent or redundant regulatory requirements that are not warranted by the circumstances?
• Clarity. Are the regulations in these categories and the underlying statutes drafted in clear and easily understood language? Are there specific regulations or underlying statutes that need clarification?
•
• Burden on small insured institutions. The Board has a particular interest in minimizing burden on small insured credit unions (those with less than $50 million in assets). NCUA solicits comment on whether any regulations within these categories should be continued without change, amended or rescinded in order to minimize any significant economic impact the regulations may have on a substantial number of small federally insured credit unions.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 1A1, 1A2, 1B, 1C, 1C1, 1C2, 1D, 1D1, 1E2, 1K1, 1S, 1S1, 2B, 2B1, 2C, 2C1, 2C2, 2S1, and 2S2 turboshaft engines. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of uncommanded in-flight shutdowns on Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 1 and Arriel 2 engines following rupture of the 41-tooth gear forming part of the 41/23-tooth bevel gear located in the engine accessory gearbox (AGB). This proposed AD would require an initial one-time vibration check of the engine AGB on certain higher risk Arriel 1 and Arriel 2 model engines. This proposed AD would also require repetitive vibration checks of the engine AGB for all Arriel 1 and Arriel 2 engines at every engine shop visit. We are proposing this AD to prevent failure of the engine AGB, which could lead to in-flight shutdown and damage to the engine, which may result in damage to the aircraft.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 4, 2014.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this AD, contact Turbomeca, S.A., 40220 Tarnos, France; phone: 33 (0)5 59 74 40 00; telex: 570 042; fax: 33 (0)5 59 74 45 15. You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781–238–7125.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Mark Riley, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: (781) 238–7758; fax: (781) 238–7199; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA AD 2014–0036, dated February 11, 2014 (referred
Several cases of uncommanded in-flight shut-down (IFSD) have been reported on ARRIEL 1 or ARRIEL 2 engines following rupture of the 41-tooth gear forming part of the 41/23 tooth bevel gear located in the accessory gearbox (AGB) within engine module M01.
Results of subsequent investigations showed that the meshing quality of the bevel gear may have contributed to tooth rupture.
The rupture of the AGB 41-tooth gear may lead to loss of driving of equipment essential to engine operation.
This condition if not detected and corrected, could lead to an uncommanded engine in-flight shut-down and may ultimately lead to an emergency landing.
Turbomeca S.A. has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) No. 292 72 0839, Version B, dated November 25, 2013, and MSB No. 292 72 2849, Version B, dated November 25, 2013. The service information describes procedures for correcting the unsafe condition described in the MCAI.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of France and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the European Community, EASA has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. This proposed AD would require vibration checks of the 41/23-tooth bevel gear assembly of the AGB on certain Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 1 and Arriel 2 model turboshaft engines and, if a discrepancy is found, replacement of the AGB with a part eligible for installation.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 1,268 engines installed on aircraft of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 4 hours per engine to comply with the inspection requirement in this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $431,120.
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 to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by August 4, 2014.
None.
This AD applies to all Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 1A1, 1A2, 1B, 1C, 1C1, 1C2, 1D, 1D1, 1E2, 1K1, 1S, 1S1, 2B, 2B1, 2C, 2C1, 2C2, 2S1, and 2S2 turboshaft engines.
This AD was prompted by reports of uncommanded in-flight shutdowns on Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 1 and Arriel 2 engines following rupture of the 41-tooth gear forming the 41/23-tooth bevel gear located in the engine accessory gearbox (AGB). We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the engine AGB, which could lead to in-flight shutdown and damage to the engine, which may result in damage to the aircraft.
Unless already done, do the following.
(1) For all Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 1B, 1D, 1D1, 2B, and 2B1 turboshaft engines, perform a one-time vibration check of the AGB 41/23-tooth bevel gear meshing within 32 months of the effective date of this AD, as follows:
(i) For all Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 1B, 1D, and 1D1 engines, except those engines with an AGB installed with a serial number (S/N) listed in Figure 1 of Turbomeca S.A. Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) No. 292 72 0839, Version B, dated November 25, 2013, use paragraphs 6.A. through 6.C. of Turbomeca S.A. MSB No. 292 72 0839, Version B, dated November 25, 2013, to perform the vibration check. The reporting requirements in paragraphs 6.A.(1)(c), 6.A.(2)(b), and 6.B.(1)(c) and the requirement to return module M01 in paragraph 6.B.(2)(b)
(ii) For all Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 2B and 2B1engines, except those engines with an AGB installed with a S/N listed in Figure 1 of Turbomeca MSB No. 292 72 2849, Version B, dated November 25, 2013, use paragraphs
(2) For all affected Turbomeca S.A. engines, during each engine shop visit after the effective date of this AD, perform a vibration check of the AGB 41/23-tooth bevel gear meshing. Guidance on performing the vibration check during an engine shop visit can be found in the service information listed in paragraph (i)(3) in the Related Information section.
(3) If the AGB does not pass the vibration check required by paragraphs (e)(1) or (e)(2) of this AD, replace the AGB with a part eligible for installation.
If you performed a vibration check of the AGB before the effective date of this AD using Turbomeca S.A. MSB No. 292 72 0839, Version A, dated September 9, 2013; or MSB No. 292 72 2849, Version A, dated September 9, 2013, or during an engine shop visit per paragraph (e)(2) of this AD, you met the initial inspection requirement of paragraph (e)(1) of this AD.
For the purposes of this AD, an “engine shop visit” is the induction of an engine into the shop for maintenance involving the separation of pairs of major mating engine flanges. The separation of engine flanges solely for the purpose of transportation without subsequent engine maintenance does not constitute an engine shop visit.
The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs to this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your request.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Mark Riley, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: (781) 238–7758; fax: (781) 238–7199; email:
(2) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency AD 2014–0036, dated February 11, 2014, for related information. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
(3) Turbomeca S.A. MSB No. 292 72 0839, Version B, dated November 25, 2013; and MSB No. 292 72 2849, Version B, dated November 25, 2013, provide guidance on performing the one-time vibration check. Arriel 1 Technical Instruction (TI) No. 292 72 0839, Version E, dated February 20, 2014; Arriel 1 TI No. 292 72 0840, dated November 29, 2013; Arriel 2 TI No. 292 72 2849, Version E, dated February 20, 2014; and Arriel 2 TI No. 292 72 2850, dated November 29, 2013, provide detailed instructions on performing the one-time vibration check for Arriel 1 and Arriel 2 engines, respectively. Turbomeca Engine Test Bed Acceptance Test Specifications CCT No. 0292009400, Version T; CCT No. 0292019400, Version R; CCT No. 0292019690, Version I; CCT No. 029201530, Version K; CCT No. 0292019610, Version K; CCT No. 0292029450, Version J; CCT No. 0292029490, Version I; CCT No. 0292029440, Version I; CCT No. 0292029480, Version K; CCT No. 0292029520, Version H; CCT No. 0292029410, Version L; CCT No. 0292029530, Version H; or Turbomeca ID No. 383952; or Turbomeca RTD No. X 292 65 327 2, provide information on performing a vibration check during an engine shop visit. These service documents can be obtained from Turbomeca S.A. using the contact information in paragraph (i)(4) of this proposed AD.
(4) For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Turbomeca, S.A., 40220 Tarnos, France; phone: 33 (0)5 59 74 40 00; telex: 570 042; fax: 33 (0)5 59 74 45 15.
(5) You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781–238–7125.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to supersede airworthiness directive (AD) 2013–15–09, which applies to all Pratt & Whitney Division (PW) PW4074, PW4074D, PW4077, PW4077D, PW4084D, PW4090, and PW4090–3 turbofan engine models with certain second-stage high-pressure turbine (HPT) air seals, installed. AD 2013–15–09 currently requires initial and repetitive inspections for cracks in second-stage HPT air seals. Since we issued AD 2013–15–09, we received reports of cracking in the original location on two additional part numbers (P/Ns) as well as reports of through-cracks in a new location in the second-stage HPT air seal. PW has developed a redesigned second-stage HPT air seal that addresses the cracking condition in both locations. This proposed AD would expand the applicability of AD 2013–15–09 to include additional P/Ns, require replacement of the mating hardware if the second-stage HPT air seal is found with a through-crack, and add mandatory terminating action to the repetitive inspections. We are proposing this AD to prevent failure of the second-stage HPT air seal, which could lead to uncontained engine failure and damage to the airplane.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 4, 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 Pratt & Whitney Division, 400 Main St., East Hartford, CT 06108; phone: (860) 565–8770; fax: (860) 565–4503. You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (781) 238–7125.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
James Gray, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: (781) 238–7742; fax: (781) 238–7199; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
On July 19, 2013, we issued AD 2013–15–09, Amendment 39–17525 (78 FR 49111, August 13, 2013), (“AD 2013–15–09”), for all PW PW4074, PW4074D, PW4077, PW4077D, PW4084D, PW4090, and PW4090–3 turbofan engine models with second-stage HPT air seal, P/N 54L041, installed. AD 2013–15–09 requires initial and repetitive inspections for cracks in second-stage HPT air seals and replacement of air seals that fail inspection. AD 2013–15–09 resulted from the discovery of cracks in second-stage HPT air seals. We issued AD 2013–15–09 to prevent failure of the second-stage HPT air seal, which could lead to uncontained engine failure and damage to the airplane.
Since we issued AD 2013–15–09, we received multiple reports of through-cracks in a different location on second-stage HPT air seal, P/N 50L041, and reports of cracking in the original location in two additional second-stage HPT air seal P/Ns, 50L960 and 50L976. The cracking in the two additional P/Ns requires that they be added to the applicability of this proposed AD. PW has developed a redesigned second-stage HPT air seal that corrects the cracking condition in both locations.
The new cracking location in the second-stage HPT air seal, P/N 50L041, is in the front forward fillet radius. PW determined that through-cracks in the front forward fillet radius increase the stresses in the mating hardware in the HPT rotor and that increased stress reduces the life of the first-stage HPT hub, second-stage HPT hub, and second-stage HPT blade retaining plate. Therefore, the first-stage HPT hub, second-stage HPT hub, and second-stage HPT blade retaining plate must be removed from service if the second-stage HPT air seal, P/N 50L041, is found with a through-crack.
We reviewed PW Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. PW4G–112–A72–330, Revision 2, dated July 11, 2013, which describes procedures for inspecting the second-stage HPT air seal for cracks and PW Service Bulletin (SB) No. PW4G–112–72–332, Revision 2, dated April 9, 2014, which describes procedures for replacing the second-stage HPT air seal.
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would expand the population of affected P/Ns, require removal from service of two newly identified P/Ns, require replacement of the mating hardware if the second-stage HPT air seal is found with a through-crack, and add mandatory terminating action to the repetitive inspection requirements.
We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 116 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 5 hours to perform the inspection required by this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. We estimate that two engines will also require replacement of the first-stage HPT hub, second-stage HPT hub, and second-stage HPT blade retaining plate. We estimate that parts would cost about $698,920 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of this proposed AD to U.S. operators to be $23,420,020.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We have determined that this 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 to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by August 4, 2014.
This AD supersedes AD 2013–15–09, Amendment 39–17525 (78 FR 49111, August 13, 2013).
This AD applies to all Pratt & Whitney Division (PW) PW4074, PW4074D, PW4077, PW4077D, PW4084D, PW4090, and PW4090–3 turbofan engine models with second-stage high-pressure turbine (HPT) air seal, part number (P/N) 54L041, 50L960, or 50L976, installed.
This AD was prompted by additional reports of cracking in the second-stage HPT air seal. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the second-stage HPT air seal, which could lead to uncontained engine failure and damage to the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) At the next piece-part exposure after the effective date of this AD, do the following:
(i) Remove from service second-stage HPT air seals, P/N 50L960, 50L976, and 50L041.
(ii) Fluorescent-penetrant inspect (FPI) second-stage HPT air seal, P/N 50L041, for a through-crack in the front forward fillet radius.
(iii) If a through-crack in the front forward fillet radius is found, remove the first-stage HPT hub, second-stage HPT hub, and second-stage HPT blade retaining plate from service. Do not reinstall the first-stage HPT hub, second-stage HPT hub, or second-stage HPT blade retaining plate into any engine.
(2) For engines with second-stage HPT air seals, P/N 50L041, installed, perform initial and repetitive inspections for cracks on-wing until the part is removed from the engine as follows:
(i) Perform an initial eddy current inspection (ECI) for cracks prior to reaching 2,200 cycles-since-new or within 100 cycles-in-service after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(ii) Thereafter, repeat the ECI every 1,200 cycles since last inspection, or fewer, depending on the results of the inspection.
(iii) Use section 4.0 of the appendix of PW Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. PW4G–112–A72–330, Revision 2, dated July 11, 2013, to perform the inspection and use paragraph 8 of the Accomplishment Instructions of PW ASB No. PW4G–112–A72–330, Revision 2, dated July 11, 2013, to disposition the results of the inspection.
After the effective date of this AD, do not install any second-stage HPT air seal P/N 50L041, P/N 50L960, or P/N 50L976 into any engine.
(1) For the purpose of this AD, piece-part exposure is when the second-stage HPT air seal is removed from the engine and fully disassembled.
(2) For the purpose of this AD, a through-crack is a crack that has propagated through the thickness of the part and can be seen on both the inner diameter and outer diameter of the front forward fillet radius.
(1) If you performed an ECI of the second-stage HPT air seal before the effective date of this AD, using PW ASB No. PW4G–112–A72–330, Revision 1, dated February 14, 2013, or earlier version, you have met the requirements of paragraph (e)(2)(i) of this AD.
(2) If you performed an in-shop FPI of the second-stage HPT air seal before the effective date of this AD, you have met the requirements of paragraph (e)(2)(i) of this AD.
The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your request.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact James Gray, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: (781) 238–7742; fax: (781) 238–7199; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Pratt & Whitney Division, 400 Main St., East Hartford, CT 06108; phone: (860) 565–8770; fax: (860) 565–4503.
(3) You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (781) 238–7125.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice of stakeholder meeting.
OSHA invites interested parties to participate in an informal stakeholder meeting on emergency response and preparedness. OSHA plans to use the information obtained at the stakeholder meeting as it considers the development of a proposed standard for emergency response and preparedness.
Date and location for the stakeholder meeting are: July 30, 2014, at 9:00 a.m., in Washington, DC. If needed, a second session will be held July 31, 2014.
The deadline to request registration for the meeting is July 2, 2014.
Submit your request to attend the stakeholder meeting by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
The stakeholder meeting will be held at the Frances Perkins Building, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC, 20210.
Information regarding this notice is available from the following sources:
•
•
•
Emergency response is one of the most hazardous occupations in America (see the National Fire Protection Association report “Firefighter Fatalities in the United States—2012” and the 2012 Federal Emergency Management Agency report “Firefighter Fatalities in the United States in 2012”). Emergency responders include firefighters, emergency medical service personnel, hazardous material employees, and technical rescue specialists. Also, law enforcement officers usually are considered emergency responders because they often assist in emergency response incidents. OSHA notes, however, that there are no standards issued by the Agency that specifically address occupational hazards uniquely related to law enforcement activities. Many emergency responders have cross training in these specialties, and may serve in multiple roles depending upon the type of emergency incident involved. Skilled support employees are not emergency responders, but nonetheless have specialized training that can be important to the safe and successful resolution of an emergency incident.
The Agency issued a Request for Information (RFI) (74 FR 51735, Sept. 11, 2007) that solicited comments from the public to evaluate what action, if any, the Agency should take to further address emergency response and preparedness. Recent events, such as the April 2013 tragedy in West, Texas, that killed several emergency responders, and an analysis of the information provided in response to the 2007 RFI, make it clear that emergency responder health and safety continues to be an area of ongoing concern. Accordingly, OSHA determined it would be beneficial to hold a stakeholder meeting to gather additional information. OSHA plans to use the information received in response to the 2007 RFI and obtained at this stakeholder meeting when considering a proposed standard for emergency response and preparedness.
OSHA will conduct the stakeholder meeting as a group discussion addressing views, concerns, and issues surrounding emergency response and preparedness. To facilitate as much group interaction as possible, OSHA is not permitting formal presentations. OSHA will focus the meeting on major issues such as scope and approach. OSHA will provide participants with additional information on the major issues for discussion prior to the meeting.
The meeting will accommodate about 20 participants. Members of the general public (if registered) may observe, but not participate in, the meeting if space permits. OSHA staff will be present to take part in the discussions. PEC Solutions, Inc. (PEC) is managing the logistics for the meeting. Accordingly, PEC will provide a facilitator and compile notes summarizing the discussion; these notes will list participants and their affiliations, but will not attribute specific comments to individual speakers. PEC also will make an audio recording of each session to ensure that the summary notes are accurate, but will not transcribe these recordings. OSHA will post the summary notes in the docket for this rulemaking, Docket No. OSHA 2007–0073; the docket is available at
The meeting will take place July 30, 2014, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., at the Frances Perkins Building, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC, 20210. Based on the number of interested participants, OSHA may hold a second meeting on July 31, 2014.
To participate in the stakeholder meeting, or to be a nonparticipating observer, you must submit a request using one of the three methods specified above under
• Name, address, phone, fax, and email;
• Organization for which you work;
• Organization you represent (if different);
• Participant or nonparticipating observer; and
• Stakeholder category: public fire/rescue service, federal fire/rescue service, contract fire/rescue service, private fire brigade, emergency medical service, technical rescue, emergency management, law enforcement, other (please specify).
David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, authorized the preparation of this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, and 657, Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1–2012 (77 FR 3912; Jan. 25, 2012), and 29 CFR part 1911.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve elements of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from the State of Missouri addressing the applicable requirements of Clean Air Act (CAA) section 110 for the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for Lead (Pb), which requires that each state adopt and submit a SIP to support implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each new or revised NAAQS promulgated by EPA. These SIPs are commonly referred to as “infrastructure” SIPs. The infrastructure requirements are designed to ensure that the structural components of each state's air quality management
Comments must be received on or before July 7, 2014.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07–OAR–2014–0290, by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Ms. Amy Bhesania, Air Planning and Development Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, KS 66219;
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by addressing the following questions:
EPA is proposing action on a December 20, 2011, SIP submission from Missouri that addresses the infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (a)(2) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. The requirement for states to make a SIP submission of this type arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states must make SIP submissions “within 3 years (or such shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof),” and these SIP submissions are to provide for the “implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of such NAAQS. The statute directly imposes on states the duty to make these SIP submissions, and the requirement to make the submissions is not conditioned upon EPA's taking any action other than promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that “[e]ach such plan” submission must address.
EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (a)(2) as “infrastructure SIP” submissions. Although the term “infrastructure SIP” does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to distinguish this particular type of SIP submission from submissions that are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such as “nonattainment SIP” or “attainment plan SIP” submissions to address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D of title I of the CAA, “regional haze SIP” submissions required by EPA rule to address the visibility protection requirements of CAA section 169A, and nonattainment new source review permit program submissions to address the permit requirements of CAA, title I, part D.
On October 15, 2008, EPA revised the primary and secondary Pb NAAQS (hereafter the 2008 Pb NAAQS). The level of the primary (health-based) standard was revised to 0.15 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m
For the 2008 Pb NAAQS, states typically have met many of the basic program elements required in section 110(a)(2) through earlier SIP submissions in connection with previous NAAQS. Nevertheless, pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states have to review and revise, as appropriate, their existing SIPs to ensure that they are adequate to address the 2008 Pb NAAQS. To assist states in meeting this statutory requirement, EPA issued guidance on October 14, 2011, addressing the infrastructure SIP elements required under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2008 Pb
Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for infrastructure SIP submissions, and section 110(a)(2) provides more details concerning the required contents of these submissions. The list of required elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide variety of disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required legal authority, some of which pertain to required substantive program provisions, and some of which pertain to requirements for both authority and substantive program provisions.
The following examples of ambiguities illustrate the need for EPA to interpret some section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) requirements with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions for a given new or revised NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is that section 110(a)(2) requires that “each” SIP submission must meet the list of requirements therein, while EPA has long noted that this literal reading of the statute is internally inconsistent and would create a conflict with the nonattainment provisions in part D of title I of the Act, which specifically address nonattainment SIP requirements.
Another example of ambiguity within sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) with respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to whether states must meet all of the infrastructure SIP requirements in a single SIP submission, and whether EPA must act upon such SIP submission in a single action. Although section 110(a)(1) directs states to submit “a plan” to meet these requirements, EPA interprets the CAA to allow states to make multiple SIP submissions separately addressing infrastructure SIP elements for the same NAAQS. If states elect to make such multiple SIP submissions to meet the infrastructure SIP requirements, EPA can elect to act on such submissions either individually or in a larger combined action.
Ambiguities within sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) may also arise with respect to infrastructure SIP submission requirements for different NAAQS. Thus, EPA notes that not every element of section 110(a)(2) would be relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in the same way, for each new or revised NAAQS. The states' attendant infrastructure SIP submissions for each NAAQS therefore could be different. For example, the monitoring requirements that a state might need to meet in its infrastructure SIP submission for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(B) could be very different for different pollutants, for example because the content and scope of a state's infrastructure SIP submission to meet this element might be very different for an entirely new NAAQS than for a minor revision to an existing NAAQS.
EPA notes that interpretation of section 110(a)(2) is also necessary when EPA reviews other types of SIP submissions required under the CAA. Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP
Given the potential for ambiguity in some of the statutory language of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), EPA believes that it is appropriate to interpret the ambiguous portions of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) in the context of acting on a particular SIP submission. In other words, EPA assumes that Congress could not have intended that each and every SIP submission, regardless of the NAAQS in question or the history of SIP development for the relevant pollutant, would meet each of the requirements, or meet each of them in the same way. Therefore, EPA has adopted an approach under which it reviews infrastructure SIP submissions against the list of elements in section 110(a)(2), but only to the extent each element applies for that particular NAAQS.
Historically, EPA has elected to use guidance documents to make recommendations to states for infrastructure SIPs, in some cases conveying needed interpretations on newly arising issues and in some cases conveying interpretations that have already been developed and applied to individual SIP submissions for particular elements.
As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) is a required element of section 110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP submissions. Under this element, a state must meet the substantive requirements of section 128, which pertain to state boards that approve permits or enforcement orders and heads of executive agencies with similar powers. Thus, EPA reviews infrastructure SIP submissions to ensure that the state's SIP appropriately addresses the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and section 128. The 2013 Guidance explains EPA's interpretation that there may be a variety of ways by which states can appropriately address these substantive statutory requirements, depending on the structure of an individual state's permitting or enforcement program (
As another example, EPA's review of infrastructure SIP submissions with respect to the PSD program requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the structural PSD program requirements contained in part C and EPA's PSD regulations. Structural PSD program requirements include provisions necessary for the PSD program to address all regulated sources and NSR pollutants, including GHGs. By contrast, structural PSD program requirements do not include provisions that are not required under EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 but are merely available as an option for the state, such as the option to provide grandfathering of complete permit applications with respect to the 2012 PM
For other section 110(a)(2) elements, however, EPA's review of a state's infrastructure SIP submission focuses on assuring that the state's SIP meets basic structural requirements. For example, section 110(a)(2)(C) includes,
With respect to certain other issues, EPA does not believe that an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission is necessarily the appropriate type of action in which to address possible
EPA's approach to review of infrastructure SIP submissions is to identify the CAA requirements that are logically applicable to that submission. EPA believes that this approach to the review of a particular infrastructure SIP submission is appropriate, because it would not be reasonable to read the general requirements of section 110(a)(1) and the list of elements in 110(a)(2) as requiring review of each and every provision of a state's existing SIP against all requirements in the CAA and EPA regulations merely for purposes of assuring that the state in question has the basic structural elements for a functioning SIP for a new or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have grown by accretion over the decades as statutory and regulatory requirements under the CAA have evolved, they may include some outmoded provisions and historical artifacts. These provisions, while not fully up to date, nevertheless may not pose a significant problem for the purposes of “implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of a new or revised NAAQS when EPA evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure SIP submission. EPA believes that a better approach is for states and EPA to focus attention on those elements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA most likely to warrant a specific SIP revision due to the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or other factors.
For example, EPA's 2013 Guidance gives simpler recommendations with respect to carbon monoxide than other NAAQS pollutants to meet the visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because carbon monoxide does not affect visibility. As a result, an infrastructure SIP submission for any future new or revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide need only state this fact in order to address the visibility prong of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
Finally, EPA believes that its approach with respect to infrastructure SIP requirements is based on a reasonable reading of sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) because the CAA provides other avenues and mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies in existing SIPs. These other statutory tools allow EPA to take appropriately tailored action, depending upon the nature and severity of the alleged SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to issue a “SIP call” whenever the Agency determines that a state's SIP is substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate interstate transport, or to otherwise comply with the CAA.
On December 20, 2011, EPA Region 7 received Missouri's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2008 Pb standard. This SIP submission became complete as a matter of law on June 20, 2012. EPA has reviewed Missouri's infrastructure SIP submission and the relevant statutory and regulatory authorities and provisions referenced in that submission or referenced in Missouri's SIP. Below is EPA's evaluation of how the state addressed the applicable elements of section 110(a)(2) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
The Revised Statues of the State of Missouri (RSMo), otherwise referred to as Missouri's “Air Conservation Law,” and Missouri's Air Pollution Control Rules authorize the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) to regulate air quality and implement air quality control regulations. Specifically, 643.030, RSMo authorizes the Air Conservation
Missouri's rule 10 CSR 10–1.010 “General Organization” reiterates the MACC's responsibility to establish air quality control regions as well as adopt, promulgate, amend and rescind rules. Subsection (3)B of 10 CSR 10–1.010 tasks the MDNR Air Pollution Control Program with carrying out the policies of the MACC. Missouri rule 10 CSR 10–6.010 “Ambient Air Quality Standards” adopts the 2008 Pb standard as promulgated by EPA. In addition, section (12) of 10 CSR 10–6.030 “Sampling Methods for Air Pollution Sources” establishes the appropriate sampling method for Pb from air pollution sources, and similarly, subsections (4)(G) and (4)(O) of 10 CSR 10–6.040 “Reference Methods” incorporate by reference the relevant appendices in 40 CFR part 50 for measuring and calculating the concentration of Pb in the atmosphere to determine whether the standard has been met. Therefore, Pb is an air contaminant which may be regulated under Missouri law.
Missouri's Air Conservation Law, 643.050, RSMo authorizes the MACC, among other things, to regulate the use of equipment known to be a source of air contamination and to establish emissions limitations for air contaminant sources. Specifically to create control measures for Pb, Missouri rule 10 CSR 10–6.120 “Restriction of Emissions of Lead from Specific Lead Smelter-Refinery Installations” provides specific Pb emission limitations for both the primary and secondary smelter operations in Missouri. Missouri also establishes timetables for compliance in its rules, as appropriate.
Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, and relevant statutory and regulatory authorities and provisions referenced in the submission or referenced in Missouri's SIP, EPA believes that the Missouri SIP adequately addresses the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS and is proposing to approve this element of the December 20, 2011, SIP submission.
To address this element, 643.050, RSMo provides the enabling authority necessary for Missouri to fulfill the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(B). The Air Pollution Control Program and Air Quality Analysis Section, within MDNR, implement these requirements. Along with their other duties, the monitoring program collects air monitoring data, quality assures the results, and reports the data. Further, Missouri rule 10 CSR 10–1.010(2)(D) “General Organization” outlines the roles, duties and obligations of the Air Pollution Control Program including those for air quality monitoring.
MDNR submits annual monitoring network plans to EPA for approval, including its Pb monitoring network, as required by 40 CFR 58.10. Prior to submission to EPA, Missouri makes the plan available for public review on MDNR's Web site at (
Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, and relevant statutory and regulatory authorities and provisions referenced in the submission or referenced in Missouri's SIP, EPA believes that the Missouri SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(B) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS and is proposing to approve this element of the December 20, 2011 submission.
(1)
In addition, state regulations governing the MACC in subsection (3) of Missouri rule 10 CSR 10–1.010 “General Organization” reinforce the state's authority by authorizing the MACC to make investigations, make orders and determinations, and refer alleged violations to the county prosecutor or attorney general. Similarly, the director of MDNR is authorized to investigate complaints, issue abatement orders, recommend that legal action be taken by the attorney general and enforce
(2)
The second category of minor sources are those that emit above the de minimis levels, but below the major source significance levels. Permits for these sources may only be issued after a determination, among other requirements, that the proposed source or modification would not interfere with attainment or maintenance of a NAAQS (10 CSR 10–6.060(6)).
In this action, EPA is proposing to approve Missouri's infrastructure SIP for the 2008 Pb standard with respect to the general requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C) to include a program in the SIP that regulates the modification and construction of any stationary source as necessary to assure that the NAAQS are achieved. In this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove the state's existing minor NSR program to the extent that it is inconsistent with EPA's regulations governing this program. EPA has maintained that the CAA does not require that new infrastructure SIP submissions correct any defects in existing EPA-approved provisions of minor NSR programs in order for EPA to approve the infrastructure SIP for element (C) (
(3)
In a previous action on June 21, 2013, EPA determined that that Missouri has a program in place that meets all the PSD requirements related to all other regulated NSR pollutants (78 FR 37457). Missouri has demonstrated that its PSD program covers the requirements for the Pb NAAQS and all other regulated NSR pollutants through section (8) of Missouri rule 10 CSR 10–6.060 “Construction Permits Required.”
Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, and relevant statutory and regulatory authorities and provisions referenced in the submission or referenced in Missouri's SIP, with respect to the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, EPA is proposing to approve this element of the December 20, 2011, submission.
With respect to prongs 1 and 2, the physical properties of Pb prevent Pb emissions from experiencing a significant degree of travel in the ambient air. No complex chemistry is needed to form Pb or Pb compounds in the ambient air; therefore, concentrations of Pb are typically highest near Pb sources. More specifically, there is a sharp decrease in Pb concentrations as the distance from the source increases. According to EPA's report entitled
Missouri has two Pb nonattainment areas with sources of Pb emissions over 0.5 tons per year (tpy). The first area is the Buick/Viburnum Trend area with four Pb-emitting sources. These sources are located approximately 90 miles away from any state border and therefore do not have an impact on any other state. The other area, Herculaneum, has one source with current Pb emissions over 0.5 tpy. This source is on the banks of the Mississippi River, just across from the State of Illinois. The Herculaneum facility is the only Pb source in Missouri near enough to a state border to have the potential for an impact on another state's ambient air. For this source, in October 2010 the facility owner, The Doe Run Company, entered into a Consent Decree with EPA and MDNR to cease smelting operations at the Herculaneum facility on or before April 30, 2014.
With respect to the PSD requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—prong 3, EPA notes that Missouri's satisfaction of the applicable infrastructure SIP PSD requirements for attainment/unclassifiable areas of the 2008 Pb NAAQS have been detailed in the section addressing section 110(a)(2)(C). For sources not subject to PSD for any one of the pollutants subject to regulation under the CAA because they are in a nonattainment area for a NAAQS, Missouri has adopted the nonattainment new source review (NNSR) provisions required for the 2008 Pb NAAQS through section (7) of Missouri rule, 10 CSR 10–6.060, “Construction Permits Required.” EPA also notes that the proposed action in that section related to PSD is consistent with the proposed approval related to PSD for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
With regard to the applicable requirements for visibility protection of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—prong 4, significant impacts from Pb emissions from stationary sources are expected to be limited to short distances from the source and most, if not all, Pb stationary sources are located at distances from Class I areas such that visibility impacts would be negligible. Although Pb can be a component of coarse and fine particles, Pb generally comprises a small fraction of coarse and fine particles. Furthermore, when evaluating the extent that Pb could impact visibility, Pb-related visibility impacts were found to be insignificant (e.g., less than 0.10%).
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) also requires that the SIP insure compliance with the applicable requirements of sections 126 and 115 of the CAA, relating to interstate and international pollution abatement, respectively.
Section 126(a) of the CAA requires new or modified sources to notify neighboring states of potential impacts from sources within the state. Missouri regulations require that affected states receive notice prior to the commencement of any construction or modification of a source. Missouri's rule 10 CSR 10–6.060(6), “Construction Permits Required” requires that the review of all PSD permit applications follow the procedures of section (12)(A), Appendix A. Appendix A, in turn, requires that the permitting authority shall issue a draft permit for public comment, with notification to affected states on or before the time notice is provided to the public. In addition, no Missouri source or sources have been identified by EPA as having any interstate impacts under section 126 in any pending actions relating to any air pollutant.
Section 115 of the CAA authorizes EPA to require a state to revise its SIP under certain conditions to alleviate international transport into another country. There are no final findings under section 115 of the CAA against Missouri with respect to any air pollutant. Thus, the state's SIP does not need to include any provisions to meet the requirements of section 115.
Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, and relevant statutory and regulatory authorities and provisions referenced in the submission or referenced in Missouri's SIP, EPA believes that Missouri has the adequate infrastructure needed to address sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—prongs 1 through 4 and 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS and is proposing to approve this element of the December 20, 2011, submission.
(1) Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) requires states to establish that they have adequate personnel, funding and authority. With respect to adequate authority, we have previously discussed Missouri's statutory and regulatory authority to implement the 2008 Pb NAAQS, primarily in the discussion of section 110(a)(2)(A) above. Neither Missouri nor EPA has identified any legal impediments in the state's SIP to implementation of the NAAQS.
With respect to adequate resources, MDNR asserts that it has adequate personnel to implement the SIP. The infrastructure SIP submission for the 2008 Pb NAAQS describes the regulations governing the various functions of personnel within the Air Pollution Control Program, including the Administration, Technical Support (Air Quality Analysis), Planning, Enforcement, and Permit Sections of the program (10 CSR 10–1.010(2)(D) “Ambient Air Quality Standards”).
With respect to funding, the Air Conservation Law requires the MACC to establish an annual emissions fee for sources in order to fund the reasonable costs of administering various air pollution control programs. The Air Conservation Law, 643.079, RSMo provides for the deposit of the fees into various subaccounts (e.g., a subaccount for the Title V operating permit program used for Title V implementation activities; a subaccount for non-Title V air pollution control program activities). The state uses funds in the non-Title V subaccounts, along with general revenue funds and EPA grants under, for example, sections 103 and 105 of the CAA, to fund the programs. EPA conducts periodic program reviews to ensure that the state has adequate resources and funding to, among other things, implement the SIP.
With respect to authority, Chapter 643, RSMo provides the authority necessary to carry out the SIP requirements as referenced above in element A.
(2) Conflict of interest provisions—section 128. Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires that each state SIP meet the requirements of section 128, relating to representation on state boards and conflicts of interest by members of such boards. Section 128(a)(1) requires that any board or body which approves permits or enforcement orders under the CAA must have at least a majority of members who represent the public interest and do not derive any “significant portion” of their income from persons subject to permits and enforcement orders under the CAA. Section 128(a)(2) requires that members of such a board or body, or the head of an agency with similar powers, adequately disclose any potential conflicts of interest.
On June 21, 2013, EPA approved Missouri's SIP revision addressing the section 128 requirements (78 FR 37457). For a detailed discussion on EPA's analysis of how Missouri meets the section 128 requirements, see EPA's April 10, 2013, proposed approval of Missouri's 1997 and 2006 PM
(3) With respect to assurances that the state has responsibility to implement the SIP adequately when it authorizes local or other agencies to carry out
There are three local air agencies that conduct air quality work in Missouri: Kansas City, Springfield/Greene County and St. Louis County. The MDNR's Air Pollution Control Program has a signed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Kansas City and Springfield/Greene County and a draft agreement for St. Louis County (to be finalized) which outlines the responsibilities for air quality activities with each local agency. The MDNR Air Program oversees the activities of the local agencies to ensure adequate implementation of the Missouri SIP. EPA conducts reviews of the local program activities in conjunction with its oversight of the state program.
Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2008 Pb NAAQS and relevant statutory and regulatory authorities and provisions referenced in the submission or referenced in Missouri's SIP, EPA believes that Missouri has the adequate infrastructure needed to address section 110(a)(2)(E) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS and is proposing to approve this element of the December 20, 2011 submission.
To address this element, 643.050.1(3)(a) of the Air Conservation Law authorizes the MACC to require persons engaged in operations which result in air pollution to monitor or test emissions and to file reports containing information relating to rate, period of emission and composition of effluent, and 643.192.2, RSMo requires an annual report that summarizes changes in air quality measured by MDNR and local and county air pollution control agencies. Missouri rule 10 CSR 10–6.030 “Sampling Methods for Air Pollution Sources” incorporates various EPA reference methods for sampling and testing source emissions, including methods for Pb emissions. The Federal test methods are in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. Using these particular reference methods for Pb emissions, 10 CSR 10–6.120 “Restriction of Emissions of Lead From Specific Lead Smelter-Refinery Installations” has stack testing and reporting requirements for certain stationary sources of Pb emissions in Missouri.
Missouri rule 10 CSR 10–6.110 “Reporting & Emission Data, Emission Fees, and Process Information” also requires monitoring of emissions and filing of periodic reports on emissions (see (4)(A) for the specific information required). Missouri uses this information to track progress towards maintaining the NAAQS, developing control and maintenance strategies, identifying sources and general emission levels, and determining compliance with emission regulations and additional EPA requirements. Missouri makes this information available to the public (10 CSR 10–6.110(3)(D)). Missouri rule 10 CSR 10–6.210 “Confidential Information,” specifically excludes emissions data from confidential treatment. Under that rule emissions data includes the results of any emissions testing or monitoring required to be reported by sources under Missouri's air pollution control rules (10 CSR 10–6.210(3)(B)2).
Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, and relevant statutory and regulatory authorities and provisions referenced in the submission or referenced in Missouri's SIP, EPA believes that Missouri has the adequate infrastructure needed to address section 110(a)(2)(F) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS and is proposing to approve this element of the December 20, 2011, submission.
The Air Conservation Law, 643.090.1, RSMo authorizes the MACC or the director of MDNR to declare an emergency where the ambient air, “due to meteorological conditions and a buildup of air contaminants” in Missouri, may present an “emergency risk to the public health, safety, or welfare.” The MACC or director may, with the written approval of the governor, by order prohibit, restrict or condition all sources of air contaminants contributing to the emergency condition, during such periods of time necessary to alleviate or lessen the effects of the emergency condition. The statute also enables the MACC to promulgate implementing regulations. Even in the absence of an emergency condition, 643.090.2, RSMo also authorizes the MACC or the director to issue “cease and desist” orders to any specific person who is either engaging or may engage in activities which involve a significant risk of air contamination or who is discharging into the ambient air any air contaminant, including Pb, and such activity or discharge presents a clear and present danger to public health or welfare. Missouri rule 10 CSR 10–1.010 “General Organization” enlists the MACC to develop, and the director to enact, air pollution emergency alert procedures.
Based on EPA's experience to date with the Pb NAAQS and designated Pb nonattainment areas, EPA expects that such an event would be unlikely and, if it were to occur, would be the result of a malfunction or other emergency situation at a relatively large source of Pb. Accordingly, EPA believes that the central components of a contingency plan would be to reduce emissions from the source at issue (if necessary, by curtailing operations) and public communication as needed. EPA believes that Missouri's statutes referenced above provide the requisite authority to the MACC and the director of MDNR to address such situations.
Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, and relevant statutory and regulatory authorities and provisions referenced in that submission or referenced in Missouri's SIP, EPA believes that the Missouri SIP adequately addresses section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS and is proposing to approve this element of the December 20, 2011, submission.
In addition to the MACC's general enabling authority in 643.050, RSMo of the Air Conservation Law, discussed previously in element (A), 643.055.1, RSMo grants the MACC and MDNR authority to promulgate rules and regulations to establish standards and guidelines, to ensure that Missouri complies with the provisions of the Federal CAA. Missouri's rule 10 CSR 10–1.010(2) “General Organization” grants similar powers to MDNR. This includes the authority to submit SIP revisions to the EPA for approval as necessary to respond to a revised NAAQS and to respond to EPA findings of substantial inadequacy (
Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, and relevant statutory and regulatory authorities and provisions referenced in the submission or referenced in Missouri's SIP, EPA believes that Missouri has adequate authority to address section 110(a)(2)(H) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS and is proposing to approve this element of the December 20, 2011, submission.
As noted earlier, EPA does not expect infrastructure SIP submissions to address subsection (I). The specific SIP submissions for designated nonattainment areas, as required under CAA title I, part D, are subject to different submission schedules than those for section 110 infrastructure elements. Instead, EPA will take action on part D attainment plan SIP submissions through a separate rulemaking governed by the requirements for nonattainment areas, as described in part D.
(1) With respect to interagency consultation, the SIP should provide a process for consultation with general-purpose local governments, designated organizations of elected officials of local governments, and any Federal Land Manager having authority over Federal land to which the SIP applies. Section 643.050.3 RSMo of the Missouri Air Conservation Law requires the MACC to consult and cooperate with other Federal and state agencies, and with political subdivisions, for the purpose of prevention, abatement, and control of air pollution. Missouri also has appropriate interagency consultation provisions in its preconstruction permit program. For instance, Missouri rule 10 CSR 10–6.060(12)(B)2.E “Construction Permits Required” requires that when a permit goes out for public comment, the permitting authority must provide notice to local air pollution control agencies, the chief executive of the city and county where the installation or modification would be located, any comprehensive regional land use planning agency, any state air program permitting authority, and any Federal Land Manager whose lands may be affected by emissions from the installation or modification.
(2) With respect to the requirements for public notification in section 127, the infrastructure SIP should provide citations to regulations in the SIP requiring the air agency to regularly notify the public of instances or areas in which any NAAQS are exceeded; advise the public of the health hazard associated with such exceedances; and enhance public awareness of measures that can prevent such exceedances and of ways in which the public can participate in the regulatory and other efforts to improve air quality. Missouri rule 10 CSR 10–6.130 “Controlling Emissions During Episodes of High Air Pollution Potential,” discussed previously in connection with the state's authority to address emergency episodes, contains provisions for public notification of various air pollutant levels, and measures which can be taken by the public to reduce concentrations. In addition, information regarding air pollution and related issues, is provided on an MDNR Web site,
(3) With respect to the applicable requirements of part C of the CAA, relating to prevention of significant deterioration of air quality and visibility protection, as noted in above under element (C), the Missouri SIP meets the PSD requirements, incorporating the Federal rule by reference. With respect to the visibility component of section 110(a)(2)(J), EPA recognizes that states are subject to visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C of the CAA. However, when EPA establishes or revises a NAAQS, these visibility and regional haze requirements under part C do not change. EPA believes that there are no new visibility protection requirements under part C as a result of a revised NAAQS. Therefore, there are no newly applicable visibility protection obligations pursuant to element J after the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS.
Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, and relevant statutory and regulatory authorities and provisions referenced in the submission or referenced in Missouri's SIP, EPA believes that Missouri has met the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS in the state and is therefore proposing to approve this element of the December 20, 2011, submission.
Missouri has authority to conduct air quality modeling and report the results of such modeling to EPA. Section 643.050 of the Air Conservation Law provides the MACC with the general authority to develop a general comprehensive plan to prevent, abate and control air pollution. Missouri's Air Conservation Law 643.055, RSMo grants the MACC the authority to promulgate rules and regulations to establish standards and guidelines to ensure that Missouri is in compliance with the provisions of the CAA. As an example of regulatory authority to perform modeling for purposes of determining NAAQS compliance, Missouri rule 10 CSR 10–1.010(3)(B)4.D “General Organization” establishes the air quality modeling and air quality analysis functions for the Air Program. In addition, Missouri regulation 10 CSR 10–6.060(12)(F) “Construction Permits Required” requires the use of EPA-approved air quality models (e.g., those found in 40 CFR part 51, appendix W) for construction permitting. Rule 10 CSR 10–6.110(4) “Reporting & Emission Data, Emission Fees, and Process Information” requires specified sources of air pollution to report emissions to MDNR, which among other purposes
Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, and relevant statutory and regulatory authorities and provisions referenced in the submission or referenced in Missouri's SIP, EPA believes that Missouri has the adequate infrastructure needed to address section 110(a)(2)(K) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS and is proposing to approve this element of the December 20, 2011, submission.
Section 643.079 of the Air Conservation Law provides authority for MDNR to collect permit fees, including Title V fees. EPA approved Missouri's Title V program in May 1997 (
Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, and relevant statutory and regulatory authorities and provisions referenced in the submission or referenced in Missouri's SIP, EPA believes that the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(L) are met and is proposing to approve this element of the December 20, 2011, submission.
Missouri's Air Conservation Law 643.050.3, RSMo requires that the MACC encourage political subdivisions to handle air pollution control problems within their respective jurisdictions to the extent possible and practicable, and to provide assistance to those political subdivisions. The MACC is also required to advise, consult and cooperate with other political subdivisions in Missouri. The Air Conservation Law 643.140, RSMo, provides the mechanism for local political subdivisions to enact and enforce their own air pollution control regulations, subject to the oversight of the MACC. As directed in subparagraph (2)(D)4.B. of Missouri rule 10 CSR 10–1.010 “General Organization,” the Air Quality Planning Section must meet all “public participation requirements of state and Federal laws for rulemaking and SIP revisions.” The MDNR's Air Pollution Control Program has a signed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Kansas City and Springfield/Greene County and a draft agreement with St. Louis County (to be finalized) which outlines the responsibilities for air quality activities with each local agency. In addition, MDNR participates in community meetings and consults with and participates in interagency consultation groups such as the Metropolitan Planning Organizations in both Kansas City and St. Louis. In Kansas City, MDNR works with the Mid-America Regional Council, and in St. Louis, MDNR works with East-West Gateway Coordinating Council of Governments.
Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, and relevant statutory and regulatory authorities and provisions referenced in the submission or referenced in Missouri's SIP, EPA believes that Missouri has the adequate infrastructure needed to address section 110(a)(2)(M) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS and is proposing to approve this element of the December 20, 2011, submission.
EPA is proposing to approve the December 20, 2011, infrastructure SIP submission from Missouri which addresses the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) as applicable to the 2008 Pb NAAQS. Specifically, EPA is proposing to approve the following infrastructure elements, or portions thereof: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(I), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). As discussed in each applicable section of this rulemaking, EPA is not proposing action on section 110(a)(2)(I)—Nonattainment Area Plan or Plan Revisions Under Part D and on the visibility protection portion of section 110(a)(2)(J).
Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission and relevant statutory and regulatory authorities and provisions referenced in this submission or referenced in Missouri's SIP, EPA believes that Missouri has the infrastructure to address all applicable required elements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) (except otherwise noted) to ensure that the 2008 Pb NAAQS are implemented in the state.
We are hereby soliciting comment on this proposed action. Final rulemaking will occur after consideration of any comments.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rulemaking does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The statutory authority for this action is provided by section 110 of the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7410).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation.
Notice of proposed rulemaking; reopening of comment period.
This document reopens the comment period for a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published January 28, 2014. The NPRM proposes to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, “Child restraint systems,” to adopt side impact performance requirements for all child restraint systems designed to seat children in a weight range that includes weights up to 18 kilograms (kg) (40 pounds (lb)). The original comment period closed April 28, 2014. In response to a petition from the Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association, NHTSA is reopening the comment closing date for 120 days.
The comment closing date for the January 28, 2014 NPRM (Docket No. NHTSA–2014–0012; 79 FR 4570) is October 2, 2014.
You may submit comments to Docket No. NHTSA–2014–0012 by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Regardless of how you submit your comments, please mention the docket number of the January 28, 2014 NPRM.
You may also call the Docket at 202–366–9324.
For technical issues, you may call Cristina Echemendia, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, (Telephone: 202–366–6345) (Fax: 202–493–2990). For legal issues, you may call Deirdre Fujita, Office of Chief Counsel (Telephone: 202–366–2992) (Fax: 202–366–3820). Mailing address: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Washington, DC 20590.
On January 28, 2014, NHTSA published an NPRM proposing to amend FMVSS No. 213, “Child restraint systems,” to adopt side impact performance requirements for all child restraint systems (CRSs) designed to seat children in a weight range that includes weights up to 18 kg (40 lb) (79 FR 4570). Frontal and side crashes account for most child occupant fatalities. Standard No. 213 currently requires child restraints to meet a dynamic test simulating a 48.3 kilometers per hour (30 miles per hour) frontal impact. The January 2014 proposal would require an additional test in which such child restraints must protect the child occupant in a dynamic test simulating a full-scale vehicle-to-vehicle side impact.
Under the NPRM, child restraints would be tested with a newly-developed instrumented side impact test dummy representing a 3-year-old child, called the “Q3s” dummy, and with a well-established 12-month-old child test dummy (the Child Restraint Air Bag Interaction (CRABI) dummy). NHTSA published an NPRM proposing to amend our regulation for anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs), 49 CFR Part 572, to add specifications for the Q3s (78 FR 69944; November 21, 2013). The CRABI dummy's specifications are already incorporated into 49 CFR Part 572, in Subpart R.
NHTSA issued the January 28, 2014 NPRM to ensure that child restraints subject to the rulemaking effectively restrain the child occupant in a side impact, prevent harmful head contact with an intruding vehicle door or child restraint structure, and attenuate crash forces to the child's head and chest. The NPRM also responded to a statutory mandate set forth in the “Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act” (July 6, 2012), directing the Secretary of Transportation to issue a final rule amending FMVSS No. 213 to improve the protection of children seated in child restraint systems during side impacts.
NHTSA provided a three-month comment period for the January 2014 proposal, which closed April 28, 2014.
The Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association (JPMA) submitted a March 7, 2014 petition to extend the comment period for the January 2014 NPRM 120 days “to allow JPMA member companies the opportunity to have access to the proposed Q3s 3-year-old side impact ATD for use in their
Moreover, JPMA states that the Q3s dummy's availability from the dummy manufacturer has been limited. “Without the ability to inspect, observe and learn about [the Q3s's] performance strengths and limitations, particularly in regard to its repeatability and reproducibility characteristic, our CRS manufacturing members are seriously limited in our ability to comment in the time period prescribed in the current NPRM.” The petitioner notes that a test laboratory has indicated that it will be able to start testing with a Q3s in March, but there is “a substantial waiting list in place amongst the manufacturers” to undergo testing of their products at that lab and elsewhere. JPMA requests an additional 120 days to comment to undertake testing and to evaluate the Q3s and to “provide substantive and quantifiable data back to NHTSA.”
In accordance with NHTSA's rulemaking procedures in 49 CFR Part 553, Subpart B, the agency is granting JPMA's request. (Because the comment period has closed, we are not extending it but instead we are reopening it for 120 days.) We have determined that the petitioner has shown good cause for having more time to comment, and that reopening the comment period is consistent with the public interest (see 49 CFR 553.19).
NHTSA has confirmed that the Q3s dummy was generally unavailable from the dummy manufacturer until recently. Given that information, we agree that reopening the comment period for 120 days is reasonable, since many child restraint manufacturers cannot arrange to have their products tested concurrently but will have to wait for their turn at test facilities to have their products evaluated. Time is needed to accommodate the wait, to conduct the testing, to evaluate the data, and to draft and submit comments on the rulemaking. We believe that 120 days provides a reasonable time period to accomplish this.
Accordingly, the public comment period for Docket No. NHTSA–2014–0012 is reopened as indicated in the
Please note that even after the comment closing date has passed, NHTSA will continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit late comments, which NHTSA will consider to the extent possible. Accordingly, the agency recommends that readers periodically check the Docket for new material.
49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.
The Department of Agriculture will submit the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13 on or after the date of publication of this notice. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC; New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC, 20503. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received by July 7, 2014. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720–8681.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The agency is merging approved 0581–0127 burden in with the renewal of this collection. Upon approval of 0581–0128 a discontinuation notice for 0581–0127 will be submitted to OMB.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 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.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice.
We are affirming our earlier determination that it was necessary to immediately add to the Plant Protection and Quarantine Treatment Manual a treatment schedule for methyl bromide fumigation of kumquats to control certain fruit flies. In a previous notice, we made available to the public for review and comment a treatment evaluation document that described the new treatment schedule and explained why we have determined that it is effective at neutralizing fruit flies.
Effective on June 4, 2014, we are affirming the addition to the Plant Protection and Quarantine Treatment Manual of the treatment described in the notice published at 79 FR 4867–4868 on January 30, 2014.
Mr. Marc Phillips, Senior Regulatory Policy Specialist with Regulations, Permits and Manuals, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 135, Riverdale, MD 20737–1236; (301) 851–2114.
The regulations in 7 CFR chapter III are intended, among other things, to prevent the introduction or dissemination of plant pests and noxious weeds into or within the United States. Under the regulations, certain plants, fruits, vegetables, and other articles must be treated before they may be moved into the United States or interstate. The phytosanitary treatments regulations contained in part 305 of 7 CFR chapter III (referred to below as the regulations) set out standards for treatments required in parts 301, 318, and 319 of 7 CFR chapter III for fruits, vegetables, and other articles.
In § 305.2, paragraph (b) states that approved treatment schedules are set out in the Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) Treatment Manual.
• PPQ has determined that an approved treatment schedule is ineffective at neutralizing the targeted plant pest(s).
• PPQ has determined that, in order to neutralize the targeted plant pest(s), the treatment schedule must be administered using a different process than was previously used.
• PPQ has determined that a new treatment schedule is effective, based on efficacy data, and that ongoing trade in a commodity or commodities may be adversely impacted unless the new treatment schedule is approved for use.
• The use of a treatment schedule is no longer authorized by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or by any other Federal entity.
In accordance with § 305.3(b), we published a notice
We solicited comments on the notice for 60 days ending on March 31, 2014. We received one comment by that date, from a private citizen. The commenter objected to the use of methyl bromide fumigation in general but did not present any evidence indicating that the treatment schedule described in the TED was not effective at neutralizing fruit flies.
Therefore, in accordance with the regulations in § 305.3(b)(3), we are affirming our addition of a methyl bromide treatment schedule for kumquats to control certain fruit flies, as described in the TED made available with the previous notice. The treatment schedule is numbered T101–n–3. The treatment schedule will be listed in the PPQ Treatment Manual, which is available as described in footnote 1 of this document.
7 U.S.C. 7701–7772 and 7781–7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meetings.
The Dixie Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Cedar City, Utah. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (Pub. L. 110–343) (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with Title II of the Act. The meetings are open to the public. The purpose of the meetings is to review project proposals and recommend funding.
The meetings will be held at 9:00 a.m. on the following dates:
All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
The meetings will be held at the Dixie National Forest (NF) Supervisor's Office, SO Conference Room, 1789 North Wedgewood Lane, Cedar City, Utah. The meeting will also be available by video teleconference at:
• Pine Valley Ranger District, Conference Room, 196 East Tabernacle, St. George, Utah;
• Powell Ranger District, Conference Room, 225 East Center, Panguitch, Utah; and
• Escalante Ranger District Conference Room, 755 West Center, Escalante, Utah.
Written comments may be submitted as described under
Janice Minarik, RAC Coordinator, by phone at 435–865–3794 or via email at
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday. Please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices or other reasonable accommodation for access to the facility or proceedings by contacting the person listed above.
Additional RAC information, including the meeting agenda and the meeting summary/minutes can be found at the following Web site:
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Ketchikan Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Ketchikan, Alaska. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with Title II of the Act. The meeting is open to the public. The purpose of the meeting is to review current projects and recommend future projects.
The meeting will be held on June 26, 2014 at 5 p.m. All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
The meeting will be held at the Ketchikan Misty Fiords Ranger District, 3031 Tongass Avenue, Ketchikan, Alaska.
Written comments may be submitted as described under Supplementary Information. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at Ketchikan Misty Fiords Ranger District. Please call ahead to facilitate entry into the building.
Diane L. Daniels, RAC Coordinator, by phone at 907–228–4105 or via email at
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday. Please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices or other reasonable accommodation for access to the facility or proceedings by contacting the person listed above.
Additional RAC information, including the meeting agenda and the meeting summary/minutes can be found at the following Web site:
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
Sales, inventories, and e-commerce data provide a current statistical picture of the retail portion of consumer activity. The sales and inventories estimates in the MRTS measure current trends of economic activity that occur in the United States. The survey estimates provide valuable information for economic policy decisions and actions by the government and are widely used by private businesses, trade organizations, professional associations, and others for market research and analysis. The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) uses these data in determining the consumption portion of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
Retail and Food Services Sales during 2013 amounted to $4.5 trillion. The estimates produced in the MRTS are critical to the accurate measurement of total economic activity. The estimates of retail sales represent all operating receipts, including receipts from wholesale sales made at retail locations and services rendered as part of the sale of the goods, by businesses that primarily sell at retail. The sales estimates include sales made on credit as well as on a cash basis, but exclude receipts from sales taxes and interest charges from credit sales. Also excluded is non-operating income from such services as investments and real estate.
The estimates of merchandise inventories owned by retailers represent all merchandise located in retail stores, warehouses, offices, or in transit for distribution to retail establishments. The estimates of merchandise inventories exclude fixtures and supplies not held for sale, as well as merchandise held on consignment owned by others. BEA uses inventories data to determine the investment portion of the GDP.
Retail e-commerce sales are estimated from the same sample used in the MRTS to estimate preliminary and final U.S. retail sales.
The MRTS sample is updated every five years to account for new retail employer businesses (including those selling via the Internet), business deaths, and other changes to the retail business universe. Research was conducted to ensure that retail firms selected in the MRTS sample engaged in e-commerce are representative of the universe of e-commerce retailers. Total e-commerce sales for 2013 were estimated at $263 billion.
We publish retail sales and inventories estimates based on the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
BEA is the primary Federal user of data collected in the MRTS. BEA uses the information in its preparation of the National Income and Products Accounts, and its benchmark and annual input-output tables. Statistics provided from retail sales and inventories estimates are used in the calculation of GDP. If the survey were not conducted, BEA would lack comprehensive data from the retail sector. This would adversely affect the reliability of the National Income and Products Accounts and GDP.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) uses the data as input to their Producer Price Indexes and in developing productivity measurements. The data are also used for gauging current economic trends of the economy. Private businesses use the retail sales and inventories data to compute business activity indexes. The private sector also uses retail sales as a reliable indicator of consumer activity.
Title 13 U.S.C., Section 182.
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written Comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publications of this notice to
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On May 20, 2014, the United States Court of International Trade (“CIT”) sustained the Department of Commerce's (“the Department”) final results of redetermination pursuant to remand of the 2009–2010 antidumping duty administrative review of certain frozen warmwater shrimp from the People's Republic of China (“
Kabir Archuletta, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–2593.
On November 30, 2012, the CIT remanded this case to the Department for reconsideration of the Department's selection of the primary surrogate country.
In its decision in
Because there is now a final court decision, we are amending the
In the event the CIT's ruling is not appealed, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to assess antidumping duties on entries during the POR of the subject merchandise exported by Hilltop using the revised assessment rate calculated by the Department in the
This notice is issued and
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On February 10, 2014, the Department of Commerce (the Department) issued the preliminary results of the first full five-year (sunset) review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on lightweight thermal paper from Germany.
David Goldberger, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4136.
On February 10, 2014, the Department published the
We invited interested parties to comment on the
The merchandise covered by the order is lightweight thermal paper. The merchandise subject to the order is currently classified under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 3703.10.60, 4811.59.20, 4811.90.8000, 4811.90.8030, 4811.90.8040, 4811.90.8050, 4811.90.9000, 4811.90.9030, 4811.90.9035, 4811.90.9050, 4811.90.9080, 4811.90.9090, 4820.10.20, and 4823.40.00. While the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.
For a full description of the scope, see “Final Results Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Full Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty (AD) Order on Lightweight Thermal Paper from Germany,” dated concurrently with this notice (Decision Memorandum).
All issues raised in this review are addressed in the Decision Memorandum, dated concurrently with this final notice, which is hereby adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the accompanying Decision Memorandum include the likelihood of the continuation of dumping and the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail. The 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
We determine that revocation of the AD order on lightweight thermal paper from Germany would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the following weighted-average margins:
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing the final results of this full sunset review in accordance with sections 751(c)(5)(A), 752(c), and 777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.218(f)(3).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On May 19, 2014, the United States Court of International Trade (the Court) issued final judgment in
Michael J. Heaney or Davina Friedmann, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4475 or (202) 482–0698, respectively.
On September 12, 2012, the Department issued the
In its decision in
Because there is now a final court decision, the Department amends the
In the event the Court's ruling is not appealed, or if appealed and upheld by the Federal Circuit, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to assess antidumping duties on entries of the subject merchandise exported by Blue Field using the revised assessment rate calculated by the Department in the
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516(A)(e), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On April 17, 2014, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published its
Andrew Medley, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202–482–4987.
On September 4, 2008, the Department published in the
On April 17, 2014, we made a preliminary finding that Shandong Linglong is the successor-in-interest to Leo Rubber and thus, should receive the same antidumping duty treatment with respect to OTR tires from the PRC as the former Leo Rubber.
The merchandise covered by this
Because no parties submitted comments opposing the Department's
The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to suspend liquidation and collect a cash deposit rate of 12.83 percent on all shipments of the subject merchandise produced and exported by Shandong Linglong and entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, on or after the publication date of these results of changed circumstances review.
This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.306. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing these final results and notice in accordance with sections 751(b) and 777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.216 and 351.221(c)(3).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On February 3, 2014, the Department of Commerce (the “Department”) initiated the second five-year (“sunset”) review of the antidumping duty order on barium carbonate from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”).
Irene Gorelik, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–6905.
On March 5, 2014, the Department received an adequate substantive response from domestic interested party Chemical Products Corporation (“Petitioner”) within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i).
All issues raised in this sunset review are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Expedited Second Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Barium Carbonate from the People's Republic of China” from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (“Decision Memorandum”). The issues discussed in the Decision Memorandum include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail if the order were to be revoked. Parties may find a complete discussion of all issues raised in the review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum which is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Services System (“IA ACCESS”). Access to IA ACCESS is available to registered users at
The merchandise covered by this order is barium carbonate, regardless of form or grade. The product is currently classifiable under subheading 2836.60.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.
We determine that revocation of the order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the following weighted-average percentage margins:
This notice also serves as the only 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. Timely notification of the return of 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 sunset review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On May 20, 2014, the United States Court of International Trade (“CIT”) sustained the Department of Commerce's (“the Department”) final results of redetermination pursuant to remand of the 2008–2009 antidumping duty administrative review of certain frozen warmwater shrimp from the People's Republic of China (“
Kabir Archuletta, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–2593.
On July 19, 2013, the CIT remanded this case to the Department for reconsideration
In its decision in
Because there is now a final court decision, we are amending the
In the event
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(e)(1), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of an Open Meeting.
The President's Export Council will hold a meeting to deliberate on recommendations related to promoting the expansion of U.S. exports. Topics may include: Trade promotion authority; localization barriers to trade; reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank of the United States; trade facilitation; access to capital; technology-enabled small business exporters; innovation; the National Travel and Tourism Strategy; and the National Export Initiative. The final agenda will be posted at least one week in advance of the meeting on the President's Export Council Web site at
June 19, 2014 at 9:30 a.m. (ET)
The President's Export Council meeting will be broadcast via live webcast on the Internet at
Tricia Van Orden, Executive Secretary, President's Export Council, Room 4043, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: 202–482–5876, email:
Submit statements electronically to Tricia Van Orden, Executive Secretary, President's Export Council via email:
Send paper statements to Tricia Van Orden, Executive Secretary, President's Export Council, Room 4043, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230. Statements will be posted on the President's Export Council Web site (
ITA, DOC.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting.
This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda for a meeting of the CINTAC.
The meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, June 25, 2014, at 9:00 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT).
The meeting will be held in Room 1412, U.S. Department of Commerce, Herbert Clark Hoover Building, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20230.
Mr. Jonathan Chesebro, Office of Energy & Environmental Industries, ITA, Room 4053, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20230. (Phone: 202–482–1297; Fax: 202–482–5665; email:
The meeting will be disabled-accessible. Public seating is limited and available on a first-come, first-served basis. Members of the public wishing to attend the meeting must notify Mr. Jonathan Chesebro at the contact information below by 5:00 p.m. EDT on Friday, June 20, 2014 in order to pre-register for clearance into the building. Please specify any requests for reasonable accommodation at least five business days in advance of the meeting. Last minute requests will be accepted, but may be impossible to fill.
A limited amount of time will be available for pertinent brief oral comments from members of the public attending the meeting. To accommodate as many speakers as possible, the time for public comments will be limited to two (2) minutes per person, with a total public comment period of 30 minutes. Individuals wishing to reserve speaking time during the meeting must contact Mr. Chesebro and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the comments and the name and address of the proposed participant by 5:00 p.m. EDT on Friday, June 20, 2014. If the number of registrants requesting to make statements is greater than can be
Any member of the public may submit pertinent written comments concerning the CINTAC's affairs at any time before and after the meeting. Comments may be submitted to the Civil Nuclear Trade Advisory Committee, Office of Energy & Environmental Industries, Room 4053, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20230. For consideration during the meeting, and to ensure transmission to the Committee prior to the meeting, comments must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. EDT on June 20, 2014. Comments received after that date will be distributed to the members but may not be considered at the meeting.
Copies of CINTAC meeting minutes will be available within 90 days of the meeting.
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 August 4, 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 Dorn Carlson, 301–734–1080 or
This request is for extension of a currently approved information collection.
The objectives of the National Sea Grant College Program, as stated in the Sea Grant legislation (33 U.S.C. 1121–1131) are to increase the understanding, assessments, development, utilization, and conservation of the Nation's ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes resources. It accomplishes these objectives by conducting research, education, and outreach programs.
Grant monies are available for funding activities that help obtain the objectives of the Sea Grant Program. Both single and multi-project grants are awarded, with the latter representing about 80 percent of the total grant program. In addition to other standard grant application requirements, three forms are required with the grants. These are the Sea Grant Control Form 90–2, used to identify the organizations and personnel who would be involved in the grant and briefly summarize the proposed activities under the grant; the Project Record Form 90–1, which collects summary data on projects; and the Sea Grant Budget Form 90–4, which provides information similar to, but more detailed than on, forms SF–424A or SF–424C.
The National Sea Grant College Program Act (33 U.S.C. 1126) provides for the designation of a public or private institution of higher education, institute, laboratory, or State or local agency as a Sea Grant college or Sea Grant institute. Applications are required for designation of Sea Grant Colleges and Sea Grant Institutes.
Responses are made in a variety of formats, including forms and narrative submissions, via mail, fax or email. The Sea Grant Project Record Form and Sea Grant Budget Form must be submitted in electronic format through grants.gov if the grant applicant has the means to do so.
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.
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 August 4, 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(s) and instructions should be directed to Ana Valentin, Phone: (301) 427–8187 or
This request is for a new information collection.
Marine recreational anglers are surveyed to collect catch and effort data, fish biology data, and angler socioeconomic characteristics. These data are required to carry out provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), as amended, regarding conservation and management of fishery resources.
The For-Hire Survey (FHS) will collect recreational fishing catch and effort data through a telephone, Web-based data collection, and log sheet methods. Amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act require the development of an improved data collection program for recreational fisheries. To meet these requirements, NOAA Fisheries has designed a telephone questionnaire in the Computer Assisted Telephone Interview (CATI) system for surveying and collecting catch and effort data from recreational anglers. The FHS will sample a week's activity from 10% of vessels that are permitted for-hire or charter vessel trips. Each interview will collect the number of recreational fishing trips, and log sheets submitted by the permit holders will show corresponding effort data (e.g. time at sea, amounts of catch from each fishery), within the sample selected week.
Information will be collected through telephone interviews using a CATI System. In lieu of telephone interviews, respondents may also provide information via a Web-based application.
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.
Estuarine Reserves Division, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of Public Comment Period for the Waquoit Bay, Massachusetts National Estuarine Research Reserve Management Plan revision.
Notice is hereby given that the Estuarine Reserves Division, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce is announcing a thirty day public comment period for the Waquoit Bay, Massachusetts National Estuarine Research Reserve Management Plan revision.
The Waquoit Bay Reserve revised plan will replace the plan approved in 2006. The revised management plan outlines the administrative structure; the research & monitoring, education, training, and stewardship goals of the reserve; and the plans for future land acquisition and facility development to support reserve operations. The revised management plan will serve as the guiding document for the 2,804 acre Waquoit Bay Reserve for the next five years.
Michael Migliori at (301) 563–1126 or Erica Seiden at (301) 563–1172 of NOAA's National Ocean Service, Estuarine Reserves Division, 1305 East-West Highway, N/ORM5, 10th floor, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
Pursuant to 15 CFR 921.33(c), the revised plan meets the reserve's requirements for compliance. The Waquoit Bay Reserve revised plan will replace the plan approved in 2006.
The revised management plan outlines the administrative structure; the research & monitoring, education, training, and stewardship goals of the reserve; and the plans for future land acquisition and facility development to support reserve operations.
The Waquoit Bay, Massachusetts Reserve takes an integrated approach to management, linking research, education, training and stewardship functions to address high priority issues
This management plan calls for a boundary expansion of 23 acres. The lands consist of the 11.4 acre Caleb Pond parcel on the northeast corner of Waquoit Bay as well as the addition of 12.4 acres to the Quashnet River lands. The Caleb Pond parcel is the largest single undeveloped parcel on Waquoit Bay and contains an upland coastal pine-oak forest habitat with fringing salt marsh and a connecting stream that contains diadromous fish runs of American eel and has historically supported an anadramous river herring run. The parcel is especially suitable for educational purposes and creates 40 acres of contiguous protected lands across the head of Waquoit Bay. The Quashnet River land parcel expands important contiguous and unfragmented habitat that is valuable as wildlife habitat and corridor as well as increases protection of terrestrial, groundwater, and aquatic systems. This parcel is appropriate for education, recreation, and upland research purposes.
The revised management plan will serve as the guiding document for the 2,804 acre Waquoit Bay Reserve for the next five years. The Waquoit Bay Reserve Management Plan revision can be viewed at (
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request for comments.
NMFS has received an application from Glacier Bay National Park (Glacier Bay NP) to take marine mammals, by harassment incidental to conducting seabird research from July through September, 2014. The proposed dates for this action would be July 22, 2014 through September 30, 2014. Per the Marine Mammal Protection Act, we are requesting comments on our proposal to issue an Authorization to the Glacier Bay NP to incidentally take, by Level B harassment only, one species of marine mammals during the specified activity.
NMFS must receive comments and information on or before July 7, 2014.
Address comments on the application to Jolie Harrison, Supervisor, Incidental Take Program, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. The mailbox address for providing email comments is
To obtain an electronic copy of the application containing a list of the references used in this document, write to the previously mentioned address, telephone the contact listed here (see
We will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act to evaluate the environmental effects related to the scope of our federal action, which is the proposed issuance of an Authorization to Glacier Bay NP for their proposed seabird research activities. This notice presents detailed information on the scope of our federal action under NEPA (i.e., the proposed Authorization including mitigation measures and monitoring) and we will consider comments submitted in response to this notice as we prepare our EA. Information in Glacier Bay NP's application and this notice collectively provide the environmental information related to proposed issuance of the Authorization for public review and comment.
Jeannine Cody, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS (301) 427–8401.
Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361
An Authorization shall be granted for the incidental taking of small numbers of marine mammals if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant). The Authorization must also set forth the permissible methods of taking; other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the species or stock and its habitat; and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such taking. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “an impact resulting from
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment].
On April 7, 2014, NMFS received an application from Glacier Bay NP requesting that we issue an Authorization for the take of marine mammals, incidental to conducting monitoring and research studies on glaucus-winged gulls (
Glacier Bay NP proposes to conduct ground-based and vessel-based surveys to collect data on the number and distribution of nesting gulls within five study sites in Glacier Bay, AK. Glacier Bay NP proposes to complete up to five visits per study site, from July through September, 2014.
The proposed activities are within the vicinity of pinniped haulout sites and the following aspects of the proposed activities are likely to result in the take of marine mammals: Noise generated by motorboat approaches and departures; noise generated by researchers while conducting ground surveys; and human presence during the monitoring and research activities. Thus, we anticipate that take, by Level B harassment only of one species of marine mammal could result from the specified activity. NMFS anticipates that take by Level B Harassment only, of individuals of harbor seals (
Glacier Bay NP proposes to identify the onset of gull nesting; conduct mid-season surveys of adult gulls, and locate and document gull nest sites within the following study areas: Boulder, Lone, and Flapjack Islands, and Geikie Rock. Each of these study sites contains harbor seal haulout sites and Glacier Bay NP proposes to visit each site up to five times during the research season.
Glacier Bay NP must conduct the gull monitoring studies to meet the requirements of a 2010 Record of Decision for a Legislative Environmental Impact Statement (NPS 2010) which states that Glacier Bay NP must initiate a monitoring program for the gulls to inform future native egg harvests by the Hoonah Tlingit in Glacier Bay, AK. Glacier Bay NP actively monitors harbor seals at breeding and molting sites to assess population trends over time (e.g., Mathews & Pendleton, 2006; Womble
Glacier Bay NP proposes to conduct the proposed activities from the period of July 22 through September 30, 2014. Glacier Bay NP proposes to conduct a maximum of three ground-based surveys per each study site between July 22 through September 30, 2014 and a maximum of two vessel-based surveys per each study site between July 22 through September 30, 2014.
Thus, the proposed Authorization, if issued, would be effective from July 22, 2014 through September 30, 2014. We refer the reader to the Detailed Description of Activities section later in this notice for more information on the scope of the proposed activities.
The proposed study sites would occur in the vicinity of the following locations: Boulder (58°33′18.08″ N; 136°1′13.36″ W), Lone (58°43′17.67″ N; 136°17′41.32″ W), and Flapjack (58°35′10.19″ N; 135°58′50.78″ W) Islands, and Geikie Rock (58°41′39.75″ N; 136°18′39.06″ W) in Glacier Bay, Alaska. Glacier Bay NP will also conduct studies at Tlingit Point Islet located at 58°45′16.86″ N; 136°10′41.74″ W; however, there are no reported pinniped haulout sites at that location.
Glacier Bay NP proposes to conduct: (1) Ground-based surveys at a maximum frequency of three visits per site; and (2) vessel-based surveys at a maximum frequency of two visits per site from the period of July 22 through September 30, 2014.
Ground-Based Surveys: These surveys involve two trained observers visiting the largest gull colony on each island to: (1) Obtain information on the numbers of nests, their location, and contents (i.e., eggs or chicks); (2) determine the onset of laying, distribution, abundance, and predation of gull nests and eggs; and (3) record the proximity of other species relative to colony locations.
The observers would access each island using a kayak, a 32.8 to 39.4-foot (ft) (10 to 12 meter (m)) motorboat, or a 12 ft (4 m) inflatable rowing dinghy. The landing craft's transit speed would not exceed 4 knots (4.6 miles per hour (mph). Ground surveys generally last from 30 minutes to up to two hours depending on the size of the island and the number of nesting gulls. Glacier Bay NP will discontinue ground surveys after they detect the first hatchling to minimize disturbance to the gull colonies.
Vessel-Based Surveys: These surveys involve two trained observers observing and counting the number of adult and fledgling gulls from the deck of a motorized vessel which would transit around each island at a distance of approximately 328 ft (100 m) to avoid
Table 1 in this notice provides the following information: All marine mammal species with possible or confirmed occurrence in the proposed survey areas on land; information on those species' regulatory status under the MMPA and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531
NMFS refers the public to the Glacier Bay NP's application and the 2013 NMFS Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Report available online at:
Northern sea otters (
This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that the types of stressors associated with the specified activity (e.g., motorboat operations and the presence of researchers) impact marine mammals (via observations or scientific studies). This section may include a discussion of known effects that do not rise to the level of an MMPA take (for example, with visual stimuli, we may include a discussion of studies of animals exhibiting no reaction to sound or exhibiting barely perceptible avoidance behaviors). This discussion may also include reactions that NMFS considers to rise to the level of a take.
NMFS intends to provide a background of potential effects of Glacier Bay NP's activities in this section. This section does not consider the specific manner in which the Glacier Bay NP would carry out the proposed activity, what mitigation measures the Glacier Bay NP would implement, and how either of those would shape the anticipated impacts from this specific activity. The “Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment” section later in this document will include a quantitative analysis of the number of individuals that we expect Glacier Bay NP to take during this activity. The “Negligible Impact Analysis” section will include the analysis of how this specific activity would impact marine mammals. NMFS will consider the content of the following sections: (1) Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment; (3) Proposed Mitigation; and (4) Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat, to draw conclusions regarding the likely impacts of this activity on the reproductive success or survivorship of individuals—and from that consideration—the likely impacts of this activity on the affected marine mammal populations or stocks.
When considering the influence of various kinds of sound on the marine environment, it is necessary to understand that different kinds of marine life are sensitive to different frequencies of sound. Current data indicate that not all marine mammal species have equal hearing capabilities (Richardson
Southall
The functional groups applicable to this proposed survey and the associated frequencies are:
• Low frequency cetaceans (13 species of mysticetes): Functional hearing estimates occur between approximately 7 Hertz (Hz) and 30 kHz (extended from 22 kHz based on data indicating that some mysticetes can hear above 22 kHz; Au
• Mid-frequency cetaceans (32 species of dolphins, six species of larger toothed whales, and 19 species of beaked and bottlenose whales): Functional hearing estimates occur between approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz;
• High-frequency cetaceans (eight species of true porpoises, six species of river dolphins,
• Pinnipeds in water: Phocid (true seals) functional hearing estimates occur between approximately 75 Hz and 100 kHz (Hemila
As mentioned previously in this document, only one marine mammal species would likely occur in the proposed action area. The harbor seal is a member of the Pinnipeds in Water functional hearing group. We consider a species' functional hearing group when
Acoustic and visual stimuli generated by: (1) Motorboat operations; and (2) the appearance of researchers may have the potential to cause Level B harassment of any pinnipeds hauled out on Boulder, Lone, and Flapjack Islands, and Geikie Rock. The effects of sounds from motorboat operations and the appearance of researchers might include hearing impairment or behavioral disturbance (Southall,
Marine mammals produce sounds in various important contexts—social interactions, foraging, navigating, and responding to predators. The best available science suggests that pinnipeds have a functional aerial hearing sensitivity between 75 hertz (Hz) and 75 kilohertz (kHz) and can produce a diversity of sounds, though generally from 100 Hz to several tens of kHz (Southall,
Exposure to high intensity sound for a sufficient duration may result in auditory effects such as a noise-induced threshold shift—an increase in the auditory threshold after exposure to noise (Finneran, Carder, Schlundt, and Ridgway, 2005). Factors that influence the amount of threshold shift include the amplitude, duration, frequency content, temporal pattern, and energy distribution of noise exposure. The magnitude of hearing threshold shift normally decreases over time following cessation of the noise exposure. The amount of threshold shift just after exposure is called the initial threshold shift. If the threshold shift eventually returns to zero (i.e., the threshold returns to the pre-exposure value), it is called temporary threshold shift (Southall
Pinnipeds have the potential to be disturbed by airborne and underwater noise generated by the small boats equipped with outboard engines (Richardson, Greene, Malme, and Thomson, 1995). However, there is a dearth of information on acoustic effects of motorboats on pinniped hearing and communication and to our knowledge there has been no specific documentation of hearing impairment in free-ranging pinnipeds exposed to small motorboats during realistic field conditions.
Marine mammals may behaviorally react to sound when exposed to anthropogenic noise. Disturbance includes a variety of effects, including subtle to conspicuous changes in behavior, movement, and displacement. Reactions to sound, if any, depend on species, state of maturity, experience, current activity, reproductive state, time of day, and many other factors (Richardson
The biological significance of many of these behavioral disturbances is difficult to predict, especially if the detected disturbances appear minor. However, one could expect the consequences of behavioral modification to be biologically significant if the change affects growth, survival, and/or reproduction. Some of these significant behavioral modifications include:
• Change in diving/surfacing patterns (such as those thought to be causing beaked whale stranding due to exposure to military mid-frequency tactical sonar);
• Habitat abandonment due to loss of desirable acoustic environment; and
• Cessation of feeding or social interaction.
The onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise depends on both external factors (characteristics of noise sources and their paths) and the receiving animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography) and is also difficult to predict (Richardson
Disturbances resulting from human activity can impact short- and long-term pinniped haul out behavior (Renouf
Numerous studies have shown that human activity can flush harbor seals off haulout sites (Allen
In cases where vessels actively approached marine mammals (e.g., whale watching or dolphin watching boats), scientists have documented that animals exhibit altered behavior such as increased swimming speed, erratic movement, and active avoidance behavior (Bursk, 1983; Acevedo, 1991; Baker and MacGibbon, 1991; Trites and Bain, 2000; Williams
In 1997, Henry and Hammil (2001) conducted a study to measure the impacts of small boats (i.e., kayaks, canoes, motorboats and sailboats) on harbor seal haulout behavior in Métis Bay, Quebec, Canada. During that study, the authors noted that the most frequent disturbances (n=73) were caused by lower speed, lingering kayaks and
In 2004, Johnson and Acevedo-Gutierrez (2007) evaluated the efficacy of buffer zones for watercraft around harbor seal haulout sites on Yellow Island, Washington. The authors estimated the minimum distance between the vessels and the haul-out sites; categorized the vessel types; and evaluated seal responses to the disturbances. During the course of the seven-weekend study, the authors recorded 14 human-related disturbances which were associated with stopped powerboats and kayaks. During these events, hauled out seals became noticeably active and moved into the water. The flushing occurred when stopped kayaks and powerboats were at distances as far as 453 and 1,217 ft (138 and 371 m) respectively. The authors note that the seals were unaffected by passing powerboats, even those approaching as close as 128 ft (39 m), possibly indicating that the animals had become tolerant of the brief presence of the vessels and ignored them. The authors reported that on average, the seals quickly recovered from the disturbances and returned to the haulout site in less than or equal to 60 minutes. Seal numbers did not return to pre-disturbance levels within 180 minutes of the disturbance less than one quarter of the time observed. The study concluded that the return of seal numbers to pre-disturbance levels and the relatively regular seasonal cycle in abundance throughout the area counter the idea that disturbances from powerboats may result in site abandonment (Johnson and Acevedo-Gutierrez, 2007). As a general statement from the available information, pinnipeds exposed to intense (approximately 110 to 120 decibels re: 20 μPa) non-pulse sounds often leave haulout areas and seek refuge temporarily (minutes to a few hours) in the water (Southall
We do not anticipate that the proposed operations would result in any temporary or permanent effects on the habitats used by the marine mammals in the proposed area, including the food sources they use (i.e., fish and invertebrates). While NMFS anticipates that the specified activity may result in marine mammals avoiding certain areas due to motorboat operations or human presence, this impact to habitat is temporary and reversible. NMFS considered these as behavioral modification. The main impact associated with the proposed activity will be temporarily elevated noise levels and the associated direct effects on marine mammals, previously discussed in this notice. Based on the preceding discussion, NMFS does not anticipate that the proposed activity would have any habitat-related effects that could cause significant or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals or their populations.
In order to issue an incidental take authorization under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses (where relevant).
The Glacier Bay NP has reviewed the following source documents and has incorporated a suite of proposed mitigation measures into their project description.
(1) Recommended best practices in Womble
To reduce the potential for disturbance from acoustic and visual stimuli associated with the activities Glacier Bay NP and/or its designees has proposed to implement the following mitigation measures for marine mammals:
• Perform pre-survey monitoring before deciding to access a study site;
• Avoid accessing a site based on a pre-determined threshold of animals present; sites used by pinnipeds for pupping; or sites used by Steller sea lions;
• Perform controlled and slow ingress to the study site to prevent a stampede and select a pathway of approach to minimize the number of marine mammals harassed;
• Monitor for offshore predators. Avoid approaching the study site if killer whales (Orcinas orca) are present. If Glacier Bay and/or its designees see predators in the area, they must not disturb the animals until the area is free of predators.
• Maintain a quiet research atmosphere in the visual presence of pinnipeds.
NMFS has carefully evaluated Glacier Bay NP's proposed mitigation measures in the context of ensuring that we prescribe the means of effecting the least practicable impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and their habitat. Our evaluation of potential
• The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure is expected to minimize adverse impacts to marine mammals;
• The proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to minimize adverse impacts as planned; and
• The practicability of the measure for applicant implementation.
Any mitigation measure(s) prescribed by NMFS should be able to accomplish, have a reasonable likelihood of accomplishing (based on current science), or contribute to the accomplishment of one or more of the general goals listed here:
1. Avoidance or minimization of injury or death of marine mammals wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may contribute to this goal).
2. A reduction in the numbers of marine mammals (total number or number at biologically important time or location) exposed to motorboat operations or visual presence that we expect to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing harassment takes only).
3. A reduction in the number of times (total number or number at biologically important time or location) individuals exposed to motorboat operations or visual presence that we expect to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing harassment takes only).
4. A reduction in the intensity of exposures (either total number or number at biologically important time or location) to motorboat operations or visual presence that we expect to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to a, above, or to reducing the severity of harassment takes only).
5. Avoidance or minimization of adverse effects to marine mammal habitat, paying special attention to the food base, activities that block or limit passage to or from biologically important areas, permanent destruction of habitat, or temporary destruction/disturbance of habitat during a biologically important time.
6. For monitoring directly related to mitigation—an increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals, thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation.
Based on the evaluation of Glacier Bay NP's proposed measures, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.
In order to issue an ITA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth “requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking.” The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for Authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that we expect to be present in the proposed action area.
Glacier Bay NP submitted a marine mammal monitoring plan in section 13 of their Authorization application. NMFS or the Glacier Bay NP may modify or supplement the plan based on comments or new information received from the public during the public comment period.
Monitoring measures prescribed by NMFS should accomplish one or more of the following general goals:
1. An increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals in order to generate more data to contribute to the analyses mentioned later;
2. An increase in our understanding of how many marine mammals would be affected by the research activities and the likelihood of associating those exposures with specific adverse effects, such as behavioral harassment, temporary or permanent threshold shift;
3. An increase in our understanding of how marine mammals respond to acoustic and visual stimuli that we expect to result in take and how those anticipated adverse effects on individuals (in different ways and to varying degrees) may impact the population, species, or stock (specifically through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival) through any of the following methods:
a. Behavioral observations in the presence of stimuli compared to observations in the absence of stimuli (i.e., we need to be able to accurately predict received level, distance from source, and other pertinent information);
b. Physiological measurements in the presence of stimuli compared to observations in the absence of stimuli (i.e., we need to be able to accurately predict received level, distance from source, and other pertinent information);
c. Distribution and/or abundance comparisons in times or areas with concentrated stimuli versus times or areas without stimuli;
4. An increased knowledge of the affected species; and
5. An increase in our understanding of the effectiveness of certain mitigation and monitoring measures.
As part of its Authorization application, Glacier Bay NP proposes to sponsor marine mammal monitoring during the present project, in order to implement the mitigation measures that require real-time monitoring, and to satisfy the monitoring requirements of the Authorization.
The Glacier Bay NP researchers will monitor the area for pinnipeds during all research activities. Monitoring activities will consist of conducting and recording observations on pinnipeds within the vicinity of the proposed research areas. The monitoring notes would provide dates and location of the researcher's activities and the number and type of species present. The researchers would document the behavioral state of animals present, and any apparent disturbance reactions or lack thereof.
Glacier Bay NP will submit a final monitoring report to us no later than 90 days after the expiration of the Incidental Harassment Authorization, if we issue it. The final report will describe the operations conducted and sightings of marine mammals near the proposed project. The report will provide full documentation of methods, results, and interpretation pertaining to all monitoring. The final report will provide:
1. A summary and table of the dates, times, and weather during all research activities.
2. Species, number, location, and behavior of any marine mammals observed throughout all monitoring activities.
3. An estimate of the number (by species) of marine mammals exposed to acoustic or visual stimuli associated with the research activities.
4. A description of the implementation and effectiveness of the monitoring and mitigation measures of the Authorization and full documentation of methods, results, and interpretation pertaining to all monitoring.
In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the authorization, such as
• Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
• Description and location of the incident (including water depth, if applicable);
• Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);
• Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
• Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
• Fate of the animal(s); and
• Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if equipment is available).
Glacier Bay NP shall not resume its activities until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. We will work with Glacier Bay to determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. Glacier Bay NP may not resume their activities until notified by us via letter, email, or telephone.
In the event that Glacier Bay NP discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead researcher determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (i.e., in less than a moderate state of decomposition as we describe in the next paragraph), Glacier Bay NP will immediately report the incident to the Incidental Take Program Supervisor, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at 301–427–8401 and/or by email to
In the event that Glacier Bay NP discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead visual observer determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the authorized activities (e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced decomposition, or scavenger damage), Glacier Bay will report the incident to the incident to the Incidental Take Program Supervisor, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at 301–427–8401 and/or by email to
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment].
Acoustic (i.e., increased sound) and visual stimuli from the proposed research activities may have the potential to result in the behavioral disturbance of some marine mammals. Thus, NMFS proposes to authorize take by Level B harassment only for the proposed seabird research activities on Boulder, Lone, and Flapjack Islands, and Geikie Rock, Alaska. NMFS proposes to authorize take by Level B harassment based upon the current acoustic exposure criteria shown in Table 2. Our practice has been to apply the 120 dB re: 1 μPa received level threshold for underwater continuous sound levels to determine whether take by Level B harassment occurs. Southall
Based on pinniped survey counts conducted by Glacier Bay NP (e.g., Mathews & Pendleton, 2006; Womble
Harbor seals tend to haul out in small numbers (on average, less than 50 animals) at most sites with the exception of Flapjack Island. Animals on Flapjack Boulder Islands generally haul out on the south side of the Islands and are not located near the research sites located on the northern side of the Islands. Aerial survey maximum counts show that harbor seals sometimes haul out in large numbers at all four locations (see Table 2 in Glacier Bays NP's application), and sometimes individuals and mother/pup pairs occupy different terrestrial locations than the main haulout (J. Womble, personal observation).
Considering the conservation status for the Western stock of the Steller sea lion, the Glacier Bay NP researchers would not conduct ground-based or vessel-based surveys if they observe Steller sea lions before accessing Boulder, Lone, and Flapjack Islands, and Geikie Rock. Thus, NMFS expects no takes to occur for this species during the proposed activities.
The probability of vessel and marine mammal interactions (i.e., motorboat strike) occurring during the proposed research activities is unlikely due to the motorboat's slow operational speed, which is typically 2 to 3 knots (2.3 to 3.4 mph) and the researchers continually scanning the water for marine mammals presence during transit to the islands. Thus, NMFS does not anticipate that take would result from the movement of the motorboat.
There is no evidence that Glacier Bay NP's planned activities could result in injury, serious injury, or mortality within the action area. Moreover, the required mitigation and monitoring measures would minimize further any potential risk for injury, serious injury, or mortality. Thus, we do not propose to authorize any injury, serious injury, or mortality. We expect all potential takes to fall under the category of Level B harassment only.
Glacier Bay NP actively monitors harbor seals at breeding and molting haul out locations to assess trends over time (e.g., Mathews & Pendleton, 2006; Womble
Negligible impact is “an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival” (50 CFR 216.103). The lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population level effects) forms the basis of a negligible impact finding. Thus, an estimate of the number of Level B harassment takes, alone, is not enough information on which to base an impact determination. In addition to considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be “taken” through behavioral harassment, NMFS must consider other factors, such as the likely nature of any responses (their intensity, duration, etc.), the context of any responses (critical reproductive time or location, migration, etc.), as well as the number and nature of estimated Level A harassment takes, and the number of estimated mortalities, effects on habitat, and the status of the species.
In making a negligible impact determination, NMFS considers:
• The number of anticipated injuries, serious injuries, or mortalities;
• The number, nature, and intensity, and duration of Level B harassment; and
• The context in which the takes occur (e.g., impacts to areas of significance, impacts to local populations, and cumulative impacts when taking into account successive/contemporaneous actions when added to baseline data);
• The status of stock or species of marine mammals (i.e., depleted, not depleted, decreasing, increasing, stable, impact relative to the size of the population);
• Impacts on habitat affecting rates of recruitment/survival; and
• The effectiveness of monitoring and mitigation measures to reduce the number or severity of incidental take.
For reasons stated previously in this document and based on the following factors, Glacier Bay NP's specified activities are not likely to cause long-term behavioral disturbance, permanent threshold shift, or other non-auditory injury, serious injury, or death. These reasons include:
1. The effects of the research activities would be limited to short-term startle responses and localized behavioral changes due to the short and sporadic duration of the research activities. Minor and brief responses, such as short-duration startle or alert reactions, are not likely to constitute disruption of behavioral patterns, such as migration, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering.
2. The availability of alternate areas for pinnipeds to avoid the resultant acoustic and visual disturbances from the research operations. Anecdotal reports from previous Glacier Bay NP activities have shown that the pinnipeds returned to the various sites and did not permanently abandon haul-out sites after Glacier Bay NP conducted their research activities.
3. There is no potential for large-scale movements leading to injury, serious injury, or mortality because the researchers would delay ingress into the landing areas only after the pinnipeds have slowly entered the water.
4. Glacier Bay NP limiting access to Boulder, Lone, and Flapjack Islands, and Geikie Rock if more than 25 animals are present or if Steller sea lions are present in the research areas.
NMFS does not anticipate that any injuries, serious injuries, or mortalities would occur as a result of Glacier Bay's proposed activities, and NMFS does not propose to authorize injury, serious injury, or mortality at this time.
Due to the nature, degree, and context of Level B (behavioral) harassment anticipated and described (see “Potential Effects on Marine Mammals” section in this notice), we do not expect the activity to impact rates of recruitment or survival for any affected species or stock. In addition, the research activities would not take place in areas of significance for marine mammal feeding, resting, breeding, or calving and would not adversely impact marine mammal habitat.
NMFS preliminary finds that Glacier Bay NP's proposed activities will have a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks based on the analysis contained in this notice of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the mitigation and monitoring measures.
As mentioned previously, NMFS estimates that Glacier Bay NP's activities could potentially affect, by Level B harassment only, one species of marine mammal under our jurisdiction. For harbor seals, this estimate is small (12.6 percent) relative to the population size and we have provided the percentage of the harbor seal's regional population estimate that the activities may take by Level B harassment in Table 3 in this notice.
Based on the analysis contained in this notice of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the mitigation and monitoring measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that Glacier Bay NP's proposed activities would take small numbers of marine mammals relative to the populations of the affected species or stocks.
There are no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals implicated by this action. Glacier Bay National Park prohibits subsistence harvest of harbor seals within the Park (Catton, 1995).
NMFS does not expect that Glacier Bay NP's proposed research activities would affect any species listed under the ESA. Therefore, NMFS has determined that a section 7 consultation under the ESA is not required.
To meet our NEPA requirements for the issuance of an Authorization to Glacier Bay NP, we intend to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) titled, “Environmental Assessment for the Issuance of an Incidental Harassment Authorization to Take Marine Mammals by Harassment Incidental to Conducting Seabird Research in Glacier Bay Alaska.” Prior to making a final decision on the issuance of an Authorization, we would decide whether or not to issue a Finding of No Significant Impact. NMFS will review all comments submitted in response to this notice to complete the NEPA process prior to making a final decision on the Authorization request.
As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes issuing an Incidental Harassment Authorization to Glacier Bay National Park for conducting seabird research July 22, 2014 through September 30, 2014, provided they incorporate the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements.
This section contains the draft text for the proposed Authorization. NMFS proposes to include this language in the Authorization if issued.
Glacier Bay National Park, P.O. Box 140, Gustavus, Alaska 99826 and/or its designees (holders of the Authorization) are hereby authorized under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(D)) to harass small numbers of marine mammals incidental to conducting monitoring and research studies on glaucus-winged gulls (
1. This Authorization is valid from July 22 through September 30, 2014.
2. This Authorization is valid only for research activities that would occur in the following specified geographic areas: Boulder (58°33′18.08″ N; 136°1′13.36″ W); Lone (58°43′17.67″ N; 136° 17′41.32″ W), and Flapjack (58°35′10.19″ N; 135°58′50.78″ W) Islands, and Geikie Rock (58°41′39.75″ N; 136°18′39.06″ W); and Tlingit Point Islet (58°45′16.86″ N; 136°10′41.74″ W) in Glacier Bay, Alaska.
a. The taking, by Level B harassment only, is limited to the following species: 400 Pacific harbor seals (
b. The taking by injury (Level A harassment), serious injury or death of any of the species listed in Condition 3(a) or the taking of any kind of any other species of marine mammal is prohibited and may result in the modification, suspension or revocation of this Authorization.
c. The taking of any marine mammal in a manner prohibited under this Authorization must be reported immediately to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at (301) 427–8401.
A copy of this Authorization must be in the possession of Glacier Bay National Park, its designees, and field crew personnel (including research collaborators) operating under the authority of this Authorization at all times.
In order to ensure the least practicable impact on the species listed in condition 3(a), the Holder of this Authorization is required to:
a. Conduct pre-survey monitoring before deciding to access a study site. Prior to deciding to land onshore of Boulder, Lone, or Flapjack Island or Geikie Rock, the Holder of this Authorization will use high-powered image stabilizing binoculars to document the number, species, and location of hauled out marine mammals at each island. The vessels will maintain a distance of 328 to 1,640 ft (100 to 500 m) from the shoreline.
i. If the Holder of the Authorization determines that there are greater than or equal to 25 harbor seals hauled out on the shoreline, the holder will not access the island and will not conduct the study at that time.
ii. If the Holder of the Authorization determines that Steller sea lions (
iii. If the Holder of the Authorization determines that there are greater than or equal to 25 harbor seal pups hauled out on the shoreline, the holder will not access the island and will not conduct the study at that time.
b. Minimize the potential for disturbance (to the lowest level practicable near known pinniped haul outs by boat travel and pedestrian approach during research activities) by: (1) performing controlled and slow ingress to the study site to prevent a stampede; and (2) selecting a pathway of approach farthest from the hauled out harbor seals to minimize disturbance.
c. Monitor for offshore predators. Avoid approaching the study site if killer whales (
d. Maintain a quiet research atmosphere in the visual presence of pinnipeds.
The holder of this Authorization is required to:
a. Record the date, time, and location (or closest point of ingress) of each visit to the research site.
b. Collect the following information for each visit:
i. composition of the marine mammals sighted, such as species, gender and life history stage (e.g., adult, sub-adult, pup);
ii. information on the numbers (by species) of marine mammals observed during the activities;
iii. the estimated number of marine mammals (by species) that may have been harassed during the activities;
iv. any behavioral responses or modifications of behaviors that may be attributed to the specific activities and a description of the specific activities occurring during that time (e.g., pedestrian approach, vessel approach); and
v. information on the weather, including the tidal state and horizontal visibility.
c. Observers will record marine mammal behavior patterns observed before, during, and after the activities; in the following manner:
i. Flushing into the water;
ii. stampeding into water;
iii. moving more than 1 meter (m), but not in the water; becoming alert and moving, but did not move more than 1 meter; or
v. changing the direction of current movement.
d. If applicable, note observations of marked or tag-bearing pinnipeds or carcasses, as well as any rare or unusual species of marine mammal.
e. If applicable, note the presence of any offshore predators (date, time, number, species).
The holder of this Authorization is required to:
a. Draft Report: Submit a draft final report to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, Headquarters, NMFS within 90 days after the expiration of the Authorization. The report will include the information gathered pursuant to the monitoring requirements listed in Condition 6, along with an executive summary.
b. The Draft Report shall be subject to review and comment by NMFS. Any recommendations made by NMFS must be addressed in the Final Report prior to submission to NMFS. If we decide that the draft final report needs no comments, the draft final report will be considered to be the final report.
c. Final Report: Submit a final report to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, Headquarters, NMFS within 30 days after receiving comments from us on the draft final report.
8. Reporting Prohibited Take
In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the authorization, such as an injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, or mortality (e.g., vessel-strike, stampede, etc.), Glacier Bay National Park shall immediately cease the specified activities and immediately report the incident to the Incidental Take Program Supervisor, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at 301–427–8401 and/or by email to
• Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
• Description and location of the incident (including water depth, if applicable);
• Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);
• Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
• Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
• Fate of the animal(s); and
• Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if equipment is available).
Glacier Bay National Park shall not resume its activities until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. We will work with Glacier Bay National Park to determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. Glacier Bay National Park may not resume their activities until notified by us via letter, email, or telephone.
In the event that Glacier Bay National Park discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead researcher determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (i.e., in less than a moderate state of decomposition as we describe in the next paragraph), Glacier Bay National Park will immediately report the incident to the Incidental Take Program Supervisor, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at 301–427–8401 and/or by email to
In the event that Glacier Bay National Park discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead visual observer determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the authorized activities (e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced decomposition, or scavenger damage), Glacier Bay will report the incident to the Incidental Take Program Supervisor, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at 301–427–8401 and/or by email to
NMFS requests comments on our analysis, the draft authorization, and any other aspect of the Notice of proposed Authorization for Glacier Bay National Park's activities. Please include any supporting data or literature citations with your comments to help inform our final decision on Glacier Bay National Park's request for an application.
The next meeting of the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts is scheduled for 19 June 2014, at 9 a.m. in the Commission offices at the National Building Museum, Suite 312, Judiciary Square, 401 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20001–2728. Items of discussion may include buildings, parks and memorials.
Draft agendas and additional information regarding the Commission are available on our Web site:
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, DoD.
Notice.
In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by August 4, 2014.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at
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 Defense Health Agency (DHA), ATTN: Clinical Support Division, Healthcare Operations Directorate, 7700 Arlington Boulevard, Falls Church, VA 22042–5101, or call (703) 681–0064.
In its ongoing response to this legislation and in support of its mission to “promote a culture of safety to eliminate preventable patient harm by engaging, educating and equipping patient-care teams to institutionalize evidence-based safe practices,” the DoD Patient Safety Program plans to field the Tri-service Patient Safety Culture Survey. The Culture Survey is based on the Department of Health and Human Services' Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's validated survey instrument. Previously administered in 2005/6 and 2008, the survey obtains MHS staff opinions on patient safety issues such as teamwork, communications, medical error occurrence and response, error reporting, and overall perceptions of patient safety. The purpose of the survey is to assess the current status of patient safety in MHS facilities and to assess patient safety improvement over time. Two versions of the survey will be available for administration. The inpatient survey tool is the same, OMB-approved tool that was administered in previous years. There will also be a corresponding outpatient survey tool, with congruous questions tailored to the ambulatory or clinic setting. Respondents will select the survey corresponding to their care survey.
The Web-based survey will be administered on a voluntary-basis to all
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (Military Personnel Policy), DoD.
Notice.
In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by August 4, 2014.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) (Military Personnel Policy), ATTN: MAJ Justin DeVantier, 4000 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301–4000 or call at 703–695–5527.
USMEPCOM Form 680–3A–E is completed on all applicants at MEPS first contact for processing; testing, medical, and other requirements. The 680–3A–E authorizes the MEPS to collect information to begin the process required to meet enlistment qualifications. The MEPCOM 680–3A–E is the applicant authorization to release to the MEPS a complete transcript of medical records. This release is for the purpose of further evaluation of my medical acceptability under military medical fitness standards. The information collected on USMEPCOM Form 680–3A–E is transferred electronically into the DD Form 1966 after the applicant meets enlistment standards and decides to enlist.
The DD Form 1966 is completed by the applicant and Service recruiter after an oral interview and after the applicant had met all standards for enlistment (aptitude, medical, and conduct standards) mandated by DoD and sponsoring Service and elects to enlist. The information is collected and processed within a one-to two-day period and accompanies the applicant throughout the enlistment process at Military Entrance Processing Stations (MEPS).
National Guard Bureau, DoD.
Notice.
In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by August 4, 2014.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at
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 National Guard, Manpower and Personnel Division (NG–J1), ATTN: Mr. Mark Woods. 111 S George Mason Dr. Arlington, VA 22204.
In addition, JSS plans on collecting Civilian Employer Information (CE) from Service members. Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) will be ceasing its CEI Web site as of October 1, 2012. The service components as a result have been tasked to take over the collection of CEI prior to this date.
JSS in particular helps the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program and (in the future) also help Employer Support for the Guard and Reserve, reporting program activities, as required by a congressional mandate.
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 July 7, 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.
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs (DHA), DoD.
Notice.
In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by August 4, 2014.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to Defense Health Agency, Medical Benefits and Reimbursement Branch (MB&RB), 16401 E. Centretech Parkway, Aurora, CO 80011–9066, or (303) 676–3565.
This collection instrument is for use by beneficiaries under the TRICARE Program. TRICARE/CHAMPUS is a health benefits entitlement program for the dependents of active duty Uniformed Services members and deceased sponsors, retirees and their dependents, dependents of the Department of Homeland Security (Coast Guard) sponsors, and certain North Atlantic Treaty Organizations, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and Public Health Service eligible beneficiaries. DD Form 2642 is used sole by TRICARE/CHAMPUS beneficiaries to file for reimbursement of costs paid to providers and suppliers for authorized health care services or supplies.
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 July 7, 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.
Notice.
Pursuant to the provisions of part 404 of title 37, Code of Federal Regulations, which implements Public Law 96–517, as amended; the Department of the Air Force announces the availability of Air Force owned invention U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 14/187,378, titled “Radio Interface,” by Burnett et al., filed February 24, 2014, for Licensing from the Air Force Research Laboratory, 711th Human Performance Wing. Licensing inquiries should be sent to and license application form obtained from: Joan Wu-Singel, TechLink, 2310 University Way, Bldg. 2–2, Bozeman, MT 59715; email:
John Schutte, Technology Transfer Specialist, 711th Human Performance Wing; email:
Department of the Air Force, U.S. Air Force Scientific Advisory Board.
Meeting notice.
Under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102–3.150, the Department of Defense announces that the United States Air Force Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) meeting will take place 24 June 2014 at the Secretary of the Air Force Technical and Analytical Support Conference Center, 1550 Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202. The meeting will be from 7:45 a.m.–5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, 24 June 2014, with the sessions from 7:45 a.m.–10:45 a.m. open to the public.
The purpose of this Air Force Scientific Advisory Board quarterly meeting is to discuss and deliberate on the findings and recommendations of the FY14 SAB studies addressing scientific and technical challenges with combating sexual assault in the Air Force; nuclear command, control & communications in the cyber age; technology readiness for hypersonic vehicles; and defending forward Air Force bases. Potential FY15 SAB study topics will also be discussed.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended, and 41 CFR 102–3.155, some sessions of the United States Air Force Scientific Advisory Board meeting will be closed to the public because they will discuss information and matters covered by section 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) (1).
Any member of the public wishing to attend or provide input to the United States Air Force Scientific Advisory Board should submit a written statement in accordance with 41 CFR 102–3.140(c) and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and the procedures described in this paragraph. Written statements can be submitted to the Designated Federal Officer at the address detailed below at any time. Statements being submitted in response to the agenda mentioned in this notice must be received by the Designated Federal Officer at the address listed below at least five calendar days prior to the meeting which is the subject of this notice. Written statements received after this date may not be provided to or considered by the United States Air Force Scientific Advisory Board until its next meeting. The Designated Federal Officer will review all timely submissions with the United States Air Force Scientific Advisory Board Chairperson and ensure they are provided to members of the United States Air Force Scientific Advisory Board before the meeting that is the subject of this notice.
Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice.
Notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2014.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.334S.
We give priority to an eligible applicant for a State GEAR UP grant that has: (a) Carried out a successful State GEAR UP grant prior to August 14, 2008, determined on the basis of data (including outcomes data) submitted by the applicant as part of its annual and final performance reports and the applicant's history of compliance with applicable statutory and regulatory requirements; and (b) a prior demonstrated commitment to early intervention leading to college access through collaboration and replication of successful strategies.
The Department is using Competitive Preference Priority 2 to focus on increasing readiness for success once students reach the postsecondary level. Postsecondary completion rates among students from low-income schools are unacceptably low. The Department believes that GEAR UP projects can play a strong role in improving postsecondary outcomes of their participants by placing a greater emphasis in two areas: (1) College fit, and (2) college readiness at the postsecondary level. The Department is interested in receiving applications with strong plans designed to address one or both of these focus areas.
The concept of college fit combines traditional approaches to college advising such as assistance with test preparation, research, admissions applications, and financial aid applications, with strategies to improve college selection so that students are more aware of and likely to seriously consider or choose institutions that are a good “fit” with their level qualifications, academic and career interests, and financial, personal, and social needs. College fit builds on the body of research on “undermatching,” which demonstrates that students are more likely to complete college when they attend the most academically demanding institution that will admit them. Research has also found that academically prepared low-income students may not be fully aware of the colleges accessible to them and may not be evaluating a full range of college choice factors that could influence the decision about whether to apply to and enroll in the most selective colleges for which they are qualified.
• Exposing students to a wider array of college options including those that match with their academic qualifications;
• Using a variety of ways to communicate semi-customized information to students about the range of colleges for which they may be qualified, the availability and scale of financial aid, and the relationship of long term considerations (such as graduation rate and post-graduate opportunities) to college choice.
• Using innovative methods to reach students, such as through text messaging, with information about college options and completing the application process, and using innovative resources and tools, including those available online, to assist students in researching college options and available financial aid;
• Connecting students to “near peer” advisers to provide counseling to students about college choices.
GEAR UP grantees can improve college readiness by identifying at an early age students likely to be referred to remediation at the postsecondary level and by engaging in strategies to address their needs at the secondary level to make taking such courses in college unnecessary. Each year, rather than being able to enroll in entry level general education courses in subject areas such as reading or math that are required as a part of almost any postsecondary program of study, millions of beginning college students
Remedial education is one of the leading barriers to postsecondary persistence and completion.
Because of its focus on low-income middle school and high school students, GEAR UP may be uniquely situated for early identification of students at risk of needing remediation. GEAR UP programs may also engage in coordinated and targeted interventions that provide academic and counseling services to at-risk students while still in high school to reduce the need for remediation before reaching college, through promising practices such as—
• Using results from State achievement tests from early grades to identify students likely to need remediation should they enroll in college;
• Conducting early assessments for GEAR UP participants while they are in high school to identify academic weaknesses that may be predictive of future remediation needs and targeting supports such as tutoring and counseling to help ensure these students graduate from high school academically prepared for college;
• Offering a “bridge program” during the summer before college to help students better prepare for institutional course placement exams and the academic transition into college in the fall; or,
• In the project's 7th year (for applicants seeking a 7th year of funding), in which students would be in their first year of postsecondary study, focusing support services on students enrolled in remediation courses, such as by providing enhanced academic and career advising and targeted tutoring services.
Additionally, GEAR UP grantees can support coordination with State systems by building upon and complementing early remediation intervention strategies that are implemented by schools and local educational agencies in response to their status under State accountability systems.
Projects that are designed to address one or more of the following priority areas: (a) Increasing the number and proportion of high-need students (as defined in this notice) who are academically prepared for and enroll in college or other postsecondary education and training, and (b) Increasing the number and proportion of high-need students who enroll in and complete high-quality programs of study (as defined in this notice) designed to lead to a postsecondary degree, credential, or certificate.
In recent years, many States have adopted internationally benchmarked, college- and career-ready academic standards for elementary and secondary school students. GEAR UP grantees can support States in this effort by developing projects designed to assist students in meeting these standards. Applicants could, for example, propose to align their curriculum and instructional materials with college and career ready academic standards or provide academic and social supports to prepare more students to take Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate courses and enroll in dual enrollment programs where they are available.
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 projects in one or more of the following priority areas:
(a) The development or implementation of curriculum or instructional materials aligned with those standards.
(b) The development or implementation of professional development or preparation programs aligned with those standards.
(c) Strategies that translate the standards into classroom practice.
The GEAR UP statute (20 U.S.C. 1070a–21–1070a–28) and applicable cost principles contained in U.S. Office of Management and Budget Circular A–87 (now redesignated as 2 CFR part 225) do not authorize a State grantee to use GEAR UP program funds to implement activities needed to address this priority unless doing so focuses only on the eligible students in local educational agencies (LEAs) participating in the State's GEAR UP project. However, a State grantee may use Federal funds to provide supplemental help that participating LEAs need to implement any part of the State's or LEA's strategies for meeting this competitive preference priority. Similarly, a State also may use GEAR UP program funds to provide supplemental assistance to LEAs that have received funding under the Investing in Innovation (i3) program to implement strategies and activities that align with State strategies for preparing eligible GEAR UP students to attend and succeed in postsecondary education. These strategies may include the development of graduation and career plans.
An emerging body of research suggests that non-cognitive skills and behaviors play an important role in students' academic, career, and life outcomes.
For example, interventions focused on academic mindset (e.g., a sense of belonging in the academic community, believing academic achievement improves with effort, and that challenges are inevitable for success) have been shown to have a measurable impact on grades and course persistence, high school graduation, and college enrollment among low-income and minority students. Strategies focused on strengthening perseverance (e.g., tenacity and self-discipline) and social and emotional skills (e.g., cooperation, empathy, adaptability, and executive functions) have also demonstrated positive outcomes.
For example, middle school students who participated in a series of “Possible Selves” workshops in which they imagined themselves as adults and the positive and negative factors that could help or hinder their goals had higher test scores and GPAs two years after the program than those who did not receive the intervention.
With this invitational priority, the Department intends to encourage applicants to incorporate strategies and interventions to strengthen traditionally underserved students' non-cognitive skills, so that they are able to pursue a successful path to high school graduation and college success.
20 U.S.C. 1070a–21–1070a–28.
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 (IHEs) only.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2015 from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1.
2.a.
b.
3.
1.
You also can request a copy of the application package from the following: Nofertary Fofana, Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street NW., Room 7095, Washington, DC 20006–8524. Telephone: (202) 502–7533 or by email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call, toll free: 1–877–576–7734.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) by contacting the program contact person listed in this section.
2.
• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″ , on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
For purposes of determining compliance with the 40 page limit, each page on which there are words will be counted as one full page.
• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, except titles, headings, footnotes, endnotes, quotations, references, and captions. Charts, tables, figures, and graphs in the application may be single spaced.
• Use a font that is either 12-point or larger; or, no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch). However, you may use a 10 point font in charts, tables, figures, graphs, footnotes, and endnotes.
• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial.
The page limits do not apply to the cover sheet; the budget section, including the budget narrative and summary form; the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract. If you include any attachments or appendices not specifically requested and required for the application, these items will be counted as part of the narrative for the purposes of the page limit.
3.
Applications Available: June 4, 2014.
Applications for grants under this program must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov). For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, please refer to section IV.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. Data Universal Numbering System Number, Taxpayer Identification Number, and
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
Once your SAM registration is active, you will need to allow 24 to 48 hours for the information to be available in Grants.gov and before you can submit an application through Grants.gov.
If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your registration annually. This may take three or more business days.
Information about SAM is available at
In addition, if you are submitting your application via Grants.gov, you must (1) be designated by your organization as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and (2) register yourself with Grants.gov as an AOR. Details on these steps are outlined at the following Grants.gov Web page:
7.
a.
Applications for grants under the GEAR UP State Grant Competition, CFDA number 84.334S, 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 and submit, no later than two weeks before the application deadline date, a written statement to the Department that you qualify for one of these exceptions. Further information regarding calculation of the date that is two weeks before the application deadline date is provided later in this section under
You may access the electronic grant application for the GEAR UP State Grant competition at
Please note the following:
• When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation.
• Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not accept your application if it is received—that is, date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system—after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date.
• The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov.
• You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for this competition to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov under News and Events on the Department's G5 system home page at
• You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format.
• You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: The Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.
• You must upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to your application as files in a PDF (Portable Document) read-only, non-modifiable format. Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only, non-modifiable PDF or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material.
• Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice.
• After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. (This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department.) The Department then will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send a second notification to you by email. This second notification indicates that the Department has received your application and has assigned your application a PR/Award number (an ED-specified identifying number unique to your application).
• We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.
If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice.
If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed under
The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed to fully register to submit your application to Grants.gov before the application deadline date and time or if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov system.
• You do not have access to the Internet; or
• You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the Grants.gov system; 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: Nofertary Fofana, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street NW., Room 7095, Washington, DC 20006–8524. FAX: (202) 219–7074.
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 84.334S) 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 84.334S) 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.
2.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary also requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
3.
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multi-year award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to
4.
The effectiveness of this program depends on the rate at which program participants complete high school and enroll in and complete a postsecondary education. Under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), we developed the following performance measures to track progress toward achieving the program's goals:
1. The percentage of GEAR UP students who pass Pre-algebra by the end of 8th grade.
2. The percentage of GEAR UP students who pass Algebra 1 by the end of 9th grade.
3. The percentage of GEAR UP students who take two years of mathematics beyond Algebra 1 by the 12th grade.
4. The percentage of GEAR UP students who graduate from high school.
For each GEAR UP project, the high school graduation rate is defined in the State's approved accountability plan under Part A of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA).
5. The percentage of GEAR UP students and former GEAR UP students who are enrolled in college.
6. The percentage of GEAR UP students who place into college-level Math and English without need for remediation.
7. The percentage of current GEAR UP students and former GEAR UP students enrolled in college who are on track to graduate college.
8. The percentage of GEAR UP students who complete the Free Application for Federal Student Aid.
9. The percentage of GEAR UP students who are on track for graduation at the end of each grade.
10. The percentage of GEAR UP students who are on track to apply for college as measured by completion of the SAT or ACT by the end of 11th grade.
11. The percentage of parents of GEAR UP students who actively engage in activities associated with assisting students in their academic preparation for college.
In addition, to assess the efficiency of the program, we track the average cost in Federal funds, of achieving a successful outcome, where success is defined as enrollment in postsecondary education of GEAR UP students immediately after high school graduation. These performance measures constitute GEAR UP's indicators of the success of the program. Grant recipients must collect and report data on steps they have taken toward achieving these goals. Accordingly, we request that applicants include these performance measures in conceptualizing the design, implementation, and evaluation of their proposed projects.
5.
Nofertary Fofana, Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street NW., Room 7095, Washington, DC 20006–8524. Telephone: (202) 502–7533 or by email:
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 Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice.
Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP).
Notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2014.
The Department is using Competitive Preference Priority 1 to focus on increasing readiness for success once students reach the postsecondary level. Postsecondary completion rates among students from low-income schools are unacceptably low. The Department believes that GEAR UP projects can play a strong role in improving the postsecondary outcomes of their participants by placing a greater emphasis in two areas: (1) College fit, and (2) college readiness at the postsecondary level. The Department is interested in receiving applications with strong plans designed to address one or both of these focus areas.
The concept of college fit combines traditional approaches to college advising, such as assistance with test preparation, research, admissions applications, and financial aid applications, with strategies to improve college selection so that students are more aware of and likely to seriously consider or choose institutions that are a good “fit” with their qualifications, academic and career interests, and financial, personal, and social needs. College fit builds on the body of research on “undermatching,” which demonstrates that students are more likely to complete college when they attend the most academically demanding institution that will admit them. Research has also found that academically prepared low-income students may not be fully aware of the colleges accessible to them and may not be evaluating a full range of college choice factors that could influence the decision about whether to apply to and enroll in the most selective colleges for which they are qualified.
• Exposing students to a wider array of college options including those that match with their academic qualifications;
• Using a variety of ways to communicate semi-customized information to students about the range of colleges for which they may be qualified, the availability and scale of financial aid, and the relationship of long term considerations (such as graduation rate and post-graduate opportunities) to college choice;
• Using innovative methods to reach students, such as through text messaging, with information about college options and completing the application process, and using innovative resources and tools, including those available online, to assist students in researching college options and available financial aid;
• Connecting students to “near peer” advisers to provide counseling to
GEAR UP grantees can improve college readiness by identifying at an early age students likely to be referred to remediation at the postsecondary level and by engaging in strategies to address their needs at the secondary level to make taking such courses in college unnecessary. Each year, rather than being able to enroll in entry-level general education courses in subject areas such as reading or math that are required as a part of almost any postsecondary program of study, millions of beginning college students are referred to noncredit-bearing “developmental” or “remedial” courses based on their performance on a placement test or academic reference. Remedial or developmental courses are designed to bring academically underprepared students to expected competency levels for college-level work. Remediation needs are common at all types of colleges. The share of first year undergraduate students at four-year institutions who reported taking a remedial course in 2012 is approximately 29.5 percent at public, 19.6 percent at private nonprofit, and 23.1 percent at for-profit institutions. At two-year institutions, 40.3 percent of first year undergraduate students at public and 17.3 percent at for-profit institutions reported taking a remedial course in 2012.
Remedial education is one of the leading barriers to postsecondary persistence and completion.
Because of its focus on low-income middle school and high school students, GEAR UP may be uniquely situated for early identification of students at risk of needing remediation. GEAR UP programs may also engage in coordinated and targeted interventions that provide academic and counseling services to at-risk students while still in high school to reduce the need for remediation before reaching college, through promising practices such as—
• Using results from State achievement tests from early grades to identify students likely to need remediation should they enroll in college;
• Conducting early assessments for GEAR UP participants while they are in high school to identify academic weaknesses that may be predictive of future remediation needs and targeting supports such as tutoring and counseling to help ensure these students graduate from high school academically prepared for college;
• Offering a “bridge program” during the summer before college to help students better prepare for institutional course placement exams and the academic transition into college in the fall; or,
• In the project's 7th year (for applicants seeking a 7th year of funding), in which students would be in their first year of postsecondary study, focusing support services on students enrolled in remediation courses, such as by providing enhanced academic and career advising and targeted tutoring services.
Additionally, GEAR UP grantees can support coordination with State systems by building upon and complementing early remediation intervention strategies that are implemented by schools and local educational agencies in response to their status under State accountability systems.
Projects that are designed to address one or more of the following priority areas: (a) Increasing the number and proportion of high-need students (as defined in this notice) who are academically prepared for and enroll in college or other postsecondary education and training, and (b) Increasing the number and proportion of high-need students who enroll in and complete high-quality programs of study (as defined in this notice) designed to lead to a postsecondary degree, credential, or certificate.
The Department is using Competitive Preference Priority 2 in order to combine the work of GEAR UP with other Federal anti-poverty programs in federally designated “Promise Zones.” Since 2009, the Obama Administration has invested more than $350 million in 100 of the Nation's persistent pockets of poverty. Building on those efforts, the President has announced an initiative to designate, over the next 4 years, 20 high-poverty communities as Promise Zones where the Federal government will partner with, and invest in, communities to create jobs, leverage private investment, increase economic activity, improve educational opportunities, and improve public safety. Co-led by the U.S. Departments of Housing and Urban Development, Education, Agriculture, and Justice, Promise Zones are part of the President's Ladders of Opportunity plan to ensure that hard-working Americans make it to the middle class.
Promise Zones will align the work of multiple Federal programs in high-poverty urban, rural, and tribal communities that have both substantial needs and a strong, evidence-based plan to address them. The five primary goals of Promise Zones are creating jobs, increasing economic activity, improving educational opportunities, reducing violent crime, and leveraging private investment. The initiative builds on lessons learned from existing place-based programs, such as the Department's Promise Neighborhoods program.
Projects that are designed to serve and coordinate with a federally designated Promise Zone.
Applicants should submit a letter from the lead entity of a designated Promise Zone attesting to the contribution that the proposed activities would make, and supporting the application. A list of designated Promise Zones and lead organizations can be found at
An emerging body of research suggests that non-cognitive skills and behaviors play an important role in students' academic, career, and life outcomes.
For example, interventions focused on academic mindset (e.g., a sense of belonging in the academic community, believing academic achievement improves with effort, and that challenges are inevitable for success) have been shown to have a measurable impact on grades and course persistence, high school graduation, and college enrollment among low-income and minority students. Strategies focused on strengthening perseverance (e.g., tenacity, self-discipline) and social and emotional skills (e.g., cooperation, empathy, adaptability, and executive functions) have also demonstrated positive outcomes.
For example, middle school students who participated in a series of “Possible Selves” workshops in which they imagined themselves as adults and the positive and negative factors that could help or hinder their goals had higher test scores and GPAs two years after the program than those who did not receive the intervention.
With this invitational priority, the Department intends to encourage applicants to incorporate strategies and interventions to strengthen traditionally underserved students' non-cognitive skills, so that they are able to pursue a successful path to high school graduation and college success.
Projects that include strategies to improve students' non-cognitive skills and behaviors, including academic mindset, perseverance, motivation, and mastery of social and emotional skills that improve student success.
20 U.S.C. 1070a–21–1070a–28.
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 (IHEs) only.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2015 from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1.
The fiscal agent/applicant must be either an IHE or an LEA (see 34 CFR 694.10).
2. a.
Section 404C(b)(2) further provides that the Secretary may approve a partnership's request for a reduced match percentage at the time of application if the partnership demonstrates significant economic hardship that precludes the partnership from meeting the matching requirement, or if the partnership requests that contributions to the scholarship fund be matched on a two to one basis. In addition, a partnership that includes three or fewer institutions of higher education as members and meets the high-need criteria in 34 CFR 694.8(d)(2) may provide a reduced level of match as specified in that regulation.
b.
1.
You also can request a copy of the application package from the following: Nofertary Fofana, Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street NW., Room 7095, Washington, DC 20006–8524. Telephone: (202) 502–7533 or by email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call, toll free: 1–877–576–7734.
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 assess your application. There is a limit for the application narrative of no more than 40 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.
For purposes of determining compliance with the 40 page limit, each page on which there are words will be counted as one full page.
• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, except titles, headings, footnotes, endnotes, quotations, references, and captions. Charts, tables, figures, and graphs in the application may be singe spaced.
• Use a font that is either 12-point or larger; or, no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch). However, you may use a 10 point font in charts, tables, figures, graphs, footnotes, and endnotes.
• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial.
The page limits do not apply to the cover sheet; the budget section, including the budget narrative and summary form; the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract. If you include any attachments or appendices not specifically requested and required for the application, these items will be counted as part of the narrative for the purposes of the page limit.
3.
Applications Available: June 4, 2014.
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: July 7, 2014.
Applications for grants under this program must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov). For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, please refer to section IV. 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: September 2, 2014.
4.
5.
6. Data Universal Numbering System Number, Taxpayer Identification Number, and
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
c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and
d. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period.
You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet. A DUNS number can be created within one-to-two business days.
If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow 2–5 weeks for your TIN to become active.
The SAM registration process can take approximately seven business days, but may take upwards of several weeks, depending on the completeness and accuracy of the data entered into the SAM database by an entity. Thus, if you think you might want to apply for Federal financial assistance under a program administered by the Department, please allow sufficient time to obtain and register your DUNS number and TIN. We strongly recommend that you register early.
Once your SAM registration is active, you will need to allow 24 to 48 hours for the information to be available in Grants.gov and before you can submit an application through Grants.gov.
If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your registration annually. This may take three or more business days.
Information about SAM is available at
In addition, if you are submitting your application via Grants.gov, you must (1) be designated by your organization as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and (2) register yourself with Grants.gov as an AOR. Details on these steps are outlined at the following Grants.gov Web page:
7.
a.
Applications for grants under the GEAR UP Partnership Grant Competition, CFDA number 84.334A, 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 GEAR UP Partnership Grant competition at
Please note the following:
• When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation.
• Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not accept your application if it is received—that is, date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system—after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date.
• The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov.
• You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for this competition to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov under News and Events on the Department's G5 system home page at
• You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format.
• You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: the Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.
• You must upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to your application as files in a PDF (Portable Document) read-only, non-modifiable format. Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only, non-modifiable PDF or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material.
• Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice.
• After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. (This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department.) The Department then will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send a second notification to you by email. This second notification indicates that the Department has received your application and has assigned your application a PR/Award number (an ED-specified identifying number unique to your application).
• We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.
If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice.
If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed under
The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed to fully register to submit your application to Grants.gov before the application deadline date and time or if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov system.
• You do not have access to the Internet; or
• You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the Grants.gov system;
• No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days; or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevent you from using the Internet to submit your application.
If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.
Address and mail or fax your statement to: Nofertary Fofana, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street NW., Room 7095, Washington, DC 20006–8524. FAX: (202) 219–7074.
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
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 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.
(1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and
(2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245–6288.
1.
2.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary also requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
3.
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multi-year award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to
4.
The effectiveness of this program depends on the rate at which program participants complete high school and enroll in and complete a postsecondary education. Under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), we developed the following performance measures to track progress toward achieving the program's goals:
1. The percentage of GEAR UP students who pass Pre-algebra by the end of 8th grade.
2. The percentage of GEAR UP students who pass Algebra 1 by the end of 9th grade.
3. The percentage of GEAR UP students who take two years of mathematics beyond Algebra 1 by the 12th grade.
4. The percentage of GEAR UP students who graduate from high school.
For each GEAR UP project, the high school graduation rate is defined in the State's approved accountability plan under Part A of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA).
5. The percentage of GEAR UP students and former GEAR UP students who are enrolled in college.
6. The percentage of GEAR UP students who place into college-level Math and English without need for remediation.
7. The percentage of current GEAR UP students and former GEAR UP students enrolled in college who are on track to graduate college.
8. The percentage of GEAR UP students who complete the Free Application for Federal Student Aid.
9. The percentage of GEAR UP students who are on track for graduation at the end of each grade.
10. The percentage of GEAR UP students who are on track to apply for college as measured by completion of the SAT or ACT by the end of 11th grade.
11. The percentage of parents of GEAR UP students who actively engage in activities associated with assisting students in their academic preparation for college.
In addition, to assess the efficiency of the program, we track the average cost in Federal funds, of achieving a successful outcome, where success is defined as enrollment in postsecondary education of GEAR UP students immediately after high school graduation. These performance measures constitute GEAR UP's indicators of the success of the program. Grant recipients must collect and report data on steps they have taken toward achieving these goals. Accordingly, we request that applicants include these performance measures in conceptualizing the design, implementation, and evaluation of their proposed projects.
5.
Nofertary Fofana, Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street NW., Room 7095, Washington, DC 20006–8524. Telephone: (202) 502–7533 or by email:
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
U.S. Department of Energy.
Notice and request for OMB review and comment.
The Department of Energy (DOE) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance, a proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed collection will “support the administration and enforcement of the Department of Energy's regulation at 10 CFR part 217, issued pursuant to section 705 of the Defense Production Act of 1950 as amended (50 U.S.C. App.2061,
Comments regarding this collection must be received on or before July 7, 2014. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, please advise the DOE Desk Officer at OMB of your intention to make a submission as soon as possible. The Desk Officer may be telephoned at 202–395–4650.
Written comments should be sent to the DOE Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10102, 735 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503 and to Dr. Kenneth Friedman, U.S. Department of Energy, OE–30, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington DC 20585 or by fax at 202–586–2623, or by email at
Written comments may be sent to Dr. Kenneth Friedman, U.S. Department of Energy, OE–30, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington DC 20585 or by fax at 202–586–2623, or by email at
This information collection request contains:
(1)
Defense Production Act of 1950 as amended (50 U.S.C. App.2061,
Department of Energy.
Notice of intent; public meeting.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announces its intent to prepare an environmental assessment (EA), (DOE/EA–1977) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to analyze the potential environmental impacts from a proposed project to accept used nuclear fuel from the Federal Republic of Germany at DOE's Savannah River Site (SRS) for processing and disposition. This used nuclear fuel is composed of kernels containing thorium and U.S.-origin highly enriched uranium (HEU) embedded in small graphite spheres that were irradiated in nuclear reactors used for research and development purposes. DOE invites public comments on the scope of the EA and will conduct a public meeting.
DOE invites Federal agencies, state and local governments, Native American tribes, industry, other organizations, and members of the general public to submit comments on DOE's proposed scope of the EA. The public scoping period extends from the date of publication of this notice in the
DOE will hold a public meeting to discuss the proposed German HEU fuel project and receive comments on the scope of the EA. The meeting will be held on:
• Tuesday, June 24, 2014, (6:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.) at the North Augusta Community Center, 495 Brookside Drive, North Augusta, South Carolina 29841.
Please direct written comments on the scope of the German HEU Fuel EA to Mr. Andrew Grainger, NEPA Compliance Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, P.O. Box B, Aiken, South Carolina 29802. Comments on the scope of the German HEU Fuel EA may also be submitted by email to
To request further information on SRS used nuclear fuel disposition activities or background information on the proposed project, please contact Mr. Grainger as listed above.
For general information concerning DOE's NEPA process, contact: Ms. Carol Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance (GC–54), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585; (202) 586–4600, or leave a message toll-free, at (800) 472–2756; fax (202) 586–7031; or send an email to
DOE intends to prepare an EA in accordance with Council on Environmental Quality and DOE NEPA implementing regulations at 40 CFR Parts 1500–1508 and 10 CFR Part 1021, respectively. The EA will to analyze the potential environmental impacts of a proposal to accept, process, and disposition used nuclear fuel from Germany containing approximately 900 kilograms (kg) of HEU from the United States. The used nuclear fuel is composed of kernels containing thorium and U.S.-origin HEU embedded in thousands of small graphite spheres. The United States provided the HEU to Germany between 1965 and 1988. The fuel was irradiated at the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Versuchsreaktor (AVR) reactor, which operated from 1967 to 1988, and the Thorium High Temperature Reactor (THTR)-300, which operated from 1983 to 1989. These reactors operated as part of Germany's program to research and develop pebble bed reactor technology. AVR reactor fuel is stored at Jülich, Germany, and the THTR–300 reactor fuel is stored at Ahaus, Germany.
In a February 2012 letter, the State Secretary of the Federal Ministry of Education and Research of the Federal Republic of Germany requested DOE's Under Secretary for Nuclear Security to DOE consider accepting the fuel. The Office of Environmental Management responded on behalf of the Under Secretary that DOE would consider the request. Collaboration on the request was initiated in May 2012.
German officials and the Office of Environmental Management subsequently began work on a feasibility study regarding the potential for acceptance, processing, and disposition of the fuel, and related research and development, using facilities at SRS, located near Aiken, South Carolina. Those efforts are ongoing. In April 2014, DOE, the Federal Ministry of Education and Research of the Federal Republic of Germany, and the Ministry for Innovation, Science and Research of the State of North Rhine-Westphalia on behalf of the North Rhine-Westphalian State Government, Germany, signed a Statement of Intent
DOE's purpose and need for this action is to support the U.S. policy objective to reduce, and eventually to eliminate, HEU from civil commerce. This action would help achieve the U.S. HEU minimization objective by removing up to approximately 900 kg of U.S.-origin HEU from Germany and returning it to the United States for safe storage and disposition in a form no longer usable for an improvised nuclear device, a radiological dispersal device, or other radiological exposure device.
Under the proposed action, the German government would work with DOE to transport the used fuel by ocean-going vessel to the United States in DOE/U.S. Department of Transportation-certified Type B casks. The used fuel would be received at Joint Base Charleston in Charleston, South Carolina, and then the casks would be transported by rail to SRS. DOE estimates that this could involve approximately 455 casks received over a period of approximately 3 years.
DOE will analyze alternatives for unloading and storage of the transport casks at SRS. DOE will analyze any necessary improvements to the rail spur and roads at SRS needed to safely unload the casks and transport them on-site. Storage alternatives for the transport casks containing the used fuel may include construction of a new covered concrete storage pad and use of existing concrete pads (that may require modification).
DOE would install a capability in H-Canyon at SRS to chemically remove the graphite from the fuel kernels via a molten salt technique (“chemical digestion”) being developed by the Savannah River National Laboratory. DOE currently estimates that it would take approximately 3 years to complete removal of the graphite from all the used fuel. The fuel kernels would be stored in H-Canyon. After all the fuel kernels have been extracted, they would be processed through the H-Canyon. This would separate the uranium from thorium and fission products.
DOE has identified three alternatives for disposition of the HEU that would be separated from the fuel kernels.
• Dissolution, purification, and down blending the HEU to low-enriched uranium (LEU) for reuse as reactor fuel (if the LEU can meet applicable specifications);
• Separating the uranium, down blending, and disposing of the uranium in an appropriate radioactive waste disposal facility; and
• Disposal of the uranium as waste without down blending via vitrification in the Defense Waste Processing Facility at SRS.
The EA also will evaluate alternatives for disposition of the empty transport casks and containers used to package the used fuel. Currently identified alternatives include on-site disposal in the E-Area at SRS and, potentially, pursuing reuse of the transport casks. In addition, the EA will analyze a no action alternative under which DOE
DOE has tentatively identified the following areas for analysis in the German HEU Fuel EA. The list is presented to facilitate comment on the scope of the EA and is not intended to be comprehensive or to predetermine the potential impacts to be analyzed.
• Impacts to the general population and workers from radiological and nonradiological releases, and other worker health and safety impacts.
• Impacts of emissions on air and water quality, including impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on climate change.
• Impacts on ecological systems and threatened and endangered species.
• Impacts of waste management activities.
• Impacts of the transportation of radioactive materials, including transport across the ocean.
• Impacts that could occur as a result of postulated accidents and intentional destructive acts (terrorist actions and sabotage).
• Potential disproportionately high and adverse effects on low-income and minority populations (environmental justice).
• Short-term and long-term land use impacts, including potential impacts of disposal.
• Cumulative impacts.
Following the public scoping period and after consideration of all comments received during scoping, DOE will prepare a Draft German HEU Fuel EA. DOE will announce its availability to the public for comment, provide a public comment period, and conduct a public hearing to receive comments on the Draft EA. All comments submitted on the Draft EA during the public comment period will be considered and addressed in the Final German HEU Fuel EA. DOE will address comments submitted after the close of the public comment period on the Draft EA to the extent practicable. Based on the EA analysis, DOE will either issue a Finding of No Significant Impact or announce its intent to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS).
If DOE determines that an EIS is needed, either during preparation of the EA or after completing the EA, DOE would issue in the
Office of Fossil Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of Availability of Draft Addendum to Environmental Review Documents Concerning Exports of Natural Gas from the United States.
The Office of Fossil Energy (FE) of the Department of Energy (DOE) announces the availability of the
Comments are to be filed using procedures detailed in the Public Comment section no later than 4:30 p.m., Eastern Time, July 21, 2014.
Section 3(a) of the Natural Gas Act, 15 U.S.C. 717b(a), directs the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to authorize proposed exports of natural gas to countries with which the United States does not have a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) requiring national treatment for trade in natural gas (non-FTA countries), unless DOE finds that the proposed exportation will not be consistent with the public interest.
DOE presently has before it numerous applications to export liquefied natural gas (LNG) to non-FTA countries. The project proponents in these applications also have applied to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for approvals related to onshore LNG facilities. FERC is the lead federal agency for the preparation of environmental assessments (EAs) and environmental impact statements (EISs) required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for the applications that are pending before both federal agencies. DOE is participating as a cooperating agency in these NEPA reviews.
Several parties and commenters to these proceedings have urged DOE to review the potential environmental impacts of natural gas production activities, particularly the hydraulic fracturing of shale formations. These parties and commenters reason that authorizing exports of LNG to non-FTA countries would induce additional natural gas production in the United States, and that the environmental impacts of the additional natural gas production should be considered as a factor affecting the public interest.
Fundamental uncertainties constrain the ability to predict what, if any, domestic natural gas production would be induced by granting any specific authorization or authorizations to export LNG to non-FTA countries. Receiving a non-FTA authorization from DOE does not guarantee that a particular facility would be financed and built; nor does it guarantee that, even if built, market conditions would continue to favor export once the facility is operational. Numerous LNG import facilities were previously authorized by DOE, received financing, and were built, only to see declining use over the past decade.
The current rapid development of unconventional natural gas resources will likely continue, with or without the export of natural gas. Potential impacts associated with the development of unconventional natural gas resources will exist whenever it is produced, much the same as the conventional natural gas industry has for decades. Exporting natural gas may accelerate the timing of the development unconventional resources and the associated potential impacts. However, it is not reasonable to assume that unconventional natural gas production and the associated potential impacts will not occur if natural gas exports to non-FTA countries are prohibited.
Accordingly, to provide the public with a more complete understanding of potential impacts, DOE has prepared this draft Addendum to discuss the potential environmental impacts associated with unconventional natural gas production in the lower-48 states. By including this discussion of natural gas production activities, DOE is going beyond what NEPA requires. While DOE has made broad projections about the types of resources from which additional production may come, DOE cannot meaningfully estimate where, when, or by what method any additional natural gas would be produced. Therefore, DOE cannot meaningfully analyze the specific environmental impacts of such production, which are nearly all local or regional in nature. As DOE explained in
The Addendum is intended to provide information only on the impact areas most often associated with unconventional natural gas production. The Addendum is not the result of new analysis or research, but rather is based on DOE's review of existing studies and analyses. A key resource in preparing the Addendum was the report
In response to this Notice, any person may file comments. DOE prefers comments to be filed using the online form (method 1). However, for those lacking access to the Internet, comments may be filed using method 2 or 3. The three methods are: (1) submission of comments using the online form at
DOE will consider all comments received until the close of the comment period. Comments must be limited to the issues and potential impacts addressed in the Addendum, and DOE may disregard comments that are not germane.
Commenters should be advised that filings with DOE shall be subject to public disclosure, so submissions should be free of any personally identifiable information (PII) or other information that the individual does not wish to be revealed in a public forum.
The Addendum and other relevant documents are available for download at
Office of Fossil Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of Availability of Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Perspective on Exporting Liquefied Natural Gas from the United States and request for comments.
The Office of Fossil Energy (FE) of the Department of Energy (DOE) gives notice of the availability of the Report
Initial comments are to be filed using procedures detailed in the Public Comment section no later than 4:30 p.m., Eastern Time, July 21, 2014. All comments received need only be submitted once as they will be placed in the administrative record for each of the 25 currently pending export application dockets.
Section 3(a) of the Natural Gas Act, 15 U.S.C. 717b(a), directs the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to authorize proposed exports of natural gas to countries with which the United States does not have a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) requiring national treatment for trade in natural gas (non-FTA countries), unless DOE finds that the proposed exportation will not be consistent with the public interest.
DOE presently has before it numerous applications to export liquefied natural gas (LNG) to non-FTA countries. The 25 proceedings identified above involve applications submitted by the named parties seeking authorization to export LNG by LNG tanker from large-scale liquefaction facilities in the lower-48 states to non-FTA nations. The purpose of this Notice is to post the LCA GHG Report in the 25 proceedings, and to
The LCA GHG Report was conducted by the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), a DOE laboratory. The LCA GHG Report estimates the life cycle GHG emissions of U.S. LNG exports to Europe and Asia, compared with alternative supplies, to produce electric power. For additional information on the natural gas model, refer to the NETL report,
The primary questions addressed by the LCA GHG Report are:
• How does exported liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the U.S. compare with regional coal (or other LNG sources) for electric power generation in Europe and Asia, from a life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) perspective?
• How do those results compare with natural gas sourced from Russia and delivered to the same European and Asian markets via pipeline?
To address these questions, NETL applied its life cycle analysis (LCA) model to represent unconventional natural gas production and transportation to a U.S. Gulf Coast liquefaction facility, liquefaction of the gas at the facility, and transportation of the LNG to an import terminal in Rotterdam, Netherlands, to represent a European market, and to an import terminal in Shanghai, China, to represent Asian Markets. LNG produced in Algeria was modeled to represent an alternative regional LNG European market supply source with a destination of Rotterdam and LNG from Darwin, Australia was modeled to represent an alternative regional LNG Asian market supply source with a destination of Osaka, Japan. Conventional natural gas extracted from the Yamal region of Siberia in Russia was modeled as the regional pipeline gas alternative for both the European and Asian markets. Regional coal production and consumption in Germany and China were also modeled. Scenario specific variability was modeled by adjusting methane leakage for natural gas production, coal type (bituminous and sub-bituminous), transport distance (ocean tanker for LNG and rail for coal), and power plant efficiency.
DOE is not establishing a new proceeding or docket by today's issuance and the submission of comments in response to this Notice will not make commenters parties to any of the pending 25 cases. Persons with an interest in the outcome of one or more of the 25 pending matters have been given an opportunity to intervene in or protest those pending matters by complying with the procedures established in the respective notices of application issued in the pending 25 matters and published in the
In response to this Notice, any person may file comments. DOE prefers comments to be filed using the online form (method 1). However, for those lacking access to the Internet, comments may be filed using method 2 or 3. The three methods are: (1) Submission of comments using the online form at
DOE will consider all comments received until the close of the comment period. Comments must be limited to the issues and potential impacts addressed in the LCA GHG Report, and DOE may disregard comments that are not germane.
Commenters should be advised that filings with DOE shall be subject to public disclosure, so submissions should be free of any personally identifiable information (PII) or other information that the individual does not wish to be revealed in a public forum.
Instructions for submitting comments are available at
The LCA GHG Report and other relevant documents are available for download at
Office of Fossil Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of proposed procedures.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE or the Department) proposes to act on applications to export liquefied natural gas (LNG) only after the review required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) has been completed, suspending its practice of issuing conditional decisions prior to final authorization decisions.
Comments are to be filed using procedures detailed in the Submission of Comments section no later than 4:30 p.m., Eastern Time, July 21, 2014.
Interested persons may submit comments by any of the following methods:
Section 3(a) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), 15 U.S.C. § 717b(a), gives the Department of Energy
In addition to an authorization from the Department under Section 3(a) of the NGA, an applicant intending to export natural gas from a new or modified LNG terminal must also obtain approval to site, construct, and operate the terminal. For LNG terminals located onshore or in state waters, the applicant must obtain approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) pursuant to Section 3(e) of the NGA. 15 U.S.C. 717b(e). For LNG terminals located offshore beyond state waters, the applicant must obtain approval from the Maritime Administration within the Department of Transportation (MARAD) pursuant to Section 3(9) of the Deepwater Ports Act, as amended by Section 312 of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112–213). To date, all but two of the 26 large-scale non-FTA LNG export applications to DOE have proposed exports from LNG terminals located onshore or in state waters and therefore have fallen within FERC's jurisdiction. In most cases, these applicants have applied to DOE and FERC in parallel, which has enabled the two agencies to conduct concurrent reviews under the NGA.
An application to export natural gas to non-FTA countries also requires review of potential environmental impacts under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321
DOE regulations at 10 CFR part 590 describe DOE's process for reviewing non-FTA export applications. This process begins with the submission of an application, the required contents of which are described at 10 CFR 590.202. Upon receipt, DOE reviews the application for completeness. If the application is complete, DOE publishes a notice in the
DOE regulations also contemplate the issuance of conditional decisions on a discretionary basis prior to the completion of DOE's review process. Section 590.402 of DOE's regulations, entitled “Conditional orders,” states: “The Assistant Secretary may issue a conditional order at any time during a proceeding prior to issuance of a final opinion and order. The conditional order shall include the basis for not issuing a final opinion and order at that time and a statement of findings and conclusions. The findings and conclusions shall be based solely on the official record of the proceeding.”
In 1981, when DOE proposed this provision, it explained that a “conditional decision would be appropriate in cases where a need exists for an indication of [DOE's] preliminary findings and conclusions, but additional information is needed before a final decision and order can be rendered.”
In the years following, DOE issued conditional authorizations on numerous occasions.
On December 5, 2012, the Department published the order in which it intended to take up applications to export LNG to non-FTA countries. The order, which the Department has updated from time to time, grouped the pending applications into three categories. The group of applications placed first were those for which the applicant had received approval from FERC to use the FERC pre-filing process on or before December 5, 2012. Receiving this approval from FERC means that an applicant has initiated the NEPA review process, which, as explained above, is a predicate for final action by both FERC and DOE. The group of applications placed second were those that had not yet initiated NEPA review but had already applied to DOE. The group placed third consisted of all applicants that had yet to apply to DOE as of December 5, 2012, regardless of their status in the NEPA review process. Within each group, applications were and have continued to be placed in order of submission to DOE.
In this notice, the Department is proposing to suspend its practice of issuing conditional decisions on applications to export LNG from the lower-48 states
Under the proposed procedure, DOE would no longer proceed in the published order of precedence, but would act on applications in the order in which they become ready for final action. An application is ready for final action when DOE has completed the pertinent NEPA review process and when DOE has sufficient information on which to base a public interest determination. For purposes of determining this order, an application will be deemed to have completed the NEPA review process: (1) For those projects requiring an EIS, 30 days after publication of a Final EIS, (2) for projects for which an EA has been prepared, upon publication by DOE of a Finding of No Significant Impact, or (3) upon a determination by DOE that an application is eligible for a categorical exclusion pursuant to DOE's regulations implementing NEPA, 10 CFR 1021.410, Appx. A & B. The test for whether an application has completed NEPA review will be applied as stated above and without regard for whether FERC, MARAD, or DOE has served as lead agency in preparation of the environmental review document.
This proposed procedure, if adopted, would not affect the continued validity of the conditional orders the Department has already issued. For those applications, the Department will proceed as explained in the conditional orders: When the NEPA review process for those projects is complete, the Department will reconsider the conditional authorization in light of the information gathered in the environmental review and take appropriate final action. Further, the Department will continue to act on requests for conditional authorizations during the period when the procedures proposed in this notice are under consideration.
The Department is proposing the procedure described above for four reasons: first, because conditional decisions no longer appear necessary for FERC or the majority of applicants to devote resources to NEPA review; second, because doing so will prioritize acting upon applications that are otherwise ready to proceed; third, because doing so will facilitate decisionmaking informed by better and more complete information; and fourth, because doing so will better allocate agency resources.
The Department's original stated justification for issuing conditional authorizations—to provide greater certainty for FERC—no longer appears to apply. FERC has proceeded with the NEPA review process for many LNG terminals that have yet to receive conditional non-FTA authorizations from DOE. Similarly, the applicants themselves have, in general, been willing to devote time and resources to the NEPA review process without having received conditional authorizations. In addition to the seven applications comprising a total of 9.27 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) in export authority to non-FTA countries that DOE has already approved either finally or conditionally, there are another 8 projects comprising 10.82 Bcf/d in requested non-FTA export authority that are well into the NEPA review process without having received a conditional authorization.
Further, the proposed procedure will ensure that applications otherwise ready to proceed will not be held back by their position in the order of precedence. While the first grouping of applications in the order of precedence was partially determined by the applicants' having initiated NEPA review, over time the order of precedence is likely to bear less of a direct relationship to the applicants' progress in NEPA review. Indeed, it is likely that if DOE were to continue on its current course in the published order of precedence, DOE would act on some applications that have yet to initiate NEPA review before acting on others that have already finished NEPA review. By removing the intermediate step of conditional decisions and setting the order of DOE decisionmaking based on readiness for final action, DOE will avoid the possibility of delayed action on applications that are otherwise ready to proceed.
The proposed procedure is also likely to improve the quality of information on which DOE bases its decisions for three reasons. First, by considering economic issues closer in time to when the project is ready to commence construction, DOE will be able to base its decision on more current data than when it issues a conditional decision, which could potentially occur years before NEPA review for the application is complete. Second, by acting only on applications for which NEPA review has been completed, DOE will be in a better position to judge the cumulative market
Declining to issue conditional decisions will also better allocate departmental resources. Applying for an export authorization from DOE is relatively inexpensive; it requires a small application fee and modest informational requirements. For that reason, some companies may view it as advantageous to file an application with DOE even if they foresee only a low probability that they will ultimately undergo NEPA review and complete the application process. By acting only on applications that are ready for final action, DOE will likely avoid devoting resources to applications that have little prospect of proceeding. These saved resources can be better deployed to providing timely action on applications that are furthest along in the regulatory review process.
In response to this notice, any person may file comments. DOE prefers comments to be filed using the following online form (method 1). However, for those lacking access to the Internet, comments may be filed using method 2 or 3. The three methods are: (1) Submission of comments using the on-line form at
While this invitation to comment covers a specific issue, DOE may disregard comments that are not germane to the present inquiry. Commenters should be advised that filings with DOE shall be subject to public disclosure, so submissions should be free of any personally identifiable information (PII) or other information that the individual does not wish to be revealed in a public forum.
Any hardcopy filings are available for inspection and copying in the Division of Natural Gas Regulatory Activities docket Room, Room 3E–042, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585. The docket room is open between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. All comments filed will also be available electronically by going to the following DOE/FE Web address:
DOE will accept comments no later than the date provided at the beginning of this notice. After the close of the comment period, DOE will review the comments received and decide whether to implement the proposed policy.
According to 10 CFR part 1004.11, any person submitting information that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit two copies: one copy of the document should have all the information believed to be confidential deleted. DOE will make its own determination as to the confidential status of the information and treat it according to its determination.
Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat submitted information as confidential include (1) a description of the items; (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as confidential within the industry; (3) whether the information is generally known or available from public sources; (4) whether the information has previously been made available to others without obligations concerning its confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the competitive injury to the submitting persons which would result from public disclosure; (6) a date after which such information might no longer be considered confidential; and (7) why disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.
DOE welcomes comments on all aspects of the proposed procedures, including its likely impact on applicants and other stakeholders. The Department invites all interested parties to submit in writing by July 21, 2014 comments and information on matters addressed in this notice. After the expiration of the period for submitting written statements, the Department will consider all comments and additional information that is obtained from interested parties or through further analyses, and it will prepare a final procedure statement.
Take notice that on May 13, 2014, ANR Pipeline (ANR), 717 Texas Street, Houston, Texas 77002–2761, filed an application pursuant to sections 7(b) and 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act and sections 157.5, 157.7 and 157.18 of the Commission's regulations for authorization to implement its proposed 2014 Storage Realignment to reduce the capacity at two storage fields (South Chester Storage Field and Central Charlton Storage Field) and authority to realign and revise the capacity parameters at five storage fields (the Lincoln-Freeman Storage Field, the Goodwell Storage Field, Reed City Storage Field, Winfield Storage Field, Loreed Storage Field) while maintaining the same aggregate level of working capacity on the system. Additionally,
Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Linda Farquhar, Manager, Project Determinations & Regulatory Administration, ANR Pipeline Company, 717 Texas Street, Suite 2400, Houston, Texas, or call (832) 320–5685, or by email
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 7 copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
Comment Date: June 18, 2014.
a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File License Application and Request to Use the Alternative Licensing Procedures.
b. Project No.: P–14616–000.
c. Dated Filed: April 15, 2014.
d. Submitted By: Oregon State University.
e. Name of Project: Pacific Marine Energy Test Center South Energy Test Site.
f. Location: Pacific Ocean—Outer Continental Shelf off central Oregon coast near city of Newport, Oregon.
g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 5.3 of the Commission's regulations.
h. Potential Applicant Contact: Belinda Batten, Oregon State University, 350 Batcheller Hall, Corvallis, OR 97331; (541) 737–9492; email at
i. FERC Contact: Jim Hastreiter at (503) 552–2760; or email at
j. Oregon State University filed its request to use the Alternative Licensing Procedures on April 15, 2014. Oregon State University provided public notice of its request on May 8, 2014. In a letter dated May 27, 2014, the Director of the Office of Energy Projects approved Oregon State University's request to use the Alternative Licensing Process.
k. Cooperating agencies: Federal, state, local, and tribal agencies with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to environmental issues that wish to cooperate in the preparation of the environmental document should follow the instructions for filing such requests described in item o below. Cooperating agencies should note the Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation of the environmental document cannot also intervene.
l. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with: (a) the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations thereunder at 50 CFR, Part 402; (b) NOAA Fisheries under section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and implementing
m. With this notice, we are designating Oregon State University as the Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal consultation, pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and section 305 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act; and consultation pursuant to section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
n. Oregon State University filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD; including a proposed process plan, schedule, and communications protocol) with the Commission, pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
o. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site (
p. Register online at
Take notice that on May 9, 2014, KPC Pipeline, LLC (KPC), 14000 Quail Springs Pkwy., Suite 250, Oklahoma City, OK 73134, filed in Docket No. CP14–482–000, an application pursuant to section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations, seeking authorization to abandon 2,120 feet of 12-inch diameter pipeline that is suspended from the Fairfax Bridge, which crosses the Missouri River between Platte County, Missouri and Kansas City, Kansas. The abandonment is necessitated by the removal of the Fairfax Bridge by the Missouri Department of Transportation, all as more fully set forth in the application, which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at
Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Cathy Pocock, KPC Pipeline, LLC, 14000 Quail Springs Pkwy., Suite 250, Oklahoma City, OK 73134, phone: (405) 608–8557, fax: (405) 608–8600, or email:
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 7 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on June 12, 2014.
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following public utility holding company filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that on May 23, 2014, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206, and section 206 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824e, FirstEnergy Services Company (FirstEnergy or Complainant), filed a formal complaint against PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM or Respondent) requesting that the Commission issue an order requiring the removal of all portions of the PJM Tariff allowing or requiring PJM to include demand response as suppliers to PJM's capacity markets, as more fully explained in the complaint.
FirstEnergy certifies that copies of the complaint were served on the contacts for PJM as listed on the Commission's list of Corporate Officials.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on June 12, 2014.
Take notice that on May 23, 2014, pursuant to section 206 and 306 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 USC 824e and 825e and Rule 206 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206, the City of Hastings, Nebraska and the City of Grand Island, Nebraska (collectively, Complainants) filed a formal complaint against Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (Respondent or SPP) alleging that, the Respondent may have misinterpreted its Tariff and is in violation of the FPA by demanding that the Complainants purchase transmission service that is not required by the Tariff and demanding that Complainants pay unreserved use penalties that are not permitted under the Tariff. In the alternative, if the Commission finds that SPP's interpretation is correct, the Complainants requests that the Commission determine that the affected provisions of the Tariff are unjust and unreasonable, as more fully explained in the Complaint.
The Complainants certify that copies of the Complaint were served on the contacts for the Respondent as listed in the Commission's list of Corporate Officials.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on June 12, 2014
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) regulations, 18 CFR Part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 Fed. Reg. 47897), the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for a new license for the Loup River Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 1256), located on the Loup River in Nance and Platte counties, Nebraska, and prepared a draft environmental assessment (EA).
In the draft EA, Commission staff analyzes the potential environmental effects of licensing the project, and concludes that issuing a new license for the project, with appropriate environmental measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
A copy of the draft EA is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
You may also register online at
Any comments should be filed within 30 days from the date of this notice. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file the requested information using the Commission's eFiling system at
For further information, please contact Lee Emery by telephone at (202) 502–8379, or by email at
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Midla Pipelines Gas Abandonment Project involving the abandonment of facilities by American Midstream, LLC (Midla) in Ouachita and East Baton Rouge Parishes, Louisiana. The Commission will use this EA in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity.
This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the project. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EA. Please note that the scoping period will close on June 23, 2014.
Further details on how to submit written comments are in the Public Participation section of this notice.
This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for this project. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
Midla provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” This fact sheet addresses a number of typically-asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. It is also available for viewing on the FERC Web site (
Midla proposes to abandon in place approximately 355 miles of 16-inch and 22-inch-diameter pipeline and various small-diameter connected laterals. Midla would also abandon by removal 3 compressor stations (two of which are inactive and from which the compressor units have already been removed), 40 above ground meter stations, and 57 valve sites. The facilities are in East Baton Rouge, Ouachita, Richland, Caldwell, Franklin, Catahoula, Tensas, Concordia, De Soto, East and West Feliciana, and Cameron Parishes, Louisiana and Adams County, Mississippi. According to Midla, the pipelines were constructed in the 1920s and suffer from chronic and serious integrity problems, including internal and external corrosion.
The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix 1.
Abandonment activities associated with the proposed project would disturb about 4.41 acres of land. Following abandonment activities, disturbed areas would be restored and revert to former uses.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the abandonment activities of the proposed project under these general headings:
We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
The EA will present our independent analysis of the issues. The EA will be available in the public record through eLibrary. Depending on the comments received during the scoping process, we may also publish and distribute the EA to the public for an allotted comment period. We will consider all comments on the EA before making our recommendations to the Commission. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public Participation section beginning on page 4.
With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues of this project to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the EA.
In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on historic properties.
You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before June 23, 2014.
For your convenience, there are three methods which you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances please reference the project docket number (CP14–125–000) with your submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502–8258 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the
(2) You can file your comments electronically using the
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the project. We will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the proposed project.
If we publish and distribute the EA, copies will be sent to the environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the attached Information Request (appendix 2).
In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want to become an “intervenor” which is an official party to the Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in the User's Guide under the “e-filing” link on the Commission's Web site.
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208–FERC, or on the FERC Web site at
In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at
Take notice that on May 23, 2014, Entergy Services, Inc., as agent on behalf of the Entergy Operating Companies
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on June 13, 2014.
Take notice that on April 24, 2014, Koch Alaska Pipeline Company, LLC submitted a letter to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) informing that they no longer own FERC-jurisdictional assets, therefore they will no longer be filing the FERC Form 6, starting with the 2013 third quarter Form 6Q.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 or 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Comment Date: June 18, 2014.
Take notice that on December 12, 2013, Koch Alaska Pipeline Company, LLC submitted a letter to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) informing that they no longer own FERC-jurisdictional assets, therefore they will no longer be filing the FERC Form 6, starting with the 2013 third quarter Form 6Q.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 or 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
On March 24, 2014, in Docket No. RP14–638–000, Atmos Energy Corporation (Atmos) filed a complaint against American Midstream (Midla) LLC (Midla) alleging, among other things, that Midla's open season notice and process violate the requirements of section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act. On March 28, 2014, in Docket No, CP14–125–000, Midla filed an application under section 7(b) of the NGA to abandon segments of its jurisdictional pipeline that are currently used to provide service to Atmos, as well as other shippers. Concurrently, Midla filed a prior notice filing in Docket No. CP14–126–000 requesting to abandon the remainder of its jurisdictional pipeline by sale to an affiliate. Midla and Atmos have contacted the Dispute Resolution Division about alternative dispute resolution (ADR) requesting to arrange a meeting among Midla, Atmos and other interested parties regarding the issues raised in these proceedings.
The Commission's Director of the Dispute Resolution Division will conduct a meeting on May 29 and May 30, 2014 commencing on May 29 at 10 a.m. in Hearing Room 7 and on May 30 at a time to be determined in Conference Room 2M–A/B at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC. The meeting will cover the ADR process. The Dispute Resolution Division will also assist the
Take notice that on May 27, 2014, LoneStar Wind Power Company, NorthStar Wind Power Company, and WindStar Power Company filed a Petition for Enforcement, pursuant to section 210(h) of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA), requesting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) to exercise its authority and initiate enforcement action against the South Texas Electric Co-Operative to ensure that PURPA regulations are properly and lawfully implemented.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
On May 16, 2014, the City of Fort Collins, Colorado filed a notice of intent to construct a qualifying conduit hydropower facility, pursuant to section 30 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), as amended by section 4 of the Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013 (HREA). The proposed City of Fort Collins Micro Hydro Project would have an installed capacity of 75 kilowatts (kW) and would utilize water from and connect with an existing 54-inch diameter pipeline. The project would be located near the City of Fort Collins in Larimer County, Colorado.
A qualifying conduit hydropower facility is one that is determined or deemed to meet all of the criteria shown in the table below.
Deadline for filing motions to intervene is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice.
Anyone may submit comments or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210 and 385.214. Any motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified deadline date for the particular proceeding.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene and comments using the Commission's eFiling system at
This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.
Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any oral communication.
Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.
Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR 385.2201(e)(1)(v).
The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
As announced in the Notice of Technical Conference issued on April 16, 2014, the Commission will hold a technical conference on Tuesday, June 10, 2014 from 8:45 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. to discuss policy issues related to the reliability of the Bulk-Power System. The agenda for this conference is attached. Commission members will participate in this conference.
After the close of the conference, the Commission will accept written comments regarding the matters discussed at the technical conference. Any person or entity wishing to submit written comments regarding the matters discussed at the conference should submit such comments in Docket No. AD14–9–000 on or before July 15, 2014.
Information on this event will be posted on the Calendar of Events on the Commission's Web site,
Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please send an email to
For more information about this conference, please contact: Sarah McKinley, Office of External Affairs, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502–8368,
a. What priorities have been identified in the 2014 report and how are these different from the 2013 report? What does the 2014 State of Reliability Report show about the effectiveness of the ERO's reliability activities and related industry efforts? What progress has been made with respect to the recommendations in the 2013 report and what are the obstacles to continued progress? What are the successes/strengths? What areas need the most improvement? What resource needs and limitations are associated with these areas and what criteria can be used to address them?
b. The 2014 State of Reliability report draws attention to two risk issues that contribute to system disturbances and automatic transmission outage severity: Protection system misoperations and AC substation outage failures. What actions have been taken to address these issues and have these actions been effective in improving performance?
c. What has NERC done, and what can it do, to foster a culture of reliability excellence in the industry? What are the best indicators of an effective culture of reliability excellence?
a. Gas Electric Interdependency: How has an increased dependency on natural gas impacted reliability in various regions, and what actions will be needed to maintain reliability?
b. Variable Resources: How are entities addressing operational concerns related to variable resources as described in the 2013 Special Reliability Assessment “Maintaining Bulk Power System Reliability While Integrating Variable Energy Resources—CAISO Approach” a joint report published by NERC and the CAISO. What additional work is needed to integrate variable resources in ways that ensure adequate operating reserves, frequency response, and other operational issues?
a. Risk Registration initiative: What is the status of the Risk-Based Registration Initiative? How does this effort align with existing practices and other initiatives?
b. Several Reliability Standards and ERO initiatives depend on prioritizing or differentiating facilities based on how critical they are to the reliable and secure operation of the Bulk Power System. How should this “tiering” of facilities be determined? Should a set of common, uniform criteria apply in all contexts or does the appropriate approach depend on the particular context?
c. BES: What issues or trends has NERC observed regarding the implementation of the revised BES definition? To what extent is the exceptions process being utilized and how is it working?
d. Reliability Assurance Initiative: What have NERC and the Regional Entities learned from the Reliability Assurance Initiative (RAI) pilot projects? What are the essential factors NERC and the Regions will use to evaluate internal controls and on what objective basis will NERC determine the quality of one internal control program versus another? What potential impact could the ARI have on the need for and scope of audits?
• How does NERC plan to integrate the results of the pilots into a uniform national program? What obstacles will NERC face in ensuring consistent application of RAI across the eight regions?
a. Standards Development Process
• What efficiencies have resulted from the revision of NERC's standards development process?
• In what ways has the RISC improved the standards development process? On what bases have the current standards development projects been prioritized and have they deviated from last year?
b. Compliance and Enforcement: What are the trends in the compliance and enforcement of Reliability Standards requirements? Which are the most violated Reliability Standards requirements and what steps are being taken to address this problem?
c. Security Issues
• What is the status of the effort to enhance physical security of the grid?
• What progress has been made regarding CIP version 5 implementation?
i. What issues have entities discovered during the initial effort to implement CIP version 5?
ii. How is NERC planning to address these issues and are there any issues that require Commission action?
iii. What are NERC and the Regional Entities doing to prepare for the enforcement of the CIP version 5 standards to ensure consistent enforcement across the regions?
Take notice that on May 20, 2014, Questar Pipeline Company (Questar), 333 South State Street, P.O. Box 45360, Salt Lake City, Utah 84145, filed in the above Docket, a prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.205, 157.208 and 157.210 of the Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) for authorization to replace and upgrade an existing compressor engine at Questar's Coleman Compressor Station located in Sweetwater County, Wyoming, under authorization issued to Questar in Docket No. CP82–491–000, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at
Any questions concerning this application may be directed to L. Bradley Burton, General Manager, Federal Regulatory Affairs and FERC Compliance Officer, Questar Company, 333 South State Street, P.O. Box 45360, Salt Lake City, Utah 84145, at (801) 324–2459.
Specifically, Questar proposes to upgrade the Compressor Unit No. 2 engine at Coleman Compressor Station by replacing the existing 2,920 horsepower (hp) with a 3,432 hp engine. The estimated cost of the project is $1,589,604.
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
Any person may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of intervention. Any person filing to intervene or the Commission's staff may, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) (18 CFR 157.205) file a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a) (1) (iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site (
Rule 2010 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR section 385.2010, provides that, to eliminate unnecessary expense or improve administrative efficiency, the Secretary may establish a restricted service list for a particular phase or issue in a proceeding. The restricted service list should contain the names of persons on the service list who, in the judgment of the decisional authority establishing the list, are active participants with respect to the phase or issue in the proceeding for which the list is established.
The Commission staff is consulting with the Alabama Historical Commission (Alabama SHPO) and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Advisory Council) pursuant to the Advisory Council's regulations, 36 CFR Part 800, implementing section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act,
On August 12, 2013, Commission staff established a restricted service list for the proposed Demopolis Lock and Dam Hydroelectric Project, which Commission staff revised on November 14, 2013. Since that time, the Chickasaw Nation, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, and the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma requested to be added to the restricted service list. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers requested to include additional staff. The restricted service list is supplemented to include:
“LaDonna Brown, Dr. Timothy Baugh, or Representative, Chickasaw Nation, P.O. Box 1548, Ada, OK 74281.”
“Dr. Linda Langley, THPO, or Representative, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, P.O. Box 818, Elton, LA 70532.”
Natalie Harjo, or Representative, Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, P.O. Box 1498, Wewoka, OK 74884.”
“Michael P. Fedoroff, RPA, District Archaeologist, Brian Zettle, or Representative, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District, CESAM–PD–E1, 109 St. Joseph Street, Mobile, AL 36608.”
Rule 2010 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR section 385.2010, provides that, to eliminate unnecessary expense or improve administrative efficiency, the Secretary may establish a restricted service list for a particular phase or issue in a proceeding. The restricted service list should contain the names of persons on the service list who, in the judgment of the decisional authority establishing the list, are active participants with respect to the phase or issue in the proceeding for which the list is established.
The Commission staff is consulting with the Oklahoma Historical Society (Oklahoma SHPO) and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Advisory Council) pursuant to the Advisory Council's regulations, 36 CFR Part 800, implementing section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act,
On March 28, 2011, Commission staff established a restricted service list for the Salina Pumped Storage Project. Since that time, changes have occurred and therefore, the restricted service list is revised as follows:
Replace “Dr. Andrea Hunter, THPO, and James Munkres, Osage Nation, 627 Grandview, Pawhuska, OK 74056” with “Dr. Barker Fariss, Senior Archaeologist, or Representative, Osage Nation, 627 Grandview, Pawhuska, OK 74056.”
Replace “George Strack, THPO, Miami Tribe of Oklahoma, P.O. Box 1326, Miami, OK 74355” with “George Strack, THPO, or Representative, Miami Tribe of Oklahoma, 202 S. Eight Tribes Trail, Miami, OK 74354.”
Remove “Dr. Timothy G. Baugh, Historical Archaeologist, Oklahoma Historical Society, 800 Nazih Zuhdi Drive, Oklahoma City, OK 73105–7917” because he retired.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “NESHAP for Pharmaceuticals Production (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 1781.07, OMB Control No. 2060–0358), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Additional comments may be submitted on or before July 7, 2014.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OECA–2013–0349, to: (1) EPA online, using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes: Profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Patrick Yellin, Monitoring, Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564–2970; fax number: (202) 564–0050; email address:
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “NESHAP for Beryllium Rocket Motor Fuel Firing (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 1125.07, OMB Control No. 2060–0394), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Additional comments may be submitted on or before July 7, 2014.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OECA–2013–0322, to: (1) EPA online, using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Patrick Yellin, Monitoring, Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564–2970; fax number: (202) 564–0050; email address:
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “The SunWise Program (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 1904.08, OMB Control No. 2060–0439) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Additional comments may be submitted on or before July 7, 2014.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0069 to (1) EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Robert Burchard, Stratospheric Protection Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs (6205J), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 343–9126; fax number: (202) 343–2338; email address:
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA has received specific exemption requests from the Oregon Department of Agriculture to use the pesticide Fipronil (CAS No. 120068–37–3) to treat up to 600 acres of rutabaga and turnips to control the cabbage maggot.
The applicant proposes uses which are supported by the Interregional (IR)–4 program and has been requested in 5 or more previous years, and a petition for tolerance has not yet been submitted to the Agency. In accordance with 40 CFR 166.24(a)(7), EPA is soliciting public comment before making the decision whether or not to grant the exemption.
Comments must be received on or before June 19, 2014.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–OPP–2014–0386, 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; main 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).
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.
Under section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. 136p), at the discretion of the EPA Administrator, a Federal or State agency may be exempted from any provision of FIFRA if the EPA Administrator determines that emergency conditions exist which require the exemption. Oregon Department of Agriculture has requested the EPA Administrator to issue specific exemptions for the use of fipronil on turnip and rutabaga to control the cabbage maggot. Information in accordance with 40 CFR part 166 was submitted as part of these requests.
As part of these requests, the applicant asserts that an emergency situation exists based upon three factors:
1. A severe increase in cabbage maggot populations;
2. Apparent increasing resistance of the maggot to the registered alternative; and
3. Phytotoxicity of the registered alternative to emerging seedlings.
The applicant states that significant economic losses will be suffered without adequate control of the cabbage maggot in turnip and rutabaga production. The applicant indicates that fipronil has been shown to provide excellent crop safety, and overall provides better control than the registered alternative.
The Applicant proposes to make no more than one application at 4.16 fluid oz. of product per acre, to a maximum of 600 acres of rutabagas and turnips, for use of up to a potential maximum of 19.5 gallons of product. Applications would potentially be made through September 30, 2014, in the Oregon counties of Clackimas, Marion, Multnomah, and Umatilla.
This notice does not constitute a decision by EPA on the applications themselves. The regulations governing FIFRA section 18 require publication of a notice of receipt of an application for a specific exemption proposing a use which is supported by the Inter-Regional Project Number 4 (IR–4) program and has been requested in 5 or more previous years, and a petition for tolerance has not yet been submitted to the Agency. The notice provides an opportunity for public comment on the application.
The Agency, will review and consider all comments received during the comment period in determining whether to issue the specific exemptions requested by the Oregon Department of Agriculture.
Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of Final Agency Action.
This notice announces that EPA Region 6 issued a final permit decision for a Clean Air Act Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit (PSD–TX–102982–GHG) for the ExxonMobil Chemical Company (ExxonMobil) to authorize a construction project at ExxonMobil's existing Baytown Olefins Plant (BOP).
EPA Region 6 issued a final PSD permit decision to ExxonMobil for the BOP on May 14, 2014. The PSD permit for the BOP became final and effective on May 14, 2014. Pursuant to section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(1), judicial review of this final permit decision, to the extent it is available, may be sought by filing a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit by August 4, 2014.
Documents relevant to the above-referenced permit are available for public inspection during normal business hours at the following address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733.
Aimee Wilson, Air Permits Section (6PD–R), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, (214) 665–7596,
EPA Region 6 issued its final permit decision to ExxonMobil authorizing construction of a major modification at the ExxonMobil BOP, PSD Permit No. PSD–TX–102982–GHG, on May 14, 2014. EPA Region 6 initially issued a final
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of Open Teleconference.
This notice announces a teleconference call of the State Energy Advisory Board (STEAB). The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463; 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the
Thursday, June 19, 2014 from 3:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. (EDT). To receive the call-in number and passcode, please contact the Board's Designated Federal Officer (DFO) at the address or phone number listed below.
Julie Hughes, STEAB Designated Federal Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 1000 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20585. Phone number: 202–320–9703, and email:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces the availability of EPA's proposed registration review decisions and opens a public comment period on the proposed and proposed interim decisions. Registration review is EPA's periodic review of pesticide registrations to ensure that each pesticide continues to satisfy the statutory standard for registration, that is, that the pesticide can perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment. Through this program, EPA is ensuring that each pesticide's registration is based on current scientific and other knowledge, including its effects on human health and the environment. This document also announces the registration review case closure for the pesticide amitrole (case 0095) and the availability of the amitrole case closure document. The cancellation of all amitrole product registrations became effective on April 11, 2014. This case closure for amitrole is being announced herein with no comment period.
Comments must be received on or before August 4, 2014.
Submit your comments, identified by the docket identification (ID) number for the specific pesticide of interest provided in the table in Unit II.A., by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, farm worker, 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 Agency has not attempted to describe all
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.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.58, this notice announces the availability of EPA's proposed and proposed interim registration review decisions for the pesticides shown in the following table, and opens a 60-day public comment period on the proposed and proposed interim decisions.
The registration review docket for ancymidol (EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–0482) opened in June 2011. Ancymidol is a plant growth regulator registered for treating container-grown herbaceous plants, ornamental woody shrubs, and bedding plants grown in greenhouses and in outdoor plant-bedding areas. It is also registered for use as a seed treatment for ornamental plants, and treated seeds are used to start plants. Use of ancymidol is limited to nursery grown ornamentals. There are no food, feed, or residential uses registered for ancymidol. No pesticide tolerances have been established. EPA conducted a qualitative assessment for both human health and ecological risks. No risks of concern were identified in the human health risk assessment. The ecological risk assessment indicated that there was no reasonable expectation for any registered use of ancymidol to cause direct or indirect adverse effects to threatened and endangered species. A “no effect” determination was made for all federally listed species and designated critical habitat. Ancymidol has not been evaluated under the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP). Therefore, the Agency's final registration review decision is dependent upon the result of the evaluation of potential endocrine disruptor risk. Pending the outcome of this action, EPA is planning to issue an interim registration review decision for ancymidol.
The registration review docket for DEET (N,N-diethyl-meta-toulamide) is opening (EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0162) for public comment on a combined Work Plan and Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision. DEET is a broad-spectrum insect repellent registered for use against biting flies, biting midges, black flies, chiggers, deer flies, fleas, gnats, horse flies, mosquitoes, no-see-ums, sand flies, stable flies, and ticks. It is currently registered for non-food uses and residential uses. It can be directly used on clothing, applied to the skin, and used on horses. EPA conducted a qualitative assessment for both human health and environmental fate and ecological risks. No risks of concern were identified. The ecological risk assessment made a “no effect” determination for federally listed species and designated critical habitat. DEET has not been evaluated under the EDSP. Therefore, the Agency's final registration review decision is dependent upon the result of the evaluation of potential endocrine disruptor risk. Pending the outcome of this action, EPA is planning to issue an interim registration review decision for DEET.
The registration review docket for denatonium saccharide (EPA–HQ–OPP–2008–0441) opened in June 2008. Denatonium saccharide is a bittering agent in squirrel, vole, dog, and cat repellents used on outdoor surfaces and structures such as trees, fences, poles, decks, planters, siding, garbage cans, furniture, seeds, and bulbs. EPA conducted a qualitative human health risk assessment and did not identify any risks of concern. The ecological risk assessment identified potential risks for birds and listed mammals. However, due to the number of conservative assumptions included in the assessment, the Agency is not proposing mitigation changes at this time. The risk assessment for denatonium saccharide did not come to a conclusion of “no effect” to listed species. Therefore, consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on the potential risk of denatonium saccharide to listed species will be necessary. Denatonium saccharide has not been evaluated under the EDSP. Therefore, the Agency's final registration review decision is dependent upon the result of Section 7 Endangered Species consultation with the USFWS and the evaluation of potential endocrine disruptor risk. Pending the outcome of these actions, EPA is planning to issue an interim registration review decision for denatonium saccharide.
The registration review docket for DSS (EPA–HQ–OPP–2010–1006) opened in December 2010. DSS is registered as an insecticide and miticide in pet shampoos and spray products in combination with Undecylenic Acid (UDA). As a pesticidal active ingredient, there are no food uses and, thus, no tolerances are established. DSS is used as an active ingredient in over the counter stool-softener and laxative products for infants, children, and adults; it is also used in pharmaceutical, cosmetic, and food products. EPA has conducted a qualitative assessment for both human health and ecological risks, including listed species for DSS. The human health risk assessment did not
Potassium and sodium nitrate, carbon and carbon dioxide, and sulfur are ingredients in fumigant gas cartridge products, which are available in small and large sizes. Both sizes are registered to control burrowing mammals, but only the large gas cartridge is registered to also control coyotes, red foxes and skunks. Gas cartridges are registered for outdoor use only. To use the products, the user lights the fuse, places the cartridge in the burrow or den and seals the entrance. Animals within the burrow or den are asphyxiated by the release of carbon dioxide and toxic gases.
The Agency relied on a previous human health risk assessment in making its registration review decisions and determined that no human health risks of concern exist for these compounds. The Agency conducted a new ecological risk assessment for the gas cartridges for registration review. The risk assessment did find the potential for adverse effects to a number of endangered species from gas cartridge use. EPA developed mitigation to address the risk to a number of the endangered species. In most cases, the mitigation involves the use of Endangered Species Protection Bulletins. Because the gas cartridges contain the three compounds, these Bulletins are available for comment in the Inorganic Nitrate—Nitrite, Carbon and Carbon Dioxide, and Sulfur Registration Review dockets (EPA–HQ–OPP–2007–1118, EPA–HQ–OPP–2007–0705, and EPA–HQ–OPP–2008–0176, respectively). Although implementation of these Bulletins will address risk to some endangered species from gas cartridge use, risk to a number of other endangered species remains. Additionally, potassium and sodium nitrate, carbon and carbon dioxide, and sulfur have not been evaluated under the EDSP. Therefore, the Agency's final registration review decisions are dependent upon the result of Section 7 Endangered Species consultation with the USFWS and the evaluation of potential endocrine disruptor risk. Pending the outcome of these actions, EPA is planning to issue interim registration review decisions for sodium and potassium nitrate, carbon and carbon dioxide, and sulfur.
The registration review docket for metofluthrin (EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0105) opened in June 2013. Metofluthrin is a Type 1 synthetic pyrethroid insect repellent and insecticide with products registered for use in residential and commercial areas, including barns, patios, porches, campgrounds, stables and kennels to repel adult mosquitoes and kill bed bugs. The products registered for outdoor use are an impregnated paper repellent strip, a battery-operated personal outdoor insect repellent fan, an impregnated fiberglass ring heated by a candle, and battery-operated automated mister. The registered indoor use is a soluble concentrate used as a spray to kill bedbugs. There are no registered food/feed uses for metofluthrin. No pesticide tolerances have been established. EPA conducted a human health risk assessment and an ecological risk assessment. No risks of concern were identified in the human health risk assessment. The ecological risk assessment indicated that there was no reasonable expectation for any registered use of metofluthrin to cause direct or indirect adverse effects to threatened and endangered species. A “no effect” determination was made for all federally listed species and designated critical habitat. Metofluthrin has not been evaluated under the EDSP. Therefore, the Agency's final registration review decision is dependent upon the result of the evaluation of potential endocrine disruptor risk. Pending the outcome of this action, EPA is planning to issue an interim registration review decision for metofluthrin.
The registration review docket for polybutene resins (EPA–HQ–OPP–2009–0649) opened in June 2010. Polybutene is a sticky polymer registered for use as a bird and small mammal repellent. It is used to prevent house sparrows, pigeons, and starlings from roosting inside and outside of buildings, as well as to prevent beavers from attacking trees and shrubs. There are no food/feed uses and, it is exempt from a tolerance requirement when used as a sticker agent in packaging of insect control products used on food crops. Polybutene is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as an indirect food additive and is used as an ingredient in cosmetic products that are applied directly to the skin such as sun block or moisturizer, and that may be incidentally ingested, such as lipstick. EPA conducted a qualitative assessment for both human health and environmental fate and ecological risks. No risks of concern were identified in the human health risk assessment. The ecological risk assessment indicated that there was no reasonable expectation for any registered use of polybutene to cause direct or indirect adverse effects to threatened and endangered species. A “no effect” determination was made for all federally listed species and designated critical habitat. Pursuant to FFDCA Section 408(p)(4), EPA has exempted polybutene from the requirements of the EDSP in an Administrative Order (AO) entitled
The registration review docket for sulfur (EPA–HQ–OPP–2008–0176) opened in March 2008. Sulfur is used as an insecticide and fungicide on a wide range of field and greenhouse-grown food and feed crops, livestock, livestock quarters, and indoor and outdoor residential sites. Sulfur is also registered for use in gas cartridge products, along with inorganic nitrate/nitrite, carbon, and carbon dioxide. EPA has conducted a qualitative assessment for both human health and ecological risks, including listed species for sulfur. Details of the assessment for the gas cartridge use are summarized under the gas cartridge heading in this unit. For uses of sulfur other than gas cartridges, the Agency is making a “no effect” determination for all listed aquatic species, and a “no effect” determination for direct effects to listed terrestrial vertebrates that do not rely on insects as a primary food source. However, at this time, the Agency is not able to make an endangered species determination on terrestrial invertebrates, terrestrial plants, or indirect effects to terrestrial vertebrates with insects as a primary food source. Sulfur has not been evaluated under the EDSP. Therefore, the Agency's final registration review decision is dependent upon the result of Section 7 Endangered Species consultation with the USFWS and the evaluation of potential endocrine disruptor risk. Pending the outcome of these actions, EPA is planning to issue
The registration review docket for UDA (EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–0910) opened in December 2011. UDA is registered as an insecticide and miticide in pet shampoos and spray products in combination with dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate (DSS). As a pesticidal active ingredient, there are no food uses and, thus, no tolerances are established. UDA is approved by the FDA as an active ingredient in over the counter anti-fungal products, and it is also used as a flavoring agent. EPA has conducted a qualitative assessment for both human health and ecological risks, including listed species for UDA. The human health risk assessment did not identify any risks of concern for UDA. The ecological risk assessment made a “no effect” determination for federally listed species and designated critical habitat. Pursuant to FFDCA Section 408(p)(4), EPA has exempted UDA from the requirements of the EDSP in an AO entitled
This notice also announces the registration review case closure for the pesticide amitrole (case 0095) and the availability of the amitrole case closure document. The Notice of Receipt of a Request to Voluntarily Cancel Certain Pesticide Registrations was issued in the
The registration review docket for a pesticide includes earlier documents related to the registration review of the case. For example, the review opened with a Summary Document, containing a Preliminary Work Plan, for public comment. A Final Work Plan was placed in the docket following public comment on the initial docket.
The documents in the dockets describe EPA's rationales for conducting additional risk assessments for the registration review of the pesticides included in the table in Unit II.A., as well as the Agency's subsequent risk findings and consideration of possible risk mitigation measures. These proposed and proposed interim registration review decisions are supported by the rationales included in those documents.
Following public comment, the Agency will issue final registration review decisions or interim registration review decisions for products containing the pesticides listed in the table in Unit II.A.
The registration review program is being conducted under congressionally mandated time frames, and EPA recognizes the need both to make timely decisions and to involve the public. Section 3(g) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) required EPA to establish by regulation procedures for reviewing pesticide
The registration review final rule at 40 CFR 155.58(a) provides for a minimum 60-day public comment period on all proposed registration review decisions. This comment period is intended to provide an opportunity for public input and a mechanism for initiating any necessary amendments to the proposed decision. All comments should be submitted using the methods in
The Agency will carefully consider all comments received by the closing date and will provide a “Response to Comments Memorandum” in the docket. The final registration review decision will explain the effect that any comments had on the decision and provide the Agency's response to significant comments.
Background on the registration review program is provided at:
Section 3(g) of FIFRA and 40 CFR part 155, subpart C, provide authority for this action.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Pesticides and pests, Ancymidol, Amitrole, Carbon and Carbon Dioxide, DEET, Denatonium Saccharide, Dioctyl Sodium Sulfosuccinate, Inorganic Nitrate—Nitrite, Metofluthrin, Polybutene Resins, Sulfur, and Undecylenic Acid.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In accordance with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is issuing a notice of receipt of requests by registrants to voluntarily cancel certain pesticide registrations. EPA intends to grant these requests at the close of the comment period for this announcement unless the Agency receives substantive comments within the comment period that would merit its further review of the requests, or unless the registrants withdraw their requests. If these requests are granted, any sale, distribution, or use of products listed in this notice will be permitted after the registration has been cancelled only if such sale, distribution, or use is consistent with the terms as described in the final order.
Comments must be received on or before July 7, 2014.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–OPP–2009–1017, by one of the following methods:
•
•
Submit written withdrawal request by mail to: Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. ATTN: John W. Pates, Jr.
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
John W. Pates, Jr., Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone number: (703) 308–8195; 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.
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.
This notice announces receipt by the Agency of requests from registrants to cancel 18 pesticide products registered under FIFRA section 3 or 24(c). These registrations are listed in sequence by registration number (or company number and 24(c) number) in Table 1 of this unit.
Unless the Agency determines that there are substantive comments that warrant further review of the requests or the registrants withdraw their requests, EPA intends to issue an order in the
Table 2 of this unit includes the names and addresses of record for all registrants of the products 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 this unit.
Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA provides that a registrant of a pesticide product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations be canceled. FIFRA further provides that, before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice of receipt of any such request in the
Section 6(f)(1)(B) of FIFRA requires that before acting on a request for voluntary cancellation, EPA must provide a 30-day public comment period on the request for voluntary cancellation or use termination. In addition, FIFRA section 6(f)(1)(C) requires that EPA provide a 180-day comment period on a request for voluntary cancellation or termination of any minor agricultural use before granting the request, unless:
1. The registrants request a waiver of the comment period, or
2. The EPA Administrator determines that continued use of the pesticide would pose an unreasonable adverse effect on the environment.
The registrants in Table 2 of Unit II. have requested that EPA waive the 180-day comment period. Accordingly, EPA will provide a 30-day comment period on the proposed requests.
Registrants who choose to withdraw a request for cancellation should submit such withdrawal in writing to the person listed under
Existing stocks are those stocks of registered pesticide products that are currently in the United States and that were packaged, labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the cancellation action.
The registrants have indicated to the Agency via written response that there is no existing stocks of technical or end use products. Therefore, no existing stocks date is necessary. Registrants will be prohibited from selling or distributing the pesticides identified in Table 1 of Unit II., except for export consistent with FIFRA section 17 or for proper disposal. Persons other than registrants will generally be allowed to sell, distribute, or use existing stocks until such stocks are exhausted, provided that such sale, distribution, or use is consistent with the terms of the previously approved labeling on, or that accompanied, the canceled product.
The registrant has indicated to the Agency via letter and verbal communication, that all registrations for the active ingredient vinclozolin will be phased out. Because the Agency has identified no significant potential risk concerns associated with these pesticide products, EPA anticipates allowing registrants to sell and distribute existing stocks of these products until December 31, 2016. Thereafter, registrants, and persons other than registrants, are prohibited from selling or distributing existing stocks of products containing vinclozolin identified in Table 1 of Unit II., except for export consistent with FIFRA section 17 or for proper disposal. Existing stocks of products containing vinclozolin already in the hands of users can be used legally until such stocks are exhausted, provided that the use is consistent with the terms of the previously approved labeling on, or that accompanied, the cancelled products.
Because the Agency has identified no significant potential risk concerns associated with these pesticide products, upon cancellation of the products identified in Table 1 of Unit II., EPA anticipates allowing registrants to sell and distribute existing stocks of these products for 1 year after publication of the Cancellation Order in the
Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.
Export-Import Bank of the United States.
Submission for OMB review and comments request.
The Export-Import Banks of the United States (Ex-Im Bank), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to comment on the proposed information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
The Letter of Interest (LI) is an indication of Export-Import (Ex-Im) Bank's willingness to consider financing a given export transaction. Ex-Im Bank uses the requested information to determine the applicability of the proposed export transaction and determines whether or not to consider financing that transaction.
One question (appearing as number 1 in the previous version) from Attachment A has been removed in this updated version of the form, since it is no longer relevant.
The form can be reviewed at:
Comments must be received on or before July 7, 2014 to be assured of consideration.
Comments may be submitted electronically on
Export-Import Bank of the United States.
30-Day notice of submission of information collection approval from the Office of Management and Budget and request for comments.
As part of a Federal Government-wide effort to streamline the process to seek feedback from the public on service delivery, Export-Import Bank of the United States has submitted a Generic Information Collection Request (Generic ICR): “Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery” to OMB for approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et. seq.).
Comments must be submitted July 7, 2014 to be assured of consideration.
Comments may be submitted electronically on
Comments submitted in response to this notice may be made available to the public through the
To request additional information, please contact Andy Chang,
Feedback collected under this generic clearance will provide useful information, but it will not yield data that can be generalized to the overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such data uses require more rigorous designs that address: The target population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame, the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing potential non-response bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior fielding the study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative results.
The Agency received no comments in response to the 60-day notice published in the
Below we provide Export-Import bank of the United States projected average estimates for the next three years:
Below we provide projected average estimates for the next three years:
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 Office of Management and Budget control number.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), the Federal Communications Commission invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection(s). Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) comments should be submitted on or before July 7, 2014. If you anticipate that you will be submitting PRA comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the FCC contact listed below as soon as possible.
Submit your PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of Management and Budget, via fax at 202–395–5167 or via Internet at
Benish Shah, Office of Managing Director, (202) 418–7866.
Commission staff will use the information to assign licenses, determine regional spectrum requirements and to develop technical standards. The information will also be used to determine whether prospective licensees operate in compliance with the Commission's rules. Without such information, the Commission could not accommodate regional requirements or provide for the efficient use of the available frequencies. This information collection includes rules to govern the operation and licensing of the 700 MHz and 4.9 GHz bands rules and regulation to ensure that licensees continue to fulfill their statutory responsibilities in accordance with the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Such information will continue to be used to verify that applicants are legally and technically qualified to hold licenses, and to determine compliance with Commission rules.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), the Federal Communications Commission invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection(s). Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the
Written Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) comments should be submitted on or before August 4, 2014. If you anticipate that you will be submitting PRA comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the FCC contact listed below as soon as possible.
Submit your PRA comments to Leslie F. Smith, Office of Managing Director (OMD), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), via the Internet at
Leslie F. Smith, Office of Managing Director (OMD), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), (202) 418–0217, or via the Internet at
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before August 4, 2014. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418–2918.
FCC Form 620, New Tower (NT) Submission Packet is to be completed by or on behalf of applicants to construct new antenna support structures by or for the use of licensees of the FCC. The form is to be submitted to the State Historic Preservation Office (“SHPO”) or to the Tribal Historic Preservation Office (“THPO”), as appropriate, and the Commission before any construction or other installation activities on the site begins. Failure to provide the form and complete the review process under Section 106 of the NHPA prior to beginning construction may violate Section 110(k) of the NHPA and the Commission's rules.
FCC Form 621, Collocation (CO) Submission Packet is to be completed by or on behalf of applicants who wish to collocate an antenna or antennas on an existing communications tower or non-tower structure by or for the use of licensees of the FCC. The form is to be submitted to the State historic Preservation Office (“SHPO”) or to the Tribal Historic Preservation Office (“THPO”), as appropriate, and the Commission before any construction or other installation activities on the site begins. Failure to provide the form and complete the review process under Section 106 of the NHPA prior to beginning construction or other installation activities may violate Section 110(k) of the NHPA and the Commission's rules.
The Tower Construction Notification System (TCNS) is used by or on behalf of Applicants proposing to construct new antenna support structures, and some collocations, to ensure that Tribal Nations have the requisite opportunity to participate in review prior to construction. To facilitate this coordination, Tribal Nations have designated areas of geographic preference, and they receive automated notifications based on the site coordinates provided in the filing. Applicants complete TCNS before filing a 620 or 621 and all the relevant data is pre-populated on the 620 and 621 when the forms are filed electronically.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), the Federal Communications Commission invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection(s). Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) comments should be submitted on or before August 4, 2014. If you anticipate that you will be submitting PRA comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the FCC contact listed below as soon as possible.
Submit your PRA comments to Leslie F. Smith, Office of Managing Director (OMD), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), via the Internet at
Leslie F. Smith, Office of Managing Director (OMD), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), (202) 418–0217, or via the Internet at
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Update listing of financial institutions in liquidation.
Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (Corporation) has been appointed the sole receiver for the following financial institutions effective as of the Date Closed as indicated in the listing. This list (as updated from time to time in the
The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreement 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 June 19, 2014.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacquelyn K. Brunmeier, Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480–0291:
1.
Office of Government-wide Policy (OGP), General Services Administration (GSA).
Notice of Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) Bulletin 14–08, Designation of Agency Senior Travel Officials.
GSA's Office of Government-wide Policy is strongly encouraging agencies to notify GSA of the name and contact information of the employee selected to be responsible on an agency-wide basis for carrying out the directives in Section 3 of Executive Order (E.O.) 13589, “Promoting Efficient Spending,” so s/he can be included in future meetings of agency travel officials. This person may be referred to as the Senior Travel Official (STO).
June 4, 2014.
For clarification of content, please contact Ms. Jill Denning, Office of Government-wide Policy, Office of Asset and Transportation Management, at 202–208–7642, or by email at
Agencies carrying out their various missions must do so in a fiscally responsible manner to protect the interests of taxpayers. The President issued Executive Order (E.O.) 13589, “Promoting Efficient Spending,” on November 9, 2011, to achieve this goal by charging agencies with aggressively cutting waste and promoting efficient and effective spending in administrative areas that are necessary to conducting official business. In Section 3, the E.O. identified travel as one area of opportunity for cost savings, and provided in subsection 3(b) that agencies, agency components, and offices of inspectors general should designate a senior-level official to be responsible for developing and implementing policies and controls to ensure efficient spending for travel and conference-related activities.
Office of Government-wide Policy, General Services Administration (GSA).
Meeting Notice.
Notice of this meeting and these conference calls is being provided according to the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 10(a)(2). This notice provides the agenda and schedule for the September 10, 2014 meeting of the Green Building Advisory Committee Meeting (the Committee) and the schedule for a series of conference calls, supplemented by Web meetings, for two task groups of the Committee. The meeting is open to the public and the site is accessible to individuals with disabilities. The conference calls are open for the public to listen in. Interested individuals must register to attend as instructed below under
The
The
Ken Sandler, Designated Federal Officer, Office of Federal High-Performance Green Buildings, Office of Government-wide Policy, General Services Administration, 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405, telephone 202–219–1121 (Note: This is not a toll-free number). Additional information about the Committee, including meeting materials and updates on the task groups and their schedules, will be available on-line at
Contact Ken Sandler at
The
The conference calls will focus on how the task groups can best refine these motions into consensus recommendations of each group to the full Committee, which will in turn decide whether to proceed with formal advice to GSA based upon these recommendations.
• Welcome & Plans for Today's Meeting.
• New Member Introduction & Orientation.
• Overview of Committee Work and Election of Committee Chair.
• Net Zero Federal Buildings.
• Working Lunch.
• Federal Building Performance Labels.
• Putting Research Into Practice, and Steps to Adoption.
• Public Comment Period.
• Closing Comments.
Office of the Secretary.
Notice.
In compliance with section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services, announces plans to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The ICR is for revision of the approved information collection assigned OMB control number 0990–0331, which expires on August 31, 2015. Prior to submitting that ICR to OMB, OS seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate, below, or any other aspect of the ICR.
Comments on the ICR must be received on or before August 4, 2014.
OS Report Clearance Officer, Sherrette Funn,
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the document identifier HHS–OS–0990–0331–60D for reference.
Data collection for the entire evaluation is expected to last 7 years, from the time the first participant was enrolled in late 2008 until the last follow-back interview is administered in early 2015. The burden table estimate below, previously approved under OMB No. 0990–0331, includes sufficient burden hours to cover completion of the 9-month, 18-month, and 34 month surveys and for the follow-back interviews. The focus of this proposed amendment is approval for the qualitative follow-back interviews for a small group of respondents (up to 50 couples) from the cohort of 34 month interview respondents.
OS specifically requests comments on (1) the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions, (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden, (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), HHS.
Notice.
As part of a Federal Government-wide effort to streamline the process to seek feedback from the public on service delivery, AHRQ has submitted a Generic Information Collection Request (Generic ICR): “Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery” to OMB for approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).
Comments must be submitted August 4, 2014.
Written comments should be submitted to: Doris Lefkowitz, Reports Clearance Officer, AHRQ, by email at
To request additional information, please contact: Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer, (301) 427–1477, or by email at
Feedback collected under this generic clearance will provide useful information, but it will not yield data that can be generalized to the overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such data uses require more rigorous designs that address: The target population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame, the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing potential non-response bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior to fielding the study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative results.
Below we provide AHRQ's projected average annual estimates for the next three years:
The total number of respondents across all 10 activities in a given year is 10,900.
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 Office of Management and Budget control number.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on AHRQ's information collection are requested
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.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public 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. To request more information on the below proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call 404–639–7570 or send comments to LeRoy Richardson, 1600 Clifton Road, MS–D74, Atlanta, GA 30333 or send an email to
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval. 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 of the proposed collection of information; (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 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. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information. Written comments should be received within 60 days of this notice.
Musculoskeletal Disorder (MSD) Intervention Effectiveness in Material Handling Operations (OMB No. 0920–0907, expires 11/30/2014)—Revision—National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The mission of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) is to promote safety and health at work for all people through research and prevention. Under Public Law 91–596, sections 20 and 22 (Section 20–22, Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970), NIOSH has the responsibility to conduct research to advance the health and safety of workers. In this capacity, NIOSH proposes a two-year approval to continue a study to assess the effectiveness and cost-benefit of occupational safety and health (OSH) interventions for musculoskeletal disorders.
NIOSH and the Ohio Bureau of Workers Compensation (OBWC) will continue to collaborate on a multi-site intervention study at OBWC-insured companies from 2014–2016. In overview, MSD engineering control interventions (such as stair-climbing, powered hand trucks, and powered truck lift gates) will be tested for effectiveness in reducing self-reported back and upper extremity pain among 960 employees performing material handling operations in 72 establishments using a prospective experimental design (multiple baselines across groups). The costs of the interventions will be funded through existing OBWC funds and participating establishments.
This study will provide important information that is not currently available elsewhere on the effectiveness of OSH interventions for workers. The study sub-sample will be volunteer employees at OBWC-insured establishments who perform material handling tasks that are expected to be impacted by the engineering control interventions. It is estimated that there will be 960 impacted employees in the recruited establishments, which will be paired according to previous workers compensation loss history and establishment size.
This protocol is changed from the previous data collection in that:
• A Low Back Functional Assessment is no longer being conducted to increase data collection efficiency.
• The study population now includes workers performing material handling tasks in all industries, not just wholesale retail trade. Tested interventions also include a number of material handling engineering controls. These changes were made to increase generalizability of results.
• All employers will now receive the intervention immediately, rather than half being randomly selected to receive the intervention six months later. This change was made to increase participation among employers.
The main outcomes for this study are self-reported low back pain and upper extremity pain collected using surveys every three months over a two-year period from volunteer material handling workers at participating establishments. Individuals will also be asked to report usage of the interventions and material handling exposures every three months over two years. Individuals will also be asked to complete an annual health assessment survey at baseline, and once annually for two years.
In order to maximize efficiency and reduce burden, a choice of web-based or paper survey is proposed for the data collection.
All collected information will be used to determine whether there are significant differences in reported musculoskeletal pain and functional back pain score ratios (pre/post intervention scores), while controlling for covariates. Once the study is
The “Self-reported low back pain” and “Self-reported upper extremity pain” forms are collected every three months (9 over two years, or an average of 4.5 per year). The “Self-reported general work environment and health” form is collected at baseline, at the end of the first year and at the end of the second year (3 times over two years, or an average of 1.5 per year). The informed consent form is collected once at the beginning of the study, an average of .5 per year. The early exit interview is collected once for a limited number of participants, an average of .5 per year. There is no cost to respondents other than their time.
In summary, this study will determine the effectiveness of the tested MSD interventions for material handling workers and enable evidence based prevention practices to be shared with the greatest audience possible. NIOSH expects to complete data collection in 2016. The total estimated annual burden hours are 1,364.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces the closure of one teaching hospital and the initiation of an application process for hospitals to apply to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to receive Long Beach Medical Center's full time equivalent (FTE) resident cap slots.
We will consider applications received no later than 5 p.m. (e.s.t.) September 2, 2014. Applications must be received, not postmarked, by this date.
Miechal Lefkowitz, (212) 616–2517.
Section 5506 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Pub. L. 111–148), as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111–152) (collectively, the “Affordable Care Act”), “Preservation of Resident Cap Positions from Closed Hospitals,” authorizes the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) to redistribute residency slots after a hospital that trained residents in an approved medical residency program closes. Specifically, section 5506 of the Affordable Care Act amended the Social Security Act (the Act) by adding subsection (vi) to section 1886(h)(4)(H) of the Act and modifying language at section 1886(d)(5)(B)(v) of the Act, to instruct the Secretary to establish a process to increase the full time equivalent (FTE) resident caps for other hospitals based upon the FTE resident caps in teaching hospitals that closed “on or after a date that is 2 years before the date of enactment” (that is, March 23, 2008). In the November 24, 2010 CY 2011 Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS) final rule (75 FR 72212), we established regulations and an application process for qualifying hospitals to apply to CMS to receive direct graduate medical education (GME) and indirect medical education (IME) FTE resident cap slots from the hospital that closed. We made certain modifications to those regulations in the FY 2013 Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment System/Long Term Care Hospital final rule (FY 2013 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (77 FR 53434 through 53447)). The procedures we established apply both to teaching hospitals that closed on or after March 23, 2008 and on or before August 3, 2010, and to teaching hospitals that closed after August 3, 2010.
CMS has learned of the closure of one teaching hospital, Long Beach Medical Center, of Long Beach, NY. The purpose of this notice is to notify the public of the closure of this teaching hospital, and to initiate another round of the application and selection process described in section 5506 of the Affordable Care Act. This round will be the seventh round (“Round 7”) of the application and selection process. The table below identifies the closed teaching hospital, which is part of the Round 7 application process under section 5506 of the Affordable Care Act:
The application period for hospitals to apply for slots under section 5506 is 90 days following notification to the public of a hospital closure. Therefore, hospitals wishing to apply for and receive slots from the above hospitals' FTE resident caps must submit applications directly to the CMS Central Office no later than September 2, 2014. The mailing address for the CMS Central Office is included on the application form. Applications must be
In the CY 2011 Outpatient Perspective Payment System/Ambulatory Surgical Center (OPPS/ASC) final rule with comment period, we did not establish a deadline by when CMS would issue the final determinations to hospitals that receive slots under section 5506 of the Affordable Care Act. However, we will review all applications received by the deadline and notify applicants of our determinations as soon as possible.
We refer readers to the CMS Web site at
This document does not impose any new information collection requirements, that is, any reporting, recordkeeping or third-party disclosure requirements, as defined under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (5 CFR 1320). Furthermore, all information collection requirements associated with the preservation of resident cap positions from closed hospitals are not subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, as stated in section 5506 of the Affordable Care Act.
Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with Section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) has submitted an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. Comments submitted during the first public review of this ICR will be provided to OMB. OMB will accept further comments from the public during the review and approval period.
Comments on this ICR should be received no later than July 7, 2014.
Submit your comments, including the Information Collection Request Title, to the desk officer for HRSA, either by email to
To request a copy of the clearance requests submitted to OMB for review, email the HRSA Information Collection Clearance Officer at
HRSA specifically requests comments on: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of Class Deviation from Competition Requirements for the Maternal and Child Health Bureau's (MCHB) Family-to-Family Health Information Centers (F2F HIC) Program (H84).
HRSA will be issuing non-competitive awards under the F2F HIC program. Approximately $5 million will be made available in the form of a grant to current grantees (see below) covering the period of 6/1/2014–5/31/2015. This will provide for an extension of the program, as provided for in Section 1203 of the Pathway for SGR Reform Act of 2013 (Pub. L. 113–67) and Section 207 of the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 (Pub. L. 113–93) with the least disruption to the states, communities, and constituencies that currently receive assistance and services from these grantees.
On December 26, 2013, Section 1203 of the Pathway for SGR Reform Act of 2013 (SGR Reform Act) (Pub. L. 113–67) extended the F2F HICs with $2.5 million for a portion of FY 2014. Additionally, on April 1, 2014, Section 207 of the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 (Access to Medicare) (Pub. L. 113–93) extended this program with $2.5 million for the remainder of FY 2014 and $2.5 million for a portion of FY 2015.
Under typical circumstances, the project period for the grantees would end on May 31, 2014, and a robust competitive process would take place. However, taking into account the timing of congressional action on SGR Reform within the current fiscal year, MCHB would not have sufficient time to conduct a robust competition and appropriately enact the legislation. MCHB proposes to extend the project periods of these grants by 12 months to properly respond to direction of the F2F HIC program's extension, enacted in the SGR Reform Act and the Access to Medicare Act. This will provide sufficient fiscal resources to continue programmatic activities as outlined in program authorization with the least disruption to the states, communities, and MCHB constituencies that currently receive assistance and services from these grantees. Delaying the competition until FY 2015 ensures continuity of funding for all eligible entities, with no eligible entity being adversely impacted by the extension.
LaQuanta Smalley, Integrated Services Branch, Division of Services for Children with Special Health Needs, Maternal and Child Health Bureau, Health Resources and Services Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 13–61, Rockville, MD 20857; (301) 443–2372;
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning
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.
60-Day Notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed extension of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until August 4, 2014.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615–0120 in the subject box, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS–2011–0001. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the following methods to submit comments:
(1)
(2)
(3)
Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
The address listed in this notice should only be used to submit comments concerning this information collection. Please do not submit requests for individual case status inquiries to this address. If you are seeking information about the status of your individual case, please check “My Case Status” online at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If you need a copy of the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information, please visit the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following applications for recovery permits to conduct activities with the purpose of enhancing the survival of endangered species. The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), prohibits certain activities with endangered species unless a Federal permit allows such activity. The Act also requires that we invite public comment before issuing such permits.
To ensure consideration, please send your written comments by July 7, 2014.
Program Manager for Restoration and Endangered Species Classification, Ecological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Regional Office, 911 NE 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97232–4181. Please refer to the permit number for the application when submitting comments.
Colleen Henson, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, at the above address or by telephone (503–231–6131) or fax (503–231–6243).
The Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
A permit granted by us under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act authorizes the permittee to conduct activities (including take or interstate commerce) with respect to U.S. endangered or threatened species for scientific purposes or enhancement of propagation or survival. Our regulations implementing section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act for these permits are found at 50 CFR 17.22 for endangered wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.32 for threatened wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.62 for endangered plant species, and 50 CFR 17.72 for threatened plant species.
We invite local, State, and Federal agencies, and the public to comment on the following applications. Please refer to the appropriate permit number for the application when submitting comments.
Documents and other information submitted with these applications are available for review by request from the Program Manager for Restoration and Endangered Species Classification at the address listed in the
The applicant requests renewal of an expired permit to take (survey) Mariana crows (
The permittee requests an amendment to their recovery permit to allow Service employees, and their designated agents, to take four subspecies of the Mazama pocket gopher: Olympia pocket gopher (
The permittee requests a permit amendment to take (survey, capture, handle, mark, release, recapture, collect tissue samples, and captive breed) the Lanai tree snail (
All comments and materials we receive in response to this request will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the address listed in the
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.
We provide this notice under section 10 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of meeting.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce a public meeting of the Wildlife and Hunting Heritage Conservation Council (Council). The Council provides advice about wildlife and habitat conservation endeavors that benefit wildlife resources; encourage partnership among the public, the sporting conservation organizations, the states, Native American tribes, and the Federal Government; and benefit recreational hunting.
The meeting will be held in Cody, Wyoming, at the Best Western Ivy Inn and Suites, located at 1800 8th Street, Cody, Wyoming 82414.
Joshua Winchell, Council Coordinator, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Mailstop 3103–AEA, Arlington, VA 22203; telephone (703) 358–2639; fax (703) 358–2548; or email
In accordance with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., we announce that Wildlife and Hunting Heritage Conservation Council will hold a meeting.
Formed in February 2010, the Council provides advice about wildlife and habitat conservation endeavors that:
1. Benefit wildlife resources;
2. Encourage partnership among the public, the sporting conservation organizations, the states, Native American tribes, and the Federal Government;
3. Benefit recreational hunting.
The Council advises the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture, reporting through the Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), in consultation with the Director, Bureau of Land Management (BLM); Director, National Park Service (NPS); Chief, Forest Service (USFS); Chief, Natural Resources Service (NRCS); and Administrator, Farm Services Agency (FSA). The Council's duties are strictly advisory and consist of, but are not limited to, providing recommendations for:
1. Implementing the Recreational Hunting and Wildlife Resource Conservation Plan—A Ten-Year Plan for Implementation;
2. Increasing public awareness of and support for the Wildlife Restoration Program;
3. Fostering wildlife and habitat conservation and ethics in hunting and shooting sports recreation;
4. Stimulating sportsmen and women's participation in conservation and management of wildlife and habitat resources through outreach and education;
5. Fostering communication and coordination among State, tribal, and Federal governments; industry; hunting and shooting sportsmen and women; wildlife and habitat conservation and management organizations; and the public;
6. Providing appropriate access to Federal lands for recreational shooting and hunting;
7. Providing recommendations to improve implementation of Federal conservation programs that benefit wildlife, hunting, and outdoor recreation on private lands; and
8. When requested by the Designated Federal Officer in consultation with the Council Chairperson, performing a variety of assessments or reviews of policies, programs, and efforts through the Council's designated subcommittees or workgroups.
Background information on the Council is available at
The Council will convene to consider issues including:
1. Land and Water Conservation Fund;
2. Funding for public and private lands conservation.
3. Other Council business.
The final agenda will be posted on the Internet at
To attend this meeting, register by close of business on the dates listed in “Public Input” under
Interested members of the public may submit relevant information or questions for the Council to consider during the public meeting. Written statements must be received by the date above, so that the information may be made available to the Council for their consideration prior to this meeting. Written statements must be supplied to the Council Coordinator in both of the following formats: One hard copy with original signature, and one electronic copy via email (acceptable file formats are Adobe Acrobat PDF, MS Word, MS PowerPoint, or rich text file).
Individuals or groups requesting to make an oral presentation at the meeting will be limited to 2 minutes per speaker, with no more than a total of 30 minutes for all speakers. Interested parties should contact the Council Coordinator, in writing (preferably via email; see
Summary minutes of the conference will be maintained by the Council Coordinator (see
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability of final documents.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) announces the availability of two final documents for public outreach use:
These voluntary guidelines are intended to be used by agencies and organizations to develop materials that inform the public and industry about the risks associated with many everyday activities that may spread aquatic invasive species and harm the environment and the economy. The intent of this information is to encourage the public and industry to take precautions to limit the spread of aquatic invasive species.
•
•
•
Laura Norcutt, 703–358–2398.
Through provisions in title 50, part 16, of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) regulates the importation and interstate transport of certain aquatic invasive species that have been determined to be injurious. The Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 4701 et seq.) established the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force (ANSTF), an intergovernmental organization co-chaired by the Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and dedicated to the development and implementation of a program for U.S. waters to prevent introduction and disposal of aquatic invasive species (AIS); to monitor, control, and study such species; and to disseminate related information. In 2000, the ANSTF developed
In 2011, the ANSTF established committees to revise the
The revised document,
The
The two sets of guidelines are available on the ANSTF Web site, by U.S. mail from the Service or by email (see
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has filed the plats of survey of the lands described below in the BLM Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming, on the dates indicated.
Bureau of Land Management, 5353 Yellowstone Road, P.O. Box 1828, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82003.
These surveys, supplemental and remonumentations were executed at the request of the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the U. S. Forest Service and are necessary for the management of resources. The lands surveyed are:
The plat and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of portions of the subdivisional lines, the survey of the subdivision of certain sections, and the survey of portions of the Fortification Creek Wilderness Study Area boundary, Township 52 North, Range 76 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 866, was accepted January 24, 2014.
The supplemental plat showing the subdivision of Lot 3, Sec. 19, into new Lots 5 and 6, Sec. 19, is based on a survey executed under state authority in May, 2013, by David A. Fehringer, Wyoming Professional Engineer and Land Surveyor No. 10052, CFedS No. 1369. A plat of this survey, titled “HOMESITE ALLOTMENT SURVEY T3021–E4 INEZ RAJO” was recorded in the Fremont County Clerk's Office, on December 19, 2013, Document No. 2013–1368411, Plat Cabinet 8, Page 95, Township 2 North, Range 5 East, Wind River Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 902, was accepted January 24, 2014.
The field notes representing the remonumentation of certain mile posts of the Wyoming-Colorado State Boundary, through Range 84 West and the 1/4 sec. cor. of secs. 16 and 17, Township 12 North, Range 84 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 624, was accepted February 20, 2014.
The plat and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the subdivisional lines, and the survey of the subdivision of section 32, Township 21 North, Range 88 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 856, was accepted February 20, 2014.
The plat and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of portions of the Fifth Standard Parallel North, through Range 86 West, the east and west boundaries and the subdivisional lines, and the survey of the subdivision of section 24, Township 21 North, Range 86 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 857, was accepted February 20, 2014.
The plat and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of portions of the north boundary, a portion of the subdivisional lines, the survey of the subdivision of sections 4 and 5, and the survey of portions of the Fortification Creek Wilderness Study Area boundary, Township 51 North, Range 76 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 871, was accepted February 20, 2014.
The plat and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the Ninth Auxiliary Meridian West, through Township 52 North, between Ranges 76 and 77 West, a portion of Tract Nos. 46 and 81, portions of the subdivisional lines, the survey of the subdivision of sec. 12, and the survey of a portion of the Fortification Creek Wilderness Study Area boundary, Township 52 North, Range 77 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 872, was accepted March 19, 2014.
The plat and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of portions of the Fourth Standard Parallel North, through Range 72 West, and the subdivisional lines, Township 16 North, Range 72 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 874, was accepted March 19, 2014.
The plat and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of portions of the west boundary and the subdivisional lines, and the survey of the subdivision of sections 17 and 19, Township 16 North, Range 95 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 876, was accepted March 19, 2014.
The plat and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the north boundary and the subdivisional lines, and the survey of the subdivision of sections 11 and 17, Township 23 North, Range 94 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 867, was accepted May 15, 2014.
The plat and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the east boundary and a portion of the subdivisional lines, and the survey of the subdivision of section 12, and the metes-and-bounds survey of Lot 1, section 12, Township 20 North, Range 71 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 887, was accepted May 15, 2014.
The plat and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the subdivisional lines, and the survey of the subdivision of certain sections, Township 27 North, Range 83 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 888, was accepted May 15, 2014.
The plat and field notes representing the corrective dependent resurvey of a portion of the north boundary, Township 43 North, Range 93 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 898, was accepted May 15, 2014.
Copies of the preceding described plats and field notes are available to the public at a cost of $1.10 per page.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of the final phase of antidumping and countervailing duty investigation Nos. 701–TA–505 and 731–TA–1231–1237 (Final) under sections 705(b) and 731(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b) and 1673d(b)) (the Act) to determine whether an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports of GOES that are subsidized by the Government of China and by imports of GOES from China, Czech Republic, Germany, Japan, Korea, Poland, and Russia that are sold at less than fair value, provided for in subheadings 7225.11.00, 7226.11.10, and 7226.11.90 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States.
For further information concerning the conduct of this phase of the investigations, hearing procedures, and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207).
Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202–205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
The final phase of these investigations is being scheduled as a result of affirmative preliminary determinations by the Department of Commerce that certain benefits which constitute subsidies within the meaning of section 703 of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1671b) are being provided to manufacturers, producers, or exporters in China of GOES, and that such products imported from China, Czech Republic, Germany, Japan, Korea, Poland, and Russia are being sold in the United States at less than fair value within the meaning of section 733 of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1673b). The investigations were requested in a petition filed on September 18, 2013, by AK Steel Corporation, West Chester, Ohio; Allegheny Ludlum, LLC, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and the United Steelworkers, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Persons, including industrial users of the subject merchandise and, if the merchandise is sold at the retail level, representative consumer organizations, wishing to participate in the final phase of these investigations as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in section 201.11 of the
Pursuant to section 207.7(a) of the Commission's rules, the Secretary will make BPI gathered in the final phase of these investigations available to authorized applicants under the APO issued in the investigations, provided that the application is made no later than 21 days prior to the hearing date specified in this notice. Authorized applicants must represent interested parties, as defined by 19 U.S.C. § 1677(9), who are parties to the investigations. A party granted access to BPI in the preliminary phase of the investigations need not reapply for such access. A separate service list will be maintained by the Secretary for those parties authorized to receive BPI under the APO.
The prehearing staff report in the final phase of these investigations will be placed in the nonpublic record on July 10, 2014, and a public version will be issued thereafter, pursuant to section 207.22 of the Commission's rules.
The Commission will hold a hearing in connection with the final phase of these investigations beginning at 9:30 a.m. on July 24, 2014, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building. Requests to appear at the hearing should be filed in writing with the Secretary to the Commission on or before July 17, 2014. A nonparty who has testimony that may aid the Commission's deliberations may request permission to present a short statement at the hearing. All parties and nonparties desiring to appear at the hearing and make oral presentations should attend a prehearing conference to be held (if deemed necessary) on July 18, 2014. Oral testimony and written materials to be submitted at the public hearing are governed by sections 201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), and 207.24 of the Commission's rules. Parties must submit any request to present a portion of their hearing testimony
Each party who is an interested party shall submit a prehearing brief to the Commission. Prehearing briefs must conform with the provisions of section 207.23 of the Commission's rules; the deadline for filing is July 17, 2014. Parties may also file written testimony in connection with their presentation at the hearing, as provided in section 207.24 of the Commission's rules, and posthearing briefs, which must conform with the provisions of section 207.25 of the Commission's rules. The deadline for filing posthearing briefs is July 31, 2014. In addition, any person who has not entered an appearance as a party to the investigations may submit a written statement of information pertinent to the subject of the investigations, including statements of support or opposition to the petition, on or before July 17, 2014. On August 20, 2014, the Commission will make available to parties all information on which they have not had an opportunity to comment. Parties may submit final comments on this information on or before August 22, 2014, but such final comments must not contain new factual information and must otherwise comply with section 207.30 of the Commission's rules. All written submissions must conform with the provisions of section 201.8 of the Commission's rules; any submissions that contain BPI must also conform with the requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's
Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to section 201.12 of the Commission's rules, shall not be accepted unless good cause is shown for accepting such submissions, or unless the submission is pursuant to a specific request by a Commissioner or Commission staff.
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
These investigations are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.21 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the institution of investigations and commencement of preliminary phase antidumping and countervailing duty investigation Nos. 701–TA–515 and 731–TA–1251 (Preliminary) under sections 703(a) and 733(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671b(a) and 1673b(a)) (the Act) to determine whether there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports from India, Korea, Malaysia, Oman, Taiwan, Turkey, and Vietnam of certain steel nails, provided for in subheading 7317.00.55, 7317.00.65 and 7317.00.75 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that are alleged to be subsidized by the Governments of India, Korea, Malaysia, Oman, Taiwan, Turkey, and Vietnam and are alleged to be sold in the United States at less than fair value. Unless the Department of Commerce extends the time for initiation pursuant to sections 702(c)(1)(B) or 732(c)(1)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671a(c)(1)(B) or 1673a(c)(1)(B)), the Commission must reach a preliminary determination in antidumping and countervailing duty investigations in 45 days, or in this case, by July 14, 2014. The Commission's views must be transmitted to Commerce within five business days thereafter, or by July 21, 2014.
For further information concerning the conduct of these investigations and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Fred Ruggles (202–205–3187,
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
These investigations are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.12 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on April 29, 2014, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of Spansion LLC of Sunnyvale, California. A supplement to the complaint was filed on May 9, 2014. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain non-volatile memory chips and products containing the same by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,246,611 (“the '611 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 6,744,666 (“the '666 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 6,399,446 (“the '446 patent”); and U.S. Patent 6,436,766 (“the '766 patent”). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists or is in the process of being established as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337.
The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a general exclusion order and cease and desist orders.
The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is 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., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205–2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at
The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205–2560.
The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2014).
Scope of Investigation: Having considered the complaint, the U.S. International Trade Commission, on May 29, 2014, Ordered That:
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain non-volatile memory chips and products containing the same by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1–7 and 9–13 of the '611 patent; claims 1, 3–5, 8, and 10–13 of the '666 patent; claims 1, 5–12, 15–17, 20, and 21 of the '446 patent; and claims 1, 4–11, 13–15, 17, 18, and 22 of the '766 patent, and whether an industry in the United States exists or is in the process of being established as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2) Pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50(b)(1), 19 CFR 210.50(b)(1), the presiding administrative law judge shall take evidence or other information and hear arguments from the parties and other interested persons with respect to the public interest in this investigation, as appropriate, and provide the Commission with findings of fact and a recommended determination on this issue, which shall be limited to the statutory public interest factors set forth in 19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1), (f)(1), (g)(1);
(3) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainant is: Spansion LLC, 915 DeGuigne Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94085.
(b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:
(c) The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and
(4) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
The Office for Civil Rights, Office of Justice Programs, Department of Justice
30-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days for public comment until July 7, 2014.
If you have comments, especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact George Mazza, Senior Counsel, Office for Civil Rights, Office of Justice Programs, 810 7th Street NW., Washington, DC 20531. Written comments and/or suggestions can also be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Officer of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington DC 20503 or send to
This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
(1) Type of Information Collection: Reinstatement, with no change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Equal Employment Opportunity Plan Certification and Utilization Report.
(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection: The Office for Civil Rights, Office of Justice Programs, United States Department of Justice, is sponsoring the collection.
(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: State, and local, government instrumentalities. Other: For-profit Institutions. 28 CFR 42.301 et seq. authorizes the Department of Justice to collect information regarding employment practices from State or Local units of government, agencies of State and Local governments, and Private entities, institutions or organizations to which OJP, COPS or OVW extend Federal financial assistance. OJP components include the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), Office for Victims of Crime (OVC), Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), National Institute of Justice (NIJ), and the Office of Sexual Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking (SMART Office).
(5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: It is estimated that 255,000 respondents will respond annually, taking 5 minutes to complete each form.
(6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: For the 6371 respondents, the total estimated burden hours on respondents would be 2,560 to complete the EEOP Utilization Report or Certification.
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Executive Office for Immigration Review, Department of Justice Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Representative Before the Board of Immigration Appeals
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until August 4, 2014.
If you have comments, especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Jeff Rosenblum, General Counsel, Executive Office for Immigration Review, U.S. Department of Justice, Suite 2600, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, Virginia, 20530; telephone: (703) 305–0470.
This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1
2
3
4
5
6
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Executive Office for Immigration Review, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until August 4, 2014.
If you have comments, especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Jeff Rosenblum, General Counsel, Executive Office for Immigration Review, U.S. Department of Justice, Suite 2600, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, Virginia, 20530; telephone: (703) 305–0470.
This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1
2
3
4
Primary: Attorneys and qualified representatives notifying the Immigration Court that they are representing an alien in immigration proceedings. Other: None. Abstract: This information collection is necessary to allow an attorney or representative to notify the Immigration Court that he or she is representing an alien before the Immigration Court.
5
6
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a) on or before July 7, 2014. Such persons
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/ODW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, and dispensers of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Deputy Assistant Administrator of the DEA Office of Diversion Control (“Deputy Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to sec. 7(g) of 28 CFR part 0, subpart R, App.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on March 20, 2014, Actavis Pharma, Inc., 2455 Wardlow Road, Corona, California 92880–2882, applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to import the listed controlled substances for analytical testing and clinical trials.
The import of the above listed basic classes of controlled substances will be granted only for analytical testing and clinical trials. This authorization does not extend to the import of a finished Food and Drug Administration approved or non-approved dosage form for commercial distribution in the United States.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a) on or before July 7, 2014. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43 on or before July 7, 2014.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/ODW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, and dispensers of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Deputy Assistant Administrator of the DEA Office of Diversion Control (“Deputy Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to sec. 7(g) of 28 CFR part 0, subpart R, App.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on February 26, 2014, Penick Corporation, 33 Industrial Park Road, Pennsville, New Jersey 08070, applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to import the listed controlled substances to manufacture bulk controlled substance intermediates for sale to its customers.
Comments and requests for any hearings on applications to import narcotic raw material are not appropriate. 72 FR 3417 (January 25, 2007).
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a) on or before July 7, 2014. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43 on or before July 7, 2014.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/ODW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, and dispensers of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Deputy Assistant Administrator of the DEA Office of Diversion Control (“Deputy Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to sec. 7(g) of 28 CFR pt. 0, subpt. R, App.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on December 12, 2013, Mylan Technologies, Inc., 110 Lake Street, Saint Albans, Vermont 05478, applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to import the listed controlled substances in finished dosage form (FDF) from foreign sources for analytical testing and clinical trials in which the foreign FDF will be compared to the company's own domestically-manufactured FDF. This analysis is required to allow the company to export domestically-manufactured FDF to foreign markets.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a) on or before July 7, 2014. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43 on or before July 7, 2014.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/ODW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, and dispensers of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Deputy Assistant Administrator of the DEA Office of Diversion Control (“Deputy Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to sec. 7(g) of 28 CFR part 0, subpart R, App.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on April 30, 2014, Akorn, Inc., 1222 W. Grand Avenue, Decatur, Illinois 62522, applied to be registered as an importer of Remifentanil (9739), a basic class controlled substance listed in schedule II.
The company plans to import Remifentanil in bulk for use in dosage form manufacturing.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a) on or before July 7, 2014. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43 on or before July 7, 2014.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/ODW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, and dispensers of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Deputy Assistant Administrator of the DEA Office of Diversion Control (“Deputy Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to sec. 7(g) of 28 CFR part 0, subpart R, App.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on March 12, 2014, Rhodes Technologies, 498 Washington Street, Coventry, Rhode Island 02816, applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to import the listed controlled substances in order to bulk manufacture controlled substances in Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API) form. The company distributes the manufactured APIs in bulk to its customers.
Comments and requests for hearings on applications to import narcotic raw material are not appropriate. 72 FR 3417 (January 25, 2007).
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a) on or before July 7, 2014. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43 on or before July 7, 2014.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/ODW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, and dispensers of controlled substances
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on March 31, 2014, Arizona Department of Corrections, ASPC-Florence, 1305 E. Butte Avenue, Florence, Arizona 85132, applied to be registered as an importer of Pentobarbital (2270), a basic class of substance listed in schedule II.
The facility intends to import the above listed controlled substance for legitimate use. Supplies of this particular controlled substance are inadequate and are not available in the form needed within the current domestic supply of the United States.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a) on or before July 7, 2014. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43 on or before July 7, 2014.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/ODW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, and dispensers of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Deputy Assistant Administrator of the DEA Office of Diversion Control (“Deputy Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to sec. 7(g) of 28 CFR part 0, subpart R, App.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on February 17, 2014, Wildlife Laboratories, Inc., 1230 W. Ash Street, Suite D, Windsor, Colorado 80550, applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to import the listed controlled substances for sale to its customers.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a) on or before July 7, 2014. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43 on or before July 7, 2014.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/ODW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, and dispensers of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Deputy Assistant Administrator of the DEA Office of Diversion Control (“Deputy Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to sec. 7(g) of 28 CFR part 0, subpart R, App.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on January 3, 2014, R & D Systems, Inc., 614 McKinley Place NE., Minneapolis, Minnesota 55413, applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to import the listed controlled substances in dosage form to distribute to researchers.
In reference to drug codes 7360 and 7370, the company plans to import a synthetic cannabidiol and a synthetic tetrahydrocannabinol. No other activity for these drug codes is authorized for this registration.
The import of the above listed basic classes of controlled substances would be granted only for analytical testing and clinical trials. This authorization does not extend to the import of a finished Food and Drug Administration approved or non-approved dosage form for commercial distribution in the United States.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a) on or before July 7, 2014. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43 on or before July 7, 2014.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/ODW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, and dispensers of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Deputy Assistant Administrator of the DEA Office of Diversion Control (“Deputy Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to sec. 7(g) of 28 CFR part 0, subpart R, App.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on January 8, 2014, SA INTL GMBH C/O., Sigma Aldrich Co., LLC., 3500 Dekalb Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63118, applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic classes narcotic or non-narcotic of controlled substances:
The company plans to import the listed controlled substances for sale to research facilities for drug testing and analysis.
In reference to drug codes 7360 and 7370, the company plans to import a synthetic cannabidiol and a synthetic tetrahydrocannabinol. No other activity for this drug code is authorized for this registration.
Comments and requests for hearings on applications to import narcotic raw material are not appropriate. 72 FR 3417 (January 25, 2007).
In regard to the non-narcotic raw material, any bulk manufacturer who is presently, or is applying to be, registered with the DEA to manufacture such basic classes of controlled substances listed in schedules I or II, which fall under the authority of section 1002(a)(2)(B) of the Act (21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2)(B)) may, in the circumstances set forth in 21 U.S.C. 958(i), file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration and may, at the same time, file a written request for a hearing on such application pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43 and in such form as prescribed by 21 CFR 1316.47.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a) on or before August 4, 2014.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, and dispensers of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Deputy Assistant Administrator of the DEA Office of Diversion Control (“Deputy Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to sec. 7(g) of 28 CFR part 0, subpart R, App.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on March 17, 2014, Stepan Company, Natural Products Dept., 100 W. Hunter Avenue, Maywood, New Jersey 07607, applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic classes of narcotic controlled substances:
The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances in bulk for distribution to its customers.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a) on or before August 4, 2014.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/ODW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, and dispensers of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Deputy Assistant Administrator of the DEA Office of Diversion Control (“Deputy Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to sec. 7(g) of 28 CFR part 0, subpart R, App.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on March 27, 2014, Lin Zhi International, Inc., 670 Almanor Avenue, Sunnyvale, California 94085, applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances as bulk reagents for use in drug abuse testing.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a) on or before August 4, 2014.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/ODW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, and dispensers of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Deputy Assistant Administrator of the DEA Office of Diversion Control (“Deputy Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to sec. 7(g) of 28 CFR part 0, subpart R, App.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on May 2, 2014, Boehringer Ingelheim Chemical, Inc., 2820 N. Normandy Drive, Petersburg, Virginia 23805–9372, applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances in bulk for sale to its customers for formulation into finished pharmaceuticals. In reference to Methadone Intermediate (9254), the company plans to produce Methadone HCL active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) for sale to its customers.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a) on or before August 4, 2014.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/ODW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, and dispensers of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Deputy Assistant Administrator of the DEA Office of Diversion Control (“Deputy Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to sec. 7(g) of 28 CFR part 0, subpart R, App.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on March 20, 2014, Apertus Pharmaceuticals, 331 Concort Drive, St. Louis, Missouri 63011, applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic classes of narcotic or nonnarcotic controlled substances:
The company plans to manufacture small quantities of the listed controlled
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a) on or before August 4, 2014.
Written comments should be to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/ODW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, and dispensers of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Deputy Assistant Administrator of the DEA Office of Diversion Control (“Deputy Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to sec. 7(g) of 28 CFR part 0, subpart R, App.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on March 27, 2014, Austin Pharma, LLC., 811 Paloma Drive, Suite C, Round Rock, Texas 78665–2402, applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to manufacture bulk synthetic active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) for distribution and new product development to its customers. The company plans to bulk manufacture a synthetic tetrahydrocannabinol.
In reference to drug code 7360, the company plans to manufacture a synthetic cannabinol in bulk for sale to its customers. The controlled substance will be further synthesized to bulk manufacture a synthetic tetrahydrocannabinol (7370). No other activity for this drug code is authorized for this registration.
Notice of registration.
Cayman Chemical Company applied to be registered as a manufacturer of certain basic classes of narcotic or non-narcotic controlled substances. The DEA grants Cayman Chemical Company registration as a manufacturer of those controlled substances.
By notice dated December 31, 2013, and published in the
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Cayman Chemical Company to manufacture the basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. The DEA investigated the company's maintenance of effective controls against diversion by inspecting and testing the company's physical security systems, verified the company's compliance with state and local laws, and reviewed the company's background and history.
Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above-named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of narcotic or non-narcotic controlled substances listed:
The company plans to manufacture reference standards for distribution to their research and forensics customers.
In reference to drug code 7360 (Marihuana), the company plans to bulk manufacture cannabidiol as a synthetic intermediate. This controlled substance will be further synthesized to bulk manufacture a synthetic tetrahydrocannabinol (7370). No other activity for this drug code is authorized for this registration.
No comments or objections have been received.
Notice of registration.
Noramco, Inc. applied to be registered as a manufacturer of certain basic classes of narcotic or non-narcotic controlled substances. The DEA grants Noramco, Inc. registration as a manufacturer of those controlled substances.
By notice dated December 23, 2013, and published in the
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Noramco, Inc. to manufacture the basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. The DEA investigated the company's maintenance of effective controls against diversion by inspecting and testing the company's physical security systems, verified the company's compliance with state and local laws, and reviewed the company's background and history.
Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above-named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of narcotic or non-narcotic controlled substances listed:
The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances in bulk for distribution to its customers.
No comments or objections have been received.
Office of Justice Programs (OJP), DOJ.
Notice of Request for Nominations.
This notice announces that OJP is seeking nominations of individuals to serve on the OJP Science Advisory Board (“Board”). The Board was established by the Attorney General in 2010. It is chartered to provide OJP, a component of the Department of Justice, with valuable advice in the areas of science and statistics for the purpose of enhancing the overall impact and performance of its programs and activities in criminal and juvenile justice. To this end, the Board currently operates with six (6) subcommittees: National Institute of Justice (NIJ); Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS); Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP); Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA); Quality and Protection of Science; and Evidence Translation/Integration.
Nominations will be accepted through August 29, 2014.
Phelan Wyrick, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), Office of the Assistant Attorney General, Office of Justice Programs, 810 7th Street Northwest, Washington, DC 20531; Phone: (202) 353–9254 [Note: this is not a toll-free number]; Email:
To make a nomination, please contact Mr. Wyrick (see above for addresses and phone numbers). Nominations should include the name, title, affiliation, and contact information for the nominee. Resumes, statements of interest, and other relevant supporting information are welcome. Self-nominations are welcome.
The Board typically meets twice a year to brief the OJP Assistant Attorney General and the Board members on the progress of the subcommittees, discuss any recommendations they may have for consideration by the full SAB, and brief the Board on various OJP-related projects and activities. All meetings of the Board take place in Washington, DC. The Board is a federal advisory committee covered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and as such, meetings of the Board are open to the public. Members of the Board include scientists and practitioners with strong backgrounds of applying science in the fields of criminal justice, juvenile justice, or crime victim services. Current
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Overpayment Detection and Recovery Activities,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before July 7, 2014.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov Web site at
Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL–ETA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202–395–6881 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Contact Michel Smyth by telephone at 202–693–4129, TTY 202–693–8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Overpayment Detection and Recovery Activities information collection. Form ETA–227 is the instrument by which the ETA collects the subject information on a quarterly basis from States. Responses to Form ETA 227 provide data on the number and amounts of fraud and nonfraud overpayments, the methods by which any overpayments were detected, the amounts and methods by which overpayments were collected, the amounts of overpayments waived and written off, the accounts receivable for the overpayments outstanding, and data on criminal/civil actions. The Federal Unemployment Tax Act and Social Security Act authorize this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on August 31, 2014. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Employment
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before July 7, 2014.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov Web site at
Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL–ETA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202–395–6881 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202–693–4129, TTY 202–693–8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Interstate Arrangement for Combining Employment and Wages information collection. This report, Reporting Form ETA–586, provides data necessary to measure the scope and effect of the program for combining employment and wages covered under the different State laws for the purpose of determining an unemployed worker's entitlement to workers' compensation and to monitor the performance of each State's payment and wage transfer performance. Internal Revenue Code of 1986 section 3304(a)(9)(B) requires a State to provide the information covered by this ICR to the ETA.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on July 31, 2014. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2273) the Department of Labor herein presents summaries of determinations regarding eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance for workers by (TA–W) number issued during the period of
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for workers of a primary firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(a) of the Act must be met.
I. Under Section 222(a)(2)(A), the following must be satisfied:
(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2) the sales or production, or both, of such firm have decreased absolutely; and
(3) One of the following must be satisfied:
(A) Imports of articles or services like or directly competitive with articles produced or services supplied by such firm have increased;
(B) imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles into which one or more component parts produced by such firm are directly incorporated, have increased;
(C) imports of articles directly incorporating one or more component parts produced outside the United States that are like or directly competitive with imports of articles incorporating one or more component parts produced by such firm have increased;
(D) imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced directly using services supplied by such firm, have increased; and
(4) the increase in imports contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation and to the decline in the sales or production of such firm; or
II. Section 222(a)(2)(B) all of the following must be satisfied:
(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2) One of the following must be satisfied:
(A) There has been a shift by the workers' firm to a foreign country in the production of articles or supply of services like or directly competitive with those produced/supplied by the workers' firm;
(B) there has been an acquisition from a foreign country by the workers' firm of articles/services that are like or directly competitive with those produced/supplied by the workers' firm; and
(3) the shift/acquisition contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of separation.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for adversely affected workers in public agencies and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(b) of the Act must be met.
(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in the public agency have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2) the public agency has acquired from a foreign country services like or directly competitive with services which are supplied by such agency; and
(3) the acquisition of services contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for adversely affected secondary workers of a firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(c) of the Act must be met.
(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in the workers' firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2) the workers' firm is a Supplier or Downstream Producer to a firm that employed a group of workers who received a certification of eligibility under Section 222(a) of the Act, and such supply or production is related to the article or service that was the basis for such certification; and
(3) either—
(A) the workers' firm is a supplier and the component parts it supplied to the firm described in paragraph (2) accounted for at least 20 percent of the production or sales of the workers' firm; or
(B) a loss of business by the workers' firm with the firm described in paragraph (2) contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of separation.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for adversely affected workers in firms identified by the International Trade Commission and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(f) of the Act must be met.
(1) The workers' firm is publicly identified by name by the International Trade Commission as a member of a domestic industry in an investigation resulting in—
(A) an affirmative determination of serious injury or threat thereof under section 202(b)(1);
(B) an affirmative determination of market disruption or threat thereof under section 421(b)(1); or
(C) an affirmative final determination of material injury or threat thereof under section 705(b)(1)(A) or 735(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b)(1)(A) and 1673d(b)(1)(A));
(2) the petition is filed during the 1-year period beginning on the date on which—
(A) a summary of the report submitted to the President by the International Trade Commission under section 202(f)(1) with respect to the affirmative determination described in paragraph (1)(A) is published in the
(B) notice of an affirmative determination described in subparagraph (1) is published in the
(3) the workers have become totally or partially separated from the workers' firm within—
(A) the 1-year period described in paragraph (2); or
(B) notwithstanding section 223(b)(1), the 1-year period preceding the 1-year period described in paragraph (2).
The following certifications have been issued. The date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(B) (shift in production or services) of the Trade Act have been met.
In the following cases, the investigation revealed that the eligibility criteria for worker adjustment assistance have not been met for the reasons specified.
The investigation revealed that the criteria under paragraphs (a)(2)(A) (increased imports) and (a)(2)(B) (shift in production or services to a foreign country) of section 222 have not been met.
I hereby certify that the aforementioned determinations were issued during the period of
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2273) the Department of Labor herein presents summaries of determinations regarding eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance for workers by (TA–W) number issued during the period of
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for workers of a primary firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(a) of the Act must be met.
I. Under Section 222(a)(2)(A), the following must be satisfied:
(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2) The sales or production, or both, of such firm have decreased absolutely; and
(3) One of the following must be satisfied:
(A) Imports of articles or services like or directly competitive with articles produced or services supplied by such firm have increased;
(B) Imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles into which one or more component parts produced by such firm are directly incorporated, have increased;
(C) Imports of articles directly incorporating one or more component parts produced outside the United States that are like or directly competitive with imports of articles incorporating one or more component parts produced by such firm have increased;
(D) Imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced directly using services supplied by such firm, have increased; and
(4) The increase in imports contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation and to the decline in the sales or production of such firm; or
II. Section 222(a)(2)(B) all of the following must be satisfied:
(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2) One of the following must be satisfied:
(A) There has been a shift by the workers' firm to a foreign country in the production of articles or supply of services like or directly competitive with those produced/supplied by the workers' firm;
(B) There has been an acquisition from a foreign country by the workers' firm of articles/services that are like or directly competitive with those produced/supplied by the workers' firm; and
(3) The shift/acquisition contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of separation.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for adversely affected workers in public agencies and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(b) of the Act must be met.
(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in the public agency have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2) The public agency has acquired from a foreign country services like or directly competitive with services which are supplied by such agency; and
(3) The acquisition of services contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for adversely affected secondary workers of a firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(c) of the Act must be met.
(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in the workers' firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2) The workers' firm is a Supplier or Downstream Producer to a firm that employed a group of workers who received a certification of eligibility under Section 222(a) of the Act, and such supply or production is related to the article or service that was the basis for such certification; and
(3) Either—
(A) the workers' firm is a supplier and the component parts it supplied to the firm described in paragraph (2) accounted for at least 20 percent of the production or sales of the workers' firm; or
(B) a loss of business by the workers' firm with the firm described in paragraph (2) contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of separation.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for adversely affected workers in firms identified by the International Trade Commission and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(f) of the Act must be met.
(1) The workers' firm is publicly identified by name by the International Trade Commission as a member of a domestic industry in an investigation resulting in—
(A) An affirmative determination of serious injury or threat thereof under section 202(b)(1);
(B) An affirmative determination of market disruption or threat thereof under section 421(b)(1); or
(C) An affirmative final determination of material injury or threat thereof under section 705(b)(1)(A) or 735(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b)(1)(A) and 1673d(b)(1)(A));
(2) The petition is filed during the 1-year period beginning on the date on which—
(A) A summary of the report submitted to the President by the International Trade Commission under section 202(f)(1) with respect to the affirmative determination described in paragraph (1)(A) is published in the
(B) Notice of an affirmative determination described in subparagraph (1) is published in the
(3) The workers have become totally or partially separated from the workers' firm within—
(A) the 1-year period described in paragraph (2); or
(B) notwithstanding section 223(b)(1), the 1-year period preceding the 1-year period described in paragraph (2).
The following certifications have been issued. The date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(B) (shift in production or services) of the Trade Act have been met.
I hereby certify that the aforementioned determinations were issued during the period of
Petitions have been filed with the Secretary of Labor under Section 221(a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (“the Act”) and are identified in the Appendix to this notice. Upon receipt of these petitions, the Director of the Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, has instituted investigations pursuant to Section 221(a) of the Act.
The purpose of each of the investigations is to determine whether the workers are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Title II, Chapter 2, of the Act. The investigations will further relate, as appropriate, to the determination of the date on which total or partial separations began or threatened to begin and the subdivision of the firm involved.
The petitioners or any other persons showing a substantial interest in the subject matter of the investigations may request a public hearing, provided such request is filed in writing with the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than June 16, 2014.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments regarding the subject matter of the investigations to the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than June 16, 2014.
The petitions filed in this case are available for inspection at the Office of the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N–5428, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210.
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2273) the Department of Labor herein presents summaries of determinations regarding eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance for workers (TA–W) number and alternative trade adjustment assistance (ATAA) by (TA–W) number issued during the period of
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for workers of a primary firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(a) of the Act must be met.
I. Section (a)(2)(A) all of the following must be satisfied:
A. A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
B. the sales or production, or both, of such firm or subdivision have decreased absolutely; and
C. increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles produced by such firm or subdivision have contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation and to the decline in sales or production of such firm or subdivision; or
II. Section (a)(2)(B) both of the following must be satisfied:
A. A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
B. there has been a shift in production by such workers' firm or subdivision to a foreign country of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced by such firm or subdivision; and
C. One of the following must be satisfied:
1. The country to which the workers' firm has shifted production of the articles is a party to a free trade agreement with the United States;
2. the country to which the workers' firm has shifted production of the articles to a beneficiary country under the Andean Trade Preference Act, African Growth and Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act; or
3. there has been or is likely to be an increase in imports of articles that are like or directly competitive with articles which are or were produced by such firm or subdivision.
Also, in order for an affirmative determination to be made for secondarily affected workers of a firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(b) of the Act must be met.
(1) Significant number or proportion of the workers in the workers' firm or an appropriate subdivision of the firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2) the workers' firm (or subdivision) is a supplier or downstream producer to a firm (or subdivision) that employed a group of workers who received a certification of eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance benefits and such supply or production is related to the article that was the basis for such certification; and
(3) either—
(A) the workers' firm is a supplier and the component parts it supplied for the firm (or subdivision) described in paragraph (2) accounted for at least 20 percent of the production or sales of the workers' firm; or
(B) a loss or business by the workers' firm with the firm (or subdivision) described in paragraph (2) contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of separation.
In order for the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance to issue a certification of eligibility to apply for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) for older workers, the group eligibility requirements of Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act must be met.
1. Whether a significant number of workers in the workers' firm are 50 years of age or older.
2. Whether the workers in the workers' firm possess skills that are not easily transferable.
3. The competitive conditions within the workers' industry (i.e., conditions within the industry are adverse).
The following certifications have been issued. The date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination.
The following certifications have been issued. The date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(A) (increased imports) and Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act have been met.
In the following cases, it has been determined that the requirements of 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) have not been met for the reasons specified.
In the following cases, the investigation revealed that the eligibility criteria for worker adjustment assistance have not been met for the reasons specified.
Because the workers of the firm are not eligible to apply for TAA, the workers cannot be certified eligible for ATAA.
The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.A.) and (a)(2)(B)(II.A.) (employment decline) have not been met.
The workers' firm does not produce an article as required for certification under Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974.
After notice of the petitions was published in the
I hereby certify that the aforementioned determinations were issued during the period of
National Mediation Board (NMB).
The Acting Director, Office of Administration, invites comments on the proposed information collection requests as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13, May 22, 1995 and 5 CFR 1320). This notice announces that the NMB has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget a request for clearance of one information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments within 30 days from the date of this publication.
Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The Director, Office of Administration, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection contains the following: (1) Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4) Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information; (5) Respondents and frequency of collection; and (6) Reporting and/or Record keeping burden. OMB invites public comment.
Currently, the National Mediation Board is soliciting comments concerning the proposed revision of the Application for Investigation of Representation Dispute and is interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the agency; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the agency enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the agency minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
1.
This revision of this form is necessary to conform with amendments to the Railway Labor Act. In December of 2012, the NMB promulgated rules in accordance with these amendments, requiring applications to be supported by a 50 percent showing of interest. The revisions to this application include requiring applicants to indicate this 50 percent showing of interest. An additional change requires applicants to attest that submitted information is true to the best of their knowledge. Applicants will be required to complete a separate application for each craft or class. These revisions will not change the burden on the applicant in completing the form.
2. The application form provides necessary information to the NMB so that it can determine the amount of staff and resources required to conduct an investigation and fulfill its statutory responsibilities. Without this information, the NMB would have to delay the commencement of the investigation, which is contrary to the intent of the Railway Labor Act.
3. There is no improved technological method for obtaining this information. The burden on the parties is minimal in completing the “Application for Investigation of Representation Dispute.”
4. There is no duplication in obtaining this information.
5. Rarely are representation elections conducted for small businesses. Carriers/employers are not permitted to request our services regarding representation investigations. The labor organizations, which are the typical requesters, are national in scope and would not qualify as small businesses. Even in situations where the invocation comes from a small labor organization, we believe the burden in completing the application form is minimal and that no reduction in burden could be made.
6. The NMB is required by Section 2, Ninth, to investigate the dispute, to determine who is the authorized representative, if any, and to certify such representative. The NMB has no ability to control the frequency, technical, or legal obstacles, which would reduce the burden.
7. The information requested by the NMB is consistent with the general information collection guidelines of CFR 1320.6. The NMB has no ability to control the data provided or timing of the invocation. The burden on the parties is minimal in completing the “Application for Investigation of Representation Dispute.”
8. No payments or gifts have been provided by the NMB to any respondents of the form.
9. There are no questions of a sensitive nature on the form.
10. The total time burden on respondents is 17.00 hours annually—this is the time required to collect information. After consulting with a sample of people involved with the collection of this information, the time to complete this information collection is estimated to average 15 minutes per response, including gathering the data needed and completion and review of the information.
11. The total collection and mail cost burden on respondents is estimated at $584.80 annually ($552.16 time cost burden + $32.64 mail cost burden.)
a. The respondents will not incur any capital costs or start up costs for this collection.
b. Cost burden on respondents—detail:
We are estimating that a mid-level clerical person, with an average salary of $32.48 per hour, will be completing the “Application for Investigation of Representation Dispute” form. The total burden is estimated at 17 hours, therefore, the total time burden cost is estimated at $552.16 per year.
The collection of this information is not mandatory; it is a voluntary request from airline and railroad carrier employees seeking to invoke an investigation of a representation dispute. After consulting with a sample of people involved with the collection of this information, the time to complete this information collection is estimated to average 15 minutes per response, including gathering the data needed and completion and review of the information. However, the estimated hour burden costs of the respondents may vary due to the complexity of the specific question in dispute. The revision of the form requiring a new application for every craft or class will have little effect on the number of application submitted. In 2012 and 2013, no applications were filed that included a request for representation services for more than one craft or class.
The application form is available from the NMB's Office of Legal Affairs and is also available on the Internet at
12. The total annualized Federal cost is $846.98. This includes the costs of printing and mailing the forms upon request of the parties. The completed applications are maintained by the Office of Legal Affairs.
a. Printing cost: $ 80.00.
b. Mailing costs: $ 9.54.
Basis (mail cost): Forms are requested approximately 3 times per year and it takes 5 minutes to prepare the form for mail:
c. Processing Cost = $756.00.
Basis (processing cost): Representation is requested approximately 70 times oer year and it takes 20 minutes to process each application.
13. Item 13—no change in annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden.
14. The information collected by the application will not be published.
15. The NMB will display the OMB expiration date on the form.
16(a)—the form does not reduce the burden on small entities; however, the burden is minimized and voluntary.
16 (b)—the form does not indicate the retention period for record keeping requirements.
16 (c)—the form is not part of a statistical survey.
Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from
Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements, as
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License application; correction.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is correcting a notice that was published in the
The correction is effective June 4, 2014.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2013–0053 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this document. You may access publicly-available information related to this document by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Steven Lynch, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation; telephone: 301–415–1524; email:
In the FR of December 9, 2013, in FR Doc. 2013–29303, on page 73897, second column, eleventh line from the top of the page, correct “ADAMS Accession No.” to read “ADAMS Accession No. ML13172A361.”
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Weeks of June 2, 9, 16, 23, 30, July 7, 2014.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and Closed.
This meeting will be Web cast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of June 9, 2014.
This meeting will be Web cast live at the Web address—
This meeting will be Web cast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of June 23, 2014.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of June 30, 2014.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of July 7, 2014.
The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. To verify the status of meetings, call (recording)—301–415–1292. Contact person for more information: Rochelle Bavol, 301–415–1651.
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (e.g. braille, large print), please notify Kimberly Meyer, NRC Disability Program Manager, at 301–287–0727, or by email at
Members of the public may request to receive this information electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301–415–1969), or send an email to
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice of an application for an order under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Act”) for an exemption from sections 2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), 22(d) and 22(e) of the Act and rule 22c–1 under the Act, under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act for an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Act, and under section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act for an exemption from sections 12(d)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act.
Prudential Investments LLC (“PI”), Prudential ETF Trust (the “Trust”) and Prudential Investment Management Services LLC (“PIMS”).
Applicants request an order that permits: (a) Actively-managed series of certain open-end management investment companies to issue shares (“Shares”) redeemable in large aggregations only (“Creation Units”); (b) secondary market transactions in Shares to occur at negotiated market prices; (c) certain series to pay redemption proceeds, under certain circumstances, more than seven days from the tender of Shares for redemption; (d) certain affiliated persons of the series to deposit securities into, and receive securities from, the series in connection with the purchase and redemption of Creation Units; and (e) certain registered management investment companies and unit investment trusts outside of the same group of investment companies as the series to acquire Shares.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on June 23, 2014, and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090. Applicants: c/o Claudia DiGiacomo, Esq., Prudential Investments LLC, Gateway Center Three, 100 Mulberry Street, 4th Floor, Newark, New Jersey 07102.
Deepak T. Pai, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551–6876 or Mary Kay Frech, Branch Chief, at (202) 551–6814 (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 Trust is a statutory trust organized under the laws of Maryland and intends to register as an open-end management investment company under the Act. The Trust currently intends to offer an actively-managed series, Prudential Core Bond ETF (the “Initial Fund”). The investment objective of the Initial Fund will be to seek total return by generally investing in a diversified portfolio of fixed income securities.
2. PI, a New York limited liability company, will be the investment adviser to the Initial Fund. PI is and any other Adviser (as defined below) is or will be registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”). The Adviser may enter into sub-advisory agreements with investment advisers to act as sub-advisers with respect to the Funds (as defined below) (each, a “Subadviser”). Any Subadviser will be registered under the Advisers Act or not subject to such registration. PIMS, a registered broker-dealer under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), is an affiliate of the Adviser and will act as the distributor and principal underwriter of the Funds (“Distributor”).
3. Applicants request that the order apply to the Initial Fund and any future series of the Trust or of other existing or future open-end management companies that may utilize active management investment strategies (“Future Funds”). Any Future Fund will (a) be advised by PI or an entity controlling, controlled by, or under common control with PI or any successor thereto (each such entity included in the term “Adviser”),
4. Applicants also request that any exemptions under section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act from sections 12(d)(1)(A) and (B) apply to: (1) Any Fund that is currently or subsequently part of the same “group of investment companies” as the Initial Fund within the meaning of section 12(d)(1)(G)(ii) of the Act as
5. Applicants anticipate that a Creation Unit will consist of at least 25,000 Shares and the price of a Share will range from $10 to $200. All orders to purchase Creation Units must be placed with the Distributor by or through a party (“Authorized Participant”) that has entered into a participant agreement with the Distributor and the transfer agent of the Trust with respect to the creation and redemption of Creation Units. An Authorized Participant is either: (a) A broker or dealer registered under the Exchange Act (“Broker”) or other participant in the Continuous Net Settlement System of the National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”), a clearing agency registered with the Commission and affiliated with the Depository Trust Company (“DTC”); or (b) a participant in the DTC (such participant, “DTC Participant”).
6. Shares of the Funds will be purchased and redeemed in Creation Units and generally on an “in-kind” basis. Except where the purchase or redemption will include cash under the limited circumstances specified below, purchasers will be required to purchase Creation Units by making an in-kind deposit of specified instruments (“Deposit Instruments”), and shareholders redeeming their Shares will receive an in-kind transfer of specified instruments (“Redemption Instruments”).
7. Purchases and redemptions of Creation Units may be made in whole or in part on a cash basis, rather than in kind, solely under the following circumstances: (a) To the extent there is a Balancing Amount, as described above; (b) if, on a given Business Day, the Fund announces before the open of trading that all purchases, all redemptions or all purchases and redemptions on that day will be made entirely in cash; (c) if, upon receiving a purchase or redemption order from an Authorized Participant, the Fund determines to require the purchase or redemption, as applicable, to be made entirely in cash; (d) if, on a given Business Day, the Fund requires all Authorized Participants purchasing or redeeming Shares on that day to deposit or receive (as applicable) cash
8. Each Business Day, before the open of trading on the national securities exchange, as defined in section 2(a)(26) of the Act (“Stock Exchange”), upon which its Shares are listed and traded, the Fund will cause to be published through the NSCC the names and quantities of the instruments comprising the Creation Basket, as well as the estimated Balancing Amount (if any), for that day. The published Creation Basket will apply until a new Creation Basket is announced on the following Business Day, and there will be no intra-day changes to the Creation Basket, except to correct errors in the published Creation Basket. The Stock Exchange will disseminate every 15 seconds throughout the trading day through the facilities of the Consolidated Tape Association an amount representing, on a per Share basis, the sum of the current value of the Portfolio Positions that were publicly disclosed prior to the commencement of trading in Shares on the Stock Exchange.
9. An investor purchasing or redeeming a Creation Unit from a Fund may be charged a fee (“Transaction Fee”) to protect existing shareholders of the Funds from the dilutive costs associated with the purchase and redemption of Creation Units.
10. Shares will be listed and traded at negotiated prices on the Stock Exchange and traded in the secondary market. Applicants expect that the Stock Exchange market makers (“Market Makers”) will be assigned to Shares. The price of Shares trading on the Stock Exchange will be based on a current bid/offer market. Transactions involving the purchases and sales of Shares on the Stock Exchange will be subject to customary brokerage commissions and charges.
11. Applicants expect that purchasers of Creation Units will include arbitrageurs. Market Makers, acting in their unique role to provide a fair and orderly secondary market for Shares, also may purchase Creation Units for use in their own market making activities.
12. Shares may be redeemed only if tendered in Creation Units. Redemption requests must be placed by or through an Authorized Participant. As discussed above, redemptions of Creation Units will generally be made on an in-kind basis, subject to certain specified exceptions under which redemptions may be made in whole or in part on a cash basis, and will be subject to a Transaction Fee.
13. Neither the Trust nor any Fund will be marketed or otherwise held out as a “mutual fund.” Instead, each Fund will be marketed as an “actively-managed exchange-traded fund.” Any advertising material where features of obtaining, buying or selling Creation Units are described or where there is reference to redeemability will prominently disclose that Shares are not individually redeemable and that owners of Shares may acquire Shares from a Fund and tender those Shares for redemption to a Fund in Creation Units only.
14. The Funds' Web site, which will be publicly available prior to the public offering of Shares, will include the Prospectus and additional quantitative information updated on a daily basis, including, on a per Share basis for each Fund, the prior Business Day's NAV and the market closing price or mid-point of the bid/ask spread at the time of the calculation of such NAV (“Bid/Ask Price”), and a calculation of the premium or discount of the market closing price or Bid/Ask Price against such NAV. On each Business Day, before commencement of trading in Shares on the Stock Exchange, the Fund will disclose on its Web site the identities and quantities of the Portfolio Positions held by the Fund that will form the basis for the Fund's calculation of NAV at the end of the Business Day.
1. Applicants request an order under section 6(c) of the Act for an exemption from sections 2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), 22(d) and 22(e) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act, under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act for an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Act, and under section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act for an exemption from sections 12(d)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act.
2. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or transaction, or any class of persons, securities or transactions from any provisions of the Act, if and to the extent that such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to exempt a proposed transaction from section 17(a) of the Act if evidence establishes that the terms of the transaction, including the consideration to be paid or received, are reasonable and fair and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned, and the proposed transaction is consistent with the policies of the registered investment company and the general provisions of the Act. Section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or transaction, or any class or classes of persons, securities or transactions, from any provision of section 12(d)(1) if the exemption is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors.
3. Section 5(a)(1) of the Act defines an “open-end company” as a management investment company that is offering for sale or has outstanding any redeemable security of which it is the issuer. Section 2(a)(32) of the Act defines a redeemable security as any security, other than short-term paper, under the terms of which the holder, upon its presentation to the issuer, is entitled to receive approximately a proportionate share of the issuer's current net assets, or the cash equivalent. Because Shares will not be individually redeemable, applicants request an order that would permit the Trust and any Fund to register as an open-end management investment company and redeem Shares in Creation Units only. Applicants state that investors may purchase Shares in Creation Units from each Fund and redeem Creation Units from each Fund. Applicants further state that because the market price of Creation Units will be disciplined by arbitrage opportunities, investors should be able to sell Shares in the secondary market at prices that do not vary materially from their NAV.
4. Section 22(d) of the Act, among other things, prohibits a dealer from selling a redeemable security that is currently being offered to the public by or through a principal underwriter, except at a current public offering price described in the prospectus. Rule 22c–1 under the Act generally requires that a dealer selling, redeeming, or repurchasing a redeemable security do so only at a price based on its NAV. Applicants state that secondary market
5. Applicants assert that the concerns sought to be addressed by section 22(d) of the Act and rule 22c–1 under the Act with respect to pricing are equally satisfied by the proposed method of pricing Shares. Applicants maintain that while there is little legislative history regarding section 22(d), its provisions, as well as those of rule 22c–1, appear to have been designed to (a) prevent dilution caused by certain riskless-trading schemes by principal underwriters and contract dealers, (b) prevent unjust discrimination or preferential treatment among buyers resulting from sales at different prices, and (c) assure an orderly distribution system of investment company shares by eliminating price competition from brokers offering shares at less than the published sales price and repurchasing shares at more than the published redemption price.
6. Applicants believe that none of these purposes will be thwarted by permitting Shares to trade in the secondary market at negotiated prices. Applicants state that (a) secondary market trading in Shares does not involve the Funds as parties and cannot result in dilution of an investment in Shares, and (b) to the extent different prices exist during a given trading day, or from day to day, such variances occur as a result of third-party market forces, such as supply and demand. Therefore, applicants assert that secondary market transactions in Shares will not lead to discrimination or preferential treatment among purchasers. Finally, applicants contend that the proposed distribution system will be orderly because arbitrage activity should ensure that the difference between the market price of Shares and their NAV remains narrow.
7. Section 22(e) of the Act generally prohibits a registered investment company from suspending the right of redemption or postponing the date of payment of redemption proceeds for more than seven days after the tender of a security for redemption. Applicants observe that settlement of redemptions of Creation Units of Global Funds is contingent not only on the settlement cycle of the U.S. securities markets but also on the delivery cycles present in foreign markets in which those Funds invest. Applicants have been advised that, under certain circumstances, the delivery cycles for transferring Portfolio Positions to redeeming investors, coupled with local market holiday schedules, will require a delivery process of up to 14 calendar days. Applicants therefore request relief from section 22(e) in order to provide payment or satisfaction of redemptions within the maximum number of calendar days required for such payment or satisfaction in the principal local markets where transactions in the Portfolio Positions of each Global Fund customarily clear and settle, but in all cases no later than 14 calendar days following the tender of a Creation Unit.
8. Applicants state that section 22(e) was designed to prevent unreasonable, undisclosed or unforeseen delays in the actual payment of redemption proceeds. Applicants state that allowing redemption payments for Creation Units of a Fund to be made within a maximum of 14 calendar days will not lead to unreasonable, undisclosed or unforeseen delays in the redemption process and would not be inconsistent with the spirit and intent of section 22(e). Applicants state the statement of additional information (“SAI”) will disclose those local holidays (over the period of at least one year following the date of the SAI), if any, that are expected to prevent the delivery of redemption proceeds in seven calendar days and the maximum number of days, up to 14 calendar days, needed to deliver the proceeds for each affected Global Fund. Except as disclosed in the SAI for a Future Fund, deliveries of redemption proceeds for Global Funds are expected to be made within seven days. Applicants are not seeking relief from section 22(e) with respect to Global Funds that do not effect redemptions in-kind.
9. Section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act prohibits a registered investment company from acquiring securities of an investment company if the securities represent more than 3% of the total outstanding voting stock of the acquired company, more than 5% of the total assets of the acquiring company, or, together with the securities of any other investment companies, more than 10% of the total assets of the acquiring company. Section 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act prohibits a registered open-end investment company, its principal underwriter, or any other broker or dealer from selling its shares to another investment company if the sale will cause the acquiring company to own more than 3% of the acquired company's voting stock, or if the sale will cause more than 10% of the acquired company's voting stock to be owned by investment companies generally.
10. Applicants request relief to permit Investing Funds to acquire Shares in excess of the limits in section 12(d)(l)(A) of the Act and to permit the Funds, their principal underwriters and any Brokers to sell Shares to Investing Funds in excess of the limits in section 12(d)(l)(B) of the Act. Applicants submit that the proposed conditions to the requested relief address the concerns underlying the limits in section 12(d)(1), which include concerns about undue influence, excessive layering of fees and overly complex structures.
11. Applicants submit that their proposed conditions address the concerns regarding the potential for undue influence. To limit the control that an Investing Fund may have over a Fund, applicants propose a condition prohibiting the adviser of an Investing Management Company (“Investing Fund Adviser”), sponsor of an Investing Trust (“Sponsor”), any person controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the Investing Fund Adviser or Sponsor, and any investment company or issuer that would be an investment company but for sections 3(c)(l) or 3(c)(7) of the Act that is advised or sponsored by the Investing Fund Adviser, the Sponsor, or any person controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the Investing Fund Adviser or Sponsor (“Investing Fund's Advisory Group”) from controlling (individually or in the aggregate) a Fund within the meaning of section 2(a)(9) of the Act. The same prohibition would apply to any sub-adviser to an Investing Management Company (“Investing Fund Subadviser”), any person controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the Investing Fund Subadviser, and any investment company or issuer that would be an investment company but for sections 3(c)(l) or 3(c)(7) of the Act (or portion of such investment company or issuer) advised or sponsored by the Investing Fund Subadviser or any person controlling, controlled by or under common control with the Investing Fund Subadviser
12. Applicants propose a condition to ensure that no Investing Fund or Investing Fund Affiliate
13. Applicants propose several conditions to address the concerns regarding layering of fees and expenses. Applicants note that the board of directors or trustees of any Investing Management Company, including a majority of the directors or trustees who are not “interested persons” within the meaning of section 2(a)(19) of the Act (“disinterested directors or trustees”), will be required to find that the advisory fees charged under the contract are based on services provided that will be in addition to, rather than duplicative of, services provided under the advisory contract of any Fund in which the Investing Management Company may invest. In addition, an Investing Fund Adviser, trustee of an Investing Trust (“Trustee”) or Sponsor, as applicable, will waive fees otherwise payable to it by the Investing Fund in an amount at least equal to any compensation (including fees received pursuant to any plan adopted by a Fund under rule 12b–1 under the Act) received from a Fund by the Investing Fund Adviser, Trustee or Sponsor or an affiliated person of the Investing Fund Adviser, Trustee or Sponsor, other than any advisory fees paid to the Investing Fund Adviser, Trustee or Sponsor or its affiliated person by a Fund, in connection with the investment by the Investing Fund in the Fund. Applicants also propose a condition to prevent any sales charges or service fees on shares of an Investing Fund from exceeding the limits applicable to a fund of funds set forth in NASD Conduct Rule 2830.
14. Applicants submit that the proposed arrangement will not create an overly complex fund structure. Applicants note that a Fund will be prohibited from acquiring securities of any investment company or company relying on sections 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 the Fund (a) receives securities of another investment company as a dividend or as a result of a plan of reorganization of a company (other than a plan devised for the purpose of evading section 12(d)(1) of the Act) or (b) acquires (or is deemed to have acquired) securities of another investment company pursuant to exemptive relief from the Commission permitting such Fund to (i) acquire securities of one or more investment companies for short-term cash management purposes or (ii) engage in interfund borrowing and lending transactions.
15. To ensure that the Investing Funds understand and comply with the terms and conditions of the requested order, any Investing Fund that intends to invest in a Fund in reliance on the requested order will be required to enter into a participation agreement (“FOF Participation Agreement”) with the Fund. The FOF Participation Agreement will include an acknowledgment from the Investing Fund that it may rely on the order only to invest in the Funds and not in any other investment company.
16. Section 17(a) of the Act generally prohibits an affiliated person of a registered investment company, or an affiliated person of such a person (“second tier affiliate”), from selling any security to or purchasing any security from the company. Section 2(a)(3) of the Act defines “affiliated person” to include any person directly or indirectly owning, controlling, or holding with power to vote, 5% or more of the outstanding voting securities of the other person and any person directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common control with, the other person. Section 2(a)(9) of the Act defines “control” as the power to exercise a controlling influence over the management or policies of a company and provides that a control relationship will be presumed where one person owns more than 25% of another person's voting securities. Each Fund may be deemed to be controlled by an Adviser and hence affiliated persons of each other. In addition, the Funds may be deemed to be under common control with any other registered investment company (or series thereof) advised by an Adviser (an “Affiliated Fund”).
17. Applicants request an exemption under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Act to permit in-kind purchases and redemptions of Creation Units by persons that are affiliated persons or second tier affiliates of the Funds solely by virtue of one or more of the following: (a) Holding 5% or more, or in excess of 25% of the outstanding Shares of one or more Funds; (b) having an affiliation with a person with an ownership interest described in (a); or (c) holding 5% or more, or more than 25% of the Shares of one or more Affiliated Funds.
18. Applicants assert that no useful purpose would be served by prohibiting such affiliated persons from making in-kind purchases or in-kind redemptions of Shares of a Fund in Creation Units. Both the deposit procedures for in-kind purchases of Creation Units and the redemption procedures for in-kind redemptions will be effected in exactly the same manner for all purchases and redemptions, regardless of size or number. Absent the circumstances
19. Applicants also submit that the sale of Shares to and redemption of Shares from an Investing Fund meets the standards for relief under sections 17(b) and 6(c) of the Act. Applicants also state that the proposed transactions are consistent with the general purposes of the Act and appropriate in the public interest.
Applicants agree that any order of the Commission granting the requested relief will be subject to the following conditions:
1. As long as a Fund operates in reliance on the requested order, the Shares of the Fund will be listed on a Stock Exchange.
2. Neither the Trust nor any Fund will be advertised or marketed as an open-end investment company or a mutual fund. Any advertising material that describes the purchase or sale of Creation Units or refers to redeemability will prominently disclose that the Shares are not individually redeemable and that owners of the Shares may acquire those Shares from the Fund and tender those Shares for redemption to the Fund in Creation Units only.
3. The Web site for the Funds, which is and will be publicly accessible at no charge, will contain, on a per Share basis, for each Fund the prior Business Day's NAV and the market closing price or Bid/Ask Price, and a calculation of the premium or discount of the market closing price or Bid/Ask Price against such NAV.
4. On each Business Day, before commencement of trading in Shares on the Stock Exchange, the Fund will disclose on its Web site the identities and quantities of the Portfolio Positions held by the Fund that will form the basis for the Fund's calculation of NAV at the end of the Business Day.
5. The Adviser or any Subadviser, directly or indirectly, will not cause any Authorized Participant (or any investor on whose behalf an Authorized Participant may transact with the Fund) to acquire any Deposit Instrument for the Fund through a transaction in which the Fund could not engage directly.
6. The requested relief to permit ETF operations will expire on the effective date of any Commission rule under the Act that provides relief permitting the operation of actively managed exchange-traded funds.
1. The members of the Investing Fund's Advisory Group will not control (individually or in the aggregate) a Fund within the meaning of section 2(a)(9) of the Act. The members of the Investing Fund's Subadvisory Group will not control (individually or in the aggregate) a Fund within the meaning of section 2(a)(9) of the Act. If, as a result of a decrease in the outstanding voting securities of a Fund, the Investing Fund's Advisory Group or the Investing Fund's Subadvisory Group, each in the aggregate, becomes a holder of more than 25 percent of the outstanding voting securities of a Fund, it will vote its Shares of the Fund in the same proportion as the vote of all other holders of the Fund's Shares. This condition does not apply to the Investing Fund's Subadvisory Group with respect to a Fund for which the Investing Fund Subadviser or a person controlling, controlled by or under common control with the Investing Fund Subadviser acts as the investment adviser within the meaning of section 2(a)(20)(A) of the Act.
2. No Investing Fund or Investing Fund Affiliate will cause any existing or potential investment by the Investing Fund in a Fund to influence the terms of any services or transactions between the Investing Fund or an Investing Fund Affiliate and the Fund or a Fund Affiliate.
3. The board of directors or trustees of an Investing Management Company, including a majority of the disinterested directors or trustees, will adopt procedures reasonably designed to assure that the Investing Fund Adviser and any Investing Fund Subadviser are conducting the investment program of the Investing Management Company without taking into account any consideration received by the Investing Management Company or an Investing Fund Affiliate from a Fund or a Fund Affiliate in connection with any services or transactions.
4. Once an investment by an Investing Fund in Shares of a Fund exceeds the limit in section 12(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, the board of the Fund (“Board”), including a majority of the disinterested Board members, will determine that any consideration paid by the Fund to the Investing Fund or an Investing Fund Affiliate in connection with any services or transactions: (i) Is fair and reasonable in relation to the nature and quality of the services and benefits received by the Fund; (ii) is within the range of consideration that the Fund would be required to pay to another unaffiliated entity in connection with the same services or transactions; and (iii) does not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned. This condition does not apply with respect to any services or transactions between a Fund and its investment adviser(s), or any person controlling, controlled by or under common control with such investment adviser(s).
5. The Investing Fund Adviser, or Trustee or Sponsor, as applicable, will waive fees otherwise payable to it by the Investing Fund in an amount at least equal to any compensation (including fees received pursuant to any plan adopted by a Fund under rule 12b–1 under the Act) received from a Fund by the Investing Fund Adviser, or Trustee or Sponsor, or an affiliated person of the Investing Fund Adviser, or Trustee or Sponsor, other than any advisory fees paid to the Investing Fund Adviser, or Trustee, or Sponsor, or its affiliated person by the Fund, in connection with the investment by the Investing Fund in the Fund. Any Investing Fund Subadviser will waive fees otherwise payable to the Investing Fund Subadviser, directly or indirectly, by the Investing Management Company in an amount at least equal to any compensation received from a Fund by the Investing Fund Subadviser, or an affiliated person of the Investing Fund Subadviser, other than any advisory fees paid to the Investing Fund Subadviser or its affiliated person by the Fund, in connection with the investment by the
6. No Investing Fund or Investing Fund Affiliate (except to the extent it is acting in its capacity as an investment adviser to a Fund) will cause a Fund to purchase a security in an Affiliated Underwriting.
7. The Board of a Fund, including a majority of the disinterested Board members, will adopt procedures reasonably designed to monitor any purchases of securities by the Fund in an Affiliated Underwriting, once an investment by an Investing Fund in the securities of the Fund exceeds the limit of section 12(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, including any purchases made directly from an Underwriting Affiliate. The Board will review these purchases periodically, but no less frequently than annually, to determine whether the purchases were influenced by the investment by the Investing Fund in the Fund. The Board will consider, among other things: (i) Whether the purchases were consistent with the investment objectives and policies of the Fund; (ii) how the performance of securities purchased in an Affiliated Underwriting compares to the performance of comparable securities purchased during a comparable period of time in underwritings other than Affiliated Underwritings or to a benchmark such as a comparable market index; and (iii) whether the amount of securities purchased by the Fund in Affiliated Underwritings and the amount purchased directly from an Underwriting Affiliate have changed significantly from prior years. The Board will take any appropriate actions based on its review, including, if appropriate, the institution of procedures designed to assure that purchases of securities in Affiliated Underwritings are in the best interest of shareholders of the Fund.
8. Each Fund will maintain and preserve permanently in an easily accessible place a written copy of the procedures described in the preceding condition, and any modifications to such procedures, and will maintain and preserve for a period of not less than six years from the end of the fiscal year in which any purchase in an Affiliated Underwriting occurred, the first two years in an easily accessible place, a written record of each purchase of securities in Affiliated Underwritings once an investment by an Investing Fund in the securities of the 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 Board's determinations were made.
9. Before investing in a Fund in excess of the limits in section 12(d)(1)(A), an Investing Fund will execute a FOF Participation Agreement with the Fund stating that their respective boards of directors or trustees and their investment advisers, or Trustee and Sponsor, as applicable, understand the terms and conditions of the order, and agree to fulfill their responsibilities under the order. At the time of its investment in Shares of a Fund in excess of the limit in section 12(d)(1)(A)(i), an Investing Fund will notify the Fund of the investment. At such time, the Investing Fund will also transmit to the Fund a list of the names of each Investing Fund Affiliate and Underwriting Affiliate. The Investing Fund will notify the Fund of any changes to the list as soon as reasonably practicable after a change occurs. The Fund and the Investing Fund will maintain and preserve a copy of the order, the FOF Participation Agreement, and the list with any updated information for the duration of the investment and for a period of not less than six years thereafter, the first two years in an easily accessible place.
10. Before approving any advisory contract under section 15 of the Act, the board of directors or trustees of each Investing Management Company, including a majority of the disinterested directors or trustees, will find that the advisory fees charged under such contract are based on services provided that will be in addition to, rather than duplicative of, the services provided under the advisory contract(s) of any Fund in which the Investing Management Company may invest. These findings and their basis will be recorded fully in the minute books of the appropriate Investing Management Company.
11. Any sales charges and/or service fees charged with respect to shares of an Investing Fund will not exceed the limits applicable to a fund of funds as set forth in NASD Conduct Rule 2830.
12. No Fund relying on the section 12(d)(1) relief will acquire securities of any investment company or company relying on section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the Act in excess of the limits contained in section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act, except to the extent that the Fund (a) receives securities of another investment company as a dividend or as a result of a plan of reorganization of a company (other than a plan devised for the purpose of evading section 12(d)(1) of the Act) or (b) acquires (or is deemed to have acquired) securities of another investment company pursuant to exemptive relief from the Commission permitting such Fund to (i) acquire securities of one or more investment companies for short-term cash management purposes or (ii) engage in interfund borrowing and lending transactions.
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 (“Exchange Act” or “Act”),
CME is filing the proposed rule change that is limited to its business as a derivatives clearing organization. More specifically, the proposed rule change would adopt new CME Rule 90008 to allow market participants the
In its filing with the Commission, CME included statements concerning the purpose 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. CME has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
CME is registered as a DCO with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) and offers clearing services for many different futures and swaps products. The proposed rule change that is the subject of this filing is limited to CME's business as a DCO offering clearing services for CFTC-regulated swaps products.
CME is proposing to adopt new CME Rule 90008 to allow market participants the ability to reduce the number of open positions and/or the gross notional of their interest rate swap (“IRS”) positions through compression by coupon blending. CME is offering coupon blending for market participants interested in reducing the number of IRS contracts cleared at CME.
Under the new rule, a market participant interested in coupon blending would inform CME or its IRS Clearing Member that it wishes to exercise coupon blending and then CME would conduct a process that would take IRS contracts executed at the same or different fixed rates and replace them with zero or more IRS Contracts that have Fixed Rate(s) equal to the blended rate(s) determined through the coupon blending process. The process would result in either a reduction in the number of transactions, a reduction in the aggregate gross notional of the combined IRS Contracts or both. Coupon blending would be available to all participants on a voluntary basis and could be automated at a market participant's request.
The change that is described in this filing is limited to CME's business as a DCO clearing products under the exclusive jurisdiction of the CFTC and does not materially impact CME's security-based swap clearing business in any way. CME notes that it has also certified the proposed rule change that is the subject of this filing to its primary regulator, the CFTC, in a separate filing, CME Submission No. 14–157. This change will be effective on filing.
CME believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act including Section 17A of the Exchange Act.
Furthermore, the proposed change is limited in its effect to products offered under CME's authority to act as a DCO. The products that are the subject of this filing are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the CFTC. As such, the proposed change is limited to CME's activities as a DCO clearing swaps that are not security-based swaps; CME notes that the policies of the CFTC with respect to administering the Commodity Exchange Act are comparable to a number of the policies underlying the Exchange Act, such as promoting market transparency for over-the-counter derivatives markets, promoting the prompt and accurate clearance of transactions and protecting investors and the public interest.
Because the proposed change is limited in its effect to IRS products offered under CME's authority to act as a DCO, the proposed change is properly classified as effecting a change in an existing service of CME that:
(a) Primarily affects the clearing operations of CME with respect to products that are not securities, including futures that are not security futures, swaps that are not security-based swaps or mixed swaps; and forwards that are not security forwards; and
(b) Does not significantly affect any securities clearing operations of CME or any rights or obligations of CME with respect to securities clearing or persons using such securities-clearing service.
CME does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition. The proposed rule would provide market participants with the ability to reduce the number of open positions and/or the gross notional of their IRS positions through compression by coupon blending. This new process will enhance risk management in connection with CME's IRS clearing offering and could result in either a reduction in the number of already effected transactions, a reduction in the aggregate gross notional of the combined IRS Contracts or both, but should not be seen to impact competition.
CME has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments regarding this proposed rule change. CME has not received any unsolicited written comments from interested parties.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
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.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR–CME–2014–21 and should be submitted on or before June 25, 2014.
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 Exchange Rule 24.20 to: (a) require Trading Permit Holders (“TPHs”) that may determine to utilize the special open outcry trading procedures for SPX Combo Orders to indicate an order is eligible for the procedure by including an indicator with the order upon systematization,
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange is proposing to add language to Exchange Rule 24.20 to require TPHs that may determine to utilize the special open outcry trading procedures for the SPX Combo Orders, as described in Rule 24.20, to indicate an order is eligible for the procedure by including an SPX Combo Order indicator with the order upon systematization. The Exchange believes this added requirement to Rule 24.20 will enhance the Exchange's audit trail by identifying orders that are eligible to receive the relief under Rule 24.20, whether or not those orders are ultimately executed using the SPX Combo Order provisions, and limiting the availability of the procedure only to those orders so designated upon systematization as such. Orders without this indicator will not be eligible for the special procedure set out in Rule 24.20.
An “SPX Combo Order” is currently defined in Rule 24.20 as an order to purchase or sell SPX options and the offsetting number of SPX combinations
Rule 24.20 provides limited relief by allowing the component legs of an SPX Combo Order to be traded in open outcry outside the market quotes (“out-of-range”) under certain circumstances. Specifically, Rule 24.20(b)(2) currently provides that, if an SPX Combo Order is not executed immediately, the SPX Combo Order may be executed and printed at the prices originally quoted for each of the component options series within two hours after the time of the original quotes, provided that the prices originally quoted satisfy the requirements of paragraph (b)(1) of Rule 24.20.
Under the current Rule 24.20 procedures, TPHs are required to designate each of the component series of the order as being part of an SPX Combo Order transaction when submitting the trade to the Exchange for price reporting. For example, on a PAR workstation this is accomplished by selecting the “CMBO ENDORSE” button. When an SPX Combo Order execution is reported, the prices of the component series are reported to the trading floor and to the Options Price Reporting Authority (“OPRA”) using an indicator that identifies the trade as being part of an SPX Combo Order transaction. The SPX Combo Order indicator acts as notice to the public that the reported prices are part of an SPX Combo Order transaction and helps avoid investor confusion regarding out-of-range SPX prices.
The Exchange is now proposing to add language to Rule 24.20 to require the TPH to indicate an order as eligible for the SPX Combo Order trading procedures upon systematization rather than when reporting an execution as currently required. The Exchange believes this requirement will enhance the Exchange's audit trail because it will identify eligible orders even if they are not ultimately executed using the SPX Combo Order trading procedures. In addition, the Exchange notes that TPHs are already required to apply an indicator to identify Combo Order transactions at the time of trade report (via the “CMBO ENDORSE” button). The proposed rule change only seeks to modify the timing to instead require that the indicator be applied at time of order systematization. More specifically, TPHs will merely need to add the indicator to a field upon order entry.
The Exchange is also proposing to revise the existing SPX Combo Order rule text to make other amendments. The Exchange notes that these amendments are not intended to modify the existing operation of the special procedures, and are not intend [sic] to expand the relief granted under current Rule 24.20. The Exchange believes that these amendments will harmonize the language found throughout the current rule along [sic] more sufficiently explain the existing application of the Rule.
In particular, the Exchange is proposing to change the title of the rule from “SPX Combination Orders” to “SPX Combo Orders” to harmonize the references within the Rule. Next, the Exchange is proposing to revise the definition of an “SPX combination.” As noted above, currently an SPX combination is defined as “a long SPX call and a short SPX put having the same expiration date and strike price.” The Exchange is proposing to revise the definition to include a short SPX call and a long SPX put having the same expiration date and strike price. By definition, both strategies are permissible under the existing rule (otherwise one would never have a contra-side with which to trade; also, this clarification is consistent with other provisions of the rule that recognize both buy-side and sell-side interest). In addition, instead of using the terms “long” and “short,” the Exchange is proposing to use the terms “purchase” and “sale” to be consistent with the language in the existing definitions of “SPX Combo Order” and “delta” (which are noted above). Thus, as revised, an “SPX combination” would be defined as “a purchase (sale) of an SPX call and a sale (purchase) of an SPX put having the same expiration date and strike price.”
The Exchange is also proposing to revise the definitions of a “delta” and an “SPX Combo Order” to replace the phrase “SPX option positions” [sic] and “SPX options” that appear within the respective definitions with the phrase “one or more SPX option series.” As revised, a “delta” would be “the positive (negative) number of SPX combinations that must be sold (bought) to establish a market neutral hedge with one or more SPX option series.” The definition of an “SPX Combo Order” would be “an order to purchase or sell one or more SPX option series and the offsetting number of SPX combinations defined by the delta”. The use of the phrase “one or more SPX option series” is intended to make it clear that an SPX Combo Order is intended to consist of an SPX combination (which has two component legs) that establish a market neutral hedge with one or more SPX option series (which can consist of one or more component legs). The Exchange again notes that it does not intended [sic] to expand the relief granted under the current Rule but only intended [sic] to provide greater clarity on the existing requirements under the Rule.
Finally, the Exchange is proposing to change a reference in the current Rule 24.20(b)(1)(B) from “SPX combination” to the word “order.”
The proposed change to the current Rule 24.20(b)(1)(B) would align the language with the language in the current Rule 24.20(b)(1)(A) which states that a Combo Order may receive the relief under the Rule if no leg of the order would trade at a price outside of the currently displayed bids or offers. Thus, the Exchange is proposing to make clear that the price improvement requirement necessary to receive the relief may be on any leg of the SPX Combo Order rather than only on a leg in the SPX combination portion of the SPX Combo Order. The Exchange believes the current representation that the price improvement must be on one leg of the SPX combination is a result of [sic] drafting error and the intent of the Rule has always been that the price improvement occur on any one leg of the SPX Combo Order to remain consistent with the treatment of regular complex orders on the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that these changes will enhance the Exchange's audit trail along with provide [sic] clarity for TPHs utilizing this trading procedure. Because the SPX Combo Order indicator described above will require minor systems enhancements, the Exchange will announce the implementation date of the proposed rule change in a Regulatory Circular to be published no later than 90 days following the effective date of this proposed rule change. The Exchange understands that all TPHs currently utilizing the relief granted under Rule 24.20 will have this functionality by the time of implementation of the obligation. As such, the implementation date will be no later than 180 days following the effective date of this proposed rule change.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the proposed addition to Rule 24.20 would promote just and equitable principles of trading by enhancing the Exchange's audit trail. An enhanced audit trail will help the Exchange to regulate these kinds of orders more thoroughly, which should serve to promote just and equitable trading of these orders on the Exchange. Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed revisions to the existing SPX Combo Order text will not expand the relief currently granted in Rule 24.20. More specifically, the proposed changes to Rule 24.20(a) will harmonize the language found throughout the current rule along with [sic] more sufficiently explain the existing application of the Rule. The proposed changes in current Rule 24.20(b)(1) will conform the text of the SPX Combo Order provisions contained in current Rule 24.20(b)(1)(B) with language in current Rule 24.20(b)(1)(A) and with the general requirements for trading complex orders on the Exchange, consistent with the original intention.
The Exchange also believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(1) of the Act,
CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In particular, the proposed rule change will not impose any burden on any [sic] intramarket competition as it will be applied to similarly situated groups trading on the Exchange equally. The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket completion [sic] as the proposed changes merely pose a requirement for a TPH that may determine to utilize the special open outcry trading procedures for SPX Combo Orders to apply an indicator to an eligible order upon systematization (as opposed to the current requirement to apply an indicator when reporting an execution) and amend other SPX Combo Order provisions without granting any additional relief.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
A. significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
B. impose any significant burden on competition; and
C. become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
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 the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend MIAX Rule 516(j) to remove the size restrictions 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 Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of this rule filing is to amend Rule 516(j) 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”) and NYSE Arca,
Rule 516(j) provides that a QCC Order must be comprised of an order to buy or sell at least 1,000 contracts
As discussed above, the Exchange now proposes to amend Rule 516(j) 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 Members 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 Members 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 a Member 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, a Member enters a QCC Order into the system for 1,500 contracts and receives an execution. Subsequent to the execution, the Member 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 Members 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 Members are properly entering QCC Orders into the system.
The Exchange believes that its proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)
Specifically, because the proposal 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 and NYSE Arca,
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 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 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 and NYSE Arca that have already implemented similar rule changes.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
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 the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to 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
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.42 relating to the Penny Pilot Program. The text of the proposed rule change is provided below.
The Board of Directors may establish minimum increments for options traded on the Exchange. When the Board of Directors determines to change the minimum increments, the Exchange will designate such change as a stated policy, practice, or interpretation with respect to the administration of Rule 6.42 within the meaning of subparagraph (3)(A) of subsection 19(b) of the Exchange Act and will file a rule change for effectiveness upon filing with the Commission. Until such time as the Board of Directors makes a change to the minimum increments, the following minimum increments shall apply to options traded on the Exchange:
(1) No change.
(2) No change.
(3) The decimal increments for bids and offers for all series of the option classes participating in the Penny Pilot Program are: $0.01 for all option series quoted below $3 (including LEAPS), and $0.05 for all option series $3 and above (including LEAPS). For QQQQs, IWM, and SPY, the minimum increment is $0.01 for all option series. The Exchange may replace any option class participating in the Penny Pilot Program that has been delisted with the next most actively-traded, multiply-listed option class, based on national average daily volume in the preceding six calendar months, that is not yet included in the Pilot Program. Any replacement class would be added on the second trading day following [January 1, 2014]
(4) No change.
* * *
.01–.04 No change.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Penny Pilot Program (the “Pilot Program”) is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2014. CBOE proposes to extend the Pilot Program until December 31, 2014. CBOE believes that extending the Pilot Program will allow for further analysis of the Pilot Program and a determination of how the Pilot Program should be structured in the future.
During this extension of the Pilot Program, CBOE proposes that it may replace any option class that is currently included in the Pilot Program and that has been delisted with the next most actively traded, multiply listed option class that is not yet participating in the Pilot Program (“replacement class”). Any replacement class would be determined based on national average daily volume in the preceding six months,
CBOE is specifically authorized to act jointly with the other options exchanges participating in the Pilot Program in identifying any replacement class.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Specifically, the Exchange believes that, by extending the expiration of the Pilot Program, the proposed rule change will allow for
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”)
The Exchange proposes to amend its rules relating to the Penny Pilot Program. The text of the proposed rule change is provided below.
The Board of Directors may establish minimum quoting increments for options traded on the Exchange. When the Board of Directors determines to change the minimum increments, the Exchange will designate such change as a stated policy, practice, or interpretation with respect to the administration of this Rule within the meaning of subparagraph (3)(A) of subsection 19(b) of the Exchange Act
(1) No change.
(2) No change.
(3) The decimal increments for bids and offers for all series of the option classes participating in the Penny Pilot Program are: $0.01 for all option series quoted below $3 (including LEAPS), and $0.05 for all option series $3 and above (including LEAPS). For QQQQs, IWM, and SPY, the minimum increment is $0.01 for all option series. The Exchange may replace any option class participating in the Penny Pilot Program that has been delisted with the next most actively-traded, multiply-listed option class, based on national average daily volume in the preceding six calendar months, that is not yet included in the Pilot Program. Any replacement class would be added on the second trading day following [January 1, 2014]
(4) No change.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's Web site
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Penny Pilot Program (the “Pilot Program”) is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2014. C2 proposes to extend the Pilot Program until December 31, 2014. C2 believes that extending the Pilot Program will allow for further analysis of the Pilot Program and a determination of how the Pilot Program should be structured in the future.
During this extension of the Pilot Program, C2 proposes that it may replace any option class that is currently included in the Pilot Program and that has been delisted with the next most actively traded, multiply listed option class that is not yet participating in the Pilot Program (“replacement class”). Any replacement class would be determined based on national average daily volume in the preceding six months,
C2 is specifically authorized to act jointly with the other options exchanges participating in the Pilot Program in identifying any replacement class.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
C2 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. Specifically, the Exchange believes that, by extending the expiration of the Pilot Program, the proposed rule change will allow for further analysis of the Pilot Program and a determination of how the Program shall be structured in the future. In doing so, the proposed rule change will also serve to promote regulatory clarity and consistency, thereby reducing burdens on the marketplace and facilitating investor protection. In addition, the Exchange has been authorized to act jointly in extending the Pilot Program and believes the other exchanges will be filing similar extensions.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to 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 April 4, 2014, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
On January 17, 2014, the Commission approved a proposed rule change to (i) adopt FINRA Rule 4552 (Alternative Trading Systems—Trading Information for Securities Executed Within the Alternative Trading System) to require ATSs to report to FINRA weekly volume information and number of trades regarding securities transactions within the ATS; and (ii) amend FINRA Rules 6160, 6170, 6480, and 6720 to require each ATS to acquire and use a single, unique market participant identifier (“MPID”) when reporting information to FINRA (“MPID Requirement”).
The proposed rule change establishes three categories of users of the ATS Data, each of which is entitled to different levels and use of ATS Data and is subject to a different fee structure: (i) Non-Professionals;
FINRA proposed to provide Professional access to the ATS Data by requiring an annual, enterprise-wide subscription fee of $12,000 that is non-transferable and renewable annually. A Professional who has paid the subscription fee will have access to the ATS Data available to Non-Professionals, in addition to access to up to five years of historical ATS Data, in a downloadable format. The Professional subscription will allow an unlimited number of users within the firm to access the ATS Data. Professionals will be permitted to distribute ATS Data and Derived Data within the enterprise (including the firm, any affiliates of the firm, and employees thereof). However, Professionals are prohibited from redistributing the ATS Data or Derived Data outside of the enterprise.
The proposal also includes a Vendor subscription fee of $18,000 per year. “Vendor” is defined as a Professional that redistributes ATS Data or Derived Data to third parties. A Vendor license would permit a Vendor to redistribute the ATS Data or Derived Data in any form (or in exactly the form FINRA provides to the Vendor). A Vendor would be allowed to provide ATS Data to a third party only if a yearly, non-transferable, enterprise-wide Professional Subscriber license has been purchased for each such third party.
The Commission received one comment letter on the proposal during the comment period.
In its response, FINRA disagreed with the commenter's assertion that it is inappropriate for FINRA to impose fees to recover costs. FINRA cited its existing Rule 7330 establishing fees for the receipt of market data concerning real-time TRACE transaction information, historic TRACE data, and the FINRA Automated Data Delivery Service (“ADDS”).
With respect to the access to ATS Data, FINRA replied that the commenter's assertion that the proposal would prohibit the use of ATS Data and obstruct the distribution of derived data was incorrect.
The Commission has carefully reviewed the proposed rule change, the
The fees for ATS Data that FINRA is proposing to charge are structured similarly to fees for TRACE data, which the Commission previously has approved.
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”),
ISE Gemini proposes to amend its rules relating to a pilot program to quote and to trade certain options in pennies (“Penny Pilot Program”). The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site
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.
Under the Penny Pilot Program, the minimum price variation for all participating options classes, except for the Nasdaq-100 Index Tracking Stock (“QQQQ”), the SPDR S&P 500 Exchange Traded Fund (“SPY”) and the iShares Russell 2000 Index Fund (“IWM”), is $0.01 for all quotations in options series that are quoted at less than $3 per contract and $0.05 for all quotations in options series that are quoted at $3 per contract or greater. QQQQ, SPY and IWM are quoted in $0.01 increments for all options series. The Penny Pilot Program is currently scheduled to expire on June 30, 2014.
The basis under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) for this proposed rule change is found in Section 6(b)(5), in that the proposed rule change is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. In particular, the proposed rule change, which extends the Penny Pilot Program for an additional six months, will enable public customers and other market participants to express their true prices to buy and sell options for the benefit of all market participants.
This proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition. Specifically, the Exchange believes that, by extending the expiration of the Penny Pilot Program, the proposed rule change will allow for further analysis of
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any written comments from members or other interested parties.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest, does not impose any significant burden on competition, and, by its terms, does not become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
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 to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form
• Send an Email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of ISE Gemini. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR–ISEGemini–2014–14 and should be submitted by June 25, 2014.
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 ISE proposes to amend its rules relating to a pilot program to quote and to trade certain options in pennies (“Penny Pilot Program”). The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site
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.
Under the Penny Pilot Program, the minimum price variation for all
The basis under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) for this proposed rule change is found in Section 6(b)(5), in that the proposed rule change is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. In particular, the proposed rule change, which extends the Penny Pilot Program for an additional six months, will enable public customers and other market participants to express their true prices to buy and sell options for the benefit of all market participants.
This proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition. Specifically, the Exchange believes that, by extending the expiration of the Penny Pilot Program, the proposed rule change will allow for further analysis of the Penny Pilot Program and a determination of how the Penny Pilot Program should be structured in the future. In doing so, the proposed rule change will also serve to promote regulatory clarity and consistency, thereby reducing burdens on the marketplace and facilitating investor protection.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any written comments from members or other interested parties.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest, does not impose any significant burden on competition, and, by its terms, does not become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
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 to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form
• Send an Email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the ISE. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR–ISE–2014–29 and should be submitted by June 25, 2014.
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 Cloudeeva, Inc. because Cloudeeva, Inc. has not filed any periodic reports for any reporting period subsequent to June 30, 2006.
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, June 2, 2014, through 11:59 p.m. EDT, on June 13, 2014.
By the Commission.
60-Day notice and request for comments
The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35 requires federal agencies to publish a notice in the
Submit comments on or before August 4, 2014.
Send all comments to Scott Henry, Office of Entrepreneurial Development, Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Room 60101, Washington, DC 20416. Comments must be received by the deadline in order to be considered.
Scott Henry, 202–205–6474,
The SBA's Women's Business Centers represent a national network of nearly 100 educational centers designed to assist women start and grow small businesses. WBCs operate with the mission to “level the playing field” for women entrepreneurs, who still face unique obstacles in the world of business. Through the management and technical assistance provided by the WBCs, entrepreneurs (especially women who are economically or socially disadvantaged) are offered comprehensive training and counseling on a variety of topics in many languages to help them start and grow their own businesses.
The SBA plans to conduct a web-based survey to understand to what degree the Agency's WBC programs and services help entrepreneurs start, manage and grow businesses. The survey will help determine customer satisfaction and the outcomes of the delivered business assistance services. Surveys will be completed by a sample of clients who received business assistance services at least one year ago. A minimum one year lag is desired to allow the business outcomes of the services to be observed. Because Women's Business Center offer both training and counseling services, clients who received either service will be included.
SBA is requesting comments on (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the agency to properly perform its functions; (b) whether the burden estimates are accurate; (c) whether there are ways to minimize the burden, including through the use of automated techniques or other forms of information technology; and (d) whether there are ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of NEW YORK dated 05/28/2014.
Incident: Heavy Rain and Flooding
Incident Period: 04/29/2014 through 04/30/2014.
Effective Date: 05/28/2014.
Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 07/28/2014.
Economic Injury (Eidl) Loan Application Deadline Date: 03/02/2015.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 14005 6 and for economic injury is 14006 0.
The State which received an EIDL Declaration # is NEW YORK.
Pursuant to section 40A of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2781), and Executive Order 13637, as amended, I hereby determine and certify to the Congress that the following countries are not cooperating fully with United States antiterrorism efforts:
This determination and certification shall be transmitted to the Congress and published in the
State Justice Institute.
Notice of Meeting.
The SJI Board of Directors will be meeting on Monday, June 16, 2014 at 1:00 p.m. The meeting will be held at the Scott M. Matheson Courthouse in Salt Lake City, Utah. The purpose of this meeting is to consider grant applications for the 3rd quarter of FY 2014, and other business. All portions of this meeting are open to the public.
Scott M. Matheson Courthouse, Judicial Council Room, 450 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114.
Jonathan Mattiello, Executive Director, State Justice Institute, 11951 Freedom Drive, Suite 1020, Reston, VA 20190, 571–313–8843,
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of petition for exemption received.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before June 19, 2014.
You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA–2014–0063 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Nia Daniels, (202) 267–9677, 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.
Notice of Funding Availability for FTA Bus and Bus Facilities Program, Ladders of Opportunity Initiative: Solicitation of Project Proposals.
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) announces the availability of prior year Section 5309 Bus and Bus Facilities Program discretionary funds for the Ladders of Opportunity Initiative in Fiscal Year (FY) 2014.
FTA will make available approximately $100 million from recoveries from the Section 5309 Bus and Bus Facilities Program authorized by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU), Public Law 109–59 and prior authorizations. Additional recoveries or other unallocated program funding may result in additional funding for proposals submitted under this notice.
This notice solicits proposals to compete for funding under the aforementioned program and initiatives, and includes the priorities established by FTA for these discretionary funds, the criteria FTA will use to identify meritorious projects for funding, and the description of how to apply for funding under these discretionary programs. This announcement is available on the FTA Web site at:
Complete proposals are due by 11:59 p.m. EDT on August 4, 2014; all proposals must be submitted electronically through the GRANTS.GOV APPLY function. Any agency intending to apply should initiate the process of registering on the GRANTS.GOV site immediately to ensure completion of registration before the submission deadline. Instructions for applying can be found on FTA's Web site at
Contact the appropriate FTA Regional Office found at
Section 5309(b) of Title 49, United States Code, as amended by Section 3011 of SAFETEA–LU, authorized FTA's Bus and Bus Facilities program as follows: “The Secretary may make grants under this section to assist State and local governmental authorities in financing . . . capital projects to replace, rehabilitate, and purchase buses and related equipment and to construct bus-related facilities, including programs of bus and bus-related projects for assistance to subrecipients that are public agencies, private companies engaged in public transportation, or private non-profit organizations.”
While this program was not continued under the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP–21), funds are still available under this authority as a result of lapses in allocations or deobligations of funds originally made available prior to enactment of MAP–21.
Public transportation supports the development of communities, providing effective and reliable transportation options that increase access to jobs, recreation, health and social services, entertainment, educational opportunities, and other activities of daily life, while also improving mobility within and among these communities. Through various initiatives and legislative changes over the last fifteen years, FTA has allowed and encouraged projects that help integrate transit into a community through neighborhood improvements and enhancements to transportation facilities or services; make improvements to areas adjacent to public transit facilities that may facilitate mobility needs of transit users; or support other infrastructure investments that enhance the use of transit and other transportation options for the community.
This funding opportunity is a Ladders of Opportunity Initiative, which is designed to invest in projects that improve the mobility of Americans with transportation disadvantages and allow them a better chance of climbing Ladders of Opportunity towards economic self-determination. It focuses on serving groups for whom finding and maintaining stable, uplifting employment has long been an intransigent problem. The Ladders of Opportunity Initiative will invest in projects that fulfill the following principles:
Improve access for Americans with transportation disadvantages through reliable and timely access to employment centers, educational and training opportunities, services and other basic needs of workers.
Develop safe, reliable, and economical transportation choices to decrease household transportation costs, reduce our nation's dependence on foreign oil, improve air quality, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote public health.
Target Federal funding toward existing communities to increase community revitalization, improve the efficiency of public works investments, and safeguard rural communities.
Improve economic opportunities by linking capital investments with local workforce development.
The forming of strong federal and local partnerships to address the mobility challenge. This includes bringing local workforce development, training, education, veterans, transportation and planning
This Ladders of Opportunity Initiative makes funds available to public transportation providers to finance capital projects to replace, rehabilitate, and purchase buses and related equipment and to construct bus-related facilities, including programs of bus and bus-related projects for assistance to subrecipients that are public agencies, private companies engaged in public transportation, or private non-profit organizations. Projects may include costs incidental to the acquisition of buses or to the construction of facilities, such as the costs of related workforce development and training activities, and project development.
“Direct Recipients” within the meaning of FTA's Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula program, States, or Indian Tribes are eligible to submit proposals for this initiative. Except for projects proposed by Indian Tribes, proposals for funding eligible projects in rural (nonurbanized) areas must be submitted as part of a consolidated State proposal. States and Direct Recipients may also submit consolidated proposals for projects in urbanized areas.
Proposals shall contain projects to be implemented by the Recipient or its subrecipients. Eligible subrecipients include public agencies, private non-profit organizations, and private providers engaged in public transportation.
Projects eligible for funding are capital projects such as: purchase, replacement, or rehabilitation of buses and vans, bus related equipment (including ITS, fare equipment, communication devices); and replacement, construction, expansion or rehabilitation of bus-related facilities (including administrative, maintenance, transfer, and intermodal facilities), and costs incidental to these purposes. In order to be eligible for funding, intermodal facilities must have adjacent connectivity with bus service.
Funds made available under this initiative may not be used to fund operating expenses, preventive maintenance, or other expanded capital eligibility items such as security drills or the establishment of a debt service reserve. However, costs incidental to the acquisition of buses, or construction of a facility (such as workforce development activities designed to ensure that current or future employees are properly trained in the use of the equipment or facility or project development related to deployment of the equipment or facility) may be eligible. Funds also may not be used to reimburse projects that have incurred previous expenses absent evidence that FTA issued a Letter of No Prejudice (LONP) for the project before the costs were incurred. Funds may not be used for projects where funds are already obligated in a grant. There is no blanket pre-award authority for projects to be funded under this announcement, although such authority will be granted when selected projects are identified in a subsequent
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5309(h)(1) under SAFETEA–LU, costs will be shared at the following ratio: 80 percent Federal/20 percent local contribution. FTA will not approve deferred local share requests under this program. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5323(i)(1), the Federal share may exceed 80 percent for certain projects related to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (42 U.S.C. 12101,
A Federal share of 90 percent may also be applied to projects to provide access for bicycles to public transportation facilities, to provide shelters and parking facilities for bicycles in or around public transportation facilities, or to install equipment for transporting bicycles on public transportation vehicles. 49 USC 5319.
FTA will evaluate projects based on the proposals submitted according to the following criteria. Each proposer is encouraged to demonstrate the responsiveness of a project to all of the selection criteria with the most relevant information that the proposer can provide, regardless of whether such information has been specifically requested or identified in this notice. FTA will assess the extent to which a project addresses the following criteria.
FTA will evaluate each project to determine how it supports the following five Ladders of Opportunity Priniciples:
• Enhance access to work. FTA will evaluate whether the project will improve access for Americans with transportation disadvantages through reliable and timely access to employment centers, educational opportunities, services and other basic needs of workers.
• Provides More Transportation Choices. FTA will evaluate whether the project will significantly enhance user mobility through the creation of more convenient transportation options for travelers;
• Support Existing Communities. FTA will evaluate whether the project will increase community revitalization, improve the efficiency of public works investments or safeguard rural communities.
• Support Economic Opportunities. FTA will evaluate whether the project improves economic opportunities by linking capital investments with local workforce development.
• Support partnerships. FTA will evaluate the extent the applicant will form strong federal and local partnerships to address the mobility challenge. This includes the extent the applicant has or will bring local workforce development, training, education, veterans, transportation and planning stakeholders together with representation of key customer groups (people with low-incomes, people with disabilities, youths, veterans, elderly populations, etc.) to formulate a plan to address building Ladders of Opportunity in an area.
FTA will evaluate each project to determine its needs for resources. In addition to the project-specific criteria below, this will include evaluating the project's impact on service delivery and whether the project represents a one-time or periodic need that cannot reasonably be funded from FTA program formula allocations or State and/or local resources.
a. For bus projects (replacement, rehabilitation or expansion):
• The age of the asset to be replaced or rehabilitated by the proposed project, relative to its useful life.
• The degree to which the proposed project addresses a demonstrated and verifiable backlog of deferred maintenance.
• Consistency with the proposer's bus fleet management plan.
• Condition and performance of the asset to be replaced by the proposed project, as ascertained through field inspections or otherwise, if available.
• For expansion requests, the degree to which the proposed project will have a significant impact on service delivery and evidence of need for additional capacity to address Ladder of Opportunity Policy priorities.
• The project conforms to FTA's spare ratio guidelines.
b. For bus facility and equipment projects (replacement and/or expansion):
• The age of the asset to be rehabilitated or replaced relative to its useful life.
• The degree to which the proposed project addresses a demonstrated and verifiable backlog of deferred maintenance.
• The degree to which the proposed project will enable the agency to improve the maintenance and condition of the agency's fleet and/or other related transit assets.
• For expansion requests, the degree to which the proposed project addresses a current capacity constraint that is limiting the ability of the agency to address the policy priorities of the Ladders of Opportunity program that are listed above.
c. Planning and Local/Regional Prioritization: The extent to which the proposed project is consistent with planning documents and local priorities. This will involve assessing whether:
• Project is consistent with the transit priorities identified in the long range plan and/or contingency/illustrative projects or local coordinated plan. Proposer should note if project could not be included in the financially constrained Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)/Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) due to lack of funding (if selected, project must be in TIP and STIP before grant award).
• Local support is demonstrated by availability of local match and letters of support for the project.
• In an area with more than one transit operator, the proposal demonstrates coordination with, and support of, other transit operators, or other related projects within the proposer's Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) or the geographic region within which the proposed project will operate.
d. Project Readiness: The extent to which the project is ready to implement. FTA will assess whether:
• The project qualifies for a Categorical Exclusion (CE) or the required environmental work has been initiated or completed for construction projects requiring an Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under, among others, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended.
• Project implementation plans are complete, including initial design of facilities projects.
• The TIP and/or STIP can be amended (evidenced by MPO/State endorsement).
• Project funds can be obligated and the project implemented quickly, if selected (within 12 months from time of award).
• The applicant demonstrates the ability to carry out the proposed project successfully.
• If the project is multimodal in nature, the proposal demonstrates coordination with and support of other transportation modes and partners.
e. Technical, legal, and financial capacity to implement the particular project proposed: FTA will evaluate whether:
• The proposer has the technical capacity to administer the project.
• For fleet replacement, the acquisition is consistent with the bus fleet management plan.
• There are no outstanding legal, technical, or financial issues with the grantee that would make this a high-risk project to implement quickly.
• The proposer has adequate financial systems in place and has identified the source of local match if selected (no deferred local share will be allowed).
• The grantee is in fundable status for grant-making purposes.
In addition to other FTA staff that may review the proposals, a technical evaluation committee will review proposals under the project evaluation criteria. Members of the technical evaluation committee and other involved FTA staff reserve the right to screen and rate the applications it receives and to seek clarification from any applicant about any statement in its application that FTA finds ambiguous and/or request additional documentation to be considered during the evaluation process to clarify information contained within the proposal.
After consideration of the findings of the technical evaluation committee, the FTA Administrator will determine the final selection and amount of funding for each project. Geographic diversity and the applicant's receipt of other discretionary awards may be considered in FTA's award decisions.
Project proposals must be submitted electronically through
Within 24–48 hours after submitting an electronic application, the applicant should receive three email messages from GRANTS.GOV: (1) Confirmation of successful transmission to GRANTS.GOV, (2) confirmation of successful validation by GRANTS.GOV and (3) confirmation of successful validation by FTA. If confirmations of successful validation are not received and a notice of failed validation or incomplete materials is received, the applicant must address the reason for the failed validation, as described in the notice, and resubmit before the submission deadline. If making a resubmission for any reason, include all original attachments regardless of which attachments were updated and check
Complete instructions on the application process can be found at
Proposers may submit one proposal for each project or one proposal containing multiple projects. Proposers submitting multiple projects in one proposal must be sure to clearly define each project by completing a supplemental form for each project. Supplemental forms must be added within the proposal by clicking the “add project” button in Section II of the supplemental form.
Information such as proposer name, federal amount requested, local match amount, description of areas served, etc. may be requested in varying degrees of detail on both the SF 424 form and supplemental form. All fields are required unless stated otherwise on the forms. Use both the “Check Package for Errors” and the “Validate Form” validation buttons on both forms to check all required fields on the forms. Ensure that the federal and local amounts specified are consistent.
This provides basic sponsor identifying information:
i. Applicant name and FTA recipient ID number.
ii. Applicant eligibility information,
iii. A general description of services provided by the agency including ridership, fleet size, areas served, etc.
At a minimum, every proposal must:
i. Submit an SF–424 with the correct supplemental form attached.
ii. Describe concisely, but completely, the project scope to be funded. FTA may elect to fund only part of some project proposals. If applicable, the scope should be declared as “scalable” with specific components of independent utility clearly identified.
iii. Address each of the evaluation criteria separately, demonstrating how the project responds to each criterion.
iv. Provide a line-item budget for the total project, with enough detail to indicate the various key components of the project. As FTA may elect to fund only part of some project proposals, the budget should provide for the minimum amount necessary to fund specific project components of independent utility.
v. Provide the Federal amount requested.
vi. Document the matching funds, including amount and source of the match, demonstrating strong local or private sector financial participation in the project.
vii. Provide support documentation, including financial statements, bond-ratings, and documents supporting the commitment of non-federal funding to the project, or a timeframe upon which those commitments would be made.
viii. Provide a project time-line, including significant milestones such as the date anticipated to issue a request for proposals for vehicles, or contract for purchase of vehicle(s), and actual or expected delivery date of vehicles, or notice of request for proposal and notice to proceed for capital construction/rehabilitation projects.
Complete proposals for the Ladders of Opportunity Initiative must be submitted electronically through the GRANTS.GOV Web site by 11:59 p.m. EDT on August 4, 2014. Proposers are encouraged to begin the process of registration on the GRANTS.GOV site well in advance of the submission deadline. Registration is a multi-step process, which may take several weeks to complete before an application can be submitted. Registered proposers may still be required to take steps to keep their registration up to date before submissions can be made successfully: (1) Registration in the Central Contractor Repository (CCR) is renewed annually and (2) persons making submissions on behalf of the Authorized Organization Representative (AOR) must be authorized in GRANTS.GOV by the AOR to make submissions.
Federal transit funds are available to Federally recognized tribes and State or local governmental authorities as recipients and other public transportation providers as subrecipients. There is no monetary floor or upper limit for any single grant award; however, FTA intends to fund as many meritorious projects as possible. In addition, geographic diversity and the applicant's receipt of other discretionary awards may be considered in FTA's award decisions. Consistent with 49 U.S.C. Section 5309(m)(8), as amended by SAFETEA–LU, the Secretary shall consider the age and condition of buses, bus fleets, and bus-related facilities and equipment of proposers in its award of Bus and Bus Facility grants.
Only proposals from eligible recipients for eligible activities will be considered for funding. Due to funding limitations, proposers that are selected for funding may receive less than the amount originally requested.
At the time the project selections are announced, FTA will extend pre-award authority for the selected projects. There is no blanket pre-award authority for these projects before announcement.
If selected, applicants will apply for a grant through TEAM and adhere to the customary FTA grant requirements of the Section 5309 Bus and Bus Facilities program, including those of FTA Circular 9300.1B, Circular 5010.1D, and the labor protections of 49 U.S.C. Section 5333(b). All discretionary grants, regardless of award amount, will be subject to the Congressional Notification and release process. Technical assistance regarding these requirements is available from each FTA regional office.
FTA encourages proposers to notify the appropriate State Departments of Transportation and MPO in areas likely to be served by the project funds made available under these initiatives and programs. Selected projects must be incorporated into the long-range plans and transportation improvement programs of States and metropolitan areas before they are eligible for FTA funding.
The applicant assures that it will comply with all applicable Federal statutes, regulations, executive orders, FTA circulars, and other Federal administrative requirements in carrying out any project supported by the FTA grant. The applicant acknowledges that it is under a continuing obligation to
Post-award reporting requirements include submission of Federal Financial Reports and Milestone Reports in TEAM on a quarterly basis for all projects. Documentation is required for payment.
Contact the appropriate FTA Regional Office at
For additional technical assistance, FTA will post answers to commonly asked questions at
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice.
As authorized by 46 U.S.C. 12121, the Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before July 7, 2014.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD–2014–0080. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M–30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Linda Williams, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23–453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202–366–0903, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel ATTITUDE is:
The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD–2014–0080 at
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice.
As authorized by 46 U.S.C. 12121, the Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before July 7, 2014.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD–2014–0081. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M–30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Linda Williams, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23–453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202–366–0903, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel ARCHANGEL is:
The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD–2014–0081 at
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice.
As authorized by 46 U.S.C. 12121, the Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before July 7, 2014.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD–2014–0082. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M–30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Linda Williams, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23–453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202–366–0903, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel BELLISSIMO GATTO is:
The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD–2014–0082 at
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
United States Mint, Department of the Treasury.
Extension of public comment period.
This document announces an extension of the time period for submitting comments on the notice, published on April 10, 2014, regarding factors identified as a result of the bureau's research and development efforts on alternative metals for circulating United States coinage.
The comment period is extended to Tuesday, June 24, 2014. The United States Mint is seeking input on specific factors the United States Mint identified in its
The comment period for the notice regarding factors identified in the United States Mint's
Submit electronic comments to
On April 10, 2014, the United States Mint published a request for comment in the
Costs to convert to circulating coins composed of alternative metals given the following possible changes to coins:
○ Weight
○ Electromagnetic signature
○ Visual changes, such as color and relief
• Transition time needed to introduce a circulating coin composed of an alternative metal
• Comments on how best to inform and educate both affected industries and the public on changes to circulating coins
• Environmental impact from the use of circulating coins composed of alternative metals
• Other issues of importance not identified above
The National Armored Carriers Association (NACA) requested the United States Mint extend the comment period by 60 days. NACA stated that the additional time is necessary to provide an appropriate and comprehensive response.
Based on the NACA's request, the United States Mint believes that extending the comment period to allow additional time for coin industry stakeholders to submit comments is appropriate. Therefore, the United States Mint is extending the comment period until Tuesday, June 24, 2014, to provide stakeholders additional time to prepare and submit comments and will consider any comments received by that date.
Office of Coin Studies by calling 202–354–6600.
Public Law 111–302, section 2(a)(2) & (b)(3); 31 U.S.C. 5112(p)(3)(A)
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) adopts rules governing use of spectrum in the 1695–1710 MHz, 1755–1780 MHz, and 2155–2180 MHz bands that will make available significantly more commercial spectrum for Advanced Wireless Services. This additional 65 megahertz of spectrum for commercial use will help ensure that the speed, capacity, and ubiquity of the nation's wireless networks keeps pace with industry demands for wireless service. This is another step in implementing the Congressional directive in Title VI of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 to make more spectrum available for flexible uses.
Effective July 7, 2014 except for the amendment to 47 CFR 2.106 adding Fixed and Mobile allocations for the 2025–2110 MHz band to the Federal Table of Frequency Allocations, which will become effective after the Commission publishes a document in the
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. A copy of any comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements contained herein should be submitted to the Federal Communications Commission via email to
Ronald Repasi, Office of Engineering and Technology, at (202) 418–0768 or
This is a summary of the Commission's AWS–3
1. With the
2. We will license the AWS–3 spectrum in two sub-bands. We will pair the 2155–2180 MHz band for downlink/base station operations with the 1755–1780 MHz band for uplink/mobile operations. The 2155–2180 MHz band is already currently allocated for non-Federal, commercial use. The 1755–1780 MHz band is being made available on a shared basis with a limited number of Federal incumbents indefinitely, while many of the Federal systems will over time relocate out of the band. We also adopt rules to allocate and license the 1695–1710 MHz band for uplink/mobile operations on an unpaired shared basis with incumbent Federal meteorological-satellite (MetSat) data users. We will assign AWS–3 licenses by competitive bidding, offering 5 megahertz and 10 megahertz blocks that can be aggregated using Economic Areas (EAs) as the area for geographic licensing, except for 1755–1760/2155–2160 MHz, which will be licensed by Cellular Market Areas (CMAs).
3.
4. The Spectrum Act also amended the Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act, Public Law 108–494, 118 Stat. 3986, 3991 (2004), codified at 47 U.S.C. 309(j), 923(g), 928 (CSEA). In 2004, the CSEA created the Spectrum Relocation
5. The conclusion of any auction of eligible frequencies reallocated from Federal use to non-Federal use or to shared use is contingent on obtaining from such auction cash proceeds amounting to at least 110 percent of the total estimated relocation or sharing costs provided to the Commission by NTIA. Proceeds attributable to the 2155–2180 MHz, 1915–1920 MHz, and 1995–2000 MHz non-Federal bands must also be deposited in the PSTF. The Spectrum Act establishes the priority for making payments or deposits from the PSTF as amounts are deposited into the Fund. Spectrum Act section 6413(b), codified at 47 U.S.C. 1457(b). Once the relocation and sharing costs of the Federal incumbents are covered, however, the remainder of the proceeds attributable to eligible Federal frequencies required to be auction under the Spectrum Act must be deposited in the Public Safety Trust Fund (PSTF) rather than the SRF.
6.
7. As noted above, the Spectrum Act amended the CSEA to expand the types of costs for which Federal agencies can be reimbursed from the Spectrum Relocation Fund. It also required the Department of Commerce to adopt a common format for Transition Plans, create an expert Technical Panel to review the sufficiency of these transition plans, and adopt a process to resolve disputes regarding the execution, timing, or cost of transition plans. The Technical Panel consists of three members, one appointed by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), one appointed by the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information, and one appointed by the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. Each member must be a radio engineer or a technical expert. 47 U.S.C. 923(h)(3)(B);
8. The Spectrum Act amendments to the CSEA require Federal agencies authorized to use eligible frequencies to submit a Transition Plan to NTIA and the Technical Panel no later than 240 days (
9.
10.
11.
12. In the
13.
14.
15. Commenters generally agree that we should allow only uplink operations in 1695–1710 MHz. Raytheon points out that the record is supportive of the Commission's proposal to limit operations in the band to uplink only while prohibiting fixed operations in these frequencies. T-Mobile does not oppose a requirement that uplink/mobile devices be under the control of, or associated with, a base station as a means to facilitate shared use of the band and prevent interference to Federal operations.
16. Regarding block and area sizes, most commenters agree with the Commission's proposal to license AWS–3 spectrum in 5 megahertz blocks and to implement geographical area licensing utilizing EAs for the 1695–1710 MHz band. Verizon supports auctioning the AWS–3 spectrum in a combination of 5 and 10 megahertz blocks as these offerings will facilitate the deployment of multiple technologies. DISH favors auctioning 1695–1710 MHz as a single, unpaired 15 megahertz band.
17. We conclude that operations in the 1695–1710 MHz should be limited to mobile/uplink operations for commercial operators, and that the band will not be available for fixed uses or air-to-ground operations. We note that the Commission's proposal in this regard was based on NTIA's endorsement of the CSMAC report, which assumed mobile operations up to 20 dBm EIRP, recommending that commercial use of this band be limited to low-power mobile (uplink) transmission. Furthermore, as Verizon notes, in determining the Protection Zones for these bands, the CSMAC did not consider the impact of high gain or tall antennas on government operations. Additionally, operations in the band will be subject to successful coordination with Federal incumbents in the 27 Protection Zones that we are adopting based on NTIA's endorsement of the CSMAC WG1 Final Report. We believe that the combination of low power, mobile uses along with the designation of the protection zones with coordination requirements will allow commercial and Federal users to co-exist successfully in the band protecting in-band and adjacent band meteorological-satellite receive stations. We also understand that Federal incumbents plan to develop and deploy real-time spectrum monitoring systems for the 1695–1710 MHz band. We will also require that uplink/mobile devices be under the control of, or associated with, a base station as a means to facilitate shared use of the band and prevent interference to Federal operations. The Protection Zones for the 1695–1710 MHz band are premised on the distance between the incumbent Federal operations and non-Federal base station(s) that will enable the AWS–3 uplink/mobile operations. Thus, even though the base station is receiving rather than transmitting in the 1695–1710 MHz band, its location inside a Protection Zone triggers the coordination requirement. As discussed in the CSMAC WG1 Final Report the 27 Protection Zones actually protect 47 individual federal MetSat receive stations.
18. We will authorize and license the 1695–1710 MHz band by Economic Areas (EAs) in one 5 megahertz and one 10 megahertz block, which may be aggregated. Economic Areas are geographic areas established by the Bureau of Economic Analysis of the
19.
20. Commenters strongly favor pairing the 1695–1710 MHz band. Moreover, commenters note that pairing the spectrum would allow aggregation of AWS–3 spectrum with AWS–1 spectrum, which would create significantly larger blocks of contiguous paired spectrum that would accommodate higher bandwidths offered by technologies. USCC points out that access to paired spectrum is particularly critical for small and regional carriers, who typically lack sufficient spectrum holdings to pair with newly-acquired spectrum blocks on an asymmetric basis. Thus, commenters state that offering 1695–1710 MHz on a paired basis would boost auction participation, provide for the creation of a single band class, internationally harmonize the spectrum, and result in significant economies of scale. Put differently, Verizon and other commenters state that auctioning the 1695–1710 MHz band as stand-alone uplink spectrum would render it “virtually useless, as it is the downlink spectrum that carriers, both new and incumbent, most require to meet the skyrocketing demand for mobile broadband bandwidth.” They note that auctioning 1695–1710 MHz as stand-alone supplemental uplink would significantly decrease the value of the spectrum, relative to auctioning it paired with downlink spectrum, and would limit both its uses and interested bidders. T-Mobile opines that seeking a brief delay of the statutory deadline would be preferable to auctioning and licensing the band unpaired. In contrast, Raytheon notes that there is no requirement in the Spectrum Act to pair this band.
21. Many commenters strongly preferred pairing 1695–1710 MHz with 2095–2110 MHz, which CTIA previously advocated due to the pair's important ability to use the same duplex spacing as the existing and adjacent AWS–1 band. Verizon likewise notes that because 2095–2110 MHz is directly adjacent to AWS–1, adopting this pairing configuration will provide a solid foundation for the next generation of wireless networks and services, including those that will utilize LTE-Advanced technology and “could ultimately lead to a unified band plan for the 2 GHz spectrum: 1695–1920 MHz for uplink operations and 1930–2200 MHz for downlink operations.” For this reason, T-Mobile and other commenters initially urged limited relocation of DoD's systems to 2095–2110 MHz.
22. In contrast, Raytheon and Boeing state that 2095–2110 MHz is not an acceptable pairing option for 1695–1710 MHz because the former band supports critical TDRSS communication, which may become critical for manned spaceflight programs, and is currently occupied by Federal users for satellite and non-Federal BAS operations. Raytheon notes that the NASA Study is a comprehensive analysis showing that shared use of 2095–2110 MHz with AWS operations is infeasible. In addition, Raytheon notes that DoD has proposed to relocate some operations in the 1755–1780 MHz band to the 2025–2110 MHz band. Verizon and others contend that the NASA Study is incomplete and that more information is needed from NASA to properly evaluate any technical challenges with additional uses of that band. Verizon states that while the study raises concerns that co-channel mobile services could cause satellite-to-satellite interference in the forward-link transmissions from NASA geostationary Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS) to Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellites, it is impossible to assess the validity of modeling of propagation, antenna performance, LTE system characteristics, and satellite system characteristics without additional information from NASA. NASA subsequently provided additional information and updated its study to address the most current internationally-agreed parameters of commercial broadband mobile (LTE) systems.
23. Notwithstanding the fact that the 2095–2110 MHz band initially received the most support as the pairing match for the 1695–1710 MHz band, the wireless industry subsequently recognized difficulties with pairing the 2095–2110 MHz band with the 1695–1710 MHz band. Specifically, the industry acknowledged that the challenges associated with Federal and
24. Commenters provided other suggestions on possible candidate bands for pairing with 1695–1710 MHz, but also identified serious or insurmountable obstacles with each suggested match. For example, citing a recent NTIA spectrum-monitoring report that, according to T-Mobile, suggests that the 1370–1390 MHz sub-band is lightly used, T-Mobile identified the 1370–1390 MHz band as a possible candidate for pairing with 1695–1710 MHz. But T-Mobile acknowledges technical limitations that weigh against this pairing, in that the 1370–1390 MHz band suffers from a lack of synergy with existing bands, which in turn would require the use of additional base station amplifiers and antennas.
25. In the
26. Finally, as another possible alternative, TIA suggests pairing 1695–1710 MHz with 2000–2020 MHz for downlink. However, TIA acknowledges that this pairing option is challenging in that it would require the adjustment of incumbents licensed for 2000–2020 MHz as well as the utilization of different duplex spacing and filters.
27. The comments do not identify any particular 15 megahertz of spectrum that can readily pair with 1695–1710 MHz. In the absence of any substantial record support for any such workable pairing at this time, we conclude that the 1695–1710 MHz band should be licensed in an unpaired configuration. We note that no regulation would prohibit licensees from pairing this uplink band with another present or future licensed downlink band. Indeed, our secondary markets and flexible use policies are designed to facilitate the configuration of licenses in their most productive economic use.
28.
29. Several commenters claim that the Commission cannot identify 1755–1780 MHz to meet the statutory requirement and/or that the statute requires us to identify a band that can be used for downlink operations paired with 1695–1710 MHz. According to CTIA, the legislative history of the Spectrum Act makes clear that Congress intended for the Commission to identify 15 megahertz in addition to the 1755–1780 MHz band. CTIA notes that an earlier version of the House bill would have required the Commission to identify 15 megahertz of contiguous spectrum as well as the 1755–1780 MHz band if technically feasible. This version of the bill also stipulated that the 15 megahertz identified by NTIA and the 15 megahertz identified by the FCC were to be paired together and, according to CTIA, “this is a logical interpretation of the Spectrum Act, as an alternative reading would cause the 1695–1710 MHz band to be orphaned.” T-Mobile agrees with CTIA that, based upon the Spectrum Act's parallel mandates that NTIA and the FCC each identify 15 megahertz of spectrum to be made available for commercial use, “it seems `apparent that Congress intended for these two 15 megahertz spectrum bands to complement one another through ready pairing for base and mobile station communications.' ” Mobile Future contends that, with the exception of the 2095–2110 MHz band, other spectrum bands considered in the
30. Raytheon and NAB disagree with this statutory interpretation. According to Raytheon, “Section 6401 of the Spectrum Act simply requires [that 15 MHz of contiguous spectrum] be allocated by the Commission and auctioned in 2015. There is no guidance as to where that spectrum is to be located or indication that it be paired with 1695–1710 MHz band or any other band. (Nothing precludes such a pairing, either.) Similarly, Section 6401 does not provide any direction that the 15 MHz to be auctioned from the 1675–1710 MHz band is to be auctioned on a paired basis. Were the Commission to allocate 1755–1780 MHz, for example, to AWS–3, that action would fully satisfy the unambiguous letter of the statute that an “additional 15 MHz” of spectrum be allocated for commercial broadband use, regardless of which band, if any, 1755–1780 MHz is paired. CTIA's argument that the legislative history supports a paired allocation for 1695–1710 MHz is unavailing [cite omitted]. Indeed, the fact the final House bill included a provision for 15 MHz in addition to 1755–1780 MHz, whereas the final legislation was silent on allocating 1755–1780 MHz and where the additional 15 MHz is to come from actually leads to the opposite conclusion, namely that 1755–1780 MHz can be the source of the “additional 15 MHz” that Congress requires be auctioned in addition to the specific spectrum bands identified in the Spectrum Act for auction.” Raytheon Reply Comments at 7–8, n.18. NAB avers that if the Commission were to allocate 1755–1780 MHz, for
31. We agree for the reasons set forth above by Raytheon and NAB that the language of the Spectrum Act permits the Commission to “identif[y]”
32.
33. Apart from the statutory issue described above concerning the “additional 15 megahertz of spectrum to be identified by the Commission,” most commenters strongly favored the Commission's proposal to designate the 1755–1780 MHz band for commercial use. Commenters oppose the use of an overlay license approach to licensing the 1755–1780 MHz band, arguing that the use of such a licensing regime is premature until it is determined that clearing the spectrum for commercial users by relocation is not feasible and that mutual sharing mechanisms cannot be adopted. Issuing overlay licenses, the commenters further argued, would amount to consigning commercial mobile operations to secondary status, would create uncertainty about the nature of rights the licensee would obtain, and would be inconsistent with the Spectrum Act's preference to relocate Federal users to the maximum extent feasible. On the other hand, commenters were generally supportive of the Industry Roadmap and DoD's Proposal and urged the Commission to coordinate with NTIA to clear Federal operations from the 1755–1780 MHz portion of the 1755–1850 MHz band. CTIA argues, however, that DoD has not adequately explained or justified the need for the use of the 2025–2110 MHz band and asks why DoD needs to replace access to 25 megahertz of spectrum with access to 85 megahertz of spectrum.
34. On November 25, 2013, NTIA filed a letter enclosing and endorsing CSMAC's final reports and stating that it fully supports the DoD Proposal submitted to the Commission in July 2013, including DoD's proposal to modify certain military systems to operate at both 1780–1850 MHz, which is currently allocated for Federal use, and at 2025–2110 MHz, which is currently allocated for non-Federal fixed and mobile use and used by operators in the Broadcast Auxiliary Service (BAS), the Cable Television Relay Service (CARS), and the Local Television Transmission Service (LTTS).
35. We note at the outset that some of CSMAC's recommendations regarding sharing are overtaken by the DoD Proposal, under which DoD will relocate most of its operations out of the 1755–1780 MHz band. NTIA has fully endorsed the DoD Proposal and submitted additional details into the record. In light of these actions, we authorize the use of the 1755–1780 MHz band for commercial services in conformance with NTIA's endorsements, the DoD Proposal, and the Spectrum Act.
36. Regarding non-DoD Federal incumbents, NTIA endorsed the findings of WG2 that the two primary video surveillance systems operating in the 1755–1850 MHz band operate in all portions of the band at any time and at any location and thus cannot share the band with commercial operators. NTIA also endorsed WG2's recommendation that EAs to be transitioned should be ranked according to industry implementation priorities, but then clarified that the industry's prioritized list would serve as an input for consideration as agencies develop their transition plans.
37. NTIA responded to CTIA's claims that DoD has not explained the need for access to the 2025–2110 MHz band or why it needs to replace 25 megahertz of spectrum with access to 85 megahertz of spectrum. NTIA explained that because the military systems that are relocating from the 1755–1780 MHz band to the 2025–2110 MHz band must share the latter band with operators in the BAS, CARS, and LTTS services and must comply with the conditions in two new proposed footnotes to the Table of Frequency Allocations, DoD needs the additional spectrum to ensure that it can maintain comparable capability of current activities. Furthermore, according to NTIA, by having access to 85 megahertz of spectrum, the Federal operations will have the flexibility they need without limiting the existing non-Federal users. Under the two new footnotes that NTIA has proposed to the U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations, Federal operations would be limited to the military, and new military operations would be required to be coordinated, via a memorandum of understanding between the Federal and non-Federal fixed and mobile operators in the BAS, CARS, and LTTS.
38.
39. We adopt the proposal in the
40.
41. We agree with commenters that we should allow base and fixed, but not mobile, operations in the 2155–2180 MHz band and to allow mobile transmit operations in the 1755–1780 MHz band. We will also prohibit higher-power fixed and base station operations in the 1755–1780 MHz band. Designating the 1755–1780 MHz band for uplink/mobile transmit operations under service rules similar to AWS–1 is consistent with international standards in this frequency range, while designating the 2155–2180 MHz band for downlink operations is compatible with similar downlink operations in the adjacent AWS–1 band at 2110–2155 MHz and the AWS–4 band at 2180–2200 MHz. Moreover, by designating new downlink spectrum adjacent to existing downlink, the industry avoids having to add guard bands or impose significant technical limits between adjacent services, thereby increasing the amount and utility of usable spectrum. As discussed more fully below, we conclude that to facilitate coordination, uplink/mobile devices in the 1755–1780 MHz band must be under the control of, or associated with, a base station as a means to facilitate shared use of the band and prevent interference to Federal operations.
42. We also agree with commenters that there are many advantages to pairing these two bands. Pairing the 1755–1780 MHz band with the 2155–2180 MHz band adds 50 megahertz of AWS–3 spectrum to the existing 90 megahertz of AWS–1 spectrum. Thus pairing would allow carriers to combine AWS–1 and the 1755–1780/2155–2180 MHz band in a single 140 megahertz band. The 1755–1780/2155–2180 MHz pair would use the same duplex spacing as the existing AWS–1 band, thus facilitating the availability of new devices that can use this band. Allocation of the 1755–1780 MHz band for commercial use with 2155–2180 MHz also harmonizes the U.S. spectrum allocation of this band with international spectrum allocations. In summary, the record reflects that “[t]he adjacency of these bands . . . will create efficiencies by allowing the same equipment to be used for AWS–1 and AWS–3. These benefits apply not only to network infrastructure, but also to end user equipment. This, in turn, will lower deployment costs and speed LTE buildout in this spectrum. As Motorola Mobility explained, `[t]here would be significant device design benefits to pursuing this pairing. Because the 1755–1780/2155–2180 MHz pairing is symmetrical to the AWS–1 band and has the same duplex spacing, this band could be supported by existing duplexers. . . [t]hese efficiencies mean that 1755–1780/2155–2180 MHz capabilities likely could be built into devices with minimal additional cost and without a significant impact on battery life, heat production, or other performance characteristics.'” CTIA Reply Comments at 5 quoting Motorola Mobility Comments at 11.
43. Despite these advantages, we note that the Commission is statutorily barred from concluding an auction for “eligible spectrum” such as the 1755–1780 MHz band if the total cash proceeds attributable to such spectrum
44.
45. Commenters supported one of three different geographic licensing plans: The EA licensing approach proposed by the Commission; a licensing plan based on CMAs; and a hybrid licensing approach where some licenses are based on CMAs and some are based on EAs.
46. We find that there are benefits to adopting a hybrid licensing approach for this spectrum. We note that the Commission adopted a hybrid approach in licensing AWS–1 spectrum based on EAs, Regional Economic Area Groupings (REAGs), and CMAs. In this case, we adopt a hybrid approach and license the 1755–1780 MHz and 2155–2180 MHz bands on an EA and a CMA basis.
47. Adopting a hybrid licensing plan for this spectrum will enable us to achieve several statutory objectives and policy goals. Licensing some areas by CMA will encourage the dissemination of licenses among a variety of applicants, including small businesses, rural telephone companies, and businesses owned by members of minority groups and women, as required by section 309(j) of the Act. Licensing the 1755–1780 and 2155–2180 MHz bands by EA and CMA we have struck the appropriate balance between the needs of large and small carriers. Licensing some areas by EAs will enable large carriers to minimize post-licensing aggregation costs. Also, because EAs are nested within MEAs and REAGs, large carriers will be able to aggregate their spectrum into even larger areas, with minimal aggregation costs. We also note that EA license areas are a useful and appropriate geographic unit that the Commission has used for similar bands. Notably, AWS–1 Blocks B and C are licensed on an EA basis. Licensing three spectrum blocks on an EA basis best balances the Commission's goals of encouraging the offering of broadband service both to broad geographic areas and to sizeable populations while licensing one block by CMAs will enable smaller carriers to serve smaller less dense population areas that more closely fit their smaller footprints. Thus, we further find that adopting this hybrid licensing plan will help us to meet other statutory goals, including providing for the efficient use of spectrum; encouraging deployment of wireless broadband services to consumers; and promoting investment in and rapid deployment of new technologies and services. We designate the spectral blocks for CMAs and EAs in the next section on Block size(s).
48.
49. We conclude that licensing the 1755–1780 and 2155–2180 MHz bands in a combination of 5 and 10 megahertz blocks will promote rapid deployment of new technologies and services for the reasons stated below. Thus we adopt the following licensing plan: Block G at 1755–1760/2155–2160; Block H at 1760–1765/2160–2165; Block I at 1765–1770/2165–2170 MHz; and Block J at 1770–1780/2170–2180 MHz. We further determine to license the 1755–1760/2155–2160 MHz bands by CMA, and to license the remaining paired blocks by EA.
50. Using a combination of 5 and 10 megahertz blocks and a combination of CMAs and EAs will permit licensees maximum flexibility. Such a combination enables both larger and smaller carriers to participate in an auction of licenses to use this spectrum. Moreover, as commenters note, 5 megahertz blocks align well with a variety of wireless broadband technologies, including LTE, W–CDMA, and HSPA. The larger 10 megahertz block will afford larger carriers the ability to offer higher-bandwidth services, as is common in the 10 megahertz AWS–1 blocks. Such a combination may also facilitate coordination with incumbent Federal agencies. For example, designating the 1755–1760 MHz/2155–2160 MHz as the first channel block avoids frequency overlaps and minimizes potential co-channel interference issues with the Space Ground Link System (SGLS), which operates from 1761–1842 MHz.
51.
52. In the
53. T-Mobile agrees that 2020–2025 MHz should be cleared to the maximum extent possible and auctioned on a paired basis. T-Mobile states that one option would be for the Commission to consider providing DoD with access to the 2020–2025 MHz band if doing so would allow the 15 megahertz at 2095–2110 MHz to be paired with 1695–1710 MHz. However, T-Mobile states that the most appropriate use of the 2020–2025 MHz band is contingent on the outcome of the then-pending waiver request sought by DISH for flexibility to use 2000–2020 MHz for terrestrial downlink. USCC strongly urges the Commission to focus on maximizing the amount of paired spectrum in deciding which bands to license under the AWS–3 service rules. It argues that
54. The 2020–2025 MHz band is adjacent to the AWS–4 uplink band at 2000–2020 MHz and BAS/CARS/NASA uses at 2025–2110 MHz band. These adjacent uses create challenges with respect to the allocation of this spectrum. EIBASS notes that the band may be at risk of interference from higher-power Electronic News Gathering (ENG) transmitters operating in the 2025–2110 MHz TV BAS band (up to 65 dBm EIRP for ENG platforms vs. 33 dBm EIRP for AWS handsets). This interference would come and go on a seemingly random basis as a mobile ENG transmitter is used near an AWS base station location. This could be a challenge to the AWS user as it appears cellular/AWS use is higher at or near locations of newsworthy events, the same events that ENG trucks would be transmitting from. EIBASS notes that DISH has raised the same concern but notes that broadcasters have dealt with high-power PCS/AWS, specialized filters have been developed, and TV BAS into AWS interference should be a manageable problem.
55. DISH states that designating mobile operation in the 2020–2025 MHz band would make this band vulnerable to significant interference from adjacent Federal government and BAS users above 2025 MHz. DISH states that EIBASS agrees that BAS operations would cause interference to 2020–2025 MHz uplink operations. Regarding EIBASS's view that such interference would be manageable based on PCS/AWS filtering solutions, DISH responds that the existing PCS/AWS to BAS scenario is not representative of the more problematic scenario of interference from BAS into base stations receiving low-power, mobile uplink transmissions in the 2020–2025 MHz band. On the other hand, if 2020–2025 MHz is used for downlinks, DISH agrees with EIBASS that coordination and filtering similar to that used for AWS–1 could be used to protect BAS. Referencing its then-pending waiver request to be able to elect to utilize the 2000–2020 MHz band for downlink operations,” DISH suggests that the Commission designate 2020–2025 MHz for downlink use if the adjacent AWS–4 band is also used for downlink. If adjacent AWS–4 band is used for uplink operations, DISH states that 2020–2025 MHz also should be designated for uplinks because downlink operations would cause interference to AWS–4 uplink operations, absent severe power and OOBE restrictions to protect AWS–4 uplink operations.
56. T-Mobile and other commenters believe that the Commission may wish to evaluate how best to use the 2020–2025 MHz band but the future use of the 2020–2025 MHz band is uncertain until DISH decides whether it will be using the adjacent AWS–4 spectrum at 2000–2020 MHz for uplink or downlink operations. Sprint supports the auction of 2020–2025 MHz, and recommends that the Commission postpone making a determination on whether the band should be uplink or downlink until after it resolves DISH's waiver petition and Dish makes its election. T-Mobile states that until that time, it is premature to consider whether it may be used to support commercial wireless operations.
57. On December 20, 2013, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau granted DISH's request, subject to certain conditions, for flexibility to elect to use 2000–2020 MHz for either uplink or downlink operations. One of the conditions requires DISH to file its uplink or downlink election, which shall apply to all AWS–4 licenses, as soon as commercially practicable but no later than 30 months after the December 20, 2013, release date of the Bureau's order. Auctioning and licensing of the 2020–2025 MHz band is not governed by the February 2015 deadline in the Spectrum Act. We agree with some commenters that the public interest is best served by deferring action on the 2020–2025 MHz band, without prejudice to the ultimate disposition of service rules for that band.
58. In addition to protecting other operations that will remain in the AWS–3 bands, as discussed above, we noted in the
59. With respect to adjacent bands, two predominant types of interference can occur. The first is caused by out-of-band emissions (OOBE) that fall directly within the passband of an adjacent-band receiver. Such emissions cannot be “filtered out,” and can only be mitigated through appropriate operation of the transmitter. The second type of interference is caused by “receiver overload.” Receiver overload interference occurs when a strong signal from an adjacent band transmission falls just outside the passband of a receiver, where the front-end filter of the receiver can provide only limited attenuation of the unwanted signal. Our rules generally limit the potential for both kinds of interference by specifying OOBE and power limits.
60. For situations where adjacent spectrum blocks are put to similar uses, our rules commonly require that out-of-band emissions be attenuated below the transmitter power in watts (P) by a factor of not less than 43 + 10 log
61.
62.
63. One commenter expressed concern that the standard OOBE limit may not provide adequate protection for adjacent-band Meteorological Satellite operations. Raytheon argued that, “[b]efore the Commission adopts an OOBE limit applicable at the 1695 MHz band edge for AWS–3 systems, sufficient testing and/or analysis should be completed to support the Commission's determination in light of the [Emergency Managers Weather Information Network] and other operations below 1695 MHz.” Raytheon errs in focusing on just one part of the regime we are establishing to protect the 1675–1695 MHz band. The OOBE attenuation factor functions together with the interference-resolution provisions of § 27.1134(c). This combination has worked satisfactorily for the AWS–1 service, and we believe it will serve equally well for AWS–3.
64.
65. The Commission has long recognized the importance of GPS and our responsibility to ensure that it receives appropriate interference protection from other radiocommunication services. However, GPSIA's arguments that the proposed OOBE limit
66. Further, suspending this proceeding to reexamine interference standards would likely make it impossible to meet the statutory requirement that this spectrum be licensed by February 2015. In light of our findings above, we believe that the better course is to proceed based on the record herein. Of course we will continue to explore new ways to maximize spectrum efficiency. For example, in ET Docket No. 13–101 we are considering recommendations of the Commission's Technological Advisory Council regarding the use of harm claim thresholds to improve the interference tolerance of wireless systems. Such proceedings provide a more appropriate vehicle to consider evolution of regulatory requirements, including how to transition incumbents to new standards, if that should be necessary.
67. We therefore adopt for the 1695–1710 MHz band an OOBE attenuation factor of 43 + 10 log
68. The 1695–1710 MHz AWS–3 uplink band is adjacent to AWS–1 uplink spectrum at 1710–1755 MHz. Because we anticipate that the services used in these adjacent bands will be similar, the
69.
70.
71. The 2155–2180 MHz AWS–3 downlink band lies between AWS–1 downlink spectrum at 2110–2155 MHz and AWS–4/MSS downlink spectrum at 2180–2200 MHz. Because we anticipate that operations in 2155–2180 MHz and in the adjacent downlink bands will be similar, the
72. The Commission's rules generally specify how to measure the power of the emissions, such as the measurement bandwidth. For AWS–1, AWS–4 and PCS, the measurement bandwidth used to determine compliance with this limit for fixed, mobile, and base stations is generally 1 megahertz, with some modification within the first megahertz immediately outside and adjacent to the licensee's frequency block. The
73. The
74.
75. The only comments addressing the issue supported this proposal. As the
76.
77. We will apply the existing AWS–1 EIRP limits to the AWS–3 downlink band at 2155–2180 MHz, as proposed in the
78.
79. The
80. Commenters generally supported the Commission's proposed technical rules, specifically advocating adoption of regulations consistent with those applicable to the AWS–1 spectrum; no commenter opposed the proposals for base station power limits. The Commission typically adopts the same rules for similar adjacent band services, and we see no compelling reason to do otherwise here. Accordingly we adopt the AWS–3 base station power limits proposed in the
81.
82. As described above, in conducting studies for coexistence of commercial and Federal systems in the AWS–3 uplink bands, CSMAC made assumptions about the power output of typical commercial user equipment for the purpose of defining Protection Zones. Specifically, CSMAC assumed that typical commercial user equipment will be LTE devices. The LTE standard sets a maximum transmitter power output (TPO) of 23 dBm. CSMAC's analysis indicates that such devices will have an actual EIRP varying between -40 dBm and 20 dBm, however, due to power control and typical antenna gains/losses. CSMAC used these EIRP values to assume a maximum power of 20 dBm EIRP (100 mW) for the purpose of defining the Protection Zones. For this reason, the Commission proposed to limit power to the 20 dBm EIRP for mobiles and portables operating in the 1695–1710 MHz and 1755–1780 MHz bands.
83. The Commission also noted its intent to adopt flexible-use service rules for the AWS–3 band supporting terrestrial wireless service and that it was not proposing to mandate the use of any industry standard. In this regard, the Commission observed that similar commercial mobile services such as PCS, AWS–1, and the 700 MHz band deploy handsets using a variety of technologies, including CDMA and UMTS, as well as LTE, whose devices most commonly operate at a maximum EIRP of 23 dBm (200 mW) regardless of higher FCC power limits such as the maximum EIRP limit of 1 watt (30 dBm) for the AWS–1 uplink band. Recognizing that the Commission's technical rules will govern all devices nationwide, rather than typical devices operating near Federal incumbents, the Commission sought comment on whether the benefits of a higher power limit would outweigh the increased burden of having to coordinate more commercial operations with Federal incumbents. The
84. While the 20 dBm EIRP figure is a reasonable assumption from which to determine the area where the potential for interference requires coordination with incumbents, a power limit higher than proposed is feasible, so long as the size of the Protection Zones reflects whatever limit we adopt so that, if a licensee proposes to operate above 20 dBm EIRP, this higher power factors into the coordination analysis.
85. Wireless industry commenters nearly unanimously supported the benefits of a higher power limit over the increased burden of coordination. AT&T suggested that a 20 dBm EIRP limit “would effectively require the adoption of a separate 3GPP standard for AWS–3.” Motorola argued that the proposed 20 dBm limit is inherently flawed because it was based on the 23 dBm total power output limit set by the LTE standard, less 3 dB in assumed losses from issues such as negative antenna gain. Actual losses, it said, will be greater, which justifies a higher power limit in the Commission's rules. Further, Motorola notes the important role of automatic power control in mobile networks, citing a 3GPP simulation showing that “the average transmit power across all devices in a mobile network is below 1 dBm and that 95 percent of all devices transmit with a power below 7 dBm.” DISH makes a similar argument regarding automatic power control, and also notes that the Interference Power Spectral Density level can be controlled by limiting the number of simultaneously transmitting mobiles around Protection Zones, rather than restricting the mobile maximum power to 20 dBm, thus preserving the current Protection Zone boundaries. DISH adds that limiting the number of simultaneous mobile transmissions has an added advantage of providing protection while preserving wireless coverage footprints typical LTE devices can support. These commenters suggest a range of alternatives for the AWS–3 uplink power limit, including 23 dBm, 23 dBm +/−2 dB or 25 dBm (all based on the LTE standard), and 30 dBm (the AWS–1 limit).
86. On the other hand, Raytheon argued that “[f]ailure to mandate an LTE standard could impact directly the validity, already qualified, of the analysis determining the proposed contours of the Protection Zones. . . . [I]f the Commission chooses to forego mandating use of the LTE standard by auction winners, the Commission should establish
87. Based on the record before us, we are persuaded that the benefits of a higher EIRP limit outweigh the burden of additional coordination. Therefore, for the sake of uniformity among AWS–1 and AWS–3 equipment requirements and to facilitate industry standard setting in accordance with the basic interoperability requirement that we adopt herein for 1710–1780 MHz stations, we adopt an AWS–3 uplink
88. Accordingly, the 27 Protection Zones for 1695–1710 MHz will be defined at two maximum protection distance scenarios: operations up to 20 dBm EIRP, as proposed in the
89. For the 1755–1780 MHz band, the default Protection Zone is nationwide. Therefore, all AWS–3 operations in this band, including proposals to operate above 20 dBm EIRP, will have to be successfully coordinated with all relevant Federal incumbents. In the coming months, the Commission and NTIA intend to jointly issue one or more public notices establishing coordination procedures and, if possible, more refined Protection Zones for operations up to 20 dBm EIRP. This forthcoming action will not affect operations above 20 dBm EIRP (and up to the 30 dBm EIRP limit) for which the nationwide Protection Zone will remain applicable.
90. We also recognize CSMAC's suggestion that the aggregate signal level from all licensees measured as a power flux density at the geostationary orbit (GSO) arc should not exceed −179 dBW/Hz/m
91. As discussed above, we determine to license AWS–3 on an EA and CMA geographic license area basis. The Commission observed in the
92. We adopt the proposed boundary limit approach for co-channel interference. As discussed above, the Commission will license AWS–3 on a geographic area basis that is less than nationwide,
93. We set the field strength limit at the boundary at 47 dBμV/m. As the Commission observed in the
94. In adopting this boundary limit, we decline to adopt the alternative limit proposed by T-Mobile. While supporting the boundary limit approach used in other bands, T-Mobile asserted that we should modify the boundary limit to set a reference measurement bandwidth, as proposed by Sprint in WT Docket No. 12–357. In making this recommendation, T-Mobile claimed that because today's LTE transmissions operate on wider channels than earlier legacy technologies, a 47 dBμV/m limit will effectively result in a comparatively
95. Although we agree with T-Mobile that a boundary limit that adjusts for large differences in channel bandwidths may be appropriate, we are not persuaded that either Sprint or T-Mobile's proposed limit represents the most appropriate solution. Sprint derived the value for the field strength based on a comparison against a 30 kHz Digital Amps signal, and T-Mobile did not explain how it derived its proposed limit. Other technologies may be a more appropriate reference upon which to base the value for the field strength. Also, there are other metrics that may be used to limit the signal at the boundary, such as power flux density. We observe that the Commission has already adopted a bandwidth-independent approach when setting boundary limits with Canada and Mexico. For example, certain international limits are expressed as a power flux density (
96. Finally, we adopt the Commission's proposal that adjacent affected area licensees may voluntarily agree upon higher field strength boundary levels than the 47 dBμV/m we adopt above. This concept is already codified in the field strength rules for both PCS and AWS services. No party opposed extending this approach to AWS–3. Accordingly, to maintain consistency with the PCS and other AWS bands, we permit adjacent area licensees to agree to a higher field strength limit.
97. The AWS–1 rules include provisions that protect BRS Channel 1 (2150–2156 MHz) and Channel 2/2A (2156–2160/62 MHz) while the band transitions from BRS to AWS use. 47 CFR 27.1132, 27.1250–27.1255. These BRS provisions will expire in 2021, 15 years after the first AWS license was issued in the band, at which time any remaining BRS licensees in the band will lose primary status.
98. In the
99. T-Mobile also noted that any control requirement should be consistent with LTE mobile operations, which it described as follows:
Prior to transmitting, LTE user devices listen for system information being broadcast by the base station. Based on the system information, the user device will transmit a RACH (Random Access Channel), in order to get the cell to grant downlink/uplink radio resources. Because the mobile device does not transmit until receiving system information from the base station, the mobile device is clearly under the control of the base station. . . .
100. As discussed above, in order to facilitate Federal coordination, uplink/mobile devices in the 1695–1710 MHz and 1755–1780 MHz bands must be under the control of, or associated with, a base station as a means to facilitate shared use of the band and prevent interference to Federal operations. We agree with T-Mobile that LTE user devices operating as T-Mobile describes would meet this control requirement. However, we are not persuaded to codify the general exception that T-Mobile suggests, because the proposal lacks the specificity necessary to assure us that it would prevent interference to Federal incumbents.
101. The
102. In response to the Commission's request for comment on any other technical rules that may be required, some commenters encouraged us to mandate use of the LTE air interface standard in the AWS–3 spectrum, while some urged us to adopt an equipment interoperability requirement. In the
103. We agree with T-Mobile that locking licensees into a particular technology indefinitely is not warranted. Mandating a particular industry standard such as LTE would hamstring innovation and development and be contrary to the Commission's policy to preserve technical flexibility and refrain from imposing unnecessary technical standards. Instead, we seek to adopt those minimum requirements necessary to protect against interference or effectuate other compelling public interest objectives. As discussed above, the LTE standard was used to determine Protection Zones for the 1695–1710 MHz band, but that does not require its adoption for all purposes. Where the rules that we adopt today differ from proposed rules that reflected CSMAC's assumptions, we also adopt corresponding changes to the coordination zones. As discussed below, for the 1755–1780 MHz band, the coordination requirement applies nationwide, and not just to designated Protection Zones. If in the future a licensee decides to use a technology other than LTE, the licensee will still be subject to our technical rules. If the technology complies with our rules but nonetheless poses a greater risk of interference to incumbent Federal operations, this development can be addressed as part of the required coordination process. Accordingly, we see no reason to mandate use of LTE in the AWS–3 bands.
104. In the
105. In addition to the specific technical issues addressed above, the Commission also noted several rules that apply to part 27 services generally, and proposed applying them to the AWS–3 bands as well. Specifically, the Commission proposed applying the following rule sections: 27.51 Equipment authorization, 27.52 RF safety, 27.54 Frequency stability, 27.56 Antennas structures; air navigation safety, and 27.63 Disturbance of AM broadcast station antenna patterns. The Commission reasoned that because AWS–3 will be a part 27 service, these rules should apply to all AWS–3 licensees, including those who acquire licenses through partitioning or disaggregation. No commenters opposed this proposal. Accordingly, because these rules generally apply to all part 27 services, and because, as we explain below, we find it appropriate to license the AWS–3 spectrum under our part 27 regulatory framework, we conclude that the potential benefits of our proposal would outweigh any potential costs and adopt the proposal to apply these additional part 27 rules to AWS–3 licensees. The Commission recently deleted § 27.63. Rules governing disturbance of AM broadcast station antenna patterns are now contained in subpart BB of part 1, 47 CFR 1.30000–1.30004.
106. The licensing and operating rules we adopt below provide AWS–3 licensees with the flexibility to provide any fixed or mobile service that is consistent with the allocations for this spectrum. In the
107.
108. We adopt the Commission's proposal to assign initial licenses for the AWS–3 bands through a system of competitive bidding. Further, we adopt the Commission's proposal to license AWS–3 spectrum bands on a geographic area basis and permit the acceptance of mutually exclusive applications. AT&T, for example, agrees that the “initial assignments, in accordance with Congress' mandate, should be through a system of competitive bidding.” Thus, as detailed below, we adopt rules to govern the use of a competitive bidding process for licensing all AWS–3 bands, including 1755–1780 MHz and 2020–2025 MHz.
109.
110. In accordance with the Spectrum Act's direction to license according to flexible use service rules, we will license the AWS–3 spectrum under part 27. We received no comments on this specific proposal but found general support in the record for permitting flexible use. The part 27 rules provide a broad and flexible regulatory framework for licensing spectrum, enabling the spectrum to be used for a wide variety of broadband services, thereby promoting innovation and efficient use of the spectrum.
111.
112. We adopt the Commission's proposal to license AWS–3 spectrum in accordance with the flexible regulatory framework of part 27 of our rules. We received no comments on this issue. We note that unlike other rule parts applicable to specific services, part 27 does not prescribe a comprehensive set of licensing and operating rules for the spectrum to which it applies. Rather, for each frequency band under its umbrella, part 27 defines permissible uses and any limitations thereon, and specifies basic licensing requirements.
113.
114. We adopt the proposal to apply § 27.10 of our rules, 47 CFR 27.10, to AWS–3 licensees. Under this flexible regulatory approach, AWS–3 licensees may provide common carrier, non-common carrier, private internal communications or any combination of these services, so long as the provision of service otherwise complies with applicable service rules. We find that this broad licensing framework is likely to achieve efficiencies in the licensing and administrative process and will provide flexibility to the marketplace, thus encouraging licensees to develop new and innovative services. Moreover, by applying this requirement to AWS–3 licensees, we will treat them the same as other part 27 licensees, all of whom are subject to this rule. Although no commenters directly address this issue, commenters do support increased regulatory flexibility generally. We conclude that this approach is in the public interest and that its benefits likely outweigh any potential costs.
115. We remind potential applicants that an election to provide service on a common carrier basis requires that the elements of common carriage be present; otherwise the applicant must choose non-common carrier status.
116. Consistent with the Commission's proposal in the
117.
118. In order to fulfill our statutory obligations under section 310 of the Communications Act, we determine that all AWS–3 applicants and licensees shall be subject to the provisions of 47 CFR 27.12;
119. No commenters opposed (or commented on) the Commission's proposal to require all AWS–3 applicants and licensees to provide the same foreign ownership information in their filings, regardless of the type of service the licensee would provide using its authorization. We believe that applicants for this band should not be subject to different obligations in reporting their foreign ownership based on the type of service authorization requested in the application and that the benefits of a uniform approach outweigh any potential costs. Therefore, we will
120.
121. The Commission also explained that section 6004 of the Spectrum Act restricts participation in auctions required under the Spectrum Act by “person[s] who [have] been, for reasons of national security, barred by any agency of the Federal Government from bidding on a contract, participating in an auction, or receiving a grant.” The Commission noted that, in the
122. We find that nothing in the record demonstrates that we should adopt restrictions on open eligibility. Therefore, we find that open eligibility for the AWS–3 band is consistent with our statutory mandate to promote the development and rapid deployment of new technologies, products, and services; economic opportunity and competition; and the efficient and intensive use of the electromagnetic spectrum.
123. Section 27.12(b) of the Commission's rules provides that “[a] person described in 47 U.S.C. 1404(c) is ineligible to hold a license that is required by 47 U.S.C. Chapter 13 (Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Public Law 112–96, 125 Stat. 156 (2012)) to be assigned by a system of competitive bidding under section 309(j) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 309(j).” We conclude that this provision governs the 1695–1710 MHz band, the 1755–1780 MHz band and the 2155–2180 MHz band as explained in the
124.
125. In the
126. USCC supports adopting a 25 percent limit on the amount of AWS–3 spectrum any one auction participant may acquire in a single market to promote competition and diversity of license holders in the band, which USCC asserts would encourage interoperability and roaming opportunities. Mobile Future and
127. We observe that parties commenting on spectrum holdings issues in the AWS–3 rulemaking have raised issues with broader applicability to the
128.
129. We adopt an initial license term for AWS–3 spectrum rights of 12 years and subsequent renewal terms of 10 years and we modify § 27.13 of the Commission's rules to reflect these determinations. The Communications Act does not require a specific term for non-broadcast spectrum licenses. The Commission has typically adopted 10-year license terms for part 27 services, but has also found, as in the case of AWS–1 licenses, a longer initial term to be in the public interest. We find that this approach is in the public interest and find that its benefits outweigh any potential costs. Further, commenters generally support at least a 10-year license term. Given the complexities and timing of clearing government operations in the AWS–3 bands, we agree with AT&T and USCC that a longer initial license term is appropriate.
130. We decline, however, to adopt proposals by AT&T and USCC that the Commission consider 15-year initial license term. We believe instead that a 12-year initial term adequately compensates for the transition of government operations, and a 15-year initial term would be unnecessarily long. Further, wireless licensees receive their licenses not at auction completion, but after a period of time following the close of the auction to allow for license applications to be filed, processed, and reviewed to ensure the applicant meets the applicable qualifications to hold a wireless license. Nevertheless, we direct the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau to solicit comment in the third year following the initial licensing of AWS–3 spectrum for the purpose of making a recommendation to the Commission about whether an extension of the initial license term (and associated build-out deadlines) by up to 3 years is warranted in light of the status of government relocation. We agree with AT&T that the initial license term should match any adjustments extending the final build-out benchmarks.
131. We adopt the Commission's proposal that, if an AWS–3 license is partitioned or disaggregated, any partitionee or disaggregatee would be authorized to hold its license for the remainder of the partitioner's or disaggregator's original license term. No commenter addressed this proposal. We note, however, that this approach is similar to the partitioning and disaggregation provisions that the Commission adopted for BRS, for broadband PCS, for the 700 MHz band, and for AWS–1 licenses at 1710–1755 MHz and 2110–2155 MHz, and AWS–4. We emphasize that nothing in our action is intended to enable a licensee, by partitioning or disaggregating the license, to confer greater rights than it was awarded under the terms of its license grant. Similarly, nothing in this action is intended to enable any partitionee or disaggregatee to obtain rights in excess of those previously possessed by the underlying licensee.
132.
133. We establish performance requirements to promote the productive use of spectrum, to encourage licensees to provide service to customers in a timely manner, and to promote the provision of innovative services in unserved areas, particularly rural ones. Over the years, the Commission has tailored performance and construction requirements with an eye to the unique characteristics of individual frequency bands and the types of services expected, among other factors. Our goal is to ensure that timely and robust build-out occurs in these bands and, for the reasons discussed below, we believe that concrete interim and final build-out benchmarks will best facilitate meeting this goal. The performance requirements we establish for the AWS–3 band are consistent with those the Commission has adopted in recent items for other spectrum bands, while taking into account certain exceptional circumstances related to the timing for
•
•
134. Additionally, we adopt the following penalties for failing to meet the build-out benchmarks:
•
•
135. Based on the record before us, we find that these performance requirements are in the public interest and that the benefits of these requirements outweigh any potential costs. We explain below the rationale for these performance requirements, and the attendant penalties for failure to comply. We also discuss below how we will measure build-out in the Gulf of Mexico.
136.
137. We are not persuaded by arguments that our build-out requirements must be geography-based, or include a geographic component, in order to ensure that less densely populated, often rural, communities have timely access to the most advanced mobile broadband services. We agree that it is important to promote rapid broadband deployment in rural areas. In fact, section 309(j)(4)(B) of the Act requires that the Commission “include performance requirements, such as appropriate deadlines and penalties for performance failures, to ensure prompt delivery of service to rural areas.” We find that adopting relatively small, CMA and EA-based license areas, and requiring licensees to meet challenging population-based benchmarks in each individual license area separately, strikes an appropriate balance between providing flexibility to AWS–3 band licensees to deploy their networks in a cost-effective manner and assertively promoting deployment of service to less densely populated areas. We note that nothing about our decision to require population-based benchmarks in this band would foreclose our ability to impose geographic-based benchmarks in other spectrum bands that may warrant different considerations. For example, we observe that the Commission established geographic-based performance requirements for the 700 MHz B Block in light of technical characteristics and the CMA geographic license area size specific to that band.
138. Further, we reject Verizon's request that we measure compliance with the interim benchmark in the aggregate,
139.
140.
141. Several commenters argue that the FCC should start the build-out period on a date certain that is after the final transition date for government operations. We decline to do so. Instead, we set the interim build-out benchmark 6 years from the grant of the license, which should adequately account for the period of time it will take for Federal users to relocate out of the bands being reallocated for commercial use. Further, setting a date certain that is tied to initial grant of the AWS–3 band license will provide greater certainty to AWS–3 band licensees, their investors, and other interested parties. This does not mean, however, that an AWS–3 band licensee must wait
142. We reject the proposal of commenters who advocate a “substantial service” standard as the only gauge of performance. Our purpose is to ensure that timely and robust build-out occurs in this band and for the reasons enumerated above, we believe that concrete interim and final build-out benchmarks best advance this goal. Further, we note that in recent Commission decisions, the Commission has replaced the substantial service standard with specific interim and final build-out requirements.
143.
144.
145.
146.
147. As a general matter, we expect that AWS–3 band licensees will meet the performance requirements because of the serious consequences associated with non-compliance, including automatic license cancellation. Further, we expect that licensees' deployment will generally exceed the levels set forth in the benchmarks, and that these build-out requirements generally represent a floor—not a ceiling. As for USCC's assertion that automatic termination is too punitive, the Commission has explained in the past that we do not consider automatic termination to be overly punitive or unfair, particularly given that the Commission has applied this approach to nearly all geographically-licensed wireless services. Further, the Commission has rejected the argument, and we do so again here, that an automatic termination penalty would deter capital investment, observing that the wireless industry has invested billions of dollars and has flourished under this paradigm in other spectrum bands. For the same reason, we believe that an automatic termination penalty will have little effect on auction participation, as suggested by USCC. Finally, we do not agree with USCC that automatic termination harms the public because, even if a customer loses service from a provider when it loses spectrum rights for a particular EA or CMA, alternative providers may be available. We also expect that a future licensee for that EA or CMA may ultimately be able to serve more customers.
148. In the event a licensee's authority to operate terminates, the licensee's spectrum rights would become available for reassignment pursuant to the competitive bidding provisions of section 309(j). Further, consistent with the Commission's rules for other part 27 spectrum bands, including AWS–1, AWS–4, and H Block, any AWS–3 licensee who forfeits its license for failure to meet its performance requirements would be precluded from regaining the license. Therefore, we reject Verizon's “new applicant” proposal that would effectively provide a mechanism for a licensee who failed to meet the final build-out requirement to continue to hold onto its fallow spectrum unless a competing bidder emerged.
149.
150.
151. Electronic coverage maps must accurately depict the boundaries of each license area in the licensee's service territory. If a licensee does not provide reliable signal coverage to an entire CMA or EA, as applicable, its map must accurately depict the boundaries of the area or areas within each CMA or EA, as applicable, not being served. Each licensee also must file supporting documentation certifying the type of service it is providing for each licensed area within its service territory and the type of technology used to provide such service. Supporting documentation must include the assumptions used to create the coverage maps, including the propagation model and the signal strength necessary to provide reliable service with the licensee's technology.
152. The licensee must use the most recently available decennial U.S. Census Data at the time of measurement to meet the population-based build out requirements. Specifically, a licensee must base its claims of population served on areas no larger than the Census Tract level. The Census Bureau defines Census Tracts as “small, relatively permanent statistical subdivisions of a county delineated by local participants as part of the U.S. Census Bureau's Participant Statistical Areas Program . . . [T]he entire United States is covered by census tracts.” This requirement tracks the Commission's action requiring broadband service providers to report “snapshots” of broadband service at the Census Tract level twice each year by completing FCC Form 477.
153.
154. In the
155. Pursuant to section 308(b) of the Communications Act, we will require AWS–3 band licensees seeking license renewal to file renewal applications; below, we specify the information that renewal applicants must provide to enable the Commission to assess whether renewal is warranted and in the public interest. Where a license is not renewed, the associated spectrum will be returned to the Commission and made available for assignment. We will not permit the filing of competing applications against license renewal applications.
156. We apply to AWS–3 band licensees the same renewal showing requirements we recently adopted for the H Block. Specifically, an AWS–3 band licensee's renewal showing must provide a detailed description of its provision of service during the entire license period and discuss: (1) The level and quality of service provided (including the population served, the area served, the number of subscribers, and the services offered); (2) the date service commenced, whether service was ever interrupted, and the duration of any interruption or outage; (3) the extent to which service is provided to rural areas; (4) the extent to which service is provided to qualifying tribal land as defined in § 1.2110(e)(3)(i) of the Commission's rules; and (5) any other factors associated with the level of service to the public. Accordingly, we hereby modify § 27.14 of the Commission's rules to apply these renewal showing criteria to the AWS–3 bands. Nothing in our decision today prejudges or forecloses the Commission's future consideration of the policies and proposed rules, and related record, for the
157. Based on the record before us and our analysis below, we find that the renewal requirements we establish for
158. In adopting these criteria, we decline to adopt at this time AT&T's proposal to categorically provide a renewal expectancy to all licensees that meet their performance requirements and comply with the Communications Act and the Commission's rules. USCC claims that renewal expectancies, based solely on performance requirements, would provide certainty to licensees and investors. As the Commission has consistently stated, performance and renewal showings are distinct; they serve different purposes and, if not met, the Commission may apply different penalties. A performance showing provides a snapshot in time of the level of a licensee's service, whereas a renewal showing provides information regarding the level and types of service provided over the course of a license term. We disagree, therefore, with AT&T's contention that there is “no identifiable benefit” to requiring licensees to make a renewal showing. We emphasize that where a licensee meets the applicable performance requirements, but fails to provide continuity of service (by, for example, repeatedly discontinuing operations between required performance showings for periods of less than 180 days), the Commission could find that renewal would be contrary to the public interest. We note that, in addressing broadcast license renewal proceedings, Congress has specifically established a standard that takes into consideration not only compliance with Commission rules but also whether “the station has served the public interest, convenience, and necessity.” Where a licensee fails to meet its interim performance requirement and becomes subject to a 2-year acceleration of both its final performance requirement and its license term, its final performance showing might merely reflect a snapshot in time of compliance with the performance requirement. By contrast, its renewal application must provide a timeline of its provision of service, the percentage of the license-area population covered, and types of service provided over the course of the license term, including any efforts to meet the interim performance requirement.
159. For subsequent license terms, licensees are likely—absent extraordinary circumstances—to obtain license renewal if they submit satisfactory showings demonstrating that they have maintained or exceeded the level of coverage and service required at the final performance benchmark (during the initial license term), and otherwise comply with the Commission's rules and policies and the Communications Act. We decline, however, to “codify” a renewal expectancy as USCC proposes, at this time.
160. Finally, we reject USCC's proposal that we permit competing renewal applications or, in their absence, process unopposed applications in the same manner as renewals in the cellular and PCS services. We find that the public interest would be ill-served by permitting the filing of potentially time-consuming and costly competing applications. As the Commission explained in the
161.
162. In addition, the Commission proposed that a licensee must notify the Commission within 10 days if it permanently discontinues service, by filing FCC Form 601 or 605 and requesting license cancellation, consistent with § 1.955(a)(3) of the Commission's rules. The Commission emphasized that even if a licensee fails to file the required form, however, an authorization will automatically terminate without specific Commission action if service is permanently discontinued. The Commission sought comment on these proposals, including their associated costs and benefits.
163. We adopt the Commission's proposal and determine that § 1.955(a)(3) of the Commission's rules will apply to all AWS–3 band licensees, including holders of both EAs and CMAs, and find that the benefits of applying this rule outweigh any potential costs of doing so. Thus, a licensee's authorization will automatically terminate, without specific Commission action, if service is “permanently discontinued.” As the Commission has previously explained, the operation of so-called channel keepers,
164. In accordance with our proposal, for providers that identify their regulatory status as common carrier or non-common carrier, we define “permanently discontinued” as a period of 180 consecutive days during which the licensee does not provide service in the individual license area (or smaller service area in the case of a partitioned license) to at least one subscriber that is not affiliated with, controlled by, or related to, the provider. We adopt a different approach for wireless licensees that use their licenses for private, internal communications, however, because such licensees generally do not provide service to unaffiliated subscribers. For such private, internal communications, we define “permanent discontinuance” as a period of 180 consecutive days during which the licensee does not operate. In other words, the rule that we adopt for private, internal communications does not include a requirement that the licensee provide service to an unaffiliated subscriber in order to avoid triggering the permanent discontinuance rule. A licensee will not be subject to the discontinuance rules until the date it must meet its first performance requirement benchmark, a rule which will avoid penalizing licensees that construct early, but then may shut down for 180 days before their first performance benchmark date.
165.
166. We adopt the part 27 partitioning and disaggregation rules for the AWS–3 band. Very few commenters discuss partitioning and disaggregation, but those who do support this approach. Verizon agrees that the Commission “should apply its existing part 27 geographic partitioning, disaggregation, and spectrum leasing rules to AWS–3 licensees.” Further, permitting disaggregation and partitioning will help facilitate investment and rapid deployment in the AWS–3 band, while giving licensees flexibility to use the spectrum to meet changing market demand. As the Commission noted when it first adopted partitioning and disaggregation rules, allowing this type of flexibility can facilitate the efficient use of spectrum, and expedite provision of services in areas that might not otherwise receive service in the near term. We conclude, based on the record before us, that permitting partitioning and disaggregation is in the public interest, and the associated benefits would outweigh any potential costs.
167. As proposed in the
168.
169. We adopt the same spectrum leasing policies and rules that apply to other part 27 services. Wireless Radio Services do not include satellite services. 47 CFR 1.907. Under these secondary market policies and rules, the service rules and policies applicable to the licensee under its license authorization—including all technical, interference, and operational rules—apply to the spectrum lessee as well. The rules and procedures for spectrum leasing arrangements are set forth in part 1, subpart X. 47 CFR 1.9001
170.
171. Although we primarily adopt rules for the AWS–3 band in part 27, in order to maintain general consistency among various wireless communication services, we also require AWS–3 licensees to comply with certain other rule parts that pertain generally to wireless communication services. No commenter opposes this approach. Section 27.3 of the Commission's rules lists some of the rule parts applicable to wireless communications service licensees. In addition, other FCC rules may apply to wireless licensees, including those that apply only to certain wireless licensees, depending on the specific type of service or services that a particular licensee provides.
172.
173. We will extend any rules and policies adopted in the Tribal Lands proceeding to any AWS–3 license that may be issued through competitive bidding. Because that proceeding is specifically focused on promoting greater use of spectrum over Tribal lands, we find that it is better suited than the instant proceeding to reach conclusions on that issue.
174.
175.
176. The limited comment we received generally supports the Commission's proposed use of its standard competitive bidding rules for an auction of AWS–3 band licenses. Verizon Wireless asks the Commission to narrow the scope of § 1.2105(c)'s prohibition on certain communications by (1) confirming that the rule does not apply to unrelated routine business discussions and agreements; (2) confirming that discussions regarding generic technical handset and network issues that occur, for example, in industry standard-setting meetings or with equipment manufacturers, are not prohibited; (3) narrowing the definition of who is an “applicant” to exclude owners of 10% or more of the applicant entity; and (4) shortening the period during which the rule is in effect to end at the close of bidding, rather than that the down payment deadline. T-Mobile supports Verizon Wireless's request, and submits that the requested changes will not interfere with the primary purposes of the Commission's rule and will enhance competition. Sprint opposes Verizon Wireless's requested changes to the rule, and cautions against adopting any wide-reaching revisions or alterations that have the potential consequence of undermining competition. Sprint supports the Commission's consideration of the particular circumstances and competitive dynamics surrounding any particular auction in formulating appropriate competitive bidding rules, but submits that a blanket revision to the Commission's competitive bidding rules, or revisions not attuned to the particular competitive dynamics of a specific auction such as the AWS–3 auction, would not promote the public interest. While Sprint notes that the extraordinary complexity of the broadcast incentive auction might warrant revisions to facilitate participation by smaller bidders, it urges the Commission to carefully scrutinize Verizon Wireless's proposal to relax the rule for an AWS–3 auction. Other commenters express views on topics that are generally considered after the adoption of service rules, during the pre-auction process for establishing
177. Based on our review of the record and our prior experience with conducting auctions, we conclude that the Commission's Part 1 bidding rules should govern the conduct of any AWS–3 auction. We decline to modify the part 1 rules as Verizon Wireless requests. We disagree with Verizon Wireless's claim that the Commission has extended the restrictions in § 1.2105(c) to routine business discussions, and that such an extension has resulted in uncertainty for auction applicants as to whether discussions that are unrelated to bids or bidding strategies or to post-auction market structure could violate the rule. The plain text of the rule makes clear that business discussions and negotiations that are
178. Given the clarity of our rule, we likewise find it unnecessary to confirm in advance that particular types of discussions or negotiations by particular applicants are in compliance with our rule, or to establish a safe harbor for otherwise prohibited communications made by personnel that an applicant has “walled off” from certain other personnel. We emphasize that the specific types of communications with which Verizon Wireless expresses concern would not fall within the prohibition in § 1.2105(c) unless they divulge bids or bidding strategies or discuss or negotiate settlement agreements, arrangements or understandings of any kind relating to the licenses being auctioned, including agreements relating to the post-auction market structure. We conclude that the Bureau's past guidance regarding the applicability of § 1.2105(c) provides sufficient information to allow auction applicants to structure their routine business activities accordingly so that they do not run afoul of the rule.
179. We also decline Verizon Wireless's request to amend the prohibited communications rule in the context of this AWS–3 service rules proceeding to narrow the definition of an “applicant” for purposes of the rule to include only the filing entity and its controlling equity interest holders, or to shorten the period during which the rule prohibiting certain communications is in effect to end at the close of bidding. As noted above, the
180.
181.
182. In the
183. The Commission proposed in the
184. The Commission sought comment on these proposals, including the costs or benefits of these standards and associated bidding credits, particularly as they may relate to the size of the geographic areas to be served and the spectrum allocated to each license. The Commission also specifically sought comment on whether the small business provisions it proposed are sufficient to promote participation by businesses owned by minorities and women, as well as rural telephone companies. The limited comment we received on the Commission's proposal to offer small business bidding credits in an auction for the AWS–3 bands is generally supportive. The
185. Blooston Rural Carriers support the Commission's proposed small business bidding credits, but ask the Commission to consider offering additional support to incumbent rural carriers in the AWS–3 auction through an additional (cumulative) bidding credit of 15 percent for entities that qualify as a “rural telephone company” or that are a subsidiary or affiliate of a qualified rural telephone company under the Commission's rules. This bidding credit would be available in addition to any other bidding credit for which an applicant may be eligible, but the credit would be limited to licenses that cover all or part of the rural carrier's certificated wireline service area. Blooston Rural Carriers submit that such an additional bidding credit would effectively help companies compete with large regional and wireless carriers in their local service territory and with carriers bidding more densely populated areas. The Commission has previously considered proposals to create an additional rural telephone company bidding credit. In declining to adopt such past proposals, the Commission observed that proponents of this type of credit had been unable “to demonstrate a historical lack of access to capital that was the basis for according bidding credits to small businesses, minorities and women,” and that “[i]n subsequent decisions, large rural telcos have failed to demonstrate any barriers to capital formation similar to those faced by other designated entities.” While the Commission has not intended to apply the part 1 bidding credit schedule uniformly to all services without any opportunity for the consideration of alternative bidding credits, the schedule of size standards and bidding credits described in our part 1 rules provides small businesses with consistency and predictability and we are not persuaded that we should deviate from that schedule here. As discussed above, the Commission took the characteristics of the AWS–3 service into consideration when proposing the two size standards and associated bidding credits in the
186. CCA also supports the Commission's proposal to offer small business bidding credits, but asks the Commission to amend its bidding credit provisions to better fulfill the purposes of section 309 of the Communications Act. CCA asserts that the Commission's thresholds for defining small and very small business are decades old and have not kept pace with the realities of today's marketplace, and that the current definitions have the effect of excluding carriers that have no ability, or limited ability, to participate absent a bidding credit. CCA notes, by way of example, that the generally acceptable small business size standard for cellular or other wireless telecommunications entities as defined by the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) is firms with 1,500 or fewer employees (including affiliates). CCA urges the Commission to reevaluate its standards when determining eligibility for bidding credits in the AWS–3 auction, rather than using the same small business size standards that were used in prior AWS auctions, but offers no suggestions regarding what alternative size standards could potentially be used for AWS–3.
187. Based on the Commission's prior experience with the use of bidding credits in spectrum auctions, we believe that the use of bidding credits is an effective tool in achieving the statutory objective of promoting participation by designated entities in the provision of spectrum-based services. In the absence of small business size standards and bidding credits, designated entities might have less of an opportunity to obtain spectrum in this band. We believe that continuing to extend such benefits to the AWS–3 bands would be consistent with our statutory mandate. We are not persuaded by the record before us that we should adopt small business size standards for AWS–3 that differ from those used in prior AWS auctions. To the contrary, in light of the
188.
189. The Commission invited comment on the applicability of the 110 percent requirement in the CSEA to the various relocation and sharing scenarios discussed in the
190.
191. T-Mobile, the only commenter that addressed this issue, opposed the issuance of overlay licenses. While T-Mobile supports operator-to-operator negotiations post-auction in order to maximize commercial licensees' access to Federal spectrum, it maintains that an overlay license approach would be inconsistent with the Spectrum Act's preference to relocate federal users to the maximum extent feasible, and with the CSEA, because activities provided for in the statute such as studying relocation options and updating equipment to facilitate clearing or shared use of the spectrum would not be undertaken if overlay licenses are issued. T-Mobile also notes that an overlay auction would create uncertainty about exactly what rights a licensee would be granted, which would potentially reduce auction participation and revenues. No commenter proposed any alternative licensing constructs or other approaches. Accordingly, based on the record before us, we do not adopt licensing alternatives for 1.7 GHz.
192.
193. In the
194. We conclude that extending the current relocation and cost sharing rules for both FS in the 2160–2180 MHz band and BRS in the 2150–2160/62 MHz serves the public interest because it will continue to accelerate the relocation process and will distribute relocation costs more equitably among the beneficiaries of the relocation.
195. For the frequency bands considered for AWS–3 service, the
196.
197. We are maintaining the primary Federal MetSat (space-to-Earth) allocation in the 1695–1710 MHz band, but are limiting this allocation to 27 Protection Zones within which one or more Federal earth stations will continue to operate. Specifically, we are adopting footnote US88 to provide for the protection of certain Federal earth stations that receive in the 1695–1710 MHz band as well as a few sites below 1695 MHz to ensure there is no impact due to adjacent band emissions. NTIA has endorsed the recommendations contained in a July 2013 Final Report authored by Working Group 1 of the Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee (CSMAC WG–1). CSMAC WG–1 made recommendations regarding Federal/non-Federal sharing of the 1695–1710 MHz band, including protection zones (
198. We also remove from the Allocation Table three unused allocations that apply to the 1695–1710 MHz band. First, we delete the primary Federal fixed service allocation from the 1700–1710 MHz band and associated footnote G118 from the Allocation Table. Second, we delete the primary meteorological aids (radiosonde) allocation from the 1695–1700 MHz band. Third, we delete the footnote allocation that allows all other applications in the Earth exploration-satellite service (EESS) (space-to-Earth) besides MetSat applications to operate in the 1695–1710 MHz band. Previously, the Commission added a reference to international footnote 5.289 (“Earth exploration-satellite service applications, other than the meteorological-satellite service, may also be used in the bands 460–470 MHz and 1690–1710 MHz for space-to-Earth transmissions subject to not causing harmful interference to stations operating in accordance with the Table.”) to the United States Table of Frequency Allocations in § 2.106. In this action, we move this text to new footnote US289, except that the “band 1690–1695 MHz” is specified. We note that footnotes 5.289 and US201 both provide for the same applications using different wording. Therefore, we simplify the U.S. Table by adding the text of footnote US201 to new footnote US289.
199.
200. Oceus Networks strongly supports sharing both the 1755–1780 MHz and 2155–2180 MHz bands “on U.S. military bases and ranges for mission-oriented tactical LTE . . . [and for] capabilities [that] would be able to evolve alongside a commercial technology roadmap.” NTIA generally states that it agrees that expanding opportunities for preserving Federal users' access to the AWS–3 bands on Federal lands and military training ranges in areas generally served by commercial networks may allow Federal agencies greater flexibility to meet tactical, training, and other requirements. T-Mobile states that it does not object to Federal use of non-Federal spectrum in areas where commercial providers are not generally providing service, because shared use of AWS–3 spectrum could produce economies of scale and scope in for equipment for both Federal and non-Federal users, thereby lowering costs and speeding implementation. However, T-Mobile cautions that it is premature to adopt Federal sharing rules in commercial bands at present because of the urgency in bringing additional spectrum to market for mobile broadband services. T-Mobile therefore recommends that the Commission re-evaluate Federal sharing of commercial spectrum at a later date, when Federal requirements for additional spectrum versus more efficient use of existing spectrum are better understood.
201. AT&T states that Oceus has not shown a specific need to provide sharing in the 2155–2180 MHz band, and that allowing Oceus to construct and manage a secondary wireless network in a licensed market would effectively foreclose the ability of the licensee to expand its coverage into that area at a later time. Verizon states that the Commission should promote sharing in bands explicitly identified for shared use, such as the BAS band, 1780–1850 MHz, and the 3.5 GHz band, and not require sharing in bands licensed for exclusive, flexible use. Responding to Oceus's statement that that military bases are underserved by CMRS operators because carriers do not deploy in those areas, Verizon asserts that access to military bases and processes to gain approval to construct and operate wireless facilities on bases make siting there more difficult. Similarly, noting that it has cell sites on more than 130 bases nationwide (and that the number grows as siting negotiations conclude), AT&T also disagrees that there are barriers to DoD using commercial wireless technology, and notes that network buildout on military facilities can be achieved through existing procurement arrangements. Oceus responds that it has sought a geographically limited approach for specific military operations but that even broader sharing opportunities will have to be addressed in the future in non-Federal bands, that existing contract vehicles such as AT&T describes are inadequate, and that secondary user would be required to cease interfering by rule if an AWS licensee were to expand coverage into the area of the secondary license.
202. On March 21, 2014, NTIA, on behalf of DoD, requested that the Commission defer action on the specific text of a new US footnote in the Table of Allocations until requirements for a more flexible approach, beyond tactical or training applications in remote areas, can be developed in consultation with military and industry stakeholders. In accordance with NTIA's request, on behalf of DoD, we are deferring action on this matter.
203. We are adopting the other amendments proposed in the
204.
205. We concur with commenting parties that a commercial wireless service in the 1755–1780 MHz band is desirable, and establishment of that service requires that we add primary fixed and mobile service allocations to the non-Federal Table in that band. That addition will facilitate both Federal/non-Federal sharing, and a near-term spectrum auction, of that band. While that addition was not the focus of commenting parties, it finds implicit support in the record, including support from Federal users of the 1755–1780 MHz band. A fixed service allocation will permit future consideration of low power fixed use of the 1755–1780 MHz band, such as by customer premises equipment, thereby providing maximum flexibility for service providers to better respond to market demand. Additionally, we are deleting the existing fixed and mobile allocations from the Federal Table in that band, but are adding new footnote US91 to govern shared Federal/non-Federal use of the 1755–1780 MHz band, as shown in the final rules section.
206. In addition, we are adopting a non-substantive update to the non-Federal Table by expanding the cross reference to part 27 of the Commission's rules, which is shown as “Wireless Communications (27)” in the 1710–1755 MHz band, by displaying this cross reference in the 1695–1780 MHz band. We are also adding missing cross references to part 27 of our rules in the 1850–2000 MHz band (for 1915–1920 and 1995–2000 MHz bands) and the 2000–2020 MHz band. 47 CFR 2.105(e), 27.5(j)–(k).
207.
208.
209. We find the DoD Proposal to be constructive, and consistent with efficient use of both the 1755–1780 MHz and 2025–2110 MHz bands. Commercial use of the former band can occur in a timely manner under the DoD Proposal. Accordingly, we adopt NTIA's recommended amendments in our final rules section. Specifically, we are adding primary Federal fixed and mobile service allocations to the 2025–2110 MHz band, limiting Federal use of these allocations to military use, specifying coordination requirements for such operations in accordance with a Memorandum of Understanding between Federal and non-Federal fixed and mobile operations, and providing interference protection and priority to the specified non-Federal fixed and mobile operations in this band; delete footnote US393 and add footnote US92. These amendments will take effect only after the auction of the1755–1780MHz band concludes.
210.
211. First, Congress recognized the potential benefits of flexible spectrum allocations and in 1997 amended the Communications Act to add section 303(y), which grants the Commission the authority to adopt flexible allocations if certain factors are met. Section 303(y) provides the Commission with authority to allocate spectrum for flexible use if “such use is consistent with international agreements to which the United States is a party; and the Commission finds, after notice and an opportunity for public comment, that such an allocation would be in the public interest; such use would not deter investment in communications services and systems, or technology development; and such use would not result in harmful interference among users.” The Commission sought comment on how best to read section
212. Section 1062(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 requires that, if “in order to make available for other use a band of frequencies of which it is a primary user, the Department of Defense is required to surrender use of such band of frequencies, the Department shall not surrender use of such band of frequencies until. . .the [NTIA], in consultation with the [FCC], identifies and makes available to the Department for its primary use, if necessary, an alternative band or bands of frequencies as a replacement for the band to be so surrendered.” Furthermore, current law requires that “the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff jointly certify. . .that such alternative band or bands provides comparable technical characteristics to restore essential military capability that will be lost as a result of the band of frequencies to be so surrendered.”
213. NTIA states that the amendments to the Allocation Table for the 2025–2110 MHz band that it recommends—and that we are adopting herein—“would provide DoD additional spectrum access to a band with comparable technical characteristics to restore essential military capabilities that will be lost as a result of relocating systems out of 1755–1780 MHz, a statutory requirement under the Secretary of Commerce's, DoD's, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff's joint certification to Congress under the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000.” Section 1062(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106–65; 113 Stat. 768);
214. In the
215. T-Mobile recommends that the Commission pattern the AWS–3 coordination process after the process used by non-Federal licensees to gain early access to AWS–1 spectrum. Raytheon disagrees and argues that AWS–1 coordination procedures would not offer sufficient protection to the 1695–1710 MHz band. Motorola recommends that if the Commission does not apply AWS–1 coordination procedures to the AWS–3 spectrum, then it should apply part 27 coordination procedures. Mobile Future argues that the Commission should work with NTIA to develop an interference protection model, inputs to the model, and the coordination procedure. Such efforts, Mobile Future continues, should address issues that should be resolved before an auction commences.
216. The Commission recognizes that bidders need as much certainty as possible regarding the scope of Federal incumbency, relocation timelines, and the potential for temporary or indefinite sharing through geographic or temporal access to spectrum.
217.
218.
219.
220. The successful implementation of commercial services in the AWS–3 bands depends upon successful coordination and sharing with Federal users, whether on a temporary basis as Federal systems relocate their operations or on an ongoing, permanent shared basis for those systems that remain in the band. The Federal incumbents in the 1695–1710 MHz and 1755–1780 MHz bands must be able to continue operations free from harmful interference and without being held accountable for interference into new commercial operations while the agencies are operating within their authorized operational parameters. Similarly, federal incumbents remaining in the band must be able to have the flexibility to coordinate with commercial licensees if reasonable modification of existing, grandfathered operations are required in the future. We expect a good faith effort from both the AWS–3 licensees and the Federal incumbents to share information about their systems, agree to appropriate interference methodologies, and communicate results so as to facilitate commercial use of the band. This extends to AWS licensees sharing information with Federal incumbents and cooperating in testing once Federal incumbents develop and implement real-time spectrum monitoring systems around existing Federal operations protected in the 1695–1710 MHz and adjacent bands.
221.
222.
223. In the
224. DISH proposes an interoperability requirement similar to USCC's proposal, except DISH would include the AWS–4 downlink band at 2180–2200 MHz. Verizon opposes any equipment interoperability mandate and Verizon and AT&T state that the
225. The Commission historically has been interested in promoting interoperability. Beginning with the licensing of cellular spectrum, the Commission maintained that consumer equipment should be capable of operating over the entire range of cellular spectrum as a means to “insure full coverage in all markets and compatibility on a nationwide basis.” Although the Commission did not adopt a rule to require band-wide interoperability for PCS, it again stressed the importance of interoperability by acknowledging industry efforts to establish voluntary interoperability standards and asserted that “[t]he availability of interoperability standards will deliver important benefits to consumers and help achieve our objectives of universality, competitive delivery of PCS, that includes the ability of consumers to switch between PCS systems at low cost, and competitive markets for PCS equipment.” The Commission also stated that if PCS technology did not develop in a manner to accommodate roaming and interoperability, it might consider “what actions the Commission may take to facilitate the more rapid development of appropriate standards.” In 1997, we established a rule requiring receiver interoperability for satellite digital audio radio services, and in implementing authority over public safety broadband systems prior to the Spectrum Act, the Commission determined in 2007 that it was “imperative” to establish a nationwide broadband interoperability standard. More recently, in WT Docket No. 12–69, the Commission took certain steps to implement an industry solution to provide interoperable Long Term Evolution (LTE) service in the Lower 700 MHz band in an efficient and effective manner to improve choice and quality for consumers of mobile services. A number of the principal wireless providers licensed in the 700 MHz band, along with the Competitive Carriers Association, had developed a voluntary industry solution that would resolve the lack of interoperability in this band while allowing flexibility in responding to evolving consumer needs and dynamic and fast-paced technological developments. In reviewing the voluntary solution, the Commission determined that amendments to the rules and modifications to licenses serve the public interest by enabling consumers, especially in rural areas, to enjoy the benefits of greater competition and more choices, and by encouraging efficient use of spectrum, investment, job creation, and the development of innovative mobile broadband services and equipment. Although no party requested that we impose an interoperability requirement with respect to the 10 megahertz of H Block spectrum, as they have for the larger AWS–3 band in this proceeding, we stressed again in that context that “interoperability is an important aspect
226. In the
227. To the extent that smaller operators favor smaller license sizes, we note that the AWS–3 paired block that we are designating for the smallest geographic licensing area (CMAs) and all of the smallest, 5 megahertz paired blocks, are within existing Band Class 10. Additionally, based on the record before us, we conclude that the public interest is best served by requiring AWS–3 mobile and portable stations that operate on any frequencies in the 1755–1780 MHz band (paired with the 2155–2180 MHz band) to be capable of operating on all frequencies in the 1710–1780 MHz band (paired with the 2110–2180 MHz band) using all air interfaces that the equipment utilizes on any frequencies in the 1710–1780 MHz band (paired with frequencies in the 2110–2180 MHz band). Although Section 6401 of the Spectrum Act would require us to auction and license these bands by February 2015 pursuant to flexible use service rules whether or not we adopt an additional interoperability requirement, we conclude that adopting such a requirement prior to licensing best serves the public interest by removing uncertainty,
228. Consistent with precedent, we stress the importance of promoting interoperability throughout the 1710–1780 MHz/2110–2180 MHz band—as reflected in the industry efforts to establish voluntary interoperability standards covering most of this spectrum and the overwhelming industry representations herein, and for well over the past decade before Congress, the Executive Branch, internationally, and the Commission, as to the suitability of the 1710–1780 MHz band (paired with 2110–2180 MHz) for AWS operations. Indeed, a failure to achieve basic interoperability of devices using the same air interface(s) in the 1710–1780 MHz band (paired with the 2110–2180 MHz band) would be completely at odds with longstanding commercial wireless industry-wide efforts for access to additional spectrum. With this in mind, we emphasize that the availability of voluntary interoperability standards will deliver important benefits to consumers and help achieve our objectives of universality, competitive delivery of devices that utilize the 1710–1780 MHz band (paired with the 2155–2180 MHz band) because devices that operate in the 1755–1780 MHz band (paired with 2155–2180 MHz) will include the AWS–1 bands, thereby promoting the ability of consumers to switch between AWS systems that use the same air interface(s) at low cost, and competitive markets for equipment.”
229. Finally, we recognize that USCC initially sought an interoperability requirement that extends to 1695–1710 MHz and that DISH recently proposed including the 2180–2200 MHz AWS–4 band. Given that 1695–1710 MHz will be auctioned and licensed unpaired, we conclude that extending an interoperability requirement to this band at this time would be inappropriate because the downlink band(s) is undetermined. At this time, we also decline DISH's suggestion to add the AWS–4 downlink band (2180–2200 MHz) into the basic interoperability rule for AWS–3 licensees. The record is not developed on this issue and relevant technical issues have not been fully explored by commenters. Apart from longstanding, wireless industry-wide advocacy for 1710–1780 MHz paired with 2110–2180 MHz, the record before us reflects among AWS–1/3 interoperability proponents a reciprocal understanding of sorts among potential, future AWS–3 licensees: If licensed in 1755–1780/2155–2180 MHz, each proponent is willing to accept any burden arising
230. We remind interested parties that this proceeding is “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's
231. As discussed in section II.E (Federal/Non-Federal Coordination) above, in the process of developing one or more joint public notices regarding Federal/non-Federal coordination, NTIA may seek recommendations from the Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee (CSMAC). CSMAC is an advisory committee created for the purpose of advising NTIA on spectrum policy issues. CSMAC consists of private-sector “Special Government Employees” appointed by NTIA to provide advice and recommendations on U.S. spectrum management policy. Commission staff has been present at meetings of the full CSMAC and has participated in CSMAC's working groups.
232. Therefore, pursuant to our authority under § 1.1200 of the Commission's rules, we continue the limited exemption in the AWS–3 proceeding (GN Docket No. 13–185) from the
233. The
234. Therefore, pursuant to our authority under § 1.1200 of the Commission's rules, we exempt from the
235. To the extent that any of the participants in the above-described meetings intends the Commission, with respect to any decision it makes in the AWS–3 proceeding, to rely on an
236. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Commission incorporated an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed in the
237.
238. In the
239. A portion of the proceeds from the auction of Federal spectrum will be used to cover the relocation and sharing costs of Federal incumbents associated with relocating their spectrum-dependent systems from spectrum bands authorized to be auctioned under the Commission's competitive bidding authority. A portion will also be made available for use by the First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) to carry out its duties and responsibilities, among other things, to deploy and operate a nationwide public safety broadband network.
240.
241.
242.
243.
244.
245. Any applicants for AWS–3 licenses will be required to file license applications using the Commission's automated Universal Licensing System (ULS). ULS is an online electronic filing system that also serves as a powerful information tool, one that enables potential licensees to research applications, licenses, and antenna structures. It also keeps the public informed with weekly public notices, FCC rulemakings, processing utilities, and a telecommunications glossary. AWS–3 licensees that must submit long-form license applications must do so through ULS using Form 601, FCC Ownership Disclosure Information for the Wireless Telecommunications Services using FCC Form 602, and other appropriate forms.
246.
247. As set forth in the
248. The
249. The
250. The
251. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the Rules None.
252. This document contains modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104–13. It will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies are invited to comment on the new or modified information collection requirements contained in this proceeding. In addition, we note that pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107–198,
253. In this present document, we have assessed the effects of the policies adopted in the Report and Order with regard to information collection burdens on small business concerns, and find that these policies will benefit many companies with fewer than 25 employees because the revisions we adopt should provide small entities with more information, more flexibility, and more options for gaining access to valuable spectrum. In addition, we have described impacts that might affect small businesses, which includes most businesses with fewer than 25 employees, in the FRFA.
254. Accordingly,
255.
256.
257. The effective date of the amendment to 47 CFR 2.106 adding Fixed and Mobile allocations for the 2025–2110 MHz band to the Federal Table of Frequency Allocations will become effective after the Commission publishes a document in the
258.
259.
260.
Administrative practice and procedure, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telecommunications.
Communications common carriers, Radio.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 1, 2, and 27 as follows:
15 U.S.C. 79
47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, and 336, unless otherwise noted.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
US88 In the bands 1675–1695 MHz and 1695–1710 MHz, the following provisions shall apply:
(a) Non-Federal use of the band 1695–1710 MHz by the fixed and mobile except aeronautical mobile services is restricted to stations in the Advanced Wireless Service (AWS). Base stations that enable AWS mobile and portable stations to operate in the band 1695–1710 MHz must be successfully coordinated prior to operation as follows: (i) All base stations within the 27 protection zones listed in paragraph (b) that enable mobiles to operate at a maximum e.i.r.p. of 20 dBm, and (ii) nationwide for base stations that enable mobiles to operate with a maximum e.i.r.p. greater than 20 dBm, up to a maximum e.i.r.p. of 30 dBm, unless otherwise specified by Commission rule, order, or notice.
(b) Forty-seven Federal earth stations located within the protection zones listed below operate on a co-equal, primary basis with AWS operations. All other Federal earth stations operate on a secondary basis.
(1) Protection zones for Federal earth stations receiving in the band 1695–1710 MHz:
(2) Protection zones for Federal earth stations receiving in the band 1675–1695 MHz:
The coordinates are specified in the conventional manner (North latitude, West longitude), except that the Guam (GU) entry is specified in terms of East longitude.
US91 In the band 1755–1780 MHz, the following provisions shall apply:
(a) Non-Federal use of the band 1755–1780 MHz by the fixed and mobile services is restricted to stations in the Advanced Wireless Service (AWS). Base stations that enable AWS mobile and portable stations to operate in the band 1755–1780 MHz must be successfully coordinated on a nationwide basis prior to operation, unless otherwise specified by Commission rule, order, or notice.
(b) In the band 1755–1780 MHz, the Federal systems listed below operate on a co-equal, primary basis with AWS stations. All other Federal stations in the fixed and mobile services identified in an approved Transition Plan will operate on a primary basis until reaccommodated in accordance with 47 CFR part 301.
(1) Joint Tactical Radio Systems (JTRS) may operate indefinitely at the following locations:
(2) Air combat training system (ACTS) stations may operate on two frequencies within two geographic zones that are defined by the following coordinates:
ACTS transmitters may cause interference to AWS base stations between separation distances of 285 km (minimum) and 415 km (maximum).
(3) In the sub-band 1761–1780 MHz, Federal earth stations in the space operation service (Earth-to-space) may transmit at the following 25 sites and non-Federal base stations must accept harmful interference caused by the operation of these earth stations:
The coordinates are specified in the conventional manner (North latitude, West longitude), except that the Guam (GU) entries are specified in terms of East longitude. Use at Cape Canaveral AFS is restricted to launch support only. If required, successfully coordinated with all affected AWS licensees, and authorized by NTIA, reasonable modifications of these grandfathered Federal systems beyond their current authorizations or the addition of new earth station locations may be permitted. The details of the coordination must be filed with NTIA and FCC.
(c) In the band 1755–1780 MHz, the military services may conduct Electronic Warfare (EW) operations on Federal ranges and within associated airspace on a non-interference basis with respect to non-Federal AWS operations and shall not constrain implementation of non-Federal AWS operations. This use is restricted to Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E), training, and Large Force Exercise (LFE) operations.
US92 In the band 2025–2110 MHz, Federal use of the co-primary fixed and mobile services is restricted to the military services and the following provisions apply:
(a) Federal use shall not cause harmful interference to, nor constrain the deployment and use of the band by, the Television Broadcast Auxiliary Service, the Cable Television Relay Service, or the Local Television Transmission Service. To facilitate compatible operations, coordination is required in accordance with a Memorandum of Understanding between Federal and non-Federal fixed and mobile operations. Non-Federal licensees shall make all reasonable efforts to accommodate military mobile and fixed operations; however, the use of the band 2025–2110 MHz by the non-Federal fixed and mobile services has priority over military fixed and mobile operations.
(b) Military stations should, to the extent practicable, employ frequency agile technologies and techniques, including the capability to tune to other frequencies and the use of a modular retrofit capability, to facilitate sharing of this band with incumbent Federal and non-Federal operations.
US289 In the bands 460–470 MHz and 1690–1695 MHz, the following provisions shall apply:
(a) In the band 460–470 MHz, space stations in the Earth exploration-satellite service (EESS) may be authorized for space-to-Earth transmissions on a secondary basis with respect to the fixed and mobile services.
(b) In the band 1690–1695 MHz, EESS applications, other than the meteorological-satellite service, may also be used for space-to-Earth transmissions subject to not causing harmful interference to stations operating in accordance with the Table of Frequency Allocations.
NG41 In the band 2120–2180 MHz, the following provisions shall apply to grandfathered stations in the fixed service:
(a) In the sub-band 2160–2162 MHz, authorizations in the Broadband Radio Service (BRS) applied for after January 16, 1992 shall be granted on a secondary basis to Advanced Wireless Services (AWS). In the band 2150–2162 MHz, all other BRS stations shall operate on a primary basis until December 9, 2021, and may continue to operate on a secondary basis thereafter, unless said facility is relocated in accordance with 47 CFR 27.1250 through 27.1255.
(b) In the sub-band 2160–2180 MHz, fixed stations authorized pursuant to 47 CFR part 101 may continue to operate on a secondary basis to AWS.
(c) * * *
(19) Applications for certification of equipment operating under part 27 of this chapter, that a manufacturer is seeking to certify for operation in the:
(i) 1755–1780 MHz, 2155–2180 MHz, or both bands shall include a statement indicating compliance with the pairing of 1710–1780 and 2110–2180 MHz specified in §§ 27.5(h) and 27.75 of this chapter.
(ii) 1695–1710 MHz, 1755–1780 MHz, or both bands shall include a statement indicating compliance with § 27.77 of this chapter.
47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302a, 303, 307, 309, 332, 336, 337, 1403, 1404, and 1451 unless otherwise noted.
(b) * * *
(11) 1695–1710 MHz.
(12) 1755–1780 MHz.
(13) 2155–2180 MHz.
(h)
(1) Four paired channel blocks of 10 megahertz each are available for assignment as follows:
Block A: 1710–1720 MHz and 2110–2120 MHz;
Block B: 1720–1730 MHz and 2120–2130 MHz;
Block F: 1745–1755 MHz and 2145–2155 MHz; and
Block J: 1770–1780 MHz and 2170–2180 MHz.
(2) Six paired channel blocks of 5 megahertz each are available for assignment as follows:
Block C: 1730–1735 MHz and 2130–2135 MHz;
Block D: 1735–1740 MHz and 2135–2140 MHz;
Block E: 1740–1745 MHz and 2140–2145 MHz;
Block G: 1755–1760 MHz and 2155–2160 MHz;
Block H: 1760–1765 MHz and 2160–2165 MHz; and
Block I: 1765–1770 MHz and 2165–2170 MHz.
(3) One unpaired block of 5 megahertz and one unpaired block of 10 megahertz each are available for assignment as follows:
Block A1: 1695–1700 MHz
Block B1: 1700–1710 MHz
Licenses to operate in the 1695–1710 MHz and 1755–1780 MHz bands are subject to the condition that the licensee must not cause harmful interference to an incumbent Federal entity relocating from these bands under an approved Transition Plan. This condition remains in effect until NTIA terminates the applicable authorization of the incumbent Federal entity.
(k)
(1) Service areas for Block G (1755–1760 MHz and 2155–2160 MHz) are based on cellular markets comprising Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) and Rural Service Areas (RSAs) as defined by Public Notice Report No. CL–92–40 “Common Carrier Public Mobile Services Information, Cellular MSA/RSA Markets and Counties,” dated January 24, 1992, DA 92–109, 7 FCC Rcd 742 (1992), with the following modifications:
(i) The service areas of cellular markets that border the U.S. coastline of the Gulf of Mexico extend 12 nautical miles from the U.S. Gulf coastline.
(ii) The service area of cellular market 306 that comprises the water area of the Gulf of Mexico extends from 12 nautical miles off the U.S. Gulf coast outward into the Gulf.
(2) Service areas for Blocks H (1760–1765 MHz and 2160–2165 MHz), I (1765–1770 MHz and 2165–2170 MHz), J (1770–1780 MHz and 2170–2180 MHz), A1 (1695–1700 MHz) and B1 (1700–1710 MHz) are based on Economic Areas (EAs) as defined in paragraph (a) of this section.
(j)
(2) Initial authorizations for the 1755–1780 MHz and 2155–2180 MHz shall be based on the paired frequency blocks specified in § 27.5(h)(1) and (2) and the corresponding service areas specified in § 27.6(k)(1) and (2).
(k)
(a) AWS and WCS licensees, with the exception of WCS licensees holding authorizations for Block A in the 698–704 MHz and 728–734 MHz bands, Block B in the 704–710 MHz and 734–740 MHz bands, Block E in the 722–728 MHz band, Block C, C1 or C2 in the 746–757 MHz and 776–787 MHz bands, Block A in the 2305–2310 MHz and 2350–2355 MHz bands, Block B in the 2310–2315 MHz and 2355–2360 MHz bands, Block C in the 2315–2320 MHz band, and Block D in the 2345–2350 MHz band, and with the exception of licensees holding AWS authorizations in the 1915–1920 MHz and 1995–2000 MHz bands, the 2000–2020 MHz and 2180–2200 MHz bands, or 1695–1710 MHz, 1755–1780 MHz and 2155–2180 MHz bands, must, as a performance requirement, make a showing of “substantial service” in their license area within the prescribed license term set forth in § 27.13. “Substantial service” is defined as service which is sound, favorable and substantially above a level of mediocre service which just might minimally warrant renewal. Failure by any licensee to meet this requirement will result in forfeiture of the license and the licensee will be ineligible to regain it.
(f) Comparative renewal proceedings do not apply to WCS licensees holding authorizations for the 698–746 MHz, 747–762 MHz, and 777–792 MHz bands or licensees holding AWS authorizations for the 1915–1920 MHz and 1995–2000 MHz bands or the 2000–2020 MHz and 2180–2200 MHz bands, or the 1695–1710 MHz, or the 1755–1780 MHz and 2155–2180 MHz bands. These licensees must file a renewal application in accordance with the provisions set forth in § 1.949 of this chapter.
(k) Licensees holding WCS or AWS authorizations in the spectrum blocks enumerated in paragraphs (g), (h), (i), (q), (r) or (s) of this section, including any licensee that obtained its license pursuant to the procedures set forth in paragraph (j) of this section, shall demonstrate compliance with performance requirements by filing a construction notification with the Commission, within 15 days of the expiration of the applicable benchmark, in accordance with the provisions set forth in § 1.946(d) of this chapter. The licensee must certify whether it has met the applicable performance requirements. The licensee must file a description and certification of the areas for which it is providing service. The construction notifications must include electronic coverage maps, supporting technical documentation and any other information as the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau may prescribe by public notice.
(q) * * *
(7)
(i) The level and quality of service provided by the applicant (including the population served, the area served, the number of subscribers, the services offered);
(ii) The date service commenced, whether service was ever interrupted, and the duration of any interruption or outage;
(iii) The extent to which service is provided to rural areas;
(iv) The extent to which service is provided to qualifying tribal land as defined in § 1.2110(f)(3)(i) of this chapter; and
(v) Any other factors associated with the level of service to the public.
(r) * * *
(1) A licensee shall provide signal coverage and offer service within four (4) years from the date of the initial license to at least forty (40) percent of the population in each of its licensed areas (“Interim Buildout Requirement”).
(4) If a licensee fails to establish that it meets the Final Buildout Requirement for a particular licensed area, its authorization for each license area in which it fails to meet the Final Buildout Requirement shall terminate automatically without Commission action and the licensee will be ineligible to regain it if the Commission makes the license available at a later date.
(6) * * *
(i) The level and quality of service provided by the applicant (including the population served, the area served, the number of subscribers, the services offered);
(s) The following provisions apply to any licensee holding an AWS authorization in the 1695–1710 MHz, 1755–1780 MHz, and 2155–2180 MHz bands:
(1) A licensee shall provide reliable signal coverage and offer service within six (6) years from the date of the initial license to at least forty (40) percent of the population in each of its licensed areas (“Interim Buildout Requirement”).
(2) A licensee shall provide reliable signal coverage and offer service within twelve (12) years from the date of the initial license to at least seventy-five (75) percent of the population in each of its licensed areas (“Final Buildout Requirement”).
(3) If a licensee fails to establish that it meets the Interim Buildout Requirement for a particular licensed area, then the Final Buildout Requirement (in this paragraph (s)) and the AWS license term (as set forth in § 27.13(k)) for each license area in which it fails to meet the Interim Buildout Requirement shall be accelerated by two (2) years (from twelve (12) to ten (10) years).
(4) If a licensee fails to establish that it meets the Final Buildout Requirement for a particular licensed area, its authorization for each license area in which it fails to meet the Final Buildout Requirement shall terminate automatically without Commission action and the licensee will be ineligible to regain it if the Commission makes the license available at a later date.
(5) To demonstrate compliance with these performance requirements, licensees shall use the most recently available U.S. Census Data at the time of measurement and shall base their measurements of population served on areas no larger than the Census Tract level. The population within a specific Census Tract (or other acceptable identifier) will be deemed served by the licensee only if it provides signal coverage to and offers service within the specific Census Tract (or other acceptable identifier). To the extent the Census Tract (or other acceptable identifier) extends beyond the boundaries of a license area, a licensee with authorizations for such areas may include only the population within the Census Tract (or other acceptable identifier) towards meeting the performance requirement of a single,
(6) An applicant for renewal of a license covered by paragraph (s) of this section must make a renewal showing, independent of its performance requirements, as a condition of each renewal. The showing must include a detailed description of the applicant's provision of service during the entire license period and address:
(i) The level and quality of service provided by the applicant (including the population served, the area served, the number of subscribers, the services offered);
(ii) The date service commenced, whether service was ever interrupted, and the duration of any interruption or outage;
(iii) The extent to which service is provided to rural areas;
(iv) The extent to which service is provided to qualifying tribal land as defined in § 1.2110(f)(3)(i) of this chapter; and
(v) Any other factors associated with the level of service to the public.
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Except for WCS licensees holding authorizations for Block A in the 698–704 MHz and 728–734 MHz bands, Block B in the 704–710 MHz and 734–740 MHz bands, Block E in the 722–728 MHz band, or Blocks C, C1, and C2 in the 746–757 MHz and 776–787 MHz bands; and for licensees holding AWS authorizations in the 1915–1920 MHz and 1995–2000 MHz bands, the 2000–2020 MHz and 2180–2200 MHz bands; or the 1695–1710 MHz, 1755–1780 MHz and 2155–2180 MHz bands, the following rules apply to WCS and AWS licensees holding authorizations for purposes of implementing the construction requirements set forth in § 27.14. * * *
(iii) For licensees holding AWS authorizations in the 1915–1920 MHz and 1995–2000 MHz bands, or the 2000–2020 MHz and 2180–2200 MHz bands, or the 1695–1710 MHz, 1755–1780 MHz and 2155–2180 MHz bands, the following rules apply for purposes of implementing the construction requirements set forth in § 27.14. Each party to a geographic partitioning must individually meet any service-specific performance requirements (i.e., construction and operation requirements). If a partitioner or partitionee fails to meet any service-specific performance requirements on or before the required date, then the consequences for this failure shall be those enumerated in § 27.14(q) for 2000–2020 MHz and 2180–2200 MHz licenses, those enumerated in § 27.14(r) for 1915–1920 MHz and 1995–2000 MHz licenses, and those enumerated in § 27.14(s) for 1695–1710 MHz, 1755–1780 MHz and 2155–2180 MHz licenses.
(2) * * *
(i) Except for WCS licensees holding authorizations for Block A in the 698–704 MHz and 728–734 MHz bands, Block B in the 704–710 MHz and 734–740 MHz bands, Block E in the 722–728 MHz band, or Blocks C, C1, and C2 in the 746–757 MHz and 776–787 MHz bands; and for licensees holding AWS authorizations in the 1915–1920 MHz and 1995–2000 MHz bands, the 2000–2020 MHz and 2180–2200 MHz bands or the 1695–1710 MHz, 1755–1780 MHz and 2155–2180 MHz bands; the following rules apply to WCS and AWS licensees holding authorizations for purposes of implementing the construction requirements set forth in § 27.14. * * *
(iii) For licensees holding AWS authorizations in the 1915–1920 MHz and 1995–2000 MHz bands, or the 2000–2020 MHz and 2180–2200 MHz bands, or the 1695–1710 MHz, 1755–1780 MHz and 2155–2180 MHz bands, the following rules apply for purposes of implementing the construction requirements set forth in § 27.14. Each party to a spectrum disaggregation must individually meet any service-specific performance requirements (i.e., construction and operation requirements). If a disaggregator or a disaggregatee fails to meet any service-specific performance requirements on or before the required date, then the consequences for this failure shall be those enumerated in § 27.14(q) for 2000–2020 MHz and 2180–2200 MHz licenses, those enumerated in § 27.14(r) for 1915–1920 MHz and 1995–2000 MHz licenses, and those enumerated in § 27.14(s) for 1695–1710 MHz, 1755–1780 MHz and 2155–2180 MHz.
(a)
(1) After the interim buildout deadline as specified in § 27.14(r) or (s), as applicable (where the licensee meets the interim buildout requirement), or after the accelerated final buildout deadline (where the licensee failed to meet the interim buildout requirement).
(2) After the AWS–4 final buildout deadline as specified in § 27.14(q)(1) (where the licensee meets the AWS–4 interim buildout requirement), or after the accelerated final buildout deadline specified in § 27.14(q)(3) (where the licensee failed to meet its AWS–4 interim buildout requirement).
(b) For licensees with common carrier or non-common carrier regulatory status that hold AWS authorizations in the 1695–1710 MHz, 1755–1780 MHz, 1915–1920 MHz, 1995–2000 MHz, 2000–2020 MHz, 2155–2180 MHz, and 2180–2200 MHz bands, permanent discontinuance of service is defined as 180 consecutive days during which a licensee does not provide service to at least one subscriber that is not affiliated with, controlled by, or related to the licensee. For licensees with private, internal regulatory status that hold AWS authorizations in the 1695–1710 MHz, 1755–1780 MHz, 1915–1920 MHz, 1995–2000 MHz, 2000–2020 MHz, 2155–2180 MHz, and 2180–2200 MHz bands, permanent discontinuance of service is defined as 180 consecutive days during which a licensee does not operate.
(c)
(d) The following power and antenna height requirements apply to stations transmitting in the 1695–1710 MHz, 1710–1755 MHz, 1755–1780 MHz, 1915–1920 MHz, 1995–2000 MHz, 2000–2020 MHz, 2110–2155 MHz, 2155–2180 MHz and 2180–2200 MHz bands:
(1) The power of each fixed or base station transmitting in the 1995–2000 MHz, 2110–2155 MHz, 2155–2180 MHz or 2180–2200 MHz band and located in any county with population density of 100 or fewer persons per square mile, based upon the most recently available population statistics from the Bureau of the Census, is limited to:
(i) An equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP) of 3280 watts when transmitting with an emission bandwidth of 1 MHz or less;
(ii) An EIRP of 3280 watts/MHz when transmitting with an emission bandwidth greater than 1 MHz.
(2) The power of each fixed or base station transmitting in the 1995–2000 MHz, the 2110–2155 MHz 2155–2180 MHz band, or 2180–2200 MHz band and situated in any geographic location other than that described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section is limited to:
(i) An equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP) of 1640 watts when transmitting with an emission bandwidth of 1 MHz or less;
(ii) An EIRP of 1640 watts/MHz when transmitting with an emission bandwidth greater than 1 MHz.
(3) A licensee operating a base or fixed station in the 2110–2155 MHz band utilizing a power greater than 1640 watts EIRP and greater than 1640 watts/MHz EIRP must coordinate such operations in advance with all Government and non-Government satellite entities in the 2025–2110 MHz band. A licensee operating a base or fixed station in the 2110–2180 MHz band utilizing power greater than 1640 watts EIRP and greater than 1640 watts/MHz EIRP must be coordinated in advance with the following licensees authorized to operate within 120 kilometers (75 miles) of the base or fixed station operating in this band: All Broadband Radio Service (BRS) licensees authorized under this part in the 2155–2160 MHz band and all advanced wireless services (AWS) licensees authorized to operate on adjacent frequency blocks in the 2110–2180 MHz band.
(4) Fixed, mobile, and portable (hand-held) stations operating in the 1710–1755 MHz band and mobile and portable stations operating in the 1695–1710 MHz and 1755–1780 MHz bands are limited to 1 watt EIRP. Fixed stations operating in the 1710–1755 MHz band are limited to a maximum antenna height of 10 meters above ground. Mobile and portable stations operating in these bands must employ a means for limiting power to the minimum necessary for successful communications.
(h) * * *
(1)
(a) * * *
(1) 1995–2000 MHz, 2110–2155, 2155–2180, 2180–2200, 2305–2320, and 2345–2360 MHz bands: 47 dBμV/m.
(c) Operation in the 1695–1710 MHz, 1710–1755 MHz, 1755–1780 MHz, 1915–1920 MHz, 1995–2000 MHz, 2000–2020 MHz, 2110–2155 MHz, 2155–2180 MHz, and 2180–2200 MHz bands is subject to international agreements with Mexico and Canada.
(a)(1) Mobile and portable stations that operate on any portion of frequencies in the paired 1755–1780 MHz and 2155–2180 MHz band must be capable of operating on all frequencies in the paired 1710–1780 MHz and 2110–2180 MHz band, using the same air interfaces that the equipment utilizes on any frequencies in the paired 1710–1780 MHz and 2110–2180 MHz band.
(2) [Reserved]
(b) The basic interoperability requirement in paragraph (a) of this section does not require a licensee to use any particular industry standard. Devices may also contain functions that are not operational in U.S. Territories.
Mobile and portable stations in the 1695–1710 MHz and 1755–1780 MHz bands may operate only when under the control of a base station. Base stations that enable mobile or portable equipment to operate in the 1695–1710 MHz and 1755–1780 MHz band are subject to prior coordination requirements. See § 27.1134 (Protection of Federal Government operations).
Mutually exclusive initial applications for 1695–1710 MHz, 1755–1780 MHz, and 2155–2180 MHz band licenses are subject to competitive bidding. The general competitive bidding procedures set forth in 47 CFR part 1, subpart Q will apply unless otherwise provided in this subpart.
Eligibility for small business provisions:
(a)
(2) A very small business is an entity that, together with its affiliates, its controlling interests, the affiliates of its controlling interests, and the entities
(b)
Part 22, subpart E and part 101, subpart B of this chapter contain provisions governing the relocation of incumbent fixed microwave service licensees in the 2110–2150 MHz and 2160–2200 MHz bands.
All AWS licensees, prior to initiating operations from any base or fixed station, must coordinate their frequency usage with co-channel and adjacent-channel incumbent, 47 CFR part 101 fixed-point-to-point microwave licensees operating in the 2110–2150 MHz and 2160–2200 MHz bands. Coordination shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of § 24.237 of this chapter.
All AWS licensees, prior to initiating operations from any base or fixed station in the 2110–2180 MHz band, shall follow the provisions of § 27.1255.
(c)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(f)
(1)
(i)
(ii)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule; supplemental.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), proposed in an earlier document to establish annual hunting regulations for certain migratory game birds for the 2014–15 hunting season. This supplement to the proposed rule provides the regulatory schedule, announces the Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee and Flyway Council meetings, and provides Flyway Council recommendations resulting from their March meetings.
•
•
We will not accept emailed or faxed comments. We will post all comments on
Ron W. Kokel, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, MS MBSP–4107–ARLSQ, 1849 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20240; (703) 358–1714.
On April 30, 2014, we published in the
The Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee (SRC) will meet June 25–26, 2014, to review information on the current status of migratory shore and upland game birds and develop 2014–15 migratory game bird regulations recommendations for these species, plus regulations for migratory game birds in Alaska, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. The Committee will also develop regulations recommendations for September waterfowl seasons in designated States, special sea duck seasons in the Atlantic Flyway, and extended falconry seasons. In addition, the Committee will review and discuss preliminary information on the status of waterfowl.
At the July 30–31, 2014, meetings, the Committee will review information on the current status of waterfowl and develop 2014–15 migratory game bird regulations recommendations for regular waterfowl seasons and other species and seasons not previously discussed at the early-season meetings. In addition, the Committee will develop recommendations for the 2015 spring/summer migratory bird subsistence season in Alaska.
In accordance with Departmental policy, these meetings are open to public observation. You may submit written comments to the Service on the matters discussed.
Service representatives will be present at the individual meetings of the four Flyway Councils this July. Although agendas are not yet available, these meetings usually commence at 8 a.m. on the days indicated.
This supplemental rulemaking describes Flyway Council recommended changes based on the preliminary proposals published in the April 30, 2014,
We seek additional information and comments on the recommendations in this supplemental proposed rule. New proposals and modifications to previously described proposals are discussed below. Wherever possible, they are discussed under headings corresponding to the numbered items identified in the April 30 proposed rule. Only those categories requiring your attention or for which we received Flyway Council recommendations are discussed below.
Duck harvest management categories are: (A) General Harvest Strategy; (B)
The Central Flyway Council recommended that two additional blue-winged teal be allowed in the daily duck bag for the first 16 days of the regular duck season in the production States of North and South Dakota, Montana, and Wyoming. The season would be evaluated over the first 3 years, beginning with the 2014–15 hunting season. The Council also recommended allowing an experimental September teal season in the portion of Nebraska not currently open to September teal hunting. Criteria for the experimental season would be the same as for other non-production States, and the state of Nebraska will work with the Service to develop an evaluation plan for the experiment.
The Mississippi Flyway Council recommended that the teal bag limit during Kentucky and Tennessee's September teal/wood duck seasons be the same as that permitted in other States with September teal-only seasons. The Council further recommended that States with September teal/wood duck seasons (Kentucky and Tennessee) be permitted to add additional teal-only days to their September teal/wood duck seasons. In years when the teal harvest strategy calls for a 9-day teal season, those States would maintain their current 5-day wood duck/teal season. In years when the teal harvest strategy calls for a 16-day teal season, those States would add 4 additional teal-only days to their current 5-day teal/wood duck season.
The Central and Pacific Flyway Councils recommended the expansion of an existing Rocky Mountain Population (RMP) sandhill crane hunting unit in southwestern Montana (the Dillon/Twin Bridges/Cardwell hunt area to include all of Madison and Gallatin Counties). The Councils also recommended using the 2014 RMP sandhill crane harvest allocation of 676 birds as proposed in the allocation formula using the 3-year running population average for 2011–13.
The Mississippi and Central Flyway Councils recommend the use of the “standard” season package of a 15-bird daily bag limit and a 70-day season for the 2014–15 mourning dove season in the States within the Central Management Unit.
The Pacific Flyway Council recommended use of the “standard” season framework for States in the Western Management Unit (WMU) population of doves. In Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Washington, the season length would be no more than 60 consecutive days with a daily bag limit of 15 mourning and white-winged doves in the aggregate. In Arizona and California, the season length would be no more than 60 consecutive days, which could be split between two periods, September 1–15 and November 1–January 15. In Arizona, during the first segment of the season, the daily bag
The Atlantic, Mississippi, Central, and Pacific Flyway Councils also recommended that the Service use a 3-year running average to calculate the predicted dove abundance in the annual assessment of the status of mourning doves in support of the regulation-setting process under the dove harvest strategy beginning with the 2015–16 hunting season.
1. Splitting the “Dark Geese” framework into separate frameworks for Canada geese and white-fronted geese.
2. For both Canada geese and white-fronted geese, the basic framework for season dates, outside dates, zones, and daily bag and possession limits remains the same as it was under “Dark Geese.”
3. In Unit 18, in western Alaska, white-fronted geese daily bag and possession limits would be increased from a dark goose daily bag limit of 4 birds, 12 in possession, to a white-fronted goose daily bag limit of 8 birds, 24 in possession.
4. In Units 6C and Hawkins and Hinchinbrook Islands in 6D, if dusky Canada geese exceed the population threshold to return to Action Level 1 status (3-year average based on May 2011, 2012, and 2014 survey), then implement Action Level 1 regulations as stated in the Dusky Canada Goose Management Plan and eliminate requirements for a special permit hunt and harvest quota, but maintain possession limits at 2 times the daily bag limit.
The Department of the Interior's policy is, whenever practicable, to afford the public an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process. Accordingly, we invite interested persons to submit written comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the proposed regulations. Before promulgation of final migratory game bird hunting regulations, we will take into consideration all comments we receive. Such comments, and any additional information we receive, may lead to final regulations that differ from these proposals.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposed rule by one of the methods listed in the
We will post all comments in their entirety—including your personal identifying information—on
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing the proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on
For each series of proposed rulemakings, we will establish specific comment periods. We will consider, but possibly may not respond in detail to, each comment. As in the past, we will summarize all comments we receive during the comment period and respond to them after the closing date in any final rules.
Based on our most current data, we are affirming our required determinations made in the proposed rule; for descriptions of our actions to ensure compliance with the following statutes and Executive Orders, see our April 30, 2014, proposed rule (79 FR 24512):
• National Environmental Policy Act;
• Endangered Species Act;
• Regulatory Planning and Review;
• Regulatory Flexibility Act;
• Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act;
• Paperwork Reduction Act;
• Unfunded Mandates Reform Act;
• Executive Orders 12630, 12988, 13175, 13132, and 13211.
Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
The rules that eventually will be promulgated for the 2014–15 hunting season are authorized under 16 U.S.C. 703–711, 16 U.S.C. 712, and 16 U.S.C. 742 a–j.