Agricultural Marketing Service
Economic Development Administration
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Army Department
Defense Acquisition Regulations System
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Management and Budget Office
Commission of Fine Arts
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Children and Families Administration
Community Living Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
Justice Programs Office
Employee Benefits Security Administration
Employment and Training Administration
Management and Budget Office
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this page for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Interim rule with request for comments.
This rule decreases the assessment rate established for the California Date Administrative Committee (Committee) for the 2014–15 and subsequent crop years from $0.40 to $0.20 per hundredweight of dates handled. The Committee locally administers the marketing order, which regulates the handling of dates grown or packed in Riverside County, California. Assessments upon date handlers are used by the Committee to fund reasonable and necessary expenses of the program. The crop year begins October 1 and ends September 30. The assessment rate will remain in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated.
Effective October 1, 2014. Comments received by October 27, 2014 will be considered prior to issuance of a final rule.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this rule. Comments must be sent to the Docket Clerk, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250–0237; Fax: (202) 720–8938; or Internet:
Terry Vawter, Senior Marketing Specialist, or Martin Engeler, Regional Director, California Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (559) 487–5901, Fax: (559) 487–5906, or Email:
Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Jeffrey Smutny, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250–0237; Telephone: (202) 720–2491, Fax: (202) 720–8938, or Email:
This rule is issued under Marketing Agreement and Order No. 987, both as amended (7 CFR Part 987), regulating the handling of dates produced or packed in Riverside County, California, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601–674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13175.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the marketing order now in effect, Riverside County, California date handlers are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the order are derived from such assessments. It is intended that the assessment rate as issued herein will be applicable to all assessable dates beginning October 1, 2014, and continue until amended, suspended, or terminated.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
This rule decreases the assessment rate established for the Committee for the 2014–15 and subsequent crop years from $0.40 to $0.20 per hundredweight of dates.
The California date marketing order provides authority for the Committee, with the approval of USDA, to formulate an annual budget of expenses and collect assessments from handlers to administer the program (7 CFR 987.72). The members of the Committee are date producers and handlers from Riverside County, California. They are familiar with the Committee's needs and the costs of goods and services in their local area and are thus in a position to formulate an appropriate budget and assessment rate. The assessment rate is formulated and discussed in a public meeting. Thus, all directly affected persons have an opportunity to participate and provide input.
The Committee met on June 25, 2014, and unanimously recommended 2014–15 expenditures of $56,200, and an assessment rate of $0.20 per hundredweight of Riverside County, California dates. In comparison, last year's budgeted expenditures were $97,700. The assessment rate of $0.20 is $0.20 lower than the rate currently in effect.
The Committee recommended a lower assessment rate because of a significant decrease in its budgeted expenses. The industry shifted its marketing programs from the Committee to the California Date Commission, a California State marketing program, beginning October 1, 2013. As such costs continue to shift to the State marketing program, the
Income generated from the lower assessment rate, combined with cull surplus contributions, and carry-in funds from the 2013–14 crop year should be sufficient to cover anticipated 2014–15 expenses.
Proceeds from sales of cull dates are deposited into a surplus account for subsequent use by the Committee in covering the surplus pool share of the Committee's expenses. Handlers may also dispose of cull dates of their own production within their own livestock-feeding operation; otherwise, such cull dates must be shipped or delivered to the Committee for sale to non-human food product outlets. Pursuant to § 987.72(c), the Committee is authorized to temporarily use funds derived from assessments to defray expenses incurred in disposing of surplus dates. All such expenses are required to be deducted from proceeds obtained by the Committee from the disposal of surplus dates. For the 2014–15 crop year, the Committee estimates that $5,000 from the surplus account would be needed to temporarily defray expenses incurred in disposing of surplus dates.
The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2014–15 crop year include: $56,200 for general and administrative expenses, and $2,800 in contingency funds. In comparison, the major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2013–14 crop year included: $58,200 for general and administrative expenses, $20,000 for nutrition and food quality programs, and $19,500 for contingency funds.
The assessment rate of $0.20 per hundredweight of dates handled was recommended by the Committee after considering several factors: the anticipated size of the 2014–15 crop, the Committee's estimates of the incoming reserve, other income, and anticipated expenses. Date shipments for the year are estimated at 27,000,000 pounds (270,000 hundredweight) which should provide $54,000 in assessment income. Income derived from handler assessments, along with a $5,000 reimbursement for the cost of disposing of surplus culls, should be adequate to cover budgeted expenses. Section 987.72(d) of the order states that the Committee may maintain a monetary reserve not to exceed the average of one year's expenses incurred during the most recent five preceding crop years, except that an established reserve need not be reduced to conform to any recomputed average. The Committee expects to carry a $60,000 reserve into the 2014–15 crop year. It expects to add $2,800 to the reserve during the year, for a carryout of approximately $62,800, which is below the limit specified in the order.
The assessment rate established in this rule will continue in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other available information.
Although this assessment rate is effective for an indefinite period, the Committee will continue to meet prior to or during each crop year to recommend a budget of expenses and consider recommendations for modification of the assessment rate. The dates and times of Committee meetings are available from the Committee or USDA. Committee meetings are open to the public and interested persons may express their views at these meetings.
USDA will evaluate Committee recommendations and other available information to determine whether modification of the assessment rate is needed. Further rulemaking will be undertaken as necessary. The Committee's 2014–15 budget and those for subsequent crop years will be reviewed and, as appropriate, approved by USDA.
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601–612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this initial regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.
There are approximately 70 date producers in the production area and 11 handlers subject to regulation under the marketing order. The Small Business Administration defines small agricultural producers as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000, and small agricultural service firms as those whose annual receipts are less than $7,000,000. (13 CFR 121.201)
According to the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), data for the most-recently completed crop year (2012) shows that about 4.04 tons, or 8,080 pounds, of dates were produced per acre. The 2012 grower price published by NASS was $1,340 per ton, or $0.67 per pound. Thus, the value of date production per acre in 2011–12 averaged about $5,414 (8,080 pounds times $0.67 per pound). At that average price, a producer would have to farm over 138 acres to receive an annual income from dates of $750,000 ($750,000 divided by $5,414 per acre equals 138.53 acres). According to Committee staff, the majority of California date producers farm less than 138 acres. Thus, it can be concluded that the majority of date producers could be considered small entities. In addition, according to data from the Committee staff, the majority of California date handlers have receipts of less than $7,000,000 and may also be considered small entities.
This rule decreases the assessment rate established for the Committee and collected from handlers for the 2014–15 and subsequent crop years from $0.40 to $0.20 per hundredweight of dates handled. The Committee unanimously recommended 2014–15 expenditures of $56,200 and an assessment rate of $0.20 per hundredweight of dates, which is $0.20 lower than the 2013–14 rate currently in effect. The quantity of assessable dates for the 2014–15 crop year is estimated at 27,000,000 pounds (270,000 hundredweight). Thus, the $0.20 rate should provide $54,000 in assessment income. Income derived from handler's assessments, along with the $5,000 contribution from the surplus program, should be adequate to cover expenses for the 2014–15 crop year.
The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2014–15 crop year include: $56,200 for general and administrative expenses, and $2,800 in contingency funds. In comparison, the major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2013–14 crop year include: $58,200 for general and administrative expenses, $20,000 for nutrition and food quality programs, and $19,500 for contingency funds.
The Committee recommended a lower assessment rate because the industry began shifting its marketing programs to the State marketing program, the California Date Commission, beginning October 1, 2013. The migration of costs to the State marketing program has continued. Thus, less assessment revenue is needed to fund Committee operations under the order.
Section 987.72(d) of the order states that the Committee may maintain a monetary reserve not to exceed the average of one year's expenses incurred during the most recent five preceding crop years, except that an established
The Committee reviewed and unanimously recommended 2014–15 crop year expenditures of $56,200. Prior to arriving at this budget, the Committee considered information from various sources, such as the Committee's Budget Subcommittee. Alternative expenditure levels and assessment rates were discussed by the subcommittee, based upon the relative value of various projects to the date industry and the Committee. The assessment rate of $0.20 per hundredweight of dates was then recommended after consideration of several factors, including the anticipated 2014–15 crop size, the Committee's estimates of the incoming reserve funds, other income, and their anticipated expenses.
A review of historical and preliminary information pertaining to the upcoming crop year indicates that the grower price for the 2014–15 crop year could range between $45.00 and $55.00 per hundredweight of dates. Utilizing these estimates and the assessment rate of $0.20 per hundredweight, the estimated assessment revenue for the 2014–15 crop year as a percentage of total grower revenue could range between 0.36 and 0.44 percent.
This action decreases the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. Assessments are applied uniformly on all handlers, and some of the costs may be passed on to producers. However, decreasing the assessment rate reduces the burden on handlers, and may reduce the burden on producers. In addition, the Committee's and subcommittee's meetings were widely publicized throughout the California date industry, and all interested persons were invited to attend the meetings and encouraged to participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the June 25, 2014, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue. Industry members also discussed the various possible assessment rates, potential crop size, and estimated expenses at the Budget Subcommittee meeting on June 4, 2014. Finally, interested persons are invited to submit comments on this interim rule, including the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small businesses.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581–0178, “Vegetable and Specialty Crop Marketing Orders.” No changes in those requirements as a result of this action are necessary. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.
This action imposes no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large Riverside County, California date handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.
AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule.
A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at:
After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the information and recommendation submitted by the Committee and other available information, it is hereby found that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is also found and determined upon good cause that it is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest to give preliminary notice prior to putting this rule into effect, and that good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the
Dates, Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 987 is amended as follows:
7 U.S.C. 601–674.
On and after October 1, 2014, an assessment rate of $0.20 per hundredweight is established for Riverside County, California dates.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Affirmation of interim rule as final rule.
The Department of Agriculture is adopting, as a final rule, without change, an interim rule that extended the temporary exemption of yellow fleshed and white skin (white types) potatoes from minimum quality, maturity, pack, marking, and inspection requirements under the Washington potato marketing order through the 2014–2015 and subsequent fiscal periods. This rule is expected to reduce overall industry expenses and increase
Effective August 28, 2014.
Teresa Hutchinson, Marketing Specialist, or Gary Olson, Regional Director, Northwest Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (503) 326–2724, Fax: (503) 326–7440, or Email:
Small businesses may obtain information on complying with this and other marketing order regulations by viewing a guide at the following Web site:
This rule is issued under Marketing Order No. 946, as amended (7 CFR part 946), regulating the handling of Irish potatoes grown in Washington, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601–674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13175.
The handling of Irish potatoes grown in Washington is regulated by 7 CFR part 946. This rule continues in effect the interim rule that extended the temporary exemption of yellow fleshed and white types of potatoes from the order's handling regulations through the 2014–2015 and subsequent fiscal periods. This rule allows the Washington potato industry to continue to market yellow fleshed and white types of potatoes without regard to the minimum quality, maturity, pack, marking, and inspection requirements prescribed under the order.
In an interim rule published in the
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601–612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.
There are 43 handlers of Washington potatoes subject to regulation under the order and approximately 267 producers in the regulated production area. Small agricultural service firms are defined by the Small Business Administration as those having annual receipts of less than $7,000,000, and small agricultural producers are defined as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000 (13 CFR 121.201).
For the 2011–2012 marketing year, the Committee reports that 11,018,670 hundredweight of Washington potatoes were shipped into the fresh market. Based on average f.o.b. prices estimated by the USDA's Economic Research Service and Committee data on individual handler shipments, the Committee estimates that 42, or approximately 98 percent of the handlers, had annual receipts of less than $7,000,000.
In addition, based on information provided by the National Agricultural Statistics Service, the average producer price for Washington potatoes for 2011–2012 was $7.90 per hundredweight. The average gross annual revenue for the 267 Washington potato producers is therefore calculated to be approximately $326,021. In view of the foregoing, the majority of Washington potato handlers and producers may be classified as small entities.
This rule continues in effect the action that extended the temporary exemption of yellow fleshed and white types of potatoes from the handling regulations through the 2014–2015 and subsequent fiscal periods. This rule amends the provisions in § 946.336. Authority for the change in the order's rules and regulations is provided in § 946.52.
The Committee does not anticipate that this rule will negatively impact small businesses. This rule will exempt yellow fleshed and white types of potatoes from minimum quality, maturity, pack, marking, and inspection requirements. Though inspections are not mandatory for such potatoes during the exemption period, handlers may voluntarily choose to have their potatoes inspected. Handlers are thus able to control costs based on the demands of their customers.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581–0178, Generic Vegetable and Specialty Crops. No changes in those requirements as a result of this action are necessary. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.
During the exemption period, handlers will continue to be required to report fresh shipments of yellow fleshed and white types of potatoes monthly. While this rule requires a reporting requirement for shipments of yellow fleshed and white types of potatoes, their exemption from handling regulations also eliminates the more frequent reporting requirements imposed under the order's special purpose shipment exemptions (§ 946.336(d) and (e)). Under these paragraphs, handlers are required to provide detailed reports whenever they divert regulated potatoes for livestock feed, charity, seed, prepeeling, processing, grading and storing in specified counties in Oregon, and experimentation.
Therefore, any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large handlers of yellow fleshed and white types of potatoes are expected to be offset by the elimination of the other reporting requirements currently in effect. In addition, the exemption from handling regulations and inspection requirements for yellow fleshed and white types of potatoes is expected to reduce industry expenses.
As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. In addition, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or conflict with this rule.
Further, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the Washington potato industry and all
Comments on the interim rule were required to be received on or before July 7, 2014. No comments were received. Therefore, for the reasons given in the interim rule, we are adopting the interim rule as a final rule, without change.
To view the interim rule, go to:
This action also affirms information contained in the interim rule concerning Executive Orders 12866, 12988, 13175, and 13563; the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35); and the E-Gov Act (44 U.S.C. 101).
After consideration of all relevant material presented, it is found that finalizing the interim rule, without change as published in the
Marketing agreements, Potatoes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 900EX airplanes. This AD was prompted by our determination of the need for a revision to the airplane airworthiness limitations to introduce a corrosion prevention control program, among other changes, to the maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations. This AD requires revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to include the maintenance tasks and airworthiness limitations specified in the Airworthiness Limitations section of the airplane maintenance manual. We are issuing this AD to prevent reduced structural integrity of the airplane, and prevent reduced controllability of the airplane.
This AD becomes effective October 1, 2014.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of October 1, 2014.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
For service information identified in this AD, contact Dassault Falcon Jet, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone 201–440–6700; Internet
Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; telephone 425–227–1137; fax 425–227–1149.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 900EX airplanes. The NPRM published in the
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013–0052, dated March 4, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 900EX airplanes. The MCAI states:
The airworthiness limitations and maintenance requirements for the Falcon 900EX type design relating to Falcon 900EX Easy, Falcon 900LX and Falcon 900DX variants, are included in Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) chapter 5–40 and are approved by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA).
EASA issued AD 2008–0221 [
Since that [EASA] AD was issued, Dassault Aviation issued revision 7 of Falcon 900EX Easy/900LX/900DX AMM chapter 5–40, which contains new or more restrictive maintenance requirements and/or airworthiness limitations and introduces, among others, the following changes:
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires the implementation of the maintenance tasks and airworthiness limitations, as specified in the Dassault Aviation Falcon 900EX Easy/900LX/900DX AMM chapter 5–40 DGT 113875 at revision 7.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (79 FR 17942, March 31, 2014) or on the determination of the cost to the public.
Since late 2006, we have included a standard paragraph titled “Airworthy Product” in all MCAI ADs in which the FAA develops an AD based on a foreign authority's AD.
The MCAI or referenced service information in an FAA AD often directs the owner/operator to contact the manufacturer for corrective actions, such as a repair. Briefly, the Airworthy Product paragraph allowed owners/operators to use corrective actions provided by the manufacturer if those actions were FAA-approved. In addition, the paragraph stated that any actions approved by the State of Design Authority (or its delegated agent) are considered to be FAA-approved.
In the NPRM (79 FR 17942, March 31, 2014), we proposed to prevent the use of repairs that were not specifically developed to correct the unsafe condition, by requiring that the repair approval provided by the State of Design Authority or its delegated agent specifically refer to this FAA AD. This change was intended to clarify the method of compliance and to provide operators with better visibility of repairs that are specifically developed and approved to correct the unsafe condition. In addition, we proposed to change the phrase “its delegated agent” to include a design approval holder (DAH) with State of Design Authority design organization approval (DOA), as applicable, to refer to a DAH authorized to approve required repairs for the proposed AD.
No comments were provided to the NPRM (79 FR 17942, March 31, 2014) about these proposed changes. However, a comment was provided for an NPRM having Directorate Identifier 2012–NM–101–AD (78 FR 78285, December 26, 2013). The commenter stated the following: “The proposed wording, being specific to repairs, eliminates the interpretation that Airbus messages are acceptable for approving minor deviations (corrective actions) needed during accomplishment of an AD mandated Airbus service bulletin.”
This comment has made the FAA aware that some operators have misunderstood or misinterpreted the Airworthy Product paragraph to allow the owner/operator to use messages provided by the manufacturer as approval of deviations during the accomplishment of an AD-mandated action. The Airworthy Product paragraph does not approve messages or other information provided by the manufacturer for deviations to the requirements of the AD-mandated actions. The Airworthy Product paragraph only addresses the requirement to contact the manufacturer for corrective actions for the identified unsafe condition and does not cover deviations from other AD requirements. However, deviations to AD-required actions are addressed in 14 CFR 39.17, and anyone may request the approval for an alternative method of compliance to the AD-required actions using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
To address this misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the Airworthy Product paragraph, we have changed the paragraph and retitled it “Contacting the Manufacturer.” This paragraph now clarifies that for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the actions must be accomplished using a method approved by the FAA, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), or Dassault Aviation's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).
The Contacting the Manufacturer paragraph also clarifies that, if approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature. The DOA signature indicates that the data and information contained in the document are EASA-approved, which is also FAA-approved. Messages and other information provided by the manufacturer that do not contain the DOA-authorized signature approval are not EASA-approved, unless EASA directly approves the manufacturer's message or other information.
This clarification does not remove flexibility previously afforded by the Airworthy Product paragraph. Consistent with long-standing FAA policy, such flexibility was never intended for required actions. This is also consistent with the recommendation of the Airworthiness Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee to increase flexibility in complying with ADs by identifying those actions in manufacturers' service instructions that are “Required for Compliance” with ADs. We continue to work with manufacturers to implement this recommendation. But once we determine that an action is required, any deviation from the requirement must be approved as an alternative method of compliance.
Other commenters to the NPRM having Directorate Identifier 2012–NM–101–AD (78 FR 78285, December 26, 2013) pointed out that in many cases the foreign manufacturer's service bulletin and the foreign authority's MCAI might have been issued some time before the FAA AD. Therefore, the DOA might have provided U.S. operators with an approved repair, developed with full awareness of the unsafe condition, before the FAA AD is issued. Under these circumstances, to comply with the FAA AD, the operator would be required to go back to the manufacturer's DOA and obtain a new approval document, adding time and expense to the compliance process with no safety benefit.
Based on these comments, we removed the requirement that the DAH-provided repair specifically refer to this AD. Before adopting such a requirement, the FAA will coordinate with affected DAHs and verify they are prepared to implement means to ensure that their repair approvals consider the unsafe condition addressed in this AD. Any such requirements will be adopted through the normal AD rulemaking process, including notice-and-comment procedures, when appropriate.
We also have decided not to include a generic reference to either the “delegated agent” or “DAH with State of Design Authority design organization approval,” but instead we have provided the specific delegation approval granted by the State of Design Authority for the DAH throughout this AD.
We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 17942, March 31, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 17942, March 31, 2014).
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.
We estimate that this AD affects 78 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD becomes effective October 1, 2014.
This AD affects AD 2002–23–20, Amendment 39–12964 (67 FR 71098, November 29, 2002); and AD 2010–26–05, Amendment 39–16544 (75 FR 79952, December 21, 2010).
This AD applies to Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 900EX airplanes, certificated in any category, serial number (S/N) 97 and S/N 120 and higher (Falcon 900EX Easy, Falcon 900LX and Falcon 900DX variants).
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/Maintenance Checks.
This AD was prompted by a revision to the airplane airworthiness limitations to introduce the corrosion prevention control program, among other changes, to the maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations. We are issuing this AD to prevent reduced structural integrity of the airplane, and prevent reduced controllability of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the information specified in Chapter 5–40, Airworthiness Limitations, DGT 113875, Revision 7, dated September 2012, of the Falcon 900 EX EASy, Falcon 900LX, and Falcon 900 DX Maintenance Manual. The initial compliance time for accomplishing the actions specified in Chapter 5–40, Airworthiness Limitations, DGT 113875, Revision 7, dated September 2012, of the Falcon 900 EX EASy, Falcon 900LX, and Falcon 900 DX Maintenance Manual, is within the applicable times specified in the maintenance manual or 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, except as provided by paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(4) of this AD.
(1) The term “LDG” in the “First Inspection” column of any table in the service information means total airplane landings.
(2) The term “FH” in the “First Inspection” column of any table in the service information means total flight hours.
(3) The term “FC” in the “First Inspection” column of any table in the service information means total flight cycles.
(4) The term “M” in the “First Inspection” column of any table in the service information means months.
Accomplishing paragraph (g) of this AD terminates the requirements of paragraph (a) of AD 2002–23–20, Amendment 39–12964 (67 FR 71098, November 29, 2002); and paragraph (g)(1) of AD 2010–26–05, Amendment 39–16544 (75 FR 79952, December 21, 2010); for DASSAULT AVIATION Model FALCON 900EX airplanes, S/N 97 and S/N 120 and higher.
After accomplishing the revision required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals may be used unless the actions or intervals are approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013–0053, dated March 4, 2013, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Chapter 5–40, Airworthiness Limitations, DGT 113875, Revision 7, dated September 2012, of the Falcon 900 EX EASy, Falcon 900LX, and Falcon 900 DX Maintenance Manual.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Dassault Falcon Jet, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone 201–440–6700; Internet
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (Embraer) Model EMB–135BJ airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of failure of the bolts that connect the cockpit windshield center-post to the forward fuselage. This AD requires repetitive detailed inspections to detect discrepancies on the attaching parts of the cockpit windshield center-post; checking whether the bolts are tightened, if applicable; and modifying parts, including inspecting for and repairing damage. We are issuing this AD to prevent failed bolts and failed attaching parts of the cockpit windshield center-post, which could lead to loss of structural integrity of the airplane.
This AD becomes effective October 1, 2014.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of October 1, 2014.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
For service information identified in this AD, contact Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (Embraer), Technical Publications Section (PC 060), Av. Brigadeiro Faria Lima, 2170—Putim—12227–901 São Jose dos Campos—SP—BRASIL; telephone +55 12 3927–5852 or +55 12 3309–0732; fax +55 12 3927–7546; email
Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; telephone 425–227–1175; fax 425–227–1149.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (Embraer) Model EMB–135BJ airplanes. The NPRM published in the
The Agência Nacional de Aviação Civil (ANAC), which is the aviation authority for Brazil, has issued Brazilian Airworthiness Directive 2013–10–02, dated October 23, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition certain Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (Embraer) Model EMB–135BJ airplanes. The MCAI states:
This [Brazilian] AD was prompted by reports of failure of the bolts that connect the lower eyelet fitting of the cockpit windshield center-post to the forward fuselage. We are issuing this [Brazilian] AD to detect failed bolts and correct the attaching parts of the lower eyelet fitting of the cockpit windshield center-post, which could lead to loss of structural integrity of the airplane.
Required actions include repetitive detailed inspections for discrepancies on the attaching parts of the lower eyelet fitting of the cockpit windshield center-post; a bolt check, if applicable; and modification of the attaching parts of the lower eyelet fitting of the cockpit windshield center-post, including a general visual inspection for damage of the specified lower eyelet fitting and repair of the damage. The modification would terminate the repetitive detailed inspections. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (79 FR 21160, April 15, 2014) or on the determination of the cost to the public.
Since late 2006, we have included a standard paragraph titled “Airworthy Product” in all MCAI ADs in which the FAA develops an AD based on a foreign authority's AD.
The MCAI or referenced service information in an FAA AD often directs the owner/operator to contact the manufacturer for corrective actions, such as a repair. Briefly, the Airworthy Product paragraph allowed owners/operators to use corrective actions provided by the manufacturer if those actions were FAA-approved. In addition, the paragraph stated that any actions approved by the State of Design Authority (or its delegated agent) are considered to be FAA-approved.
In the NPRM (79 FR 21160, April 15, 2014), we proposed to prevent the use of repairs that were not specifically developed to correct the unsafe condition, by requiring that the repair approval provided by the State of Design Authority or its delegated agent specifically refer to this FAA AD. This change was intended to clarify the method of compliance and to provide operators with better visibility of repairs that are specifically developed and approved to correct the unsafe condition. In addition, we proposed to change the phrase “its delegated agent” to include a design approval holder (DAH) with State of Design Authority design organization approval (DOA), as applicable, to refer to a DAH authorized to approve required repairs for the proposed AD.
No comments were provided to the NPRM (79 FR 21160, April 15, 2014) about these proposed changes. However, a comment was provided for an NPRM having Directorate Identifier 2012–NM–101–AD (78 FR 78285, December 26, 2013). The commenter stated the following: “The proposed wording, being specific to repairs, eliminates the interpretation that Airbus messages are acceptable for approving minor deviations (corrective actions) needed during accomplishment of an AD mandated Airbus service bulletin.”
This comment has made the FAA aware that some operators have misunderstood or misinterpreted the Airworthy Product paragraph to allow the owner/operator to use messages provided by the manufacturer as approval of deviations during the accomplishment of an AD-mandated action. The Airworthy Product paragraph does not approve messages or other information provided by the manufacturer for deviations to the requirements of the AD-mandated actions. The Airworthy Product paragraph only addresses the requirement to contact the manufacturer for corrective actions for the identified unsafe condition and does not cover deviations from other AD requirements. However, deviations to AD-required actions are addressed in 14 CFR 39.17, and anyone may request the approval for an alternative method of compliance to the AD-required actions using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
To address this misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the Airworthy Product paragraph, we have changed that paragraph and retitled it “Contacting the Manufacturer.” This paragraph now clarifies that for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the FAA, ANAC, or ANAC's authorized Designee.
The Contacting the Manufacturer paragraph also clarifies that, if approved by the ANAC Designee, the approval must include the Designee's authorized signature. The Designee signature indicates that the data and information contained in the document are ANAC-approved, which is also FAA-approved. Messages and other information provided by the manufacturer that do not contain the ANAC Designee's authorized signature approval are not ANAC-approved, unless ANAC directly approves the manufacturer's message or other information.
This clarification does not remove flexibility previously afforded by the Airworthy Product paragraph. Consistent with long-standing FAA policy, such flexibility was never intended for required actions. This is also consistent with the recommendation of the Airworthiness Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee to increase flexibility in complying with ADs by identifying those actions in manufacturers' service instructions that are “Required for Compliance” with ADs. We continue to work with manufacturers to implement this recommendation. But once we determine that an action is required, any deviation from the requirement must be approved as an alternative method of compliance.
Other commenters to the NPRM having Directorate Identifier 2012–NM–101–AD (78 FR 78285, December 26, 2013) pointed out that in many cases the foreign manufacturer's service bulletin and the foreign authority's MCAI might have been issued some time before the FAA AD. Therefore, the DOA might have provided U.S. operators with an approved repair, developed with full awareness of the unsafe condition, before the FAA AD is issued. Under these circumstances, to comply with the FAA AD, the operator would be required to go back to the manufacturer's DOA and obtain a new approval document, adding time and expense to the compliance process with no safety benefit.
Based on these comments, we removed the requirement that the DAH-provided repair specifically refer to this AD. Before adopting such a requirement, the FAA will coordinate with affected DAHs and verify they are prepared to implement means to ensure that their repair approvals consider the unsafe condition addressed in this AD. Any such requirements will be adopted through the normal AD rulemaking process, including notice-and-comment procedures, when appropriate.
We also have decided not to include a generic reference to either the “delegated agent” or “DAH with State of Design Authority design organization approval,” but instead we have provided the specific delegation approval granted by the State of Design Authority for the DAH throughout this AD.
We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 21160, April 15, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 21160, April 15, 2014).
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.
We estimate that this AD affects 56 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it would take about 35 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work hour. Required parts would cost about $386 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD becomes effective October 1, 2014.
None.
This AD applies to Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (Embraer) Model EMB–135BJ airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Embraer Alert Service Bulletin 145LEG–53–A032, Revision 01, dated September 24, 2013.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by reports of failure of the bolts that connect the cockpit windshield center-post to the forward fuselage. We are issuing this AD to prevent failed bolts and failed attaching parts of the cockpit windshield center-post, which could lead to loss of structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
At the applicable time specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, do a detailed inspection to detect discrepancies on the attaching parts of the lower eyelet fitting of the cockpit windshield center-post and, if applicable, check whether the bolts are tightened, in accordance with Part I of the Accomplishment Instructions of Embraer Alert Service Bulletin 145LEG–53–A032, Revision 01, dated September 24, 2013. If any discrepancy is found or if any bolt is not tightened, do the actions specified in paragraph (h) of this AD before further flight. Repeat the detailed inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 50 flight cycles until the modification required by paragraph (h) of this AD is done.
(1) For airplanes identified as Group 1 in Embraer Alert Service Bulletin 145LEG–53–A032, Revision 01, dated September 24, 2013, on which the actions of Embraer Service Bulletin 145LEG–53–0021, has been done: Do the detailed inspection within 3,000 flight cycles after accomplishment of the actions of Embraer Service Bulletin 145LEG–53–0021, or within 50 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(2) For airplanes identified as Group 2 airplanes in Embraer Alert Service Bulletin 145LEG–53–A032, Revision 01, dated September 24, 2013: Do the detailed inspection before the accumulation of 3,000 total flight cycles, or within 50 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
Except as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, at the applicable time specified in paragraphs (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD, modify the attaching parts of the lower eyelet fitting of the cockpit windshield center-post, including a general visual inspection for any damage (cracks, dents, scratches) of the specified lower eyelet fitting, in accordance with Part II of the Accomplishment Instructions of Embraer Alert Service Bulletin 145LEG–53–A032, Revision 01, dated September 24, 2013. If any damage is found during the general visual inspection, before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or Agência Nacional de Aviação Civil (ANAC); or ANAC's authorized Designee. If approved by the ANAC Designee, the approval must include the Designee's authorized signature. Accomplishment of the modification terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
(1) For airplanes identified as Group 1 in Embraer Alert Service Bulletin 145LEG–53–A032, Revision 01, dated September 24, 2013, on which the actions specified in Embraer Service Bulletin 145LEG–53–0021, has been done: Do the modification before the accumulation of 3,000 flight cycles after doing the actions specified in Embraer Service Bulletin 145LEG–53–0021, or within 300 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(2) For airplanes identified as Group 2 in Embraer Alert Service Bulletin 145LEG–53–A032, Revision 01, dated September 24, 2013: Do the modification before the accumulation of 3,000 total flight cycles, or within 300 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM–116,
(2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or ANAC; or ANAC's authorized Designee. If approved by the ANAC Designee, the approval must include the Designee's authorized signature.
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Brazilian Airworthiness Directive 2013–10–02, dated October 23, 2013, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (l)(3) and (l)(4) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Embraer Alert Service Bulletin 145LEG–53–A032, Revision 01, dated September 24, 2013.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (Embraer), Technical Publications Section (PC 060), Av. Brigadeiro Faria Lima, 2170—Putim—12227–901 São Jose dos Campos—SP—BRASIL; telephone +55 12 3927–5852 or +55 12 3309–0732; fax +55 12 3927–7546; email
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 900EX airplanes. This AD was prompted by our determination to introduce a corrosion prevention control program, among other changes, to the maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations. This AD requires revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to include the maintenance tasks and airworthiness limitations specified in the Airworthiness Limitations section of the airplane maintenance manual. We are issuing this AD to prevent reduced structural integrity and reduced controllability of the airplane.
This AD becomes effective October 1, 2014.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of October 1, 2014.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
For service information identified in this AD, contact Dassault Falcon Jet, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone 201–440–6700; Internet
Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; telephone 425–227–1137; fax 425–227–1149.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 900EX airplanes. The NPRM published in the
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013–0051, dated March 4, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 900EX airplanes. The MCAI states:
The airworthiness limitations and maintenance requirements for the Falcon 900EX type design are included in Dassault Aviation Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) chapter 5–40 and are approved by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA).
EASA issued AD 2008–0221 [
Since that [EASA] AD was issued, Dassault Aviation issued revision 12 of F900EX AMM chapter 5–40 which contains new or more restrictive maintenance requirements and/or airworthiness limitations and introduces, among others, the following changes:
The maintenance tasks and airworthiness limitations, as specified in the F900EX AMM chapter 5–40, have been identified as mandatory actions for continued airworthiness of the F900EX type design. Failure to comply with AMM chapter 5–40 at revision 12 may result in an unsafe condition [e.g., reduced structural integrity and reduced controllability of the airplane].
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires the implementation of the maintenance tasks and airworthiness limitations, as specified in the Dassault Aviation F900EX AMM chapter 5–40 DGT 113874 at revision 12.
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (79 FR 25033, May 2, 2014) or on the determination of the cost to the public.
Since late 2006, we have included a standard paragraph titled “Airworthy Product” in all MCAI ADs in which the FAA develops an AD based on a foreign authority's AD.
We have become aware that some operators have misunderstood or misinterpreted the Airworthy Product paragraph to allow the owner/operator to use messages provided by the manufacturer as approval of deviations during the accomplishment of an AD-mandated action. The Airworthy Product paragraph does not approve messages or other information provided by the manufacturer for deviations to the requirements of the AD-mandated actions. The Airworthy Product paragraph only addresses the requirement to contact the manufacturer for corrective actions for the identified unsafe condition and does not cover deviations from other AD requirements. However, deviations to AD-required actions are addressed in 14 CFR 39.17, and anyone may request the approval for an alternative method of compliance to the AD-required actions using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
To address this misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the Airworthy Product paragraph, we have changed the paragraph and retitled it “Contacting the Manufacturer.” This paragraph now clarifies that for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the actions must be accomplished using a method approved by the FAA, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), or Dassault Aviation's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).
The Contacting the Manufacturer paragraph also clarifies that, if approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature. The DOA signature indicates that the data and information contained in the document are EASA-approved, which is also FAA-approved. Messages and other information provided by the manufacturer that do not contain DOA-authorized signature approval are not EASA-approved, unless EASA directly approves the manufacturer's message or other information.
This clarification does not remove flexibility previously afforded by the Airworthy Product paragraph. Consistent with long-standing FAA policy, such flexibility was never intended for required actions. This is also consistent with the recommendation of the Airworthiness Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee to increase flexibility in complying with ADs by identifying those actions in manufacturers' service instructions that are “Required for Compliance” with ADs. We continue to work with manufacturers to implement this recommendation. But once we determine that an action is required, any deviation from the requirement must be approved as an alternative method of compliance.
We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 25033, May 2, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 25033, May 2, 2014).
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.
We estimate that this AD affects 72 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $6,120, or $85 per product.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S. C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD becomes effective October 1, 2014.
This AD affects AD 2002–23–20, Amendment 39–12964 (67 FR 71098, November 29, 2002); and AD 2010–26–05, Amendment 39–16544 (75 FR 79952, December 21, 2010).
This AD applies to Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 900EX airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 1 through 96 inclusive, and serial numbers 98 through 119 inclusive.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/Maintenance Checks.
This AD was prompted by our determination to introduce a corrosion prevention control program, among other changes, to the maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations. We are issuing this AD to prevent reduced structural integrity and reduced controllability of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the information specified in Chapter 5–40, Airworthiness Limitations, DGT 113874, Revision 12, dated September 2012, of the Falcon 900EX Maintenance Manual. The initial compliance time for accomplishing the actions specified in Chapter 5–40, Airworthiness Limitations, DGT 113874, Revision 12, dated September 2012, of the Falcon 900EX Maintenance Manual, is within the applicable times specified in the maintenance manual, or 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, except as provided by paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(4) of this AD.
(1) The term “LDG” in the “First Inspection” column of any table in the service information means total airplane landings.
(2) The term “FH” in the “First Inspection” column of any table in the service information means total flight hours.
(3) The term “FC” in the “First Inspection” column of any table in the service information means total flight cycles.
(4) The term “M” in the “First Inspection” column of any table in the service information means months.
Accomplishing paragraph (g) of this AD terminates the requirements of AD 2002–23–20, Amendment 39–12964 (67 FR 71098, November 29, 2002); and paragraph (g)(1) of AD 2010–26–05, Amendment 39–16544 (75 FR 79952, December 21, 2010); for Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 900EX airplanes, serial numbers 1 through 96 inclusive, and serial numbers 98 through 119 inclusive.
After accomplishing the revision required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals may be used unless the actions or intervals are approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; telephone 425–227–1137; fax 425–227–1149. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Dassault Aviation's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013–0051, dated March 4, 2013, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Chapter 5–40, Airworthiness Limitations, DGT 113874, Revision 12, dated September 2012, of the Falcon 900EX Maintenance Manual. The document revision level is identified only on the title page and page 2.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Dassault Falcon Jet, P.O. Box
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL–600–2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports that elevator power control unit (PCU) shear pins may fail prematurely. This AD requires repetitive replacement of the elevator PCU shear pins. We are issuing this AD to prevent premature elevator PCU shear pin failure. If all pins fail on one elevator, the elevator surface would become inoperative, which could reduce the controllability of the airplane and could result in a loss of redundancy for flutter prevention.
This AD becomes effective October 1, 2014.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of October 1, 2014.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514–855–5000; fax 514–855–7401; email
Cesar Gomez, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE–171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516–228–7318; fax 516–794–5531.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL–600–2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes. The NPRM published in the
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF–2014–04, dated January 13, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL–600–2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes. The MCAI states:
It was found that the elevator power control unit (PCU) shear pins may fail prematurely. The failure of an elevator PCU shear pin is dormant. There are three PCUs on each elevator. If all three PCU shear pins failed on one elevator, the elevator surface would become inoperative, which could reduce the controllability of the aeroplane and could result in a loss of redundancy for flutter prevention.
This [Canadian] AD mandates the repetitive replacement of the elevator PCU shear pins to prevent premature elevator PCU shear pin failures.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (79 FR 17453, March 28, 2014) and the FAA's response to each comment.
Air Wisconsin Airlines Corporation (AWAC) requested that we revise the NPRM (79 FR 17453, March 28, 2014) to delete the repetitive actions required by paragraph (g) of the NPRM. AWAC pointed out that, typically, when the design approval holder determines that a repetitive action for a task is required, the repetitive action is normally published in the maintenance requirements manual as an airworthiness limitation, a certification maintenance requirement, or a systems and powerplant program task. AWAC notes that the design approval holder has no such requirement in its proposed or published documents, and that the service information identified in the NPRM states that it does not affect airworthiness limitations or damage tolerance inspections.
As an alternative to removing the repetitive requirement specified in paragraph (g) of the NPRM (79 FR 17453, March 28, 2014), AWAC requested that, if we do not agree to revise the NPRM as requested, we remove the compliance time of 48 months for the repetitive replacement. AWAC questioned why the repetitive replacements should be required, if the airplane has not been regularly operated. For example, an airplane on which the replacement task was previously performed, that has subsequently been sitting in storage in the desert for 3–4 years would not have any stress.
We disagree to delete the repetitive replacements required by paragraph (g) of this final rule. There are various contributing factors to the premature failure of the elevator PCU shear pins, and corrosion is one of those factors. The repetitive replacement interval was determined by the design approval holder and certifying authority. And, because corrosion is generally a function of time and exposure to the environment, rather than number of flights, we have determined that a specific interval of calendar time is required to address this failure mode. Bombardier indicated that it did not wish to state a repetitive action within its service bulletin, as operators prefer service bulletins that are not left open-ended.
We also do not agree to remove the 48-month compliance time. The 48-month compliance time is necessary to address the identified unsafe condition
AWAC requested that we revise paragraph (i) of the NPRM (79 FR 17453, March 28, 2014) to allow credit for replacements done previously using maintenance Task 55–21–27–960–802 and/or other service information identified in the airplane's maintenance records. AWAC suggested that there might be other service information that has been used to do the replacements required by paragraph (g) of the NPRM.
We partially agree. We agree to allow credit for the replacements performed before the effective date of this AD using Task 55–21–27–960–802 of the Canadair Regional Jet Model CL–600–2B19 Aircraft Maintenance Manual, CSP A–001, Revision 49, dated May 10, 2014. We have added new paragraph (i)(3) in this final rule to provide credit for using Task 55–21–27–960–802 to accomplish the replacements specified in paragraph (g) of this final rule. We also have revised paragraph (i) of this final rule and redesignated that text as paragraphs (i), (i)(1), and (i)(2) of this AD; this change was for formatting purposes only.
We do not agree to provide credit in this final rule for replacements done using unspecified service information that might be identified in unspecified service documents in the airplane maintenance records. However, affected operators may request approval to use other, specific service information as an alternative method of compliance under the provisions of paragraph (j)(1) of this AD.
Since late 2006, we have included a standard paragraph titled “Airworthy Product” in all MCAI ADs in which the FAA develops an AD based on a foreign authority's AD.
The MCAI or referenced service information in an FAA AD often directs the owner/operator to contact the manufacturer for corrective actions, such as a repair. Briefly, the Airworthy Product paragraph allowed owners/operators to use corrective actions provided by the manufacturer if those actions were FAA-approved. In addition, the paragraph stated that any actions approved by the State of Design Authority (or its delegated agent) are considered to be FAA-approved.
In the NPRM (79 FR 17453, March 28, 2014), we proposed to prevent the use of repairs that were not specifically developed to correct the unsafe condition, by requiring that the repair approval provided by the State of Design Authority or its delegated agent specifically refer to this FAA AD. This change was intended to clarify the method of compliance and to provide operators with better visibility of repairs that are specifically developed and approved to correct the unsafe condition. In addition, we proposed to change the phrase “its delegated agent” to include a design approval holder (DAH) with State of Design Authority design organization approval (DOA), as applicable, to refer to a DAH authorized to approve required repairs for the proposed AD.
No comments were provided to the NPRM (79 FR 17453, March 28, 2014) about these proposed changes. However, a comment was provided for an NPRM having Directorate Identifier 2012–NM–101–AD (78 FR 78285, December 26, 2013). The commenter stated the following: “The proposed wording, being specific to repairs, eliminates the interpretation that Airbus messages are acceptable for approving minor deviations (corrective actions) needed during accomplishment of an AD mandated Airbus service bulletin.”
This comment has made the FAA aware that some operators have misunderstood or misinterpreted the Airworthy Product paragraph to allow the owner/operator to use messages provided by the manufacturer as approval of deviations during the accomplishment of an AD-mandated action. The Airworthy Product paragraph does not approve messages or other information provided by the manufacturer for deviations to the requirements of the AD-mandated actions. The Airworthy Product paragraph only addresses the requirement to contact the manufacturer for corrective actions for the identified unsafe condition and does not cover deviations from other AD requirements. However, deviations to AD-required actions are addressed in 14 CFR 39.17, and anyone may request the approval for an alternative method of compliance to the AD-required actions using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
To address this misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the Airworthy Product paragraph, we have changed the paragraph and retitled it “Contacting the Manufacturer.” This paragraph now clarifies that for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the actions must be accomplished using a method approved by the FAA, TCCA, or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO).
The Contacting the Manufacturer paragraph also clarifies that, if approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature. The DAO signature indicates that the data and information contained in the document are TCCA-approved, which is also FAA-approved. Messages and other information provided by the manufacturer that do not contain the DAO-authorized signature approval are not TCCA-approved, unless TCCA directly approves the manufacturer's message or other information.
This clarification does not remove flexibility previously afforded by the Airworthy Product paragraph. Consistent with long-standing FAA policy, such flexibility was never intended for required actions. This is also consistent with the recommendation of the Airworthiness Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee to increase flexibility in complying with ADs by identifying those actions in manufacturers' service instructions that are “Required for Compliance” with ADs. We continue to work with manufacturers to implement this recommendation. But once we determine that an action is required, any deviation from the requirement must be approved as an alternative method of compliance.
Other commenters to the NPRM having Directorate Identifier 2012–NM–101–AD (78 FR 78285, December 26, 2013) pointed out that in many cases the foreign manufacturer's service bulletin and the foreign authority's MCAI might have been issued some time before the FAA AD. Therefore, the DOA might have provided U.S. operators with an approved repair, developed with full awareness of the unsafe condition, before the FAA AD is issued. Under these circumstances, to comply with the FAA AD, the operator would be required to go back to the manufacturer's DOA and obtain a new approval document, adding time and expense to the compliance process with no safety benefit.
Based on these comments, we removed the requirement that the DAH-provided repair specifically refer to this AD. Before adopting such a requirement, the FAA will coordinate with affected DAHs and verify they are prepared to implement means to ensure that their repair approvals consider the
We also have decided not to include a generic reference to either the “delegated agent” or “DAH with State of Design Authority design organization approval,” but instead we have provided the specific delegation approval granted by the State of Design Authority for the DAH throughout this AD.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 17453, March 28, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 17453, March 28, 2014).
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.
We estimate that this AD affects 575 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 4 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $41 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $219,075, or $381 per product.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD becomes effective October 1, 2014.
None.
This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model CL–600–2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 7003 and subsequent.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 55, Stabilizers.
This AD was prompted by reports that elevator power control unit (PCU) shear pins may fail prematurely. We are issuing this AD to prevent premature elevator PCU shear pin failure. If all pins fail on one elevator, the elevator surface would become inoperative, which could reduce the controllability of the airplane and could result in a loss of redundancy for flutter prevention.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 6,600 flight hours or 48 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first: Replace the elevator PCU shear pins, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R–55–008, Revision B, dated March 12, 2014. Repeat the replacement thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6,600 flight hours or 48 months from the most recent replacement, whichever occurs first.
Replacing the elevator PCU shear pins, using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO, ANE–170, Engine and Propeller Directorate, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO); is a method of compliance for any replacement required by paragraph (g) of this AD. If approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.
Guidance for doing replacements specified in paragraph (h) of this AD may be found in Task 5–21–27–960–802 of the Canadair Regional Jet Model CL–600–2B19 Aircraft Maintenance Manual, CSP A–001, Revision 49, dated May 10, 2014.
This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the service information identified in paragraph (i)(1), (i)(2), or (i)(3) of this AD, which are not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(1) Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R–55–008, dated July 12, 2013.
(2) Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R–55–008, Revision A, dated January 8, 2014.
(3) Task 55–21–27–960–802 of the Canadair Regional Jet Model CL–600–2B19 Aircraft Maintenance Manual, CSP A–001, Revision 49, dated May 10, 2014.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF–2014–04, dated January 13, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference may be viewed at the addresses specified in paragraphs (l)(3) and (l)(4) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R–55–008, Revision B, dated March 12, 2014.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514–855–5000; fax 514–855–7401; email
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Model A300 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by our determination of the need to incorporate new life limits for the main landing gear (MLG) barrel assembly, retraction actuator assembly linkage, and flange duct. This AD requires revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to include the new life limits. We are issuing this AD to prevent reduced structural integrity of the airplane and possible loss of controllability of the airplane.
This AD becomes effective October 1, 2014.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM 116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; telephone 425–227–2125; fax 425–227–1149.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Model A300 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013–0210, dated September 11, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition all Airbus Model A300 series airplanes. The MCAI states:
Some life limits previously defined in Revision 00 of A300 ALS [airworthiness limitations section] Part 1 have been removed [from] that document at Revision 01 and should normally be included in an ALS Part 4.
At this time, there are no plans to issue an ALS Part 4 for A300 aeroplanes.
Nevertheless, failure to comply with these life limits could result in an unsafe condition.
For the reasons described above, it has been decided to require the application of these life limits through a separate [EASA] AD. Consequently, this [EASA] AD requires application of life limits applicable to Main Landing Gear (MLG) barrel assembly, retraction actuator assembly linkage assembly and flanged duct which were previously contained in Airbus ALS Part 1 Revision 00.
EASA AD 2007–0293 [which corresponds with FAA AD 2009–18–15, Amendment 39–16011 (74 FR 48143, September 22, 2009)], which required compliance with the actions specified in ALS Part 1, will be superseded by a new [EASA] AD, requiring compliance with ALS Part 1 at Revision 1.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We
Since late 2006, we have included a standard paragraph titled “Airworthy Product” in all MCAI ADs in which the FAA develops an AD based on a foreign authority's AD.
We have become aware that some operators have misunderstood or misinterpreted the Airworthy Product paragraph to allow the owner/operator to use messages provided by the manufacturer as approval of deviations during the accomplishment of an AD-mandated action. The Airworthy Product paragraph does not approve messages or other information provided by the manufacturer for deviations to the requirements of the AD-mandated actions. The Airworthy Product paragraph only addresses the requirement to contact the manufacturer for corrective actions for the identified unsafe condition and does not cover deviations from other AD requirements. However, deviations to AD-required actions are addressed in 14 CFR 39.17, and anyone may request the approval for an alternative method of compliance to the AD-required actions using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
To address this misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the Airworthy Product paragraph, we have changed the paragraph and retitled it “Contacting the Manufacturer.” This paragraph now clarifies that for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the actions must be accomplished using a method approved by the FAA, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).
The Contacting the Manufacturer paragraph also clarifies that, if approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature. The DOA signature indicates that the data and information contained in the document are EASA-approved, which is also FAA-approved. Messages and other information provided by the manufacturer that do not contain the DOA-authorized signature approval are not EASA-approved, unless EASA directly approves the manufacturer's message or other information.
This clarification does not remove flexibility previously afforded by the Airworthy Product paragraph. Consistent with long-standing FAA policy, such flexibility was never intended for required actions. This is also consistent with the recommendation of the Airworthiness Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee to increase flexibility in complying with ADs by identifying those actions in manufacturers' service instructions that are “Required for Compliance” with ADs. We continue to work with manufacturers to implement this recommendation. But once we determine that an action is required, any deviation from the requirement must be approved as an alternative method of compliance.
We also have decided not to include a generic reference to either the “delegated agent” or “design approval holder (DAH) with State of Design Authority design organization approval,” but instead we have provided the specific delegation approval granted by the State of Design Authority for the DAH throughout this AD.
We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 21651, April 17, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 21651, April 17, 2014).
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.
We estimate that this AD affects 7 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it takes about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $595, or $85 per product.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD becomes effective October 1, 2014.
None.
This AD applies to all Airbus Model A300 B2–1A, B2–1C, B2K–3C, B2–203, B4–2C, B4–103, and B4–203 airplanes, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing Gear; and 36, Pneumatic.
This AD was prompted by our determination of the need to incorporate new life limits for the main landing gear (MLG) barrel assembly, retraction actuator assembly linkage, and flange duct. We are issuing this AD to prevent reduced structural integrity of the airplane and possible loss of controllability of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the life limits specified in Appendix 1 of this AD into the Airbus A300 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 1. The initial compliance time for the replacement is identified in Appendix 1 of this AD and is prior to the applicable life limits specified in Appendix 1 of this AD, or within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
After accomplishing the revision required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals may be used unless the actions or intervals are approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2013–0210, dated September 11, 2013, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
None.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Viking Air Limited Model DHC–3 airplanes. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as looseness of the horizontal stabilizer actuator mounting block in the forward-aft and side-to-side directions. We are issuing this AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective September 16, 2014.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of September 16, 2014.
We must receive comments on this AD by October 14, 2014.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this AD, contact Viking Air Limited Technical Support, 1959 De Havilland Way, Sidney, British Columbia, Canada, V8L 5V5; Fax: 250–656–0673; telephone: (North America) 1–800–663–8444; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Cesar Gomez, Aerospace Safety Enginer, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Steward Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone: (516) 228–7318; fax: (516) 794–5531; email:
Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued AD No. CF–2014–14, dated June 5, 2014 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for Viking Air Limited Model DHC–3 airplanes. The MCAI states:
A horizontal stabilizer actuator (trim jack) mounting block, part number C3FS79–5, was found loose in the forward-aft and side-to-side directions. The trim jack mounting block fastens the stabilizer actuator (trim jack) which allows the angle of incidence of the stabilizer to be varied. The stabilizer actuator (trim jack) also functions as the rear mounting point for the stabilizer.
Failure of the mounting block through breakage or detachment may cause loss of control of the horizontal stabilizer and subsequent loss of control of the aeroplane. Therefore, this AD mandates a one-time inspection of the stabilizer actuator (trim jack) mounting block.
You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at
Viking Air Limited has issued Viking Service Bulletin No. V3/0005, Revision `A', dated May 27, 2014. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by the State of Design Authority and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
We consider this AD interim action. After the State of Design reviews and evaluates the reporting data, we may take further rulemaking action in the future.
An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because failure of the mounting block through breakage or detachment may cause loss of control of horizontal stabilizer and subsequent loss of control. Therefore, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in fewer than 30 days.
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We estimate that this AD will affect 35 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 3 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD on U.S. operators to be $8,925, or $255 per product.
The scope of damage found in the inspections could vary from airplane to airplane. We have no way of determining how much damage may be found on each airplane or the cost to repair or replace damaged parts on each airplane or the number of airplanes that may require repair or replacements.
A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control number for the collection of information required by this AD is 2120–0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with this AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591. ATTN: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES–200.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective September 16, 2014.
None.
This AD applies to Viking Air Limited Models DHC–3 airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 55: Stabilizers.
This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as looseness of the horizontal stabilizer actuator mounting block in the forward-aft and side-to-side directions. We are issuing this AD to prevent breakage or detachment of the horizontal stabilizer actuator mounting block, which could lead to failure of the horizontal stabilizer with subsequent loss of control.
Unless already done, do the following actions in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2).
(1) Within the next 100 hours time-in-service after September 16, 2014 (the effective date of this AD) or within the next 90 days after September 16, 2014 (the effective date of the this AD), whichever occurs first, inspect the horizontal stabilizer actuator (trim jack) for movement or defects following the Accomplishment Instructions in Viking Service Bulletin No. V3/0005, Revision `A', dated May 27, 2014.
(2) If any movement or defects are found during the inspection required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, before further flight, you must contact Viking Air Limited to obtain FAA-approved repair instructions approved specifically for compliance with this AD and incorporate those instructions. You can find contact information for Viking Air Limited in paragraph (i)(3) of this AD. Use the Service Bulletin V3/0005—Operator Reply Form found in Viking Service Bulletin No. V3/0005, Revision `A', dated May 27, 2014, to report details of the inspection findings.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
Refer to MCAI, Transport Canada AD No. CF–2014–14, dated June 5, 2014, and Viking Service Bulletin No. V3/0005, Revision `A', dated May 27, 2014, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Viking Service Bulletin No. V3/0005, Revision `A', dated May 27, 2014.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For Viking Air Limited service information identified in this AD, contact Viking Air Limited Technical Support, 1959 De Havilland Way, Sidney, British Columbia, Canada, V8L 5V5; Fax: 250–656–0673; telephone: (North America) 1–800–663–8444; email:
(4) You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329–4148.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go to:
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Final regulations and removal of temporary regulations.
This document contains final regulations relating to the application of the straddle rules to a debt instrument. The final regulations clarify that a taxpayer's obligation under a debt instrument can be a position in personal property that is part of a straddle. The final regulations primarily affect taxpayers that issue debt instruments that provide for one or more payments that reference the value of personal property or a position in personal property.
Mary Brewer, (202) 317–6895 (not a toll-free number).
This document contains amendments to 26 CFR Part 1. On January 18, 2001, a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG–105801–00) (the 2001 NPRM) was published in the
On September 5, 2013, temporary and final regulations (TD 9635) were published in the
This Treasury decision adopts the provisions in the 2013 NPRM without substantive change. In addition, this Treasury decision amends the effective/applicability date provisions in § 1.1092(d)–1(e) to provide explicitly the dates for those portions of § 1.1092(d)–1 that were added by a 1993 Treasury decision (TD 8491) as discussed further in section 3 of this preamble.
The corresponding temporary regulations are removed. The remainder of the 2001 NPRM remains proposed.
The final regulations provide guidance under section 1092 regarding the circumstances in which an issuer's obligation under a debt instrument may be a position in actively traded personal property and, therefore, part of a straddle.
Section 1092(d)(1) defines “personal property” to mean “personal property of a type that is actively traded.” A debt or obligation generally is not property of the debtor or obligor. Nevertheless, if a debt instrument provides for payments that are (or are reasonably expected to be) linked to the value of personal property as so defined, then the obligor on the instrument has a position in the personal property referenced by the debt instrument. Therefore, as was proposed
The final regulations adopt the effective/applicability date set forth in the 2013 NPRM by providing that § 1.1092(d)–1(d) applies to straddles established on or after January 17, 2001 (the date on which the 2001 NPRM was filed with the
In addition, the final regulations clarify the effective-date paragraph (§ 1.1092(d)–1(e)) to reflect the applicability of provisions in § 1.1092(d)–1 that were originally proposed in 1991 and adopted in 1993. On July 10, 1991, a notice of proposed rulemaking (FI–16–89) (the 1991 NPRM) was published in the
However, the text of the 1991 proposed regulations contained an effective date only in paragraph (c), which was the portion of the proposed regulations that focused on which notional principal contracts would be treated as actively traded personal property. See proposed § 1.1092(d)–1(c)(2) (“(2) Effective date. This paragraph (c) applies to notional principal contracts entered into on or after July 8, 1991.”).
Final regulations (TD 8491) (the 1993 Treasury decision), which issued § 1.1092(d)–1, were published in the
Accordingly, these final regulations revise § 1.1092(d)–1(e) to include explicit effective/applicability-date provisions for all paragraphs of § 1.1092(d)–1.
It has been determined that this Treasury decision is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It has also been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations, and because the regulation does not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, the proposed regulations preceding these final regulations were submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on their impact on small business. No comments were received.
The principal author of these regulations is Mary Brewer, Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Financial Institutions and Products). However, other personnel from the IRS and Treasury Department participated in their development.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 26 CFR Part 1 is amended as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
Section 1.1092(d)–1 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 1092(b)(1). * * *
(d)
(e)
(2) Paragraph (c) of this section applies to positions entered into on or after July 8, 1991.
(3) Paragraph (d) of this section applies to straddles established on or after January 17, 2001.
Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury; Employee Benefits Security Administration, Department of Labor; Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services.
Interim final rules.
This document contains interim final regulations regarding coverage of certain preventive services under section 2713 of the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act), added by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended, and incorporated into the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the Internal Revenue Code. Section 2713 of the PHS Act requires coverage without cost sharing of certain preventive health services by non-grandfathered group health plans and health insurance coverage. Among these services are women's preventive health services, as specified in guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). As authorized by the current regulations, and consistent with the HRSA Guidelines, group health plans established or maintained by certain religious employers (and group health insurance coverage provided in connection with such plans) are exempt from the otherwise applicable requirement to cover certain contraceptive services. Additionally, under current regulations, accommodations are available with respect to the contraceptive coverage requirement for group health plans established or maintained by eligible organizations (and group health insurance coverage provided in connection with such plans), and student health insurance coverage arranged by eligible organizations that are institutions of higher education, that effectively exempt them from this requirement. The regulations establish a mechanism for separately furnishing payments for contraceptive services on behalf of participants and beneficiaries of the group health plans of eligible organizations that avail themselves of an accommodation, and enrollees and dependents of student health coverage arranged by eligible organizations that are institutions of higher education that avail themselves of an accommodation. These interim final regulations augment current regulations in light of the Supreme Court's interim order in connection with an application for an injunction in
Written comments may be submitted to the Department of Labor as specified below. Any comment that is submitted will be shared with the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of the Treasury, and will also be made available to the public. Warning: Do not include any personally identifiable information (such as name, address, or other contact information) or confidential business information that you do not want publicly disclosed. All comments may be posted on the Internet and can be retrieved by most Internet search engines. No deletions, modifications, or redactions will be made to the comments received, as they are public records. Comments may be submitted anonymously.
Comments, identified by “Preventive Services,” may be submitted by one of the following methods:
Comments received will be posted without change to
David Mlawsky, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), at (410) 786–1565; Amy Turner or Beth Baum, Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA), Department of Labor, at (202) 693–8335; Karen Levin, Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Department of the Treasury, at (202) 927–9639.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Pub. L. 111–148) was enacted on March 23, 2010. The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111–152) was enacted on March 30, 2010. These statutes are collectively known as the Affordable Care Act. The Affordable Care Act reorganizes, amends, and adds to the provisions of part A of title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) relating to group health plans and health insurance issuers in the group and individual markets. The Affordable Care Act adds section 715(a)(1) to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and section 9815(a)(1) to the Internal Revenue Code (Code) to incorporate the provisions of part A of
Section 2713 of the PHS Act, as added by the Affordable Care Act and incorporated into ERISA and the Code, requires that non-grandfathered group health plans and health insurance issuers offering non-grandfathered group or individual health insurance coverage provide coverage of certain specified preventive services without cost sharing, including under paragraph (a)(4), benefits for certain women's preventive health services as provided for in comprehensive guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). On August 1, 2011, HRSA adopted and released guidelines for women's preventive health services (HRSA Guidelines) based on recommendations of the independent Institute of Medicine. As relevant here, the HRSA Guidelines include all Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved contraceptives, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for women with reproductive capacity, as prescribed by a health care provider (collectively, contraceptive services).
Interim final regulations implementing section 2713 of the PHS Act were published on July 19, 2010 (75 FR 41726) (2010 interim final regulations). On August 1, 2011, the Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS), Labor, and the Treasury (collectively, the Departments) amended the 2010 interim final regulations to provide HRSA with authority to exempt group health plans established or maintained by certain religious employers (and group health insurance coverage provided in connection with such plans) from the requirement to cover contraceptive services consistent with the HRSA Guidelines (76 FR 46621) (2011 amended interim final regulations).
Contemporaneous with the issuance of the 2012 final regulations, HHS, with the agreement of the Departments of Labor and the Treasury, issued guidance establishing a temporary safe harbor from enforcement of the contraceptive coverage requirement by the Departments for group health plans established or maintained by certain nonprofit organizations with religious objections to contraceptive coverage (and group health insurance coverage provided in connection with such plans).
On March 21, 2012, the Departments published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) that described and solicited comments on possible approaches to achieve these goals (77 FR 16501).
On February 6, 2013, following review of the comments on the ANPRM, the Departments published proposed regulations at 78 FR 8456 (proposed regulations). The regulations proposed to simplify and clarify the definition of “religious employer” for purposes of the religious employer exemption. The regulations also proposed accommodations for group health plans established or maintained or arranged by certain nonprofit religious organizations with religious objections to contraceptive coverage (and group health insurance coverage provided in connection with such plans). These organizations were referred to as “eligible organizations.”
The regulations proposed that, in the case of an insured group health plan established or maintained by an eligible organization, the health insurance issuer providing group health insurance coverage in connection with the plan would be required to assume sole responsibility for providing contraceptive coverage to plan participants and beneficiaries without cost sharing, premium, fee, or other charge to plan participants or beneficiaries or to the eligible organization or its plan. The Departments proposed a comparable accommodation with respect to student health insurance coverage arranged by
In the case of a self-insured group health plan established or maintained by an eligible organization, the proposed regulations presented potential approaches under which the third party administrator of the plan would provide or arrange for a third party to provide contraceptive coverage to plan participants and beneficiaries without cost sharing, premium, fee, or other charge to plan participants or beneficiaries or to the eligible organization or its plan. An issuer (or its affiliate) would be able to offset the costs incurred by the third party administrator and the issuer in the course of arranging and providing such coverage by claiming an adjustment in the Federally-facilitated Exchange (FFE) user fee.
The Departments received over 400,000 comments (many of them standardized form letters) in response to the proposed regulations. After consideration of the comments, the Departments published final regulations on July 2, 2013 at 78 FR 39870 (July 2013 final regulations). The July 2013 final regulations simplified and clarified the definition of religious employer for purposes of the religious employer exemption and established accommodations for health coverage established or maintained or arranged by eligible organizations. A contemporaneously re-issued HHS guidance document extended the temporary safe harbor from enforcement of the contraceptive coverage requirement by the Departments to encompass plan years beginning on or after August 1, 2013, and before January 1, 2014. This guidance included a form to be used by an organization during this temporary period to self-certify that its plan qualified for the temporary enforcement safe harbor. In addition, HHS and the Department of Labor (DOL) issued a self-certification form, EBSA Form 700, to be executed by an organization seeking to be treated as an eligible organization for purposes of an accommodation under the July 2013 final regulations. This self-certification form was provided for use with the accommodation under the July 2013 final regulations, after the expiration of the temporary enforcement safe harbor (that is, for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2014).
On June 30, 2014, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of
On July 3, 2014, the Supreme Court issued an interim order in connection with an application for an injunction pending appeal in
The Departments are issuing these interim final regulations in light of the Supreme Court's interim order in
These interim final regulations amend the Departments' July 2013 final regulations to provide an alternative process for the sponsor of a group health plan or an institution of higher education to provide notice of its religious objection to coverage of all or a subset of contraceptive services, as an alternative to the EBSA Form 700 method of self-certification. These interim final regulations continue to allow eligible organizations to use EBSA Form 700, as set forth in the July 2013 final regulations and guidance.
The alternative process permitted by these interim final regulations is consistent with the
As with the process established in the July 2013 final regulations, nothing in this alternative notice process requires a government assessment of the sincerity of the religious belief underlying the eligible organization's objection. The notice to HHS, and any subsequent updates, should be sent electronically to:
When an eligible organization that establishes or maintains or arranges a self-insured plan subject to ERISA provides such a notice to HHS, DOL (working with HHS) will send a separate notification to each third party administrator of the ERISA plan. DOL's notification will inform each third party administrator of the eligible organization's religious objection to funding or administering some or all contraceptive coverage and will designate the relevant third party administrator(s) as plan administrator under section 3(16) of ERISA for those contraceptive benefits that the third party administrator would otherwise manage. The DOL notification will be an instrument under which the plan is operated and shall supersede any earlier designation. In establishing and implementing this alternative process, DOL is exercising its broad rulemaking authority under Title I of ERISA, which includes the ability to interpret and apply the definition of a plan administrator under ERISA section 3(16)(A).
If an eligible organization that establishes or maintains an insured health plan provides a notice to HHS under this alternative process, HHS will send a separate notification to the plan's health insurance issuer(s) informing the issuer(s) that HHS has received a notice under § 2590.715–2713A(c)(1) and describing the obligations of the issuer(s) under § 2590.715–2713A. Issuers remain responsible for compliance with the statutory and regulatory requirement to provide coverage for contraceptive services to participants and beneficiaries, and to enrollees and dependents of student health plans, notwithstanding that the policyholder is an eligible organization with a religious objection to contraceptive coverage that will not have to contract, arrange, pay, or refer for such coverage.
Other questions have arisen regarding the requirement to provide coverage for contraceptive services without cost sharing and the accommodations for eligible organizations. In what has been described as the “non-interference provision,” the July 2013 final regulations provided that eligible organizations that establish or maintain self-insured group health plans “must not, directly or indirectly seek to interfere with a third party administrator's arrangements to provide or arrange for separate payments for contraceptive services” and “must not, directly or indirectly, seek to influence a third party administrator's decision to make any such arrangements.” 26 CFR 54.9815–2713A(b)(1)(iii); 29 CFR 2590.715–2713A(b)(1)(iii). The Departments interpret the July 2013 final regulations solely as prohibiting the use of bribery, threats, or other forms of economic coercion in an attempt to prevent a third party administrator from fulfilling its independent legal obligations to provide or arrange separate payments for contraceptive services. Because such conduct is generally unlawful and is prohibited under other state and federal laws, and to reduce unnecessary confusion, these interim final regulations delete the language prohibiting an eligible organization from interfering with or seeking to influence a third party administrator's decision or efforts to provide separate payments for contraceptive services.
Section 9833 of the Code, section 734 of ERISA, and section 2792 of the PHS Act authorize the Secretaries of the Treasury, Labor, and HHS (collectively, the Secretaries) to promulgate any interim final rules that they determine are appropriate to carry out the provisions of chapter 100 of the Code, part 7 of subtitle B of title I of ERISA, and part A of title XXVII of the PHS Act, which include PHS Act sections 2701 through 2728 and the incorporation of those sections into ERISA section 715 and Code section 9815.
In addition, under Section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.), a general notice of proposed rulemaking is not required when an agency, for good cause, finds that notice and public comment thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. The provisions of the APA that ordinarily require a notice of proposed rulemaking do not apply here because of the specific authority granted by section 9833 of the Code, section 734 of ERISA, and section 2792 of the PHS Act. However, even if these provisions of the APA were applicable, the Secretaries have determined that it would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest to delay putting the provisions in these interim final regulations in place until a full public notice and comment process is completed.
As discussed earlier, the Departments are issuing these interim final regulations in light of the Supreme Court's order in
In order to provide other eligible organizations with an option equivalent to the one the Supreme Court provided to Wheaton College on an interim basis, regulations must be published and available to the public as soon as possible. Delaying the availability of the alternative process in order to allow for a full notice and comment period would delay the ability of eligible organizations to avail themselves of this alternative process and could delay women's access to contraceptive
For the foregoing reasons, the Departments have determined that it would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest to engage in full notice and comment rulemaking before putting these interim final regulations into effect, and that it is in the public interest to promulgate interim final regulations. For the same reasons, the Departments have determined, consistent with section 553(d) of the APA (5 U.S.C. 553(d)), that there is good cause to make these interim final regulations effective immediately upon publication in the
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, and public health and safety effects; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility.
Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action that is likely to result in a regulation: (1) Having an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more in any one year, or adversely and materially affecting a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or communities (also referred to as “economically significant”); (2) creating a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfering with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially altering the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raising novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.
A regulatory impact analysis must be prepared for major rules with economically significant effects ($100 million or more in any one year), and an “economically significant” regulatory action is subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). These interim final regulations are not likely to have economic impacts of $100 million or more in any one year, and therefore do not meet the definition of “economically significant” under Executive Order 12866.
These interim final regulations amend the Departments' July 2013 final regulations to provide an alternative process for an eligible organization to provide notice of its religious objection to coverage of all or a subset of contraceptive services.
The Departments expect that these interim final regulations will not result in any additional burden on or costs to the affected entities. These interim final regulations do not change the fundamental ability of an eligible organization to exempt itself from contracting, arranging, paying, or referring for contraceptive coverage. Instead, the regulations merely provide alternative means for eligible organizations to provide notice of their religious objection to coverage of all, or a subset of, contraceptive services.
For purposes of the Department of the Treasury, it has been determined that this rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the APA does not apply to these regulations. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6), it is hereby certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities This certification is based on the fact that the temporary regulations will not result in any additional costs to affected entities but will provide an alternative means for eligible organizations to provide notice of their religious objection to providing coverage of all, or a subset of, contraceptive services. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, these temporary regulations have been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on their impact on small business.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and an individual is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. These interim final regulations contain an information collection request (ICR) that is subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). A description of these provisions is given in the following section with an estimate of the annual burden. Average labor costs (including fringe benefits) used to estimate the costs are calculated using data available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Each organization seeking to be treated as an eligible organization under these interim final regulations must either use the EBSA Form 700 method of self-certification or provide notice to HHS of its religious objection to coverage of all or a subset of contraceptive services. Specifically, these interim final regulations continue to allow eligible organizations to notify an issuer or third party administrator using EBSA Form 700, as set forth in the July 2013 final regulations. In addition, these interim final regulations permit an alternative process, consistent with the Supreme Court's interim order in
In order to complete this task, HHS assumes that clerical staff for each eligible organization will gather and enter the necessary information and send the self-certification to the issuer or third party administrator as appropriate, or send the notice to HHS.
As the Department of Labor and the Department of Health and Human Services share jurisdiction they are splitting the hour burden so each will account for 51 burden hours. HHS estimates that each self-certification or notice to HHS will require $0.49 in postage and $0.05 in materials cost (paper and ink) and the total postage and materials cost for each self-certification or notice sent via mail will be $0.54. For purposes of this analysis, HHS assumes that all self-certifications or notices to HHS will be mailed. The total cost burden for the self-certifications or notices to HHS is approximately $66.
As the Department of Labor and the Department of Health and Human Services share jurisdiction they are splitting the cost burden so each will account for $33 of the cost burden.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and an individual is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. In accordance with the requirements of the PRA, the EBSA Form 700 ICR has been approved by OMB under control number 1210–0150. These interim final regulations amend the ICR by providing an alternative process consistent with the
This approval allows respondents temporarily to utilize the additional flexibility these final regulations provide, while the Department seeks public comment on the collection methods—including their utility and burden. Contemporaneously with the publication of these interim final regulations, the Department of Labor published a notice elsewhere in today's issue of the
Consistent with the analysis in the HHS PRA section above the Department expects that each of the estimated 122 organizations will spend approximately 50 minutes in preparation time and incur $0.54 mailing cost to satisfy the requirements. The DOL information collections in this rule are found in 29 CFR 2510.3–16 and 2590.715–2713A and are summarized as follows:
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) (RFA) imposes certain requirements with respect to Federal rules that are subject to the notice and comment requirements of section 553(b) of the APA (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.) and that are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Under Section 553(b) of the APA, a general notice of proposed rulemaking is not required when an agency, for good cause, finds that notice and public comment thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. These interim final regulations are exempt from APA's prior notice and comment requirement because the Departments made a good cause finding that a general notice of proposed rulemaking is not necessary earlier in this preamble. Therefore, the RFA does not apply and the Departments are not required to either certify that the rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities or conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis.
Nevertheless, the Departments carefully considered the likely impact of the rule on small entities in connection with their assessment under Executive Order 12866. The Departments do not expect that these interim final regulations will have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities, because they will not result in any additional costs to affected entities. Instead, the regulations merely provide an alternative means for eligible organizations to provide notice of their religious objection to coverage of all, or a subset of, contraceptive services.
For purposes of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4), as well as Executive Order 12875, these interim final regulations do not include any federal mandate that may result in expenditures by state, local, or tribal governments, nor do they include any federal mandates that may impose an annual burden of $100 million, adjusted for inflation, or more on the private sector.
Executive Order 13132 outlines fundamental principles of federalism, and requires the adherence to specific criteria by federal agencies in the process of their formulation and implementation of policies that have “substantial direct effects” on states, the relationship between the federal government and states, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Federal agencies promulgating regulations that have these federalism implications must consult with state and local officials, and describe the extent of their consultation and the nature of the concerns of state and local officials in the preamble to the regulation.
These interim final regulations do not have any Federalism implications, since they only provide an eligible organization with an alternative process to provide notice of its religious objection to coverage of all or a subset of contraceptive services.
The Department of the Treasury temporary regulations are adopted
The Department of Labor regulations are adopted pursuant to the authority contained in 29 U.S.C. 1002(16), 1027, 1059, 1135, 1161–1168, 1169, 1181–1183, 1181 note, 1185, 1185a, 1185b, 1185d, 1191, 1191a, 1191b, and 1191c; sec. 101(g), Public Law 104–191, 110 Stat. 1936; sec. 401(b), Public Law 105–200, 112 Stat. 645 (42 U.S.C. 651 note); sec. 512(d), Public Law 110–343, 122 Stat. 3881; sec. 1001, 1201, and 1562(e), Public Law 111–148, 124 Stat. 119, as amended by Public Law 111–152, 124 Stat. 1029; Secretary of Labor's Order 1–2011, 77 FR 1088 (Jan. 9, 2012).
The Department of Health and Human Services regulations are adopted pursuant to the authority contained in sections 2701 through 2763, 2791, and 2792 of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg through 300gg–63, 300gg–91, and 300gg–92), as amended; and Title I of the Affordable Care Act, sections 1301–1304, 1311–1312, 1321–1322, 1324, 1334, 1342–1343, 1401–1402, and 1412, Pub. L. 111–148, 124 Stat. 119 (42 U.S.C. 18021–18024, 18031–18032, 18041–18042, 18044, 18054, 18061, 18063, 18071, 18082, 26 U.S.C. 36B, and 31 U.S.C. 9701).
Excise taxes, Health care, Health insurance, Pensions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Employee benefit plans, Pensions.
Continuation coverage, Disclosure, Employee benefit plans, Group health plans, Health care, Health insurance, Medical child support, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Health care, Health insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, State regulation of health insurance.
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 54 is amended as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805. * * *
(b) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 54.9815–2713AT(b).
(c)
(2) * * *
(i) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 54.9815–2713AT(c)(2)(i) introductory text.
(f) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 54.9815–2713AT(f).
(a) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 54.9815–2713A(a).
(b)
(i) The eligible organization or its plan contracts with one or more third party administrators.
(ii) The eligible organization provides either a copy of the self-certification to each third party administrator or a notice to the Secretary of Health and Human Services that it is an eligible organization and of its religious objection to coverage of all or a subset of contraceptive services.
(A) When a copy of the self-certification is provided directly to a third party administrator, such self-certification must include notice that obligations of the third party administrator are set forth in 29 CFR 2510.3–16 and this section and under § 54.9815–2713A.
(B) When a notice is provided to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the notice must include the name of the eligible organization and the basis on which it qualifies for an accommodation; its objection based on sincerely held religious beliefs to coverage of some or all contraceptive services (including an identification of the subset of contraceptive services to which coverage the eligible organization objects, if applicable); the plan name and type (
(2) If a third party administrator receives a copy of the self-certification from an eligible organization or a notification from the Department of Labor, as described in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section, and agrees to enter into or remain in a contractual relationship with the eligible
(i) Provide payments for contraceptive services for plan participants and beneficiaries without imposing any cost-sharing requirements (such as a copayment, coinsurance, or a deductible), or imposing a premium, fee, or other charge, or any portion thereof, directly or indirectly, on the eligible organization, the group health plan, or plan participants or beneficiaries; or
(ii) Arrange for an issuer or other entity to provide payments for contraceptive services for plan participants and beneficiaries without imposing any cost-sharing requirements (such as a copayment, coinsurance, or a deductible), or imposing a premium, fee, or other charge, or any portion thereof, directly or indirectly, on the eligible organization, the group health plan, or plan participants or beneficiaries.
(3) If a third party administrator provides or arranges payments for contraceptive services in accordance with either paragraph (b)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section, the costs of providing or arranging such payments may be reimbursed through an adjustment to the Federally-facilitated Exchange user fee for a participating issuer pursuant to 45 CFR 156.50(d).
(4) A third party administrator may not require any documentation other than a copy of the self-certification from the eligible organization or notification from the Department of Labor described in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section.
(c)
(i) When a copy of the self-certification is provided directly to an issuer, the issuer has sole responsibility for providing such coverage in accordance with § 54.9815–2713. An issuer may not require any further documentation from the eligible organization regarding its status as such.
(ii) When a notice is provided to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the notice must include the name of the eligible organization and the basis on which it qualifies for an accommodation; its objection based on its sincerely held religious beliefs to coverage of some or all contraceptive services, as applicable (including an identification of the subset of contraceptive services to which coverage the eligible organization objects, if applicable); the plan name and type (
(2)
(ii) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 54.9815–2713A(c)(2)(ii).
(d) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 54.9815–2713A(d).
(e) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 54.9815–2713A(e).
(f)
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Labor amends 29 CFR parts 2510 and 2590 as follows:
29 U.S.C. 1002(2), 1002(16), 1002(21),1002(37), 1002(38), 1002(40), 1031, and 1135; Secretary of Labor's Order 1–2011, 77 FR 1088 (Jan. 9, 2012); Sec. 2510.3–101 also issued under sec. 102 of Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1978, 43 FR 47713, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 332 and E.O. 12108, 44 FR 1065, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 275, and 29 U.S.C. 1135 note. Sec. 2510.3–102 also issued under sec. 102 of Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1978, 43 FR 47713, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 332 and E.O. 12108, 44 FR 1065, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 275. Sec. 2510.3–38 is also issued under sec. 1, Pub. L. 105–72, 111 Stat. 1457.
(b) In the case of a self-insured group health plan established or maintained by an eligible organization, as defined in § 2590.715–2713A(a) of this chapter, if the eligible organization provides a copy of the self-certification of its objection to administering or funding any contraceptive benefits in accordance with § 2590.715–2713A(b)(1)(ii) of this chapter to a third party administrator, the self-certification shall be an instrument under which the plan is operated, shall be treated as a designation of the third party administrator as the plan administrator under section 3(16) of ERISA for any contraceptive services required to be covered under § 2590.715–2713(a)(1)(iv) of this chapter to which the eligible organization objects on religious grounds, and shall supersede any earlier designation. If, instead, the eligible organization notifies the Secretary of Health and Human Services of its objection to administering or funding any contraceptive benefits in accordance with § 2590.715–2713A(b)(1)(ii) of this chapter, the Department of Labor, working with the Department of Health and Human Services, shall separately provide notification to each third party administrator that such third party administrator shall be the plan administrator under section 3(16) of ERISA for any contraceptive services required to be covered under § 2590.715–2713(a)(1)(iv) of this chapter to which the eligible organization objects on religious grounds, with
(c) A third party administrator that becomes a plan administrator pursuant to this section shall be responsible for—
(1) Complying with section 2713 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg–13) (as incorporated into section 715 of ERISA) and § 2590.715–2713 of this chapter with respect to coverage of contraceptive services. To the extent the plan contracts with different third party administrators for different classifications of benefits (such as prescription drug benefits versus inpatient and outpatient benefits), each third party administrator is responsible for providing contraceptive coverage that complies with section 2713 of the Public Health Service Act (as incorporated into section 715 of ERISA) and § 2590.715–2713 of this chapter with respect to the classification or classifications of benefits subject to its contract.
(2) Establishing and operating a procedure for determining such claims for contraceptive services in accordance with § 2560.503–1 of this chapter.
(3) Complying with disclosure and other requirements applicable to group health plans under Title I of ERISA with respect to such benefits.
29 U.S.C. 1027, 1059, 1135, 1161–1168, 1169, 1181–1183, 1181 note, 1185, 1185a, 1185b, 1185d, 1191, 1191a, 1191b, and 1191c; sec. 101(g), Pub. L. 104–191, 110 Stat. 1936; sec. 401(b), Pub. L. 105–200, 112 Stat. 645 (42 U.S.C. 651 note); sec. 12(d), Pub. L. 110–343, 122 Stat. 3881; sec. 1001, 1201, and 1562(e), Pub. L. 111–148, 124 Stat. 119, as amended by Pub. L. 111–152, 124 Stat. 1029; Secretary of Labor's Order 1–2011, 77 FR 1088 (January 9, 2012).
(b)
(i) The eligible organization or its plan contracts with one or more third party administrators.
(ii) The eligible organization provides either a copy of the self-certification to each third party administrator or a notice to the Secretary of Health and Human Services that it is an eligible organization and of its religious objection to coverage of all or a subset of contraceptive services.
(A) When a copy of the self-certification is provided directly to a third party administrator, such self-certification must include notice that obligations of the third party administrator are set forth in § 2510.3–16 of this chapter and this section.
(B) When a notice is provided to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the notice must include the name of the eligible organization and the basis on which it qualifies for an accommodation; its objection based on sincerely held religious beliefs to coverage of some or all contraceptive services (including an identification of the subset of contraceptive services to which coverage the eligible organization objects, if applicable); the plan name and type (
(2) If a third party administrator receives a copy of the self-certification from an eligible organization or a notification from the Department of Labor, as described in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section, and agrees to enter into or remain in a contractual relationship with the eligible organization or its plan to provide administrative services for the plan, the third party administrator shall provide or arrange payments for contraceptive services using one of the following methods—
(i) Provide payments for contraceptive services for plan participants and beneficiaries without imposing any cost-sharing requirements (such as a copayment, coinsurance, or a deductible), or imposing a premium, fee, or other charge, or any portion thereof, directly or indirectly, on the eligible organization, the group health plan, or plan participants or beneficiaries; or
(ii) Arrange for an issuer or other entity to provide payments for contraceptive services for plan participants and beneficiaries without imposing any cost-sharing requirements (such as a copayment, coinsurance, or a deductible), or imposing a premium, fee, or other charge, or any portion thereof, directly or indirectly, on the eligible organization, the group health plan, or plan participants or beneficiaries.
(3) If a third party administrator provides or arranges payments for contraceptive services in accordance with either paragraph (b)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section, the costs of providing or arranging such payments may be reimbursed through an adjustment to the Federally-facilitated Exchange user fee for a participating issuer pursuant to 45 CFR 156.50(d).
(4) A third party administrator may not require any documentation other than a copy of the self-certification from the eligible organization or notification from the Department of Labor described in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section.
(c) * * *(1)
(i) When a copy of the self-certification is provided directly to an issuer, the issuer has sole responsibility for providing such coverage in accordance with § 2590.715–2713. An issuer may not require any further documentation from the eligible organization regarding its status as such.
(ii) When a notice is provided to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the notice must include the name of the eligible organization and the basis on which it qualifies for an accommodation; its objection based on its sincerely held religious beliefs to coverage of some or all contraceptive services, as applicable (including an identification of the subset of contraceptive services to which coverage the eligible organization objects, if applicable); the plan name and type (
(2) * * * (i) A group health insurance issuer that receives a copy of the self-certification or notification described in paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section with respect to a group health plan established or maintained by an eligible organization in connection with which the issuer would otherwise provide contraceptive coverage under § 2590.715–2713(a)(1)(iv) must—
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Health and Human Services amends 45 CFR part 147 as follows:
Secs 2701 through 2763, 2791, and 2792 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg through 300gg–63, 300gg–91, and 300gg–92), as amended.
(c) * * * (1)
(i) When a self-certification is provided directly to an issuer, the issuer has sole responsibility for providing such coverage in accordance with § 147.130. An issuer may not require any further documentation from the eligible organization regarding its status as such.
(ii) When a notice is provided to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the notice must include the name of the eligible organization and the basis on which it qualifies for an accommodation; its objection based on its sincerely held religious beliefs to coverage of some or all contraceptive services, as applicable (including an identification of the subset of contraceptive services to which coverage the eligible organization objects, if applicable); the plan name and type (
(2) * * * (i) A group health insurance issuer that receives a copy of the self-certification or notification described in paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section with respect to a group health plan established or maintained by an eligible organization in connection with which the issuer would otherwise provide contraceptive coverage under § 147.130(a)(1)(iv) must—
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce Special Local Regulations for the Southern Professional Outboard Racing Tour (S.P.O.R.T.) boat races to be held on the Sabine River in Orange, TX from 3 p.m. on September 19, 2014, through 6 p.m. on September 21, 2014. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of the participants, crew, spectators, participating vessels, non-participating vessels and other users of the waterway. During the enforcement period, the Coast Guard Patrol Commander will enforce restrictions upon, and control the movement of, vessels in the zone established by the Special Local Regulation.
The regulation in 33 CFR 100.801 will be enforced from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. on September 19, 2014; and from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on September 20 and 21, 2014.
If you have questions on this notice of enforcement, call or email Mr. Scott Whalen, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Port Arthur, TX; telephone 409–719–5086, email
The Coast Guard will enforce Special Local Regulation for the annual S.P.O.R.T. boat races in 33 CFR 100.801 (Table 3, Line 5) on September 19, 2014, from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. and on September 20 and 21, 2014, from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m.
This Special Local Regulation encompasses all waters of the Sabine River south of latitude 30°05′33″ N and waters north of latitude 30°05′45″ N North American Datum (NAD 83).
Under the provisions of 33 CFR 100.801, a vessel may not enter the
This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 100.801 and 33 U.S.C. 1233. In addition to this notice in the
If the Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene Patrol Commander determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, he or she may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of methoxyfenozide in or on pineapple. Dow AgroSciences, LLC, requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
This regulation is effective August 27, 2014. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before October 27, 2014, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–OPP–2013–0476, 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).
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2013–0476 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before October 27, 2014. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2013–0476, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
In the
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue * * *.”
Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for methoxyfenozide including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with methoxyfenozide follows.
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. Methoxyfenozide is of low acute toxicity by the oral, dermal, and inhalation routes and is not a dermal sensitizer. Many of the available short-term or subchronic toxicity studies on methoxyfenozide showed little or no toxicity. The main target organs identified from the toxicity studies in the rat and dog were the liver, thyroid, and red blood cells (RBCs). The most consistent findings across species and studies were decreased red blood cell parameters and increased liver, thyroid, adrenal, and spleen weights. Increases in thyroid and adrenal weights were observed in the rat chronic oral study. Thyroid weights were also increased in the dog following chronic exposure, but no accompanying histopathology was observed. The effects of methoxyfenozide on the blood in mammals (methemoglobinemia, decreased red blood cell parameters, Heinz body formation) are consistent with those of other hydrazine compounds.
Acute and subchronic oral neurotoxicity studies in the rat did not show evidence of potential neurotoxicity. In the acute study, decreased hindlimb grip strength on day 0 was reported in males. This finding was only observed at the limit dose in males and was not observed in the subchronic neurotoxicity study and was therefore not considered evidence of neurotoxicity. No clinical signs of neurotoxicity or neurohistopathology were observed in other guideline studies.
No maternal or developmental effects were observed in either the rat or rabbit oral developmental toxicity studies. In the rat 2-generation reproductive toxicity study, parental effects were limited to increased liver weight and microscopic periportal hypertrophy. No offspring or reproductive toxicity was observed. In a 28-day dietary immunotoxicity study in the rat, no immunotoxicity was observed.
There was no evidence of carcinogenicity in the rat dietary 24-month chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study or the mouse dietary 18-month carcinogenicity study. No mutagenic or clastogenic potential was observed in the battery of genotoxicity studies on methoxyfenozide. Based on these findings, methoxyfenozide is classified as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.”
Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by methoxyfenozide as well as the No-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the Lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at
Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which the NOAEL and the LOAEL at which adverse effects of concern. Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see
A summary of the toxicological endpoints for methoxyfenozide used for human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.
1.
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
2.
Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS) and the Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM GW), the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of methoxyfenozide for chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 51 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 214 ppb for ground water.
Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 214 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.
3.
Methoxyfenozide is currently registered for the following uses that could result in residential exposures: Ornamental uses. EPA assessed potential inhalation exposure for residential handlers treating ornamentals in and around home gardens using a backpack sprayer. A quantitative dermal assessment for residential handlers was not conducted since there is no systemic toxicity associated with dermal exposure to
Adult post-application exposures were not quantitatively assessed since no dermal hazard was identified for methoxyfenozide and inhalation exposures are typically negligible in outdoor settings. Furthermore, the inhalation exposure assessment performed for residential handlers is representative of worse case inhalation exposures and is considered protective for post-application inhalation exposure scenarios.
Post-application oral exposure to children is not expected since the extent to which young children engage in activities associated with areas where residential ornamentals are grown or utilize these areas for prolonged periods of play is low. Therefore, an incidental oral post-application exposure assessment was not conducted.
Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found at
4.
EPA has not found methoxyfenozide to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and methoxyfenozide does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that methoxyfenozide does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at
1.
2.
3.
i. The toxicity database for methoxyfenozide is complete.
ii. There is no indication that methoxyfenozide is a neurotoxic chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
iii. There is no evidence that methoxyfenozide results in increased susceptibility in
iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made highly conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to methoxyfenozide in drinking water. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by methoxyfenozide.
EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute population adjusted dose (aPAD) and chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.
1.
2.
3.
Methoxyfenozide is currently registered for uses that could result in short-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with short-term residential exposures to methoxyfenozide.
Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water, and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 540. Because EPA's level of concern for methoxyfenozide is a MOE of 100 or below, these MOEs are not of concern.
4.
An intermediate-term adverse effect was identified; however, methoxyfenozide is not registered for any use patterns that would result in intermediate-term residential exposure. Intermediate-term risk is assessed based on intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic dietary exposure. Because there is no intermediate-term residential exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as the POD used to assess intermediate-term risk), no further assessment of intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating intermediate-term risk for methoxyfenozide.
5.
6.
Adequate enforcement methodology (using high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), with either tandem mass spectrometric detection (LC–MS/MS), or ultraviolet detection (HPLC–UV) is available to enforce the tolerance expression. It is also noted that the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has concluded that the multiresidue QuEChERS method, combined with an HPLC–MS/MS, is adequate for tolerance enforcement in plant and animal commodities (EFSA, 2014)).
The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755–5350; telephone number: (410) 305–2905; email address:
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
The Codex has not established a MRL for methoxyfenozide in pineapple.
Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of methoxyfenozide, 3-methoxy-2-methylbenzoic acid 2-(3,5-dimethylbenzoyl)-2-(1,1-dimethylethyl) hydrazide, in or on pineapple at 0.70 ppm.
This final rule establishes a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or Tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition, this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501
This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
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 chapter I is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
In this document, the Commission makes minor changes to the rules that restrict the volume of television commercials. Specifically, as required by the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation (CALM) Act, the Commission incorporates by reference into the Commission's rules the Advanced Television Systems Committee's (ATSC) March 12, 2013 A/85:2013 Recommended Practice (RP) (Successor RP), replacing the July 25, 2011 A/85:2011 Recommended Practice (Current RP), incorporated into the Commission's rules in 2011. The Successor RP will become mandatory on June 4, 2015. The 2013 Successor RP applies an improved loudness measurement algorithm to conform to the International Telecommunication Union's (ITU) updated BS.1770 measurement algorithm, “BS.1770–3.”
Effective June 4, 2015. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of June 4, 2015.
For additional information on this proceeding, contact Evan Baranoff,
This is a summary of the Commission's
1. In this Second Report and Order (R&O), we make minor changes to our rules that restrict the volume of television commercials. It is our hope that these changes will result in a modest decrease in the perceived loudness of certain commercials.
2. The Commission's rules implementing the CALM Act, adopted December 13, 2011,
3. Section 2(a) of the CALM Act mandates that the Commission's rules incorporate by reference and make mandatory “any successor” to the RP.
4. On November 1, 2013, we released the
5. As required by the statute,
6. We adopt the proposal in the
7. We reject the request by Holston Valley
8. Finally, consistent with the Commission's decision in the Order accompanying the
9. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA)
10. This Second Report and Order adopts minor rule changes to the Commission's Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation (CALM) Act rules. Specifically, as required by the CALM Act,
11. No comments specifically addressed the IRFA.
12. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and an estimate of the number of small entities to which the rules will apply.
13.
14. We note, however, that in assessing whether a business concern qualifies as small under the above definition, business (control) affiliations
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21. As stated above, the
22. The RFA requires an agency to describe the steps the agency has taken to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities consistent with the stated objectives of applicable statutes, including a statement of the factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other significant alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which affect the impact on small entities was rejected.
23. The CALM Act requires that the new technical loudness standard (
24. The Commission will send a copy of the
25. This document does not contain any new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
26. The Commission will send a copy of this Second Report and Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office, pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.
27. For more information, contact Evan Baranoff,
28. Accordingly,
29.
30.
31.
Cable television, Digital television, Incorporation by reference, and Satellite television.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 73 and 76 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336, and 339.
47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 154, 301, 302, 302a, 303, 303a, 307, 308, 309, 312, 315, 317, 325, 339, 340, 341, 503, 521, 522, 531, 532, 534, 535, 536, 537, 543, 544, 544a, 545, 548, 549, 552, 554, 556, 558, 560, 561, 571, 572, 573.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS implements accountability measures for the commercial hook-and-line component for golden tilefish in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the South Atlantic. Commercial hook-and-line landings for golden tilefish, as estimated by the Science and Research Director (SRD), are projected to reach the hook-and-line component's commercial annual catch limit (ACL) on August 29, 2014. Therefore, NMFS closes the commercial hook-and-line component for golden tilefish in the South Atlantic EEZ on August 29, 2014, and it will remain closed until the start of the next fishing season, January 1, 2015. This closure is necessary to protect the golden tilefish resource.
This rule is effective 12:01 a.m., local time, August 29, 2014, until 12:01 a.m., local time, January 1, 2015.
Catherine Hayslip, telephone: 727–824–5305, email:
The snapper-grouper fishery of the South Atlantic includes golden tilefish and is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and is implemented under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.
On April 23, 2013, NMFS published a final rule for Amendment 18B to the FMP (78 FR 23858). Amendment 18B to the FMP established a longline endorsement program for the commercial golden tilefish component of the snapper-grouper fishery and allocated the commercial golden tilefish ACL among two gear groups, the longline and hook-and-line components.
The commercial ACL (commercial quota) for the hook-and-line component for golden tilefish in the South Atlantic is 135,324 lb (61,382 kg), gutted weight, for the current fishing year, January 1 through December 31, 2014, as specified in 50 CFR 622.190(a)(2)(ii).
Under 50 CFR 622.193(a)(1)(i), NMFS is required to close the commercial hook-and-line component for golden tilefish when the hook-and-line component's commercial ACL (commercial quota) has been reached, or is projected to be reached, by filing a notification to that effect with the Office of the Federal Register. NMFS has determined that the commercial ACL (commercial quota) for the hook-and-line component for golden tilefish in the South Atlantic will have been reached by August 29, 2014. Accordingly, the commercial hook-and-line component for South Atlantic golden tilefish is closed effective 12:01 a.m., local time, August 29, 2014, until 12:01 a.m., local time, January 1, 2015.
The commercial longline component for South Atlantic golden tilefish closed on March 5, 2014, for the remainder of the fishing season, until 12:01 a.m., local time, January 1, 2015 (79 FR 12411, March 5, 2014). Furthermore, recreational harvest for golden tilefish closed on June 7, 2014, for the remainder of the fishing season, until 12:01 a.m., local time, January 1, 2015 (79 FR 32498, June 5, 2014). Therefore, because the commercial longline component and the recreational sector are already closed, and NMFS is closing the hook-and-line component through this temporary rule, all fishing for South Atlantic golden tilefish is closed effective 12:01 a.m., local time, August 29, 2014, until 12:01 a.m., local time, January 1, 2015.
The operator of a vessel with a valid commercial vessel permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper having golden
The Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS, has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of South Atlantic golden tilefish and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the FMP, and other applicable laws.
This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.193(a)(1) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
These measures are exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the temporary rule is issued without opportunity for prior notice and comment.
This action responds to the best available scientific information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, (AA), finds that the need to immediately implement this action to close the commercial hook-and-line component for golden tilefish constitutes good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), as such procedures would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures would be unnecessary because the rule itself has been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the closure.
Allowing prior notice and opportunity for public comment is contrary to the public interest because of the need to immediately implement this action to protect golden tilefish since the capacity of the fishing fleet allows for rapid harvest of the commercial ACL (commercial quota) for the hook-and-line component. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment would require time and would potentially result in a harvest well in excess of the established commercial ACL (commercial quota) for the hook-and-line component.
For the aforementioned reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Kamchatka flounder in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the 2014 Kamchatka flounder initial total allowable catch (ITAC) in the BSAI.
Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), August 23, 2014, through 2400 hrs, A.l.t., December 31, 2014.
Steve Whitney, 907–586–7269.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The 2014 Kamchatka flounder ITAC in the BSAI is 6,035 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2014 and 2015 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (79 FR 12108, March 4, 2014). In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that the 2014 Kamchatka flounder ITAC in the BSAI will soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 500 mt, and is setting aside the remaining 5,535 mt as incidental catch. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Kamchatka flounder in the BSAI.
After the effective date of this closure the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the closure of Kamchatka flounder to directed fishing in the BSAI. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of August 21, 2014.
The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Notice of proposed rulemaking; request for public comment.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) is proposing to repeal its Regulation AA, which was issued pursuant to its rule writing authority under section 18(f)(1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act or Act). Section 1092(2) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) repealed section 18(f)(1) of the FTC Act, thus eliminating the Board's rule writing authority under the Act.
Comments must be received on or before October 27, 2014.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. R–1490 and RIN 7100 AE–19, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Mandie K. Aubrey, Counsel, Division of Consumer and Community Affairs, at (202) 452–3667, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th and C Streets NW., Washington, DC 20551. For users of Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) only, contact (202) 263–4869.
The FTC Act directs the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to promulgate rules to define and prevent unfair or deceptive acts or practices for persons other than banks, savings and loans, and Federal credit unions.
Prior to Dodd-Frank Act amendments to the FTC Act in 2010, section 18(f)(1) of the Act required the Board to promulgate rules applicable to banks that were “substantially similar” to these FTC rules, with some exceptions.
Pursuant to its rule writing authority in section 18(f)(1) of the FTC Act, the Board issued Regulation AA,
The Board's credit practices rule in Regulation AA prohibits banks from using certain remedies to enforce consumer credit obligations and from including these remedies in their consumer credit contracts. Specifically, the rule prohibits the following contract provisions and remedies:
(1) Confession of judgment clauses that require consumers to agree in advance to waive their right to a hearing;
(2) Waivers of state statutory exemptions that protect debtors' homes and personal necessities from attachment to satisfy a debt, unless they were pledged as collateral for the loan;
(3) Clauses that assign consumers' future wages to the creditor in the event of default; and
(4) Provisions granting the creditor a security interest in household goods not in the creditor's possession, unless the goods were purchased with the credit.
The rule also prohibits banks from:
(1) Obligating a co-signer on the debt unless the co-signer previously received a clear and conspicuous written notice explaining the nature of the co-signer's obligations and liabilities under the contract; and
(2) Imposing a late fee when a consumer makes a full loan payment on time or within the grace period, solely because the consumer did not pay a previous late fee imposed on an earlier installment (the “pyramiding” of late fees).
In addition, Regulation AA contains a provision that informs consumers how to file a complaint regarding a state member bank and explains the Board's procedure for responding to such complaints.
Finally, Regulation AA contains information regarding state exemptions from the rule.
The Dodd-Frank Act
Unlike other consumer protection laws and regulations, Regulation AA did not transfer from the Board to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Bureau) under the Dodd-Frank Act. Specifically, the Dodd-Frank Act transferred rule writing authority only for “Federal consumer financial laws,” but did not include the FTC Act in the definition of “Federal consumer financial law.”
Notwithstanding the repeal of rule writing authority under the FTC Act, the Board continues to have supervisory and enforcement authority regarding unfair or deceptive acts or practices under section 5 of the FTC Act and sections 1031 and 1036 of the Dodd-Frank Act.
The repeal of Regulation AA would eliminate Subpart A of the regulation, which generally describes the internal procedures used by the Board in handling consumer complaints. Information about how the Board processes consumer complaints is currently provided on the Board's public Web site where it will continue to be available.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506; 5 CFR part 1320, Appendix A.1), the Board reviewed the rule under the authority delegated to the Federal Reserve by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The proposed rule contains no requirements subject to the PRA.
Banks, Banking, Consumer protection, Credit, Federal Reserve System, Finance.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Board proposes to amend Regulation AA, 12 CFR part 227, and the Official Staff Commentary, as set forth below:
In proposed rule document 2014–19157 beginning on page 47395 in the issue of Wednesday, August 13, 2014, make the following correction:
On page 47399, in the table titled “Figure 1 to Paragraph (i) of This AD—AFM Revision”, in the fourth line, “AGN–32” should read “ABN–32”.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations.
Elsewhere in this issue of the
Written or electronic comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by November 25, 2014.
Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG–129507–14), Room 5205, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG–129507–14), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224. Alternatively, taxpayers may submit comments electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Concerning the regulations, Karen Levin at 202–317–5500; concerning submissions of comments, Regina Johnson at 202–317–6901 (not toll-free numbers).
The collection of information contained in this notice of proposed rulemaking has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)). Comments on the collection of information should be sent to the Office of Management and Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for the Department of the Treasury, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503, with copies to the Internal Revenue Service, Attn: IRS Reports Clearance Officer, SE:W:CAR:MP:T:T:SP, Washington, DC 20224. Comments on the collection of information should be received by October 27, 2014. Comments are specifically requested concerning:
• Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Internal Revenue Service, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• The accuracy of the estimated burdens associated with the proposed collection of information (see the preamble to the temporary regulations published elsewhere in this issue of the
• How to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
• How to minimize the burden of complying with the proposed collection of information, including the application of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
• Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget.
Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Temporary regulations are being published elsewhere in this issue of the
It has been determined that this notice of proposed rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It has also been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to this proposed regulation. It is hereby
Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any written comments (a signed original and eight (8) copies) or electronic comments that are submitted timely to the IRS. Comments are specifically requested on the clarity of the proposed regulations and how they may be made easier to understand. All comments will be available for public inspection and copying. A public hearing may be scheduled if requested in writing by a person that timely submits written comments. If a public hearing is scheduled, notice of the date, time, and place for the hearing will be published in the
The principal author of these proposed regulations is Karen Levin, Office of the Division Counsel/Associate Chief Counsel (Tax Exempt and Government Entities), IRS. The proposed regulations, as well as the temporary regulations, have been developed in coordination with personnel from the U.S. Department of Labor and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Excise taxes, Health care, Health insurance, Pensions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 54 is proposed to be amended as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
[The text of proposed § 54.9815–2713A is the same as the text of § 54.9815–2713AT published elsewhere in this issue of the
Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury; Employee Benefits Security Administration, Department of Labor; Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services.
Proposed rules.
This document proposes a change to the definition of an eligible organization that can avail itself of an accommodation with respect to coverage of certain preventive services under section 2713 of the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act), added by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended, and incorporated into the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the Internal Revenue Code.
Section 2713 of the PHS Act requires coverage without cost sharing of certain preventive health services by non-grandfathered group health plans and health insurance coverage. Among these services are women's preventive health services, as specified in guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). As authorized by the current regulations, and consistent with the HRSA Guidelines, group health plans established or maintained by certain religious employers (and group health insurance coverage provided in connection with such plans) are exempt from the otherwise applicable requirement to cover certain contraceptive services. Additionally, under current regulations, accommodations are available with respect to the contraceptive coverage requirement for group health plans established or maintained by eligible organizations (and group health insurance coverage provided in connection with such plans), and student health insurance coverage arranged by eligible organizations that are institutions of higher education, that effectively exempt them from this requirement. The regulations establish a mechanism for separately furnishing payments for contraceptive services on behalf of participants and beneficiaries of the group health plans of eligible organizations that avail themselves of an accommodation, and enrollees and dependents of student health insurance coverage arranged by eligible organizations that are institutions of higher education that avail themselves of an accommodation.
These rules propose and seek comments on potential changes to the definition of “eligible organization” in the Departments' regulations in light of the Supreme Court's decision in
To be assured consideration, comments must be received at one of the addresses provided below, no later than 5 p.m. on October 21, 2014.
In commenting, please refer to file code CMS–9940–P. Because of staff and resource limitations, we cannot accept comments by facsimile (FAX) transmission.
You may submit comments in one of four ways (please choose only one of the ways listed):
1.
2.
Please allow sufficient time for mailed comments to be received before the close of the comment period.
3.
4.
a. For delivery in Washington, DC—
(Because access to the interior of the Hubert H. Humphrey Building is not readily available to persons without Federal government identification, commenters are encouraged to leave their comments in the CMS drop slots located in the main lobby of the building. A stamp-in clock is available for persons wishing to retain a proof of filing by stamping in and retaining an extra copy of the comments being filed.)
b. For delivery in Baltimore, MD—
If you intend to deliver your comments to the Baltimore address, call telephone number (410) 786–9994 in advance to schedule your arrival with one of our staff members.
Comments erroneously mailed to an address indicated as appropriate for hand or courier delivery may be delayed and received after the close of the comment period.
For information on viewing public comments, see the beginning of the
David Mlawsky, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), at (410) 786–1565; Amy Turner or Beth Baum, Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA), Department of Labor, at (202) 693–8335; Karen Levin, Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Department of the Treasury, at (202) 927–9639.
Comments received timely will also be available for public inspection as they are received, generally beginning approximately 3 weeks after publication of a document, at the headquarters of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244, Monday through Friday of each week from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. To schedule an appointment to view public comments, phone 1–800–743–3951.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Pub. L. 111–148) was enacted on March 23, 2010. The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111–152) was enacted on March 30, 2010. These statutes are collectively known as the Affordable Care Act. The Affordable Care Act reorganizes, amends, and adds to the provisions of part A of title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) relating to group health plans and health insurance issuers in the group and individual markets. The Affordable Care Act adds section 715(a)(1) to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and section 9815(a)(1) to the Internal Revenue Code (Code) to incorporate the provisions of part A of title XXVII of the PHS Act into ERISA and the Code, and to make them applicable to group health plans and health insurance issuers providing health insurance coverage in connection with group health plans. The sections of the PHS Act incorporated into ERISA and the Code are sections 2701 through 2728.
Section 2713 of the PHS Act, as added by the Affordable Care Act and incorporated into ERISA and the Code, requires that non-grandfathered group health plans and health insurance issuers offering non-grandfathered group or individual health insurance coverage provide coverage of certain specified preventive services without cost sharing, including under paragraph (a)(4), benefits for certain women's preventive health services as provided for in comprehensive guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). On August 1, 2011, HRSA adopted and released guidelines for women's preventive health services (HRSA Guidelines) based on recommendations of the independent Institute of Medicine. As relevant here, the HRSA Guidelines include all Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved contraceptives, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for women with reproductive capacity, as prescribed by a health care provider (collectively, contraceptive services).
Interim final regulations implementing section 2713 of the PHS Act were published on July 19, 2010 (75 FR 41726) (2010 interim final regulations). On August 1, 2011, the Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS), Labor, and the Treasury (collectively, the Departments) amended the 2010 interim final regulations to provide HRSA with authority to exempt group health plans established or maintained by certain religious employers (and group health insurance coverage provided in connection with such plans) from the requirement to cover contraceptive services consistent with the HRSA Guidelines (76 FR 46621) (2011 amended interim final regulations).
Contemporaneous with the issuance of the 2012 final regulations, HHS, with the agreement of the Departments of Labor and the Treasury, issued guidance establishing a temporary safe harbor from enforcement of the contraceptive coverage requirement by the Departments for group health plans established or maintained by certain nonprofit organizations with religious objections to contraceptive coverage (and group health insurance coverage provided in connection with such plans).
On March 21, 2012, the Departments published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) that described and solicited comments on possible approaches to achieve these goals (77 FR 16501).
On February 6, 2013, following review of the comments on the ANPRM, the Departments published proposed regulations at 78 FR 8456 (proposed regulations). The regulations proposed to simplify and clarify the definition of “religious employer” for purposes of the religious employer exemption. The regulations also proposed accommodations for group health plans established or maintained or arranged by certain nonprofit religious organizations with religious objections to contraceptive coverage (and group health insurance coverage provided in connection with such plans). These organizations were referred to as “eligible organizations.”
The regulations proposed that, in the case of an insured group health plan established or maintained by an eligible organization, the health insurance issuer providing group health insurance coverage in connection with the plan would be required to assume sole responsibility for providing contraceptive coverage to plan participants and beneficiaries without cost sharing, premium, fee, or other charge to plan participants or beneficiaries or to the eligible organization or its plan. The Departments proposed a comparable accommodation with respect to student health insurance coverage arranged by eligible organizations that are institutions of higher education.
In the case of a self-insured group health plan established or maintained by an eligible organization, the proposed regulations presented potential approaches under which the third party administrator of the plan would provide or arrange for a third party to provide contraceptive coverage to plan participants and beneficiaries without cost sharing, premium, fee, or other charge to plan participants or beneficiaries or to the eligible organization or its plan. An issuer (or its affiliate) would be able to offset the costs incurred by the third party administrator and the issuer in the course of arranging and providing such coverage by claiming an adjustment in the Federally-facilitated Exchange (FFE) user fee.
The Departments received over 400,000 comments (many of them standardized form letters) in response to the proposed regulations. After consideration of the comments, the Departments published final regulations on July 2, 2013 at 78 FR 39870 (July 2013 final regulations). The July 2013 final regulations simplified and clarified the definition of religious employer for purposes of the religious employer exemption and established accommodations for health coverage established or maintained or arranged by eligible organizations. A contemporaneously re-issued HHS guidance document extended the temporary safe harbor from enforcement of the contraceptive coverage requirement by the Departments to encompass plan years beginning on or after August 1, 2013, and before January 1, 2014. This guidance included a form
On June 30, 2014, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of
On July 3, 2014, the Supreme Court issued an interim order in connection with an application for an injunction pending appeal in
This notice of proposed rulemaking proposes and invites comments on changes to the definition of an eligible organization in the Departments' regulations in light of the Supreme Court's decision in
The Departments are publishing contemporaneously with this notice of proposed rulemaking interim final regulations in light of the Supreme Court's interim order in connection with the application for an injunction in the pending case of
As stated above, on June 30, 2014, the Supreme Court ruled in
In light of the Court's decision in
In considering inclusion of certain closely held for-profit entities among the eligible organizations that may avail themselves of the accommodations, the
In light of the Supreme Court's decision, the Departments are proposing for comment two possible approaches to defining a qualifying closely held for-profit entity, although the Departments invite comments on other approaches as well. In common understanding, a closely held corporation—a term often used interchangeably with a “close” or “closed” corporation—is a corporation the stock of which is owned by a small number of persons and for which no active trading market exists. See, for example, American Law Institute, Principles of Corporate Governances section 1.06; Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009) (“close corporation”); Del. Code Tit. 8, Ch.1, Sub. Ch. 14 (“close corporation”). The examples below are by way of illustration, and the maximum number of shareholders specified in particular examples would not necessarily be borrowed as the standard in this context.
Under the first proposed approach, a qualifying closely held for-profit entity would be an entity where none of the ownership interests in the entity is publicly traded and where the entity has fewer than a specified number of shareholders or owners.
There is precedent in other areas of federal law for limiting the definition of closely held entities in this context to those with a relatively small number of owners. For example, subchapter S treatment under section 1361 of the Code is currently limited to corporations with 100 or fewer shareholders who are generally individuals and has in the past been limited to corporations with 10 or fewer shareholders. Similarly, certain favorable estate tax treatment is limited to businesses with 45 or fewer partners or shareholders under section 6166 of the Code.
Under a second, alternative approach, a qualifying closely held entity would be a for-profit entity in which the ownership interests are not publicly traded, and in which a specified fraction of the ownership interest is concentrated in a limited and specified number of owners. This approach also has precedent in federal law. For example, certain rules governing the taxation of real estate investment trusts, passive activity losses, and certain income from foreign entities are limited to organizations that are more than 50 percent owned by or for not more than five individuals. See, for example, sections 856(h), 542(a)(2), and 469(j)(1) of the Code and regulations under these sections.
These approaches might serve to identify for-profit entities controlled and operated by individual owners who likely have associational ties, are personally identified with the entity, and can be regarded as conducting personal business affairs through the entity. These appear to be the types of entities the Court sought to accommodate in
The Departments invite comments on the appropriate scope of the definition of a qualifying closely held for-profit entity, including but not limited to whether a closely held for-profit entity should be defined with reference to a maximum number of owners (and, if so, what that maximum number should be) or a minimum concentration of ownership (and if so, what that concentration should be) or with reference to additional or other criteria.
It would be helpful for comments to address how the selection of a particular approach can be informed by the purposes of the Affordable Care Act and the contraceptive coverage requirement; the range of business structures in the Nation's economy; background principles of federal and state law applicable to business entities and the relationship of the entities' owners to the entities; other related or analogous areas of the law; experience regarding accommodations of religion and religious beliefs in various contexts and the rationales for the scope and operation of such accommodations;
In
Under the Departments' proposal, valid corporate action (or similar action by a business that is not organized as a corporation) taken in accordance with the entity's governing structure in accordance with state law, stating its owners' religious objection to providing some or all contraceptive coverage otherwise required to be provided, can serve to establish that a closely held for-profit entity has religious objections to providing such coverage. In determining whether a closely held for-profit entity's decision-making process followed the necessary rules and procedures, the laws of the state in which the entity is incorporated, or, for non-corporate entities, organized, would govern. The Departments invite comments on whether to require documentation of the decision-making process and disclosure of the decision.
The Departments seek comment on this approach to determining that a closely held for-profit entity opposes providing coverage for some or all of the contraceptive services otherwise required to be covered on account of the owners' religious objections.
The Departments seek comment on other potential changes to the July 2013 final regulations in light of the proposed change to the definition of eligible organization. In particular, the Departments seek comment on applying the approach set forth in the July 2013 final regulations in the context of the expanded definition of eligible organization. The July 2013 final regulations provide for separate payments for contraceptive services for participants and beneficiaries in self-insured group health plans of eligible organizations in a manner that enables these organizations to completely separate themselves from administration and payment for contraceptive coverage. Specifically, the third party administrator must provide or arrange such payments, and can seek reimbursement for such costs (including an allowance for administrative costs and margin) by making an arrangement with a participating issuer—that is, an issuer offering coverage through a Federally-facilitated Exchange (FFE). The participating issuer can receive an
The Departments seek comment on the likely number of closely held for-profit entities that would seek an accommodation, the number of participants and beneficiaries (or in the case of student health insurance coverage, enrollees and dependents) in the plans of such entities, and the number of issuers and third-party administrators affected by the proposed rules. Finally, the Departments seek comment on whether any other aspects of the accommodations in the July 2013 final regulations, including relevant definitions, should be modified in light of the proposed addition of closely held for-profit entities with religious objections to contraceptive coverage to the definition of eligible organization.
These proposed regulations, if finalized as proposed, would require a small number of conforming changes to cross-references in the regulations. Any such necessary conforming changes would be incorporated into final regulations.
Because of the large number of public comments we normally receive on
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, and public health and safety effects; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility.
Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action that is likely to result in a regulation: (1) Having an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more in any 1 year, or adversely and materially affecting a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or communities (also referred to as “economically significant”); (2) creating a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfering with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially altering the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raising novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.
A regulatory impact analysis must be prepared for major rules with economically significant effects ($100 million or more in any 1 year), and an “economically significant” regulatory action is subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The Departments anticipate that these proposed regulations are not likely to have economic impacts of $100 million or more in any 1 year, and therefore, do not meet the definition of “economically significant” under Executive Order 12866.
The proposed rules would modify the July 2013 final regulations in light of the Supreme Court's decision in
The Departments expect that these proposed regulations would not result in any additional significant burden on or costs to the affected entities.
For purposes of the Department of the Treasury, it has been determined that this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to this proposed rule. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6), it is hereby certified that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This certification is based on the fact that the regulations merely propose to modify the definition of eligible organization to include certain closely held for-profit entities. This modification, if adopted, would not increase costs to or burdens on the affected organizations. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, these regulations have been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on their impact on small business.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we are required to provide 60-day notice in the
• The need for the information collection and its usefulness in carrying out the proper functions of our agency.
• The accuracy of our estimate of the information collection burden.
• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Recommendations to minimize the information collection burden on the affected public, including automated collection techniques.
We are soliciting public comment on each of these issues for the following sections of this document that contain information collection requirements (ICRs):
The 2013 final regulations require an eligible organization that seeks an accommodation to self-certify that it meets the definition of an eligible organization using the EBSA Form 700 and providing it directly to each third party administrator or issuer under the plan that would otherwise arrange for or provide the covered contraceptive services. The interim final regulations being published contemporaneously with these proposed regulations continue to allow such eligible organizations to use EBSA Form 700, as set forth in the 2013 final regulations and guidance. In addition, the interim final regulations permit an alternative process, consistent with the Supreme Court's interim order in
These proposed regulations do not change the requirement that an eligible organization that seeks accommodation self-certifies that it meets the definition of an eligible organization, either using the EBSA Form 700 method of self-certification or the alternative notice to HHS process.
HHS is anticipating that 71 for-profit organizations will seek an accommodation. This is based on the number of plaintiffs that are for-profit employers in recent litigation objecting on religious grounds to the provision of contraceptive services. We seek comments on this estimate and welcome any data that may assist us in estimating the number of entities affected by this provision. For each eligible organization it is assumed that, clerical staff will gather and enter the necessary information, send the self-certification or the notice to its issuer(s) or third party administrator(s) or to HHS electronically and retain a copy for recordkeeping, a manager and legal counsel will review it, and a senior executive will execute it. It is estimated that an organization will need approximately 50 minutes (30 minutes of clerical labor at a cost of $30.00 per hour, 10 minutes for a manager at a cost of $102 per hour, 5 minutes for legal counsel at a cost of $127 per hour, and 5 minutes for a senior executive at a cost of $121 per hour) to execute the self-certification. The certification may be electronically transmitted to the issuer or to HHS at minimal cost, but a cost burden of $38.34 is estimated for a paper filing calculated with 5 cents per page printing and material costs and 49 cents postage costs. Therefore, the total one-time burden for preparing and providing the information in the self-certification is estimated to be approximately $53 for each eligible organization.
Based on this estimate of 71 affected entities and the individual burden estimate of $53, we estimate the hour burden to be 59.2 hours with an equivalent cost of $3736 and a paper filing cost burden of $38.34. As the Department of Labor and the Department of Health and Human Services share jurisdiction they are splitting the hour burden so each will account for 29.6 burden hours and a cost burden of $19.17. We welcome comments on any aspect of this burden estimate.
If you comment on these information collection and recordkeeping requirements, please submit your comments electronically as specified in the
Comments must be received on/by October 27, 2014.
As discussed above, the proposed regulations would revise the definition of eligible organization to include qualifying closely held for-profit entities. This action would amend the EBSA Form 700 information collection request (ICR), which is approved under OMB Control number 1210–NEW to allow qualified closely held for-profit entities to avail themselves of the accommodation by self-certifying that they meet the definition of an eligible organization, either using the EBSA Form 700 method of self-certification or the alternative notice to HHS process under the contemporaneous interim final regulations.
• Consistent with the HHS analysis presented above, DOL estimates that there will be 71 additional entities that would utilize the accommodation. The Departments are soliciting comments for 60 days regarding the likely number of additional entities seeking an accommodation, the number of participants and beneficiaries in the plans of such organizations, and the number of issuers and third party administrators impacted by the proposed regulations. The Departments will submit a copy of these proposed rules to OMB in accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3507(d) for review of the proposed ICRs. The Departments and OMB are particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate 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;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the 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, for example, by permitting electronic submission of responses.
Comments should be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Desk Officer for the Employee Benefits Security Administration either by Fax to (202) 395–5806 or by email to
The Departments expect that qualified closely held for-profit entities will spend the same time (and incur the same cost) to prepare and send the EBSA Form 700 or the notification to the Secretary of HHS as other eligible
For purposes of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4), as well as Executive Order 12875, these proposed regulations do not include any federal mandate that may result in expenditures by state, local, or tribal governments, nor do they include any federal mandates that may impose an annual burden of $100 million, adjusted for inflation, or more on the private sector.
Executive Order 13132 outlines fundamental principles of federalism, and requires the adherence to specific criteria by federal agencies in the process of their formulation and implementation of policies that have “substantial direct effects” on states, the relationship between the federal government and states, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Federal agencies promulgating regulations that have these federalism implications must consult with state and local officials, and describe the extent of their consultation and the nature of the concerns of state and local officials in the preamble to the regulation.
In the Departments' view, these proposed regulations have federalism implications, but the federalism implications are substantially mitigated because, with respect to health insurance issuers, 45 states are either enforcing the requirements related to coverage of specified preventive services (including contraception) without cost sharing pursuant to state law or otherwise are working collaboratively with HHS to ensure that issuers meet these standards. In five states, HHS ensures that issuers comply with these requirements. Therefore, the proposed regulations are not likely to require substantial additional oversight of states by HHS.
In general, section 514 of ERISA provides that state laws are superseded to the extent that they relate to any covered employee benefit plan, and preserves state laws that regulate insurance, banking, or securities. ERISA also prohibits states from regulating a covered plan as an insurance or investment company or bank. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) added a new preemption provision to ERISA (as well as to the PHS Act) narrowly preempting state requirements on group health insurance coverage. States may continue to apply state law requirements but not to the extent that such requirements prevent the application of the federal requirement that group health insurance coverage provided in connection with certain group health plans provide coverage for specified preventive services without cost sharing. HIPAA's Conference Report states that the conferees intended the narrowest preemption of state laws with regard to health insurance issuers (H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 104–736, 104th Cong. 2d Session 205, 1996). State insurance laws that are more stringent than the federal requirement are unlikely to “prevent the application of” the preventive services coverage provision, and therefore are unlikely to be preempted. Accordingly, states have significant latitude to impose requirements on health insurance issuers that are more restrictive than those in federal law.
Guidance conveying this interpretation was published in the
The PHS Act provides that states may enforce the provisions of title XXVII of the PHS Act as they pertain to issuers, but that the Secretary of HHS will enforce any provisions that a state does not have authority to enforce or that a state has failed to substantially enforce. When exercising its responsibility to enforce provisions of the PHS Act, HHS works cooperatively with the state to address the state's concerns and avoid conflicts with the state's exercise of its authority. HHS has developed procedures to implement its enforcement responsibilities, and to afford states the maximum opportunity to enforce the PHS Act's requirements in the first instance. In compliance with Executive Order 13132's requirement that agencies examine closely any policies that may have federalism implications or limit the policymaking discretion of states, the Departments have engaged in numerous efforts to consult and work cooperatively with affected state and local officials.
In conclusion, throughout the process of developing these proposed regulations, to the extent feasible within the specific preemption provisions of ERISA and the PHS Act, the Departments have attempted to balance states' interests in regulating health coverage and health insurance issuers, and the rights of those individuals intended to be protected in the PHS Act, ERISA, and the Code.
The Department of the Treasury regulations are adopted pursuant to the authority contained in sections 7805 and 9833 of the Code.
The Department of Labor regulations are adopted pursuant to the authority contained in 29 U.S.C. 1002(16), 1027, 1059, 1135, 1161–1168, 1169, 1181–1183, 1181 note, 1185, 1185a, 1185b, 1185d, 1191, 1191a, 1191b, and 1191c; sec. 101(g), Public Law 104–191, 110 Stat. 1936; sec. 401(b), Public Law 105–200, 112 Stat. 645 (42 U.S.C. 651 note); sec. 512(d), Public Law 110–343, 122 Stat. 3881; sec. 1001, 1201, and 1562(e), Public Law 111–148, 124 Stat. 119, as amended by Public Law 111–152, 124 Stat. 1029; Secretary of Labor's Order 3–2010, 75 FR 55354 (September 10, 2010).
The Department of Health and Human Services regulations are adopted pursuant to the authority contained in sections 2701 through 2763, 2791, and 2792 of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg through 300gg–63, 300gg–91, and 300gg–92), as amended; and Title I of the Affordable Care Act, sections 1301–1304, 1311–1312, 1321–1322, 1324, 1334, 1342–1343, 1401–1402, and 1412, Pub. L. 111–148, 124 Stat. 119 (42 U.S.C. 18021–18024, 18031–18032, 18041–18042, 18044, 18054, 18061, 18063, 18071, 18082, 26 U.S.C. 36B, and 31 U.S.C. 9701).
Excise taxes, Health care, Health insurance, Pensions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Continuation coverage, Disclosure, Employee benefit plans, Group health plans, Health care, Health insurance, Medical child support, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Health care, Health insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, State regulation of health insurance.
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 54 is proposed to be amended as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
(a)
(1) The organization opposes providing coverage for some or all of any contraceptive items or services required to be covered under § 54.9815–2713(a)(1)(iv) on account of religious objections.
(2)(i) The organization is organized and operates as a nonprofit entity and holds itself out as a religious organization; or
(ii) The organization is organized and operates as a closely held for-profit entity, as defined in paragraph (a)(4) of this section, and the entity's objection to covering some or all of the contraceptive services on account of its owners' sincerely held religious beliefs is made in accordance with the organization's applicable rules of governance, consistent with state law.
(3) The organization must self-certify in the form and manner specified by the Secretary or provide notice to the Secretary of Health and Human Services as described in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section. The organization must make such self-certification or notice available for examination upon request by the first day of the first plan year to which the accommodation in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section applies. The self-certification or notice must be executed by a person authorized to make the certification on behalf of the organization, and must be maintained in a manner consistent with the record retention requirements under section 107 of ERISA.
(4) [Reserved]
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Labor proposes to amend 29 CFR part 2590 as follows:
29 U.S.C. 1027, 1059, 1135, 1161–1168, 1169, 1181–1183, 1181 note, 1185, 1185a, 1185b, 1185d, 1191, 1191a, 1191b, and 1191c; sec. 101(g), Pub. L. 104–191, 110 Stat. 1936; sec. 401(b), Pub. L. 105–200, 112 Stat. 645 (42 U.S.C. 651 note); sec. 512(d), Pub. L. 110–343, 122 Stat. 3881; sec. 1001, 1201, and 1562(e), Pub. L. 111–148, 124 Stat. 119, as amended by Pub. L. 11–152, 124 Stat. 1029; Secretary of Labor's Order 1–2011, 77 FR 1088 (January 9, 2012).
(a)
(1) The organization opposes providing coverage for some or all of any contraceptive items or services required to be covered under § 2590.715–2713(a)(1)(iv) on account of religious objections.
(2)(i) The organization is organized and operates as a nonprofit entity and holds itself out as a religious organization; or
(ii) The organization is organized and operates as a closely held for-profit entity, as defined in paragraph (a)(4) of this section, and the entity's objection to covering some or all of the contraceptive services on account of its owners' sincerely held religious beliefs is made in accordance with the organization's applicable rules of governance, consistent with state law.
(3) The organization must self-certify in the form and manner specified by the Secretary or provide notice to the Secretary of Health and Human Services as described in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section. The organization must make such self-certification or notice available for examination upon request by the first day of the first plan year to which the accommodation in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section applies. The self-certification or notice must be executed by a person authorized to make the certification on behalf of the organization, and must be maintained in a manner consistent with the record retention requirements under section 107 of ERISA.
(4) [Reserved]
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Health and Human Services proposes to amend 45 CFR subtitle A, part 147 as follows:
Secs 2701 through 2763, 2791, and 2792 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg through 300gg–63, 300gg–91, and 300gg–92), as amended.
(b)
(1) The organization opposes providing coverage for some or all of any contraceptive items or services required to be covered under § 147.130(a)(1)(iv) on account of religious objections.
(2)(i) The organization is organized and operates as a nonprofit entity and holds itself out as a religious organization; or
(ii) The organization is organized and operates as a closely held for-profit entity, as defined in paragraph (b)(4) of this section, and the entity's objection to covering some or all of the contraceptive services on account of its owners' sincerely held religious beliefs is made in accordance with the organization's applicable rules of governance, consistent with state law.
(3) The organization must self-certify in the form and manner specified by the Secretary or provide notice to the Secretary of Health and Human Services as described in paragraph (c) of this section. The organization must make such self-certification or notice available for examination upon request by the first day of the first plan year to which the accommodation in paragraph (c) of this section applies. The self-certification or notice must be executed by a person authorized to make the certification on behalf of the organization, and must be maintained in a manner consistent with the record retention requirements under section 107 of ERISA.
(4) [Reserved]
(f)
Office of the Secretary, DoD.
Proposed rule.
TRICARE Reserve Select (TRS) is a premium-based TRICARE health plan available for purchase worldwide by qualified members of the Ready Reserve and by qualified survivors of TRS members. TRICARE Dental Program (TDP) is a premium-based TRICARE dental plan available for purchase worldwide by qualified Service members. This proposed rule revises requirements and procedures for the TRS program to specify the appropriate actuarial basis for calculating premiums in addition to other minor clarifying administrative changes. For a member who is involuntarily separated from the Selected Reserve under other than adverse conditions this proposed rule provides a time-limited exception that allows TRS coverage in effect to continue for up to 180 days after the date on which the member is separated from the Selected Reserve and TDP coverage in effect to continue for no less than 180 days after the separation date. It also expands early TRICARE eligibility for certain Reserve Component members from a maximum of 90 days to a maximum of 180 days prior to activation in support of a contingency for more than 30 days.
Submit comments on or before October 27, 2014.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number or Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) number and title, by any of the following methods:
Jody Donehoo, Defense Health Agency, TRICARE Health Plan Division, telephone (703) 681–0039.
Questions regarding payment of specific claims under the TRICARE allowable charge method should be addressed to the appropriate TRICARE contractor.
This proposed rule addresses provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (NDAA–09) (Pub. L. 110–417), the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (NDAA–10) (Pub. L. 111–84), and the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (NDAA–13) (Pub. L. 112–239). First, section 704 of NDAA–09 specifies that the appropriate actuarial basis for calculating premiums for TRS shall utilize the actual cost of providing benefits to members and their dependents during preceding calendar years. Second, section 702 of NDAA–10 expands early eligibility for Reserve Component members issued delayed-effective-date active duty orders from a maximum of 90 days to a maximum of 180 days prior to activation in support of a contingency for more than 30 days. Third, for a member who is involuntarily separated from the Selected Reserve under other than adverse conditions as characterized by the Secretary concerned, section 701 of NDAA–13 provides a time-limited exception that allows TRS coverage already in effect at time of separation to continue for up to 180 days after the date on which the member is separated from the Selected Reserve and TDP coverage already in effect at time of separation to continue for no less than 180 days after the separation date. This exception expires December 31, 2018. Finally, additional administrative clarifications have been made to 32 CFR 199.24, which implements TRS.
Section 199.3(b)(5) implements section 702 of NDAA–10, which specifies that, Reserve Component members issued delayed-effective-date orders for service in support of a
So that the existing provisions of § 199.13(c)(3)(ii)(E)(
We propose to add new § 199.13(c)(3)(ii)(E)(
Many of our proposed clarifications update the rules for TRS (§ 199.24) and, as appropriate, bring the rules in closer alignment and sequencing with the very similar TRICARE Retired Reserve program (§ 199.25).
A.
We propose to clarify the wording for submitting an initial payment of the appropriate premium along with the request to purchase coverage (§ 199.24(a)(4)(iii)) and to make it consistent throughout this section. We propose to clarify that both the member and the member's covered family members are provided access priority for care in military treatment facilities on the same basis as active duty service members' dependents who are not enrolled in TRICARE Prime (§ 199.24(a)(4)(iv)).
B.
Section 10144(b) of title 10, U.S.C. provides that the Secretary concerned may designate a category of members within the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) of each Reserve Component who are subject to being ordered to active duty involuntarily in accordance with section 12304 of title 10, U.S.C. We propose to clarify that since a member of the IRR who has volunteered to serve in such mobilization category is eligible for benefits (other than pay and training) as are normally available to members of the Selected Reserve, these members may also qualify for TRS (§ 199.24(b)(1)(i)).
We propose to clarify the exclusion involving the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) program. Section 199.24(b)(1)(ii) specifies that an otherwise qualified member of the Ready Reserve qualifies to purchase TRS coverage if the member is not enrolled in, or eligible to enroll in, a health benefits plan under chapter 89 of title 5, U.S.C. That statute has been implemented under part 890 of title 5, CFR as the “Federal Employees Health Benefits” program. For purposes of the FEHB program, the terms “enrolled,” “enroll” and “enrollee” are defined in § 890.101 of title 5, CFR. We propose to clarify that the member (or certain involuntarily separated former member) no longer qualifies for TRS coverage when the member has been eligible for active coverage in a health benefits plan under the FEHB program for more than 60 days (§ 199.24(b)(1)(ii)). This affords the member sufficient time to make arrangements for health coverage other than TRS and avoid any days without having health coverage being in force.
We propose to clarify that qualification for TRS survivor coverage applies regardless of type of coverage in effect on the day of the TRS member's death (§ 199.24(b)(2)).
C.
Section 199.24(c)(1) implements section 704 of NDAA–09, which requires that monthly premiums be determined by utilizing the actual reported cost of providing benefits to TRS members and their dependents during preceding calendar years. Section 704 of NDAA–09 specified that actual TRS cost data from calendar years 2006 and 2007 be utilized in the determination of premium rates for calendar year 2009. This established pattern has been followed to determine premium rates for all calendar years starting with 2009 (§ 199.24(c)(1)). Further, we propose to amend § 199.24(c) by deleting all former provisions involving the relationship between premium rates for TRS and premium rates for the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Standard Service Benefit Plan under the Federal Employees Health Benefits program.
D.
We propose to clarify that either reserve members or survivors qualified under § 199.24(b) may follow applicable procedures throughout this section regarding TRS coverage. We propose to clarify the rule about immediate family members who may be included in family coverage under TRS (§ 199.24(d)(1)), which is further supported by the proposed definition for immediate family member included in § 199.24(g).
We propose to clarify continuation coverage by removing the previous requirement that the member had to be the sponsor of the other TRICARE coverage in order to qualify for continuation coverage (§ 199.24(d)(1)(i)). In circumstances when the spouse of the Reserve Component member is the sponsor for purposes of the other TRICARE coverage, it would be clear that the qualified member would be able to purchase TRS coverage with an effective date immediately following the date of termination of coverage under
We propose rules to implement the provisions in section 701 of NDAA–13 concerning TRS coverage (§ 199.24(d)(3)(i)). Similar to the TDP, this provision would apply to members involuntarily separated from the Selected Reserve if, and only if, the member was covered by TRS on the last day of his or her membership in the Selected Reserve. However, the termination date of TRS is characterized slightly different from the TCP provision because TRS may terminate up to 180 days after the date on which the member is separated from the Selected Reserve. This delayed termination exception applies regardless of type of TRS coverage actually in effect at the time. This exception expires December 31, 2018.
We propose to clarify the rule that procedures may be established for TRS coverage to be suspended for up to one year followed by final termination for members or qualified survivors if they fail to make premium payments in accordance with established procedures or otherwise if they request suspension/termination of coverage (§ 199.24(d)(3)). Suspension/termination of coverage for the TRS member/survivor will result in suspension/termination of coverage for the member's/survivor's family members in TRS, except as described in § 199.24 (d)(1)(iv). We also propose to clarify that procedures may be established for the suspension to be lifted upon request before final termination is applied.
E.
F.
G.
Fiscal year 2014 through 2019 costs are anticipated to be $7,735,728.00:
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 require certain regulatory assessments for any significant regulatory action that would result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or have other substantial impacts. The Congressional Review Act establishes certain procedures for major rules, defined as those with similar major impacts. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires that each Federal agency prepare, and make available for public comment, a regulatory flexibility analysis when the agency issues a regulation that would have significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule is not subject to any of these requirements because it will not have any of these substantial impacts.
This rule will not impose additional information collection requirements on the public under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501– 3511).
We have examined the impact(s) of the proposed rule under Executive Order 13132 and it does not have policies that have federalism implications that will have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. The preemption provisions in the rule conform to law and long-established TRICARE policy. Therefore, consultation with State and local officials is not required.
This rule is being published as a proposed rule with comment period. Public comments are welcome and will be considered before publication of the final rule.
Claims, Handicapped, Health insurance, Military personnel.
Accordingly, 32 CFR part 199 is proposed to be amended as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301; 10 U.S.C. chapter 55.
(b) * * *
(5) * * *
(iii) * * *
(B) 180 days before the date on which the period of active duty is to begin.
(c) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) * * *
(E) * * *
(
(
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(4) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) Certain special programs established in 32 CFR part 199 are not available to members covered under TRICARE Reserve Select. These include the Extended Care Health Option (§ 199.5), the Special Supplemental Food Program (see § 199.23), and the Supplemental Health Care Program (§ 199.16), except when referred by a Military Treatment Facility (MTF) provider for incidental consults and the MTF provider maintains clinical control over the episode of care. The TRICARE Dental Program (§ 199.13) is independent of this program and is otherwise available to all members of the Selected Reserve and their eligible family members whether or not they purchase TRICARE Reserve Select coverage. The Continued Health Care Benefits Program (§ 199.13) is also independent of this program and is otherwise available to all members who qualify.
(iii)
(iv)
(b)
(i) Is a member of the Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve of the Armed Forces, or a member of the Individual Ready Reserve of the Armed Forces who has volunteered to be ordered to active duty pursuant to the provisions of 10 U.S.C. 12304 in accordance with section 10 U.S.C. 10144(b); and
(ii) Is not enrolled in, or eligible to enroll in, a health benefits plan under 5 U.S.C. chapter 89. That statute has been implemented under 5 CFR part 890 as the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) program. For purposes of the FEHB program, the terms “enrolled,” “enroll” and “enrollee” are defined in 5 CFR 890.101. Further, the member (or certain former member involuntarily separated) no longer qualifies for TRICARE Reserve Select when the member (or former member) has been eligible for coverage to be effective in a health benefits plan under the FEHB program for more than 60 days.
(2)
(c)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(d)
(1)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(2)
(3)
(i) Coverage shall terminate when members or survivors no longer qualify for TRICARE Reserve Select as specified in paragraph (b) of this section, with one exception. If a member is involuntarily separated from the Selected Reserve under other than adverse conditions, as characterized by the Secretary concerned, and is covered by TRICARE Reserve Select on the last day of his or her membership in the Selected Reserve, then TRICARE Reserve Select coverage may terminate up to 180 days after the date on which the member was separated from the Selected Reserve. This applies regardless of type of coverage. This exception expires December 31, 2018.
(ii) Coverage may terminate for members, former members, and survivors who gain coverage under another TRICARE program.
(iii) Coverage may be suspended and finally terminated for members/survivors who fail to make premium payments in accordance with established procedures.
(iv) Coverage may be suspended and finally terminated for members/survivors upon request at any time by submitting a completed request in the appropriate format in accordance with established procedures.
(v) Under paragraph (d)(3)(iii) or (iv) of this section, TRICARE Reserve Select coverage may first be suspended for a period of up to one year followed by final termination. Procedures may be established for the suspension to be lifted upon request before final termination is applied.
(4)
(5)
(f)
(g)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to modify the operating regulations for six drawbridges, located between river mile 285.8 and river mile 288.7, across the Illinois Waterway, at Joliet, Illinois. This rule proposes to consolidate the current operating regulation, which includes five on-site bridge tender control stations, into one centralized control point for all five drawbridges. This rule also proposes to add a sixth drawbridge that will also operate under the centralized control point. This proposed action is intended to improve navigational safety and operational efficiency in the Joliet area.
Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before October 27, 2014.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG–2014–0365 using any one of the following methods:
(1)
(2)
(3)
See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the
If you have questions on this proposed rule, call or email Mr. Eric Washburn, Bridge Administrator, Western Rivers, (314) 269–2378, email
We encourage you to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted, without change to
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG–2014–0365), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online (
To submit your comment online, go to
To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting regarding this rulemaking. But you may submit a request for one using one of the three methods specified under
Currently, the Illinois Waterway drawbridge operation regulations contained in 33 CFR Part 117, Subpart B—Specific Requirements, 117.393 (c), state that “The draws of the McDonough Street Bridge, mile 287.3; Jefferson Street Bridge, Mile 287.9; Cass Street Bridge, Mile 288.1; Jackson Street Bridge, Mile 288.4; and Ruby Street Bridge, Mile 288.7; all of Joliet, shall open on signal, except that they need not open from 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and from 4:15 p.m. to 5:15 p.m. Monday through Saturday.” Additionally, the Brandon Road Drawbridge, Mile 285.8, Illinois Waterway, also in Joliet, currently operates without a special operating schedule under Subpart B.
On July 12, 2012, the Illinois Department of Transportation requested approval of plans to centralize the bridge tenders for the five drawbridges listed in 33 CFR 117.393(c), and also to include the Brandon Road Drawbridge as a sixth drawbridge operated under this centralized plan. The Coast Guard
The Illinois Waterway is a navigable waterway connecting Chicago, Illinois and Lake Michigan through a combination of improved natural waterways and canals with the Upper Mississippi River at Grafton, Illinois. This waterway spans a course of 327 miles. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers operates nine locks on the Illinois Waterway that provide a safe and efficient navigation system, carrying approximately 24 million tons of cargo each year.
The goal of centralizing the drawbridge operations is to improve safety and operations for river and street traffic as well as the workers who conduct the operations. As proposed, centralizing the bridge tenders is anticipated to also improve the operating efficiency for all six drawbridges.
Centralizing the bridge tenders would have no impact on the existing regulations regarding hours or methods of bridge operations. This proposed rule change is in accordance with the provisions under 33 CFR 117.42 for remotely operated and automated drawbridges and would centralize the bridge tenders at one local control station.
This rule proposes a local centralized control center, adjacent to Jackson Street Bridge, and bridge tender operation manned by three bridge tenders at all times, continuing to operate the five draw bridges as currently required under 33 CFR 117.393(c). Additionally, a sixth drawbridge, the Brandon Road Drawbridge, Mile 285.8, Illinois Waterway, would also be operated through the proposed centralized control center. The Brandon Road Drawbridge does not require a special operating schedule under Subpart B and will still open on signal or request, but it would be remotely operated from the new centralized location under this proposed rule. The local centralized bridge tender operation and control center will be supported by two dedicated fiber optic communication systems (one is redundant) with wireless backup, closed circuit television cameras, thermal cameras, and boat detection equipment at each bridge. This centralized control center network will be equipped with a diesel powered backup generator.
Through the use of multiple closed circuit television cameras, thermal (infrared) cameras, and boat detectors, the bridge operators will have a more comprehensive overview of vessel traffic.
The Coast Guard has determined that centralizing the bridge tenders to a local control station will not adversely impact navigation. Rather, this proposed centralized plan is intended to improve navigational safety in the Joliet area by providing bridge tenders a more comprehensive view of vessel traffic.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes or executive orders.
This proposed 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 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 on commercial traffic operating on the Illinois Waterway to be minimal. The operating procedures affected by this change will create more efficiency in vessel movement and proposes no new restrictions but centralizes the bridge tender operations. Therefore a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (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 proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels needing to transit through the bridge.
This action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This proposed action will provide greater efficiency in vessel movement by centralizing bridge tender operations which will reduce wait times for bride openings. This proposed rule further imposes no new restrictions on the waterway but merely changes the bridge tender operations.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed 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
This proposed rule would call 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 proposed 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 proposed rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This proposed rule would 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 proposed 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 proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
This proposed rule is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.
This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023–01, and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule simply promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.
Under figure 2–1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are not required for this rule. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.
Bridges.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05–1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(c) The draws of the McDonough Street Bridge, mile 287.3; Jefferson Street Bridge, Mile 287.9; Cass Street Bridge, Mile 288.1; Jackson Street Bridge, Mile 288.4; and Ruby Street Bridge, Mile 288.7; all of Joliet, shall open on signal, except that they need not open from 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and from 4:15 p.m. to 5:15 p.m. Monday through Saturday. These five bridges along with Brandon Road Drawbridge, Mile 285.8, Illinois Waterway are all operated from a local centralized location adjacent to the Jackson Street Bridge, Mile 288.4. Each of these six bridges is equipped with closed circuit television cameras, infrared cameras, and boat detection equipment.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of decision.
On October 1, 2012, the Coast Guard published a Notice of Availability and Request for Public Comment regarding a petition for a rulemaking action. The petition requested that the Coast Guard establish a load line-exempted route in the Gulf of Mexico, along the western coast of Florida. Upon review of the comments as well as analysis of safety considerations and other factors described in the discussion section, the Coast Guard has decided not to proceed with the requested rulemaking. The public comments, and the Coast Guard's reasoning for its decision, are discussed in this notice.
This decision was issued on August 15, 2014.
If you have questions on this notice, contact Mr. Thomas Jordan, Naval Architecture Division (CG–ENG–2), U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, at telephone 202–372–1370, or by email at
The purpose of a load line (LL) assignment is to ensure a vessel is seaworthy for operation outside the Boundary Line. Load lines are required by 46 U.S.C. 5101–5116 and 46 CFR Subchapter E. In general, the LL assignment requires that vessels are robustly constructed, fitted with
Along the U.S. Gulf coast there is a 12-mile-wide nearshore marine corridor, inside of which non-LL vessels can operate (and outside of which commercial vessels 79 feet or longer must have a load line). However, this marine corridor is constricted by an expanse of shallow water off the western coast of Florida. To navigate around that shallow zone requires most commercial vessels to move more than 12 miles offshore (i.e. outside the Boundary Line) for a 32-mile stretch between Crystal River and Tarpon Springs. This excursion outside the Boundary Line precludes fully-loaded non-LL river barges from making that passage (although partially-loaded or empty river barges could make the passage inside the Boundary Line). Therefore, cargoes destined for the Tampa Bay region are transported on LL vessels (which can transit outside the Boundary Line), or by overland modes (truck or rail).
On June 29, 2011, Parker Towing Company, Inc., a towboat and barge operator on the U.S. Gulf Coast, sent the Coast Guard a petition letter. The petition requested that the Coast Guard establish a load line-exempted route along the western Florida coast between Crystal River and Tarpon Springs. Commercial vessels 79 feet or longer are normally required to have a load line to operate in those waters; the exemption would allow non-load line river barges to operate on the route under restricted weather and loading conditions.
The requested exemption would be a route approximately 32 nautical miles long, 12 to 15 nautical miles offshore. The petition suggests that non-load line (non-LL) river barges could operate on this route under favorable weather conditions and other loading restrictions. This would allow them to directly transport dry, non-hazardous cargoes from upriver terminals (in Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi) to the Tampa Bay ports and terminals.
The Coast Guard opened docket USCG–2011–0925 and published a Notice of Availability and Request for Public Comment (77 FR 59881, October 1, 2012) with a 90-day comment period. The comment period closed on December 31, 2012; however, several comments were submitted after the closing date. The Coast Guard has considered all comments submitted up to March 21, 2014.
In response to the notice, eleven commenters submitted 38 comments to the docket. The commenters included local manufacturers, towboat and barge operators, mariner association and seafarer unions, and port operators; their comments can be viewed online at
Collectively, the comments fell into five basic categories:
The overall purpose of a load line assignment, and the waters in which commercial vessels must comply, are described in the Notice of Availability (79 FR 59881, October 1, 2012) and in 46 CFR subchapter E. When assigning a load line, the Coast Guard is required by 46 U.S.C. 5104(b) to consider the service, type and character of the vessel, the geographic area in which the vessel will operate, and applicable international agreements to which the United States is a party. The Coast Guard may exempt vessels from load line requirements for good cause (see 46 U.S.C. 5108 and 46 CFR 42.03–30) and vessel owners and operators may apply for special service load lines (46 CFR part 44). The Coast Guard has existing regulations at 46 CFR part 45, subpart E, exempting certain unmanned, river-service, dry-cargo barges from Great Lakes load line requirements in limited circumstances.
The Coast Guard's analysis and public comments highlighted the fact that there are barges, which meet the load line standards, that are already engaged in commercial service along this route today. Barges which meet load line standards include design features to prevent down-flooding, and to prevent progressive flooding and sinking through subdivision of the vessel's interior. If the Coast Guard were to approve this petition, it would allow vessels of a type and character which do not meet the same safety standards for design, construction, operation and inspection to engage in trade along this route, thereby reducing the established minimum safe construction and operating standards for vessels traveling along this offshore route.
Although the petitioner argues that operating a few miles beyond the limits established in the regulations should be considered as safe as operating within the limits, the maritime regulations are based on the existence of well documented thresholds beyond which higher standards apply. To consider this request under that logic would be to undermine a key foundation in the Coast Guard's approach to maritime regulation. Moreover, the area's geography contains a large expanse of shallow water along the proposed route, which would preclude a fully laden barge from seeking a close port of refuge in an emergency. Depending on where the barge was in its journey, the nearest accessible port of refuge may be as far as 31 miles away.
We also considered evaluating this request based on geographically limiting the route from a specific upriver port or terminal to a specific port or destination in Tampa. In a prior petition for an exemption on the Great Lakes, this was the approach that was taken to severely limit the scope of application and ensure an adequate level of safety along a limited route within the Great Lakes. Even if the Coast Guard restricted the exemption to only those vessels that originated at certain up-river terminals, as was done on the Great Lakes, this decision would allow non-LL river barges to operate on a LL route, which would create a multi-tiered regulatory regime, based on specific routes between designated upriver terminals and the Tampa Bay ports. Under this regime, a tug that traveled from a designated upriver terminal to Tampa Bay would be able to use a non-LL river barge, but a tug that traveled along the same waters between other coastal ports and Tampa Bay would have to use a LL barge. The Coast Guard believes such discrepancies do not serve the interests of maritime safety or maritime commerce generally, because they foster confusion and opportunities for abuse, and can remove or weaken incentives for safety and efficiency.
Moreover, a multi-tiered regulatory regime is unenforceable as a practical matter. Load line and non-LL barges can legitimately be found in the same port and there is nothing that inherently identifies a non-LL barge participating in any such multi-tiered program. Therefore, if the requested exempted route is established, there is nothing that effectively prevents non-LL barges from loading cargoes at any Gulf port (not just upriver terminals) for delivery to Tampa, or for return cargoes (loaded at Tampa) to be delivered to any Gulf port. In order to prevent such transits, the Coast Guard would need to individually inspect the cargo manifest and vessel logs for all non-LL barges, causing delay to all vessels including those that may be on permissible voyages inside the Boundary Line. The delay to commercial shipping and the diversion of Coast Guard resources to this effort are not practicable or in the interest of maritime commerce.
With minor exceptions, the U.S. requirements for domestic load line are the same as the requirements for an international load line and are consistent with the International Load Line Convention. As a party to the convention, the U.S. is obliged to promote standardization of load line regulations. Our decision to deny the petition is consistent with this obligation.
For all the reasons above, the Coast Guard denies the petition and will not undertake the rulemaking requested.
This notice is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 553(e), 555(e) and 46 U.S.C. 5108.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice of petition for rulemaking; solicitation of comments.
The Media Bureau solicits public comment on a Petition for Rulemaking requesting that the FCC initiate a rulemaking to expand to cable and satellite the requirement that public and political files be posted to the FCC's online database. The Media Bureau also seeks comment on expanding public file obligations to radio licensees.
Comments may be filed on or before August 28, 2014, and reply comments may be filed on or before September 8, 2014.
You may submit comments, identified by MB Docket No. 14–127, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the
Kim Matthews, Media Bureau, Policy Division, 202–418–2154, or email at
This is a summary of the Media Bureau's document in MB Docket No. 14–127, DA 14–1149, released on August 7, 2014. The full text of this document is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554. The complete text may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554. This document will also be available via ECFS at
The Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause and the Sunlight Foundation filed a Petition for Rulemaking requesting that the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) “initiate a rulemaking to expand to cable and satellite systems the requirement that
When it adopted the online public file rules, the Commission decided to limit initial implementation to broadcast television stations, specifically declining to require radio, cable systems or other multichannel video programming distributors to post public file documents to the FCC's online database at that time.
The online public file launched on August 2, 2012. In the intervening two years, over half a million items have been successfully uploaded into the online file, and the site has generated nearly five million page views. Despite initial concerns, NAB has characterized the first wave of implementation as “uneventful.”
With this transition complete, we seek comment on the above-mentioned petition. We also seek comment on whether the Commission should initiate a rulemaking proceeding to require broadcast radio stations to use the online public file, and on an appropriate time frame for such a requirement.
This proceeding will be treated as “permit but disclose” for purposes of the Commission's
Given that all comments will be posted to the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), we hereby waive the requirement that parties be served copies of the comments and reply comments in this proceeding,
Interested parties may file comments on or before August 28, 2014 and reply comments on or before September 8, 2014. All filings must reference MB Docket No. 14–127. In order to be considered part of the official record, comments must be filed using: (1) ECFS, (2) the Federal Government's eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies.
•
• For ECFS filers, in completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal service mailing address, and the applicable docket number: MB Docket No. 14–127. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet email. To get filing instructions, filers should send an email to
•
• All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW., Room TW–A325, Washington, DC 20554. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building. The filing hours are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m.
• Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
• U.S. Postal Service first-class mail, Express Mail, and Priority Mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
Copies of all filings will be available in MB Docket No. 14–127 through ECFS and are also available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th St. SW., Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554, telephone (202) 418–0270. They may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th St. SW., Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone (202) 488–5300, facsimile (202) 488–5563, or via email at
Alternate formats of this Public Notice (computer diskette, large print, audio recording, or Braille) are available to persons with disabilities by contacting the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418–0530 or (202) 418–0432 (TTY).
Economic Development Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice and Opportunity for Public Comment.
Pursuant to Section 251 of the Trade Act 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2341 et seq.), the Economic Development Administration (EDA) has received petitions for certification of eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance from the firms listed below. Accordingly, EDA has initiated investigations to determine whether increased imports into the United States of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by each of these firms contributed importantly to the total or partial separation of the firm's workers, or threat thereof, and to a decrease in sales or production of each petitioning firm.
Any party having a substantial interest in these proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter. A written request for a hearing must be submitted to the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms Division, Room 71030, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no later than ten (10) calendar days following publication of this notice.
Please follow the requirements set forth in EDA's regulations at 13 CFR 315.9 for procedures to request a public hearing. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance official number and title for the program under which these petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms.
The Onondaga County Office of Economic Development, grantee of FTZ 90, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of PPC Broadband, Inc. (PPC Broadband), located in Dewitt, New York. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on August 12, 2014.
PPC Broadband already has authority to produce coaxial cable connectors within Subzone 90C. The current request would add a finished product (coaxial jumper cables with connectors) and an input (coaxial cable) to the scope of authority. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), additional FTZ authority would be limited to the specific foreign-status materials/components and specific finished products described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.
The additional production under FTZ procedures could exempt PPC Broadband from customs duty payments on the coaxial cable and on the components in the existing scope of authority used in export production. On its domestic sales, PPC Broadband would be able to choose the duty rate during customs entry procedures that applies to coaxial jumper cables with connectors for the foreign-status coaxial cable (duty rate for both is 5.3%) and for the foreign-status components in the existing scope of authority. Customs
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is October 6, 2014.
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230–0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via
Diane Finver at
On May 22, 2014, the Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board docketed an application submitted by CODEZOL, C.D., grantee of FTZ 163, requesting subzone status subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 163, on behalf of Correa Tire Distributor, Inc., in Dorado, Puerto Rico.
The application was processed in accordance with the FTZ Act and Regulations, including notice in the
Pursuant to the authority delegated to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary (15 CFR 400.36(f)), the application to establish Subzone 163D is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13, and further subject to FTZ 163's 923.36-acre activation limit.
The Transportation and Related Equipment Technical Advisory Committee will meet on September 10, 2014, 9:30 a.m., in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 3884, 14th Street between Constitution & Pennsylvania Avenues NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration with respect to technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to transportation and related equipment or technology.
1. Welcome and Introductions.
2. Status reports by working group chairs.
3. Public comments and Proposals.
4. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3).
The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 20 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at
A limited number of seats will be available during the public session of the meeting. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters forward the public presentation materials prior to the meeting to Ms. Springer via email.
The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on December 30, 2013, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2 § (10)(d)), that the portion of the meeting dealing with pre-decisional changes to the Commerce Control List and U.S. export control policies shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public.
For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482·2813.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
As a result of this sunset review, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) finds that revocation of the antidumping duty (“AD”) order on saccharin from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping as indicated in the “Final Results of Review” section of this notice.
Laurel LaCivita, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4243.
On May 1, 2014, the Department published the notice of initiation of the second sunset review of the AD order on saccharin from the PRC,
The product covered by this AD order is saccharin. Saccharin is defined as a non-nutritive sweetener used in beverages and foods, personal care products such as toothpaste, table top sweeteners, and animal feeds. It is also used in metalworking fluids. There are four primary chemical compositions of saccharin: (1) Sodium saccharin (American Chemical Society Chemical Abstract Service (“CAS”) Registry 128–44–9); (2) calcium saccharin (CAS Registry 6485–34–3); (3) acid (or insoluble) saccharin (CAS Registry 81–07–2); and (4) research grade saccharin. Most of the U.S.-produced and imported grades of saccharin from the PRC are sodium and calcium saccharin, which are available in granular, powder, spray-dried powder, and liquid forms. The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable under subheading 2925.11.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) and includes all types of saccharin imported under this HTSUS subheading, including research and specialized grades. Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description of the scope of this order remains dispositive.
A complete discussion of all issues raised in this sunset review is provided in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice.
Pursuant to section 752(c)(3) of the Act, we determine that revocation of the AD order on saccharin from the PRC 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 orders (“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 results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) completed the administrative review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes (steel pipes and tubes) from Turkey for the January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2012, period of review (POR) in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). This review covers multiple exporters/producers, one of which is being individually examined as a mandatory respondent. We determine that the net subsidy rate for the sole mandatory respondent, Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (BMB), and Borusan Istikbal Ticaret T.A.S. (Istikbal), (collectively, the Borusan Companies), although revised from the preliminary results, continues to be
John Conniff at 202–482–1009, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of
On March 7, 1986, the Department published in the
The products covered by this order are certain welded carbon steel pipe and tube with an outside diameter of 0.375 inch or more, but not over 16 inches, of any wall thickness (pipe and tube) from Turkey. These products are currently classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings as 7306.30.10, 7306.30.50, and 7306.90.10. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive.
The Department conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Act. For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable during the POR, we determine that there is a subsidy,
All issues raised in the Borusan Companies' case brief, the only case brief submitted in this proceeding, are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues which the Borusan Companies raised, and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as an Appendix. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). IA ACCESS is available to registered users at
The Department did not receive any information from interested parties or U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CPB) that was contrary to the claims of Yucel Group and affiliates including Yucel Boru ye Profil Endustrisi A.S, Yucelboru Ihracat Ithalat ye Pazarlama A.S, and Cayirova Born Sanayi ye Ticaret A.S. (collectively, Yucel), Umran Celik Boru Sanayii A.S. (Umran), and Guven Celik Boru San. Ve Tic. Ltd. (Guven) of no sales, shipments, or entries of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR after we preliminarily indicated our intent to rescind the administrative review. Accordingly, based on record evidence, we determine that Yucel, Umran, and Guven did not ship subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), and consistent with our practice,
Pursuant to section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Act, we calculated an individual subsidy rate for the mandatory respondent, the Borusan Companies. Consistent with the
In the
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), the Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review to liquidate shipments of subject merchandise by the Borusan Companies and Erbosan entered, or withdrawn form warehouse, for consumption on or after January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2012,
For Toscelik, the Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review to liquidate shipments of subject merchandise by Toscelik entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2012, at the
For Yucel, Umran, and Guven, the companies for which this review is rescinded, CVDs shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated CVDs required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, during the period January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2012, consistent with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i).
For all non-reviewed companies, we will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits at the most recent company-specific or country-wide rate applicable to the company. Accordingly, the cash deposit rates that will be applied to companies covered by this order, but not examined in this review, are those established in the most recently completed administrative proceeding for each company. The cash deposit rates for all companies not covered by this review are not changed by the results of this review, and remain in effect until further notice.
This notice also 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 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing these final results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
The next meeting of the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts is scheduled for 18 September 2014, at 9:00 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:
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice of a partially closed meeting.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Sunshine in the Government Act of 1976 (U.S.C. 552b, as amended) and 41 Code of the Federal Regulations (CFR 102–3.140 through 160, the Department of the Army announces the following committee meeting:
1. Air and Missile Defense Electronic Warfare (EW) Assessment—This is a classified study that will assist the Army by conducting a comprehensive assessment of the EW posture of the Army's Air and Missile Defense systems and their ability to operate in an advanced EW environment. This study will be reviewed in the closed portion of the meeting. This portion of the meeting is properly closed in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1), which permits Federal Advisory Committee meetings to be closed which are likely to “disclose matters that are (A) specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive Order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and (B) in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive Order.”
2. Decisive Army Strategic and Expeditionary Maneuver—This study will identify challenges in 2025 that effect the Army's ability to conduct strategic and expeditionary maneuver; explore options in joint air- and sea-basing, commercial capabilities and partnering opportunities to improve the Army's ability to maneuver; and identify technologies and other innovations that could improve the Army's strategic and expeditionary maneuver capabilities. This study will be reviewed in the open portion of the meeting.
3. Talent Management and the Next Training Revolution—This study will develop a concept of talent management that the Army should use to describe individuals and teams through 2030; examine current technologies and trends employed in talent management, to include recruiting, training, and retention; and develop a roadmap for the employment of promising talent management systems, associated technologies, and best practices, taking into consideration the unique nature of military service. This study will be reviewed in the open portion of the meeting.
LTC Stephen Barker, the Designated Federal Official (DFO), at 2530 Crystal Drive, Suite 7098, Arlington,VA 22202, (703) 545–8652 or email:
Pursuant to 41 CFR 102–3.140d, the Board is not obligated to allow a member of the public to speak or otherwise address the Board during the meeting. Members of the public will be permitted to make verbal comments during the open portion of the Board meeting only at the time and in the manner described below. If a member of the public is interested in making a verbal comment at the open meeting, that individual must submit a request, with a brief statement of the subject matter to be addressed by the comment, at least five (5) business days in advance to the Board's DFO, via electronic mail, the preferred mode of submission, at the address listed in the
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice and request for comments regarding a proposed extension of an approved information collection requirement.
In compliance with section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), DoD announces the proposed extension of a public information collection requirement and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof.
DoD will consider all comments received by October 27, 2014.
You may submit comments, identified by OMB Control Number 0704–0390, using any of the following methods:
○
○
○
○
Comments received generally will be posted without change to
Mr. Mark Gomersall, (571) 372–6099. The information collection requirements addressed in this notice are available electronically on the Internet at:
The clause at DFARS 252.229–7010, Relief from Customs Duty on Fuel (United Kingdom), is prescribed at DFARS 229.402–70(j) for use in solicitations issued and contracts awarded in the United Kingdom that require the use of fuels (gasoline or diesel) and lubricants in taxis or vehicles other than passenger vehicles. The clause requires the contractor to provide the contracting officer with evidence that the contractor has initiated an attempt to obtain relief from customs duty on fuels and lubricants, as permitted by an agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom.
Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before October 27, 2014.
Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Douglas Pineda Robles (202) 377–4578.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps ED assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the ED's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. ED is especially interested in public comments addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of ED; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might ED enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might ED minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
The determination of need and eligibility are for the following title IV, HEA, federal student financial assistance programs: The Federal Pell Grant Program; the Campus-Based programs (Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant (FSEOG), Federal Work-Study (FWS), and the Federal Perkins Loan Program); the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program; the Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education (TEACH) Grant; and the Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grant.
Federal Student Aid, an office of the U.S. Department of Education (hereafter “the Department”), subsequently developed an application process to collect and process the data necessary to determine a student's eligibility to receive title IV, HEA program assistance. The application process involves an applicant's submission of the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA®). After submission of the FAFSA, an applicant receives a Student Aid Report (SAR), which is a summary of the data they submitted on the FAFSA. The applicant reviews the SAR, and, if necessary, will make corrections or updates to their submitted FAFSA data. Institutions of higher education listed by the applicant on the FAFSA
The Department seeks OMB approval of all application components as a single “collection of information”. The aggregate burden will be accounted for under OMB Control Number 1845–0001. The specific application components, descriptions and submission methods for each are listed in Table one.
This information collection also documents an estimate of the annual public burden as it relates to the application process for federal student aid. The Applicant Burden Model (ABM), measures applicant burden through an assessment of the activities each applicant conducts in conjunction with other applicant characteristics and in terms of burden, the average applicant's experience. Key determinants of the ABM include:
☐ The total number of applicants that will potentially apply for federal student aid;
☐ How the applicant chooses to complete and submit the FAFSA (e.g., by paper or electronically via FOTW®);
☐ How the applicant chooses to submit any corrections andor updates (e.g., the paper SAR or electronically via FOTW Corrections);
☐ The type of SAR document the applicant receives (eSAR, SAR acknowledgment, or paper SAR);
☐ The formula applied to determine the applicant's expected family contribution (EFC) (full need analysis formula, Simplified Needs Test or Automatic Zero); and
☐ The average amount of time involved in preparing to complete the application.
The ABM is largely driven by the number of potential applicants for the application cycle. The total application projection for 2015–2016 is based upon two factors—estimates of the total enrollment in all degree-granting institutions and the percentage change in FAFSA submissions for the last completed or almost completed application cycle. The ABM is also based on the application options available to students and parents. The Department accounts for each application component based on web trending tools, survey information, and other Department data sources.
For 2015–2016, the Department is reporting a net burden decrease of 2,081,212 hours.
Office of Management (OM), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501
A copy of the supporting statement is available at
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before September 26, 2014.
Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Stephanie Valentine, 202–401–0526.
Projected average estimates for the next three years:
Department of Education (ED), Institute of Education Sciences/National Center for Education Statistics (IES).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before September 26, 2014.
Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Kashka Kubzdela, 202–502–7411.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
TIMSS is an international assessment of fourth and eighth grade students' achievement in mathematics and science. Since its inception in 1995, TIMSS has continued to assess students every 4 years (1995, 1999, 2003, 2007, 2011). Participation in this study provides data on current and past education policies and a comparison of U.S. education policies with its international counterparts. Periodically, TIMSS has also conducted an assessment of advanced mathematics and physics of students at the end of secondary school (1995 and 2008). The United States participated in TIMSS Advanced in 1995, but not in 2008. Because of the current strong policy interest in preparedness for college and for careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields, the U.S. plans to participate in TIMSS Advanced in 2015. This submission is for the 2015 TIMSS and TIMSS Advanced main study data collection that will take place in March-May, 2015.
Department of Education
Correction Notice
On August 19, 2014, the U.S. Department of Education published a 60-day comment period notice in the
On July 3, 2014, the U.S. Department of Education published a 60-day comment period notice in the
The Department is requesting an extension of the approval for the Generic Application Package that numerous ED discretionary grant programs use to provide to applicants the forms and information needed to apply for new grants under those grant program competitions. The Department will use this Generic Application package for discretionary grant programs that: (1) Use the standard ED or Federal-wide grant applications forms that have been cleared separately through OMB under the terms of this generic clearance as approved by OMB and (2) use selection criteria from the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR); selection criteria that reflect statutory or regulatory provisions that have been developed under 34 CFR 75.209, or a combination of EDGAR, statutory or regulatory criteria or other provisions, as authorized under 34 CFR 75.200 and 75.209. The use of the standard ED grant application forms and the use of EDGAR and/or criteria developed under §§ 75.200 and 75.209 promotes the standardization and streamlining of ED discretionary grant application packages.
The Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Privacy, Information and Records Management Services, Office of Management, hereby issues a correction notice as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), Department of Energy (DOE).
Notice of Intent to Grant Exclusive License.
This notice is issued in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(c)(1) and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i). NETL hereby gives notice of its intent to grant an exclusive license to practice the inventions described and claimed in U.S. Patent Application Numbers 61/831,251 and 61/831,256, entitled “Method for continuous synthesis of pyrochlore catalyst powders” and “Process for continuous synthesis of mixed oxide powders,” respectively, to Pyrochem Catalyst Company, having its principal place of business in New Brighton, PA. The inventions are owned by United States of America, as represented by the Department of Energy. The prospective exclusive license will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.
Written comments or nonexclusive license applications are to be received at the address listed below no later than fifteen (15) days after the date of this published Notice. Objections submitted in response to this notice will not be made available to the public for inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.
Comments, applications for nonexclusive licenses, or objections relating to the prospective exclusive license may be submitted to Jessica Sosenko, Technology Transfer Program Manager, U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, P.O. Box 10940, Pittsburgh, PA 15236–0940 or via facsimile at (412) 386–5920.
Jessica Sosenko, Technology Transfer Program Manager, U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, P.O. Box 10940, Pittsburgh, PA 15236; Telephone (412) 386–7417; Email:
35 U.S.C. 209(c) provides DOE the authority to grant exclusive or partially exclusive licenses in Department-owned inventions where a determination can be made, among other things, that the desired practical application of the invention has not been achieved, or is not likely to be achieved expeditiously, under a nonexclusive license. The statute and implementing regulations (37 CFR 404) require that the necessary determinations be made after public notice and opportunity for filing written comments and objections.
Pyrochem Catalyst Company, a small business, has applied for an exclusive license to practice the inventions and has a plan for commercialization of the inventions. DOE intends to grant the license, upon a final determination in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(c), unless within 15 days of publication of this notice the NETL Technology Transfer Manager (contact information listed above), receives in writing any of the following, together with the supporting documents:
(i) A statement from any person setting forth reasons why it would not be in the best interest of the United States to grant the proposed license; or
(ii) An application for a nonexclusive license to the invention, in which applicant states that it already has brought the invention to practical application or is likely to bring the invention to practical application expeditiously.
Department of Energy.
Notice of Open Meeting.
This notice announces one meeting of the National Coal Council (NCC). The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the
Thursday October 16, 2014, 9:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
Gaylord National Hotel, 201 Waterfront Street National Harbor, Oxon Hill, MD 20745.
Dr. Robert J. Wright, U.S. Department of Energy, 4G–036/Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585–0001; Telephone: 202–586–0429
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 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.
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 rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This document announces the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) responses to Agency Clearance requests, in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
Courtney Kerwin (202) 566–1669, or email at
EPA ICR Number 2409.02; Production Outlook Reports for Un-Registered Renewable Fuel Producers (Renewal); was approved on 07/01/2014; OMB Number 2060–0660; expires on 07/31/2017; Approved with change.
EPA ICR Number 1904.08; The Sun Wise School Program; was approved on 07/01/2014; OMB Number 2060–0439; expires on 07/31/2017; Approved without change.
EPA ICR Number 0616.11; Compliance Requirement for Child Resistant Packaging (Renewal); 40 CFR part 157; was approved on 07/14/2014; OMB Number 2070–0052; expires on 07/31/2017; Approved without change.
EPA ICR Number 2265.02; SmartWay Transport Partnership (Renewal); was approved on 07/18/2014; OMB Number 2060–0663; expires on 07/31/2017; Approved with change.
EPA ICR Number 2169.05; Cooling Water Intake Structures at Phase III Facilities (Renewal); 40 CFR part 125; was approved on 07/18/2014; OMB Number 2040–0268; expires on 07/31/2017; Approved without change.
EPA ICR Number 1360.14; Underground Storage Tanks: Technical and Financial Requirements, and State Program Approval Procedures; 40 CFR parts 280 and 281; was approved on 07/23/2014; OMB Number 2050–0068; expires on 09/30/2014; Approved without change.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) Program (40 CFR part 82, subpart G) (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 1596.09, OMB Control No. 2060–0226) 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 September 26, 2014.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0077, to (1) EPA online using
Rebecca von dem Hagen, Environmental Protection Agency, Stratospheric Protection Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, MC 6205T, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 343–9445; email address:
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the docket. The docket can be viewed at
The SNAP program, based on information collected from the manufacturers, formulators, and/or sellers of such substitutes, identifies acceptable substitutes. Responses to the collection of information are mandatory under Section 612 for anyone who sells or, in certain cases, uses substitutes for an ozone-depleting substance after April 18, 1994. Steps to protect confidentiality of information collected under the SNAP program are based on EPA's confidentiality regulations (40 CFR 2.201 et seq.). Submitters may designate all or portions of their forms or petitions as confidential, and must substantiate their claim of confidentiality. Under CAA Section 114(c), emissions information may not be claimed as confidential.
To develop the lists of acceptable and unacceptable substitutes, EPA must assess and compare “overall risks to human health and the environment” posed by use of substitutes in the context of particular applications. EPA requires submission of information covering a wide range of health and environmental factors, including intrinsic properties such as physical and chemical information, ozone depleting potential, global warming potential, toxicity, and flammability, and use-specific data such as substitute applications, process description, environmental release data, exposure data during use of a substitute, environmental fate and transport, and cost information. Any substitute which is a new chemical must also be submitted to EPA under the New Chemicals program under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Alternatives that will be used as sterilants must be filed jointly with EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs and with SNAP.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR) “Emissions Certification and Compliance Requirements for Nonroad Compression-ignition Engines and On-highway Heavy Duty Engines” (EPA ICR No. 1684.18, OMB Control No. 2060–0287), 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 September 26, 2014.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–1182, to (1) EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change with any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Nydia Yanira Reyes-Morales, EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Mail Code 6405J, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202–343–9264; 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 at
The emission values achieved during certification testing may also be used in the Averaging, Banking, and Trading (ABT) Program, which allows engine manufacturers to bank credits for engine families that emit below the standard and use the credits to certify engine families that emit above the standard and trade banked credits with other manufacturers. Participation in the ABT program is voluntary.
The CAA also mandates EPA to verify that manufacturers have successfully translated their certified prototypes into mass produced engines; and that these engines comply with emission standards throughout their useful lives. EPA verifies this through `Compliance Programs' which include Production Line Testing (PLT), In-use Testing and Selected Enforcement Audits (SEAs). PLT, which only applies to marine engines, is a self-audit program that allows engine manufacturers to monitor their products' emissions profile with statistical certainty and minimize the cost of correcting errors through early detection. In-use testing allows manufacturers and EPA to verify compliance with emission standards throughout an engine family's useful life. Through SEAs, EPA verifies that test data submitted by engine manufacturers is reliable and testing is performed according to EPA regulations.
The Transition Program for Equipment Manufacturers (TPEM) ICR (2060–0369) was incorporated into this ICR, to consolidate compliance information requirements for nonroad compression ignition engines and equipment under a single ICR. Under TPEM, nonroad equipment manufacturers are allowed to delay compliance with Tier 4 standards for up to seven years if they comply with certain limitations, easing the impact of new emission standards on equipment manufacturers. This is achieved by allowing additional time for equipment manufacturers to redesign their products in response to changes in engine designs. Participation in the program is voluntary requires to keep records and submit annual reports.
Manufacturers may assert a claim of confidentiality over information provided to EPA, which is granted in accordance with the FOIA and EPA regulations at 40 CFR Part 2.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “Confidential Financial Disclosure Form for Special Government Employees Serving on Federal Advisory Committees at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 2260.05, OMB Control No. 2090–0029), 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 September 26, 2014.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OA–2010–0757, 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.
Megan Moreau, Office of Diversity, Advisory Committee Management and Outreach, Office of Administration and Resources Management, Mail Code 1601M, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202–564–5320; fax number: 202–564–8129; 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 of a Public Meeting.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing a public meeting of the National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC) Lead and Copper Rule Working Group (LCRWG). The meeting is scheduled for September 18 and 19, 2014, in Arlington, VA. During this meeting, the LCRWG and the EPA will focus discussions on the Lead and Copper Rule revision issues associated with lead sampling protocols and public education requirements for lead and copper.
The meeting on September 18, 2014, will be held from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., eastern time, and on September 19, 2014, from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., eastern time.
The public meeting will be held at the Cadmus Group Inc., 1555 Wilson Blvd., Suite 300, Arlington, VA, and will be open to the public. All attendees must sign in with the security desk and show photo identification to enter the building.
For more information about this meeting or to request written materials contact Lameka Smith, Standards and Risk Management Division, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, at the EPA, by phone at (202) 564–1629 or by email at
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office announces two public teleconferences of the chartered SAB to (1) conduct a quality review of an SAB draft report on connectivity of streams and wetlands to downstream waters and (2) deliberate on the adequacy of the scientific and technical basis of the proposed rule titled
The chartered SAB will conduct public teleconferences on September 26, 2014 and September 29, 2014. Each of the teleconferences will begin at 1:30 p.m. and end at 4:30 p.m. (Eastern Time).
The public teleconferences will be conducted by telephone only.
Any member of the public wishing to obtain general information regarding the teleconferences should contact Dr. Angela Nugent, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), EPA SAB (1400R), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; via telephone/voice mail (202) 564–2218; fax (202) 565–2098 or via email at
The SAB was established pursuant to the Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act (ERDDAA), codified at 42 U.S.C. 4365, to provide independent scientific and technical advice to the Administrator on the technical basis for Agency positions and regulations. The SAB is a Federal Advisory Committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C., App. 2. The SAB will comply with the provisions of FACA and all appropriate SAB Staff Office procedural policies. Pursuant to FACA and EPA policy, notice is hereby given that the EPA's chartered SAB will hold two public teleconferences. On the first teleconference, the chartered SAB will conduct a quality review of an SAB draft report and on the second, the chartered SAB will deliberate on the adequacy of the science supporting a proposed EPA regulation. The SAB was established pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4365 to provide independent scientific and technical advice to the Administrator on the technical basis for agency positions and regulations.
The SAB is a federal advisory committee under FACA. The SAB will comply with the provisions of FACA and all appropriate SAB Staff Office procedural policies.
(1)
On September 26, 2014, the chartered SAB will conduct a quality review of an SAB draft report entitled
The ORD draft report was written to inform development of a rule proposed by the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to clarify the definition of waters of the United States under the Clean Water Act (79 FR 22188–22274). The SAB panel was charged with reviewing the overall clarity and technical accuracy of the ORD draft report, whether it included and correctly summarized the most relevant peer-reviewed scientific literature, and whether the findings and conclusions were supported by the available science.
Background information about this advisory activity can be found on the SAB Web site at:
(2)
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Notice of Information Collection—Extension With Change: State and Local Government Information Report (EEO–4).
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announces that it intends to submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for a three-year extension with change of the State and Local Government Information Report (EEO–4 Report, Form 164). EEOC is in the process of revising the race and ethnicity categories on the EEO–4 report to conform to OMB's Revisions to the Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity (October 30, 1997) (Revised Standards), as applied in OMB Bulletin No. 00–02, Guidance on Aggregation and Allocation of Data on Race for Use in Civil Rights Monitoring and Enforcement (March 9, 2000). See Appendix A for a draft version of the proposed Form 164. Pending OMB approval of an emergency extension request, to be effective after the current August 31, 2014 expiration date, a regular clearance request for OMB review and approval of a three-year extension of the EEO–4 Report is beginning.
Written comments on this notice must be submitted on or before October 27, 2014. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2000e–8(c), a public hearing concerning the proposed changes to the EEO–4 will be held at a place and time to be announced. Persons wishing to present their views orally should notify the Commission of their desire to do so in writing no later than September 26, 2014. The request to present views orally at a public hearing should include a written summary of the remarks to be offered.
Comments should be sent to Bernadette Wilson, Acting Executive Officer, Executive Secretariat, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street NE., Washington, DC 20507. As a convenience to commenters, the Executive Secretariat will accept comments totaling six or fewer pages by facsimile (“FAX”) machine. This limitation is necessary to assure access to the equipment. The telephone number of the fax receiver is (202) 663–4114. (This is not a toll-free number). Receipt of FAX transmittals will not be acknowledged, except that the sender may request confirmation of receipt by calling the Executive Secretariat staff at (202) 663–4070 (voice) or (202) 663–4074 (TTD). (These are not toll-free telephone numbers.) Instead of sending written comments to EEOC, you may submit comments and attachments electronically at
Ronald Edwards, Director, Program Research and Surveys Division, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street NE., Room 4SW30F, Washington, DC 20507; (202) 663–4949 (voice) or (202) 663–7063 (TTY). Requests for this notice in an alternative format should be made to the Office of Communications and Legislative Affairs at (202) 663–4191 (voice) or (202) 663–4494 (TTY).
The EEOC has collected information from state and local governments with 100 or more full-time employees since 1974. The Commission now proposes to revise the EEO–4 report to conform with OMB's Revisions to the Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity (October 30, 1997) (Revised Standards), as applied in OMB Bulletin No. 00–02, Guidance on Aggregation and Allocation of Data on Race for Use in Civil Rights Monitoring and Enforcement (March 9, 2000). This will require a change of the Form 164.
EEOC will revise the EEO–4 report to include the following race and ethnicity categories: Hispanic or Latino; White; Black or African American; Asian; Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander; American Indian or Alaska Native; and Two or More Races.
EEO–4 data are used by the EEOC to investigate charges of discrimination against state and local governments and to provide information on the employment status of minorities and women. The data are shared with several other Federal agencies. Pursuant to section 709(d) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e–8(d), as amended, EEO–4 data are shared with State and Local Fair Employment Practices Agencies (FEPAs). Aggregated data are also used by researchers and the general public.
Estimated burden hours were calculated by multiplying the number of reports expected to be filed annually (12,458 in 2011) by the estimated average time to complete and submit each report (7.16 hours).
These burden estimates are largely based on an assumption of paper reporting. However, the EEOC has made electronic filing much easier for employers required to file the EEO–4 Report. As a result, more jurisdictions are using this filing method. This development, along with the greater availability of human resource information software, is expected to have significantly reduced the actual burden of reporting. However, empirical data in this area is lacking. Accordingly, efforts will be undertaken by the Commission to (1) develop more reliable estimates of reporting burdens given the significant increase in electronic filing and (2) to implement new approaches to make such reporting even less burdensome.
The other new burden is the one-time cost of employers changing the manner in which they collect and store the new race and ethnicity changes as well as changes to computer programs and systems. There will be no cost for employers whose current systems are already designed to handle the full multiple race and ethnicity classifications, and we estimate that about ten percent of employers currently have this ability. The chart below shows the cost for employers who will have to re-survey the workforce to comply with the new race and ethnicity changes.
Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, and OMB regulation 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), the Commission solicits public comment to enable it to:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Commission's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Improve the accuracy of the Commission'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 required to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
For the Commission
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Notice of Information Collection—Extension With Change: Local Union Report (EEO–3).
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) announces that it intends to submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for a three-year extension with change of the Local Union Report (EEO–3) (Form 274). EEOC is in the process of revising the race and ethnicity categories on the EEO–3 report to conform to OMB's
Written comments on this notice must be submitted on or before October 27, 2014. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2000e–8(c), a public hearing concerning the proposed changes to the EEO–3 will be held at a place and time to be announced. Persons wishing to present their views orally should notify the Commission of their desire to do so in writing no later than September 26, 2014. The request to present views orally at a public hearing should include a written summary of the remarks to be offered.
Comments should be sent to Bernadette Wilson, Acting Executive Officer, Executive Secretariat, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street NE., Washington, DC 20507. As a convenience to commenters, the Executive Secretariat will accept comments totaling six or fewer pages by facsimile (“FAX”) machine. This limitation is necessary to assure access to the equipment. The telephone number of the fax receiver is (202) 663–4114. (This is not a toll-free number). Receipt of FAX transmittals will not be acknowledged, except that the sender may request confirmation of receipt by calling the Executive Secretariat staff at (202) 663–4070 (voice) or (202) 663–4074 (TTD). (These are not toll-free telephone numbers.) Instead of sending written comments to EEOC, you may submit comments and attachments electronically at
Ronald Edwards, Director, Program Research and Surveys Division, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street NE., Room 4SW30F, Washington, DC 20507; (202) 663–4949 (voice) or (202) 663–7063 (TTY). Requests for this notice in an alternative format should be made to the Office of Communications and Legislative Affairs at (202) 663–4191 (voice) or (202) 663–4494 (TTY).
The EEOC has collected information from local unions on the EEO–3 form since 1966. The Commission now proposes to revise the EEO–3 report to conform to OMB's
EEOC will revise the EEO–3 report to include the following race and ethnicity categories: Hispanic or Latino; White; Black or African American; Asian; Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander; American Indian or Alaska Native; and Two or More Races.
Estimated burden hours were calculated by multiplying the number of reports expected to be filed biennially (1,176 in 2012) by the estimated average time to complete and submit each report (2.05 hours). These estimates are based on an assumption of paper reporting. However, the EEOC has made electronic filing much easier for respondents required to file the EEO–3 Report. As a result, more jurisdictions are using this filing method. This development, along with the greater availability of human resource information software, is expected to have significantly reduced the actual burden of reporting. However, empirical data in this area is lacking. Accordingly, efforts will be undertaken by the Commission to (1) develop more reliable estimates of reporting burdens given the significant increase in electronic filing; and (2) to implement new approaches to make such reporting even less burdensome.
The other new burden is the one-time cost of respondents changing the manner in which they collect and store the new race and ethnicity changes as well as changes to computer programs and systems. There will be no cost for respondents with a current system that is already designed to handle the full multiple race and ethnicity classifications. It is estimated that about ten percent of respondents currently have this ability. The chart below shows the estimated cost for respondents who will have to re-survey the members to comply with the new race and ethnicity changes.
In order to help reduce survey burden, respondents are encouraged to report data electronically whenever possible.
Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, and OMB regulation 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), the Commission solicits public comment to enable it to:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Commission's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the Commission'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 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.
For the Commission.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has received Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for a revision of a currently approved public information collection pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number, and no person is required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. Comments concerning the accuracy of the burden estimates and any suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the person listed in the
Cathy Williams, Office of the Managing Director, at (202) 418–2918, or email:
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 agreement to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within twelve days of the date this notice appears in the
S
By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
The Commission gives notice that it has formally requested that the parties to the below listed agreement provide additional information pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 40304(d). This action prevents the agreement from becoming effective as originally scheduled. Interested parties may file comments within fifteen (15) days after publication of this notice 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 September 11, 2014.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (E. Ann Worthy, Vice President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201–2272:
1. George V. Deaton and Russell E. Deaton, both of Paducah, Texas, jointly, to acquire voting shares of First Paducah Bancshares, Inc., Paducah, Texas.
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 September 10, 2014.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690–1414:
1.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than September 19, 2014.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Yvonne Sparks, Community Development Officer) P.O. Box 442, St. Louis, Missouri 63166–2034:
1.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than September 22, 2014.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Yvonne Sparks, Community Development Officer) P.O. Box 442, St. Louis, Missouri 63166–2034:
1.
This notice corrects a notice (FR Doc. 2014–19933) published on page 49777 of the issue for Friday, August 22, 2014.
Under the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco heading, the entry for Seacoast Commerce Bank Holdings, San Diego, California, is revised to read as follows:
A. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (Gerald C. Tsai, Director, Applications and Enforcement) 101 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105–1579:
1.
Comments on this application must be received by September 18, 2014.
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB information collection.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement concerning Cost or Pricing Data Requirements and Information Other Than Cost or Pricing Data.
Submit comments on or before October 27, 2014.
Submit comments identified by Information Collection 9000–0013, Cost or Pricing Data Requirements and Information Other Than Cost or Pricing Data, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Mr. Edward Chambers, Procurement Analyst, Federal Acquisition Policy Division, GSA 202–501–3221 or
The Truth in Negotiations Act requires the Government to obtain certified cost or pricing data under certain circumstances. Contractors may request an exemption from this requirement under certain conditions and provide other information instead.
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of request for public comments regarding a revision to an existing OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB) will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for extension and revision of the expiration dates of the following four information collection requirements: 9000–0024, 9000–0025, 9000–0141 and 9000–0130. This request also merges the four previously approved information collections into one (OMB Control No. 9000–0024). A notice was published in the
Submit comments on or before September 26, 2014.
Submit comments identified by Information Collection 9000–0024, Buy American Act and Trade Agreements Certificates, by any of the following methods:
•
Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching the OMB control number 9000–0024. Select the link “Comment Now” that corresponds with “Information Collection 9000–0024, Buy American Act and Trade Agreements Certificates. Follow the instructions provided on the screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “Information Collection 9000–0024, Buy American Act and Trade Agreements Certificates” on your attached document.
•
•
Ms. Cecelia L. Davis, Procurement Analyst, Acquisition Policy Division, GSA 202–219–0202 or email
A. This information collection requirement pertains to information that an offeror must submit in response to the requirements of the provisions and clauses in FAR 52.225–2 that relate to the following:
* The Buy American statute (41 U.S.C. chapter 83 and E.O. 10582).
* The Trade Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 2501–2515), including the World Trade Organization Government Procurement Agreement and various free trade agreements.
* The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111–5) (Recovery Act).
a. 52.225–2, Buy American Certificate ((formerly OMB Control No. 9000–0024), as prescribed in FAR 25.1101(2), requires the offeror to identify in its proposal supplies that do not meet the definition of domestic end product. The Buy American Act no longer applies to acquisitions of commercial information technology.
b. 52.225–4, Buy American—Free Trade Agreements—Israeli Trade Act Certificate (formerly OMB Control No. 9000–0130), as prescribed in FAR 25.1101(b)(2)(i), requires separate listing of foreign products that are eligible under a trade agreement, and listing of all other foreign end products.
c. 52.225–6, Trade Agreements Certificate (formerly OMB Control No. 9000–0025), as prescribed in FAR 25.1101(c)(2), requires the offeror to certify that all end products are either U.S.-made or designated country end products, except as listed in paragraph (b) of the provision. Offerors are not allowed to provide other than a U.S.-made or designated country end product, unless the requirement is waived.
d. Construction provisions and clauses (formerly OMB Control No. 9000–0141):
The listed provisions and clauses, as prescribed in FAR 25.1102(a) through (e), provide that an offeror/contractor requesting to use foreign construction material due to unreasonable cost of domestic construction material shall provide adequate information to permit evaluation of the request.
Supplies:
FAR Clause 52.225–2, Buy American Certificate (formerly OMB Control No. 9000–0024), requires the offeror to identify in its proposal supplies that do not meet the definition of domestic end product. The Buy American Act no longer applies to acquisitions of commercial information technology.
FAR Clause 52.225–4, Buy American—Free Trade Agreements—Israeli Trade Act Certificate (formerly OMB Control No. 9000–0130), requires separate listing of foreign products that are eligible under a trade agreement, and listing of all other foreign end products.
FAR Clause 52.225–6, Trade Agreements Certificate (formerly OMB Control No. 9000–0025), requires the offeror to certify that all end products are either U.S.-made or designated country end products, except as listed in paragraph (b) of the provision. Offerors are not allowed to provide other than a U.S.-made or designated country end product, unless the requirement is waived.
Construction provisions and clauses (formerly OMB Control No. 9000–0141) provide that an offeror/contractor requesting to use foreign construction material due to unreasonable cost of domestic construction material shall provide adequate information to permit evaluation of the request.
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Cancellation of public meeting.
The meeting of the Interagency Task Force on Antimicrobial Resistance (ITFAR) is cancelled. The purpose of the meeting was to communicate the strategic direction of ITFAR in the fight against antimicrobial resistance, centering on current work and future direction in this area. This meeting will be rescheduled at a future date.
The public meeting cancelled by this notice was to be held at the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center in Washington, DC, on Thursday, September 4, 2014, from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Stephanie Gumbis, Office of Antimicrobial Resistance, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., Mailstop A–28, Atlanta, GA 30329; Telephone 404–639–4000; Email
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Final notice.
This final notice announces our decision to renew the Medicare Advantage “deeming authority” of the National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) for a period of 6 years. This new term of approval would begin October 19, 2014 and end October 18, 2020.
This final notice is effective October 19, 2014 through October 18, 2020.
Jennifer Bates, 410–786–6258 or Milonda Mitchell, 410–786–1644.
Under the Medicare program, eligible beneficiaries may receive covered services through a Medicare Advantage (MA) organization that contracts with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). The regulations specifying the Medicare requirements
As a method of assuring compliance with certain Medicare requirements, an MA organization may choose to become accredited by a CMS approved accrediting organization (AO). In addition to their CMS-recognized deemed status accreditation program, approved AOs offer other accreditation programs that are not recognized by CMS. For Medicare participation purposes, the MA organization may be “deemed” compliant in one or more of six requirements set forth in section 1852(e)(4)(B) of the Act and § 422.156(b). For an AO to be able to “deem” an MA plan as compliant with these MA requirements, the AO must demonstrate that it meets the requirements outlined in § 422.157, including demonstrating that its standards are at least as stringent as Medicare requirements with respect to the standards in the deemable area. Therefore, for example, MA organizations that are licensed as health maintenance organizations (HMOs) or preferred provider organizations (PPOs) and are accredited by an approved accrediting organization may receive, at the MA organization's request, deemed status for CMS requirements in the following six MA areas: Quality Improvement, Antidiscrimination, Access to Services, Confidentiality and Accuracy of Enrollee Records, Information on Advanced Directives, and Provider Participation Rules. (
The National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) was approved as an accrediting organization for MA deeming of HMOs on October 19, 2010, and that term will expire on October 18, 2014. On January 30, 2014, NCQA submitted an application to renew its deeming authority. On that same date, NCQA submitted materials requested from CMS which included updates and/or changes to items listed in § 422.158(a) that are prerequisites for receiving deeming program approval by CMS, and which were furnished to CMS by NCQA as a part of its renewal applications for HMOs and PPOs.
Section 1852(e)(4)(c) of the Act provides a statutory timetable to ensure that our review of deeming applications is conducted in a timely manner. The Act provides us with 210 calendar days after the date of receipt of an application to complete our survey activities and application review process. In accordance with our policy for providers and suppliers, within 60 days of receiving a completed application, we must publish a notice in the
In the March 25, 2014,
• The types of MA plans that it would review as part of its accreditation process.
• A detailed comparison of the AO's accreditation requirements and standards with the Medicare requirements (for example, a crosswalk).
• Detailed information about the organization's survey process, including the following—
++ Frequency of surveys and whether surveys are announced or unannounced.
++ Copies of survey forms, and guidelines and instructions to surveyors.
++ Descriptions of—
— The survey review process and the accreditation status decision making process;
— The procedures used to notify accredited MA organizations of deficiencies and to monitor the correction of those deficiencies; and
— The procedures used to enforce compliance with accreditation requirements.
• Detailed information about the individuals who perform surveys for the accreditation organization, including the following—
++ The size and composition of accreditation survey teams for each type of plan reviewed as part of the accreditation process;
++ The education and experience requirements surveyors must meet;
++ The content and frequency of the in-service training provided to survey personnel;
++ The evaluation systems used to monitor the performance of individual surveyors and survey teams; and
++ The organization's policies and practice with respect to the participation, in surveys or in the accreditation decision process by an individual who is professionally or financially affiliated with the entity being surveyed.
• A description of the organization's data management and analysis system with respect to its surveys and accreditation decisions, including the kinds of reports, tables, and other displays generated by that system.
• A description of the organization's procedures for responding to and investigating complaints against accredited organizations, including policies and procedures regarding coordination of these activities with appropriate licensing bodies and ombudsmen programs.
• A description of the organization's policies and procedures with respect to the withholding or removal of accreditation for failure to meet the accreditation organization's standards or requirements, and other actions the organization takes in response to noncompliance with its standards and requirements.
• A description of all types (for example, full, partial) and categories (for example, provisional, conditional, temporary) of accreditation offered by
• A list of all currently accredited MA organizations and the type, category, and expiration date of the accreditation held by each of them.
• A list of all full and partial accreditation surveys scheduled to be performed by the accreditation organization.
• The name and address of each person with an ownership or control interest in the accreditation organization.
• CMS's analysis of NCQA's past performance in the deeming program and the results of recent deeming validation reviews, or look-behind audits conducted as part of continuing federal oversight of the deeming program under § 422.157(d).
In accordance with section 1865(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the March 25, 2014 proposed notice (79 FR 16338) also solicited public comments regarding whether NCQA's requirements met or exceeded the Medicare conditions of participation as an accrediting organization for MA HMOs and PPOs. We received no public comments in response to our proposed notice.
We compared the standards and survey process contained in NCQA's application with the Medicare conditions for accreditation. Our review and evaluation of NCQA's application for continued CMS-approval were conducted as described in section III of this final notice, and yielded the following:
• To meet the requirements at § 422.158(a)(1), NCQA provided CMS with documentation listing its types of MA plans that it would review as part of its accreditation process. In addition, AO provided clarification and documentation to demonstrate how it distinguishes its CMS-recognized deemed status accreditation program from its other accreditation programs that are not recognized by CMS.
• AO revised its “Grounds of Revocation” policy to meet the requirements at § 422.158(a)(3)(iii)(C) by revising its requirements to include non-compliance with “State, Federal, or other duly authorized regulatory or judicial action restricts or limits the organization's operations.”
• To comply with the requirements at § 422.158(a)(6), AO revised its processes for responding to and investigating complaints against accredited organizations by requiring the reporting of any serious problems identified with an MA plan to the designated CMS MA deeming representative.
Based on the review and observations described in section III of this final notice, we have determined that NCQA's accreditation program requirements continue to meet or exceed our requirements. Therefore, we renew NCQA as a national accreditation organization with deeming authority for MA HMOs and PPOs, effective October 19, 2014 through October 18, 2020.
This document does not impose any new or revised information collection or recordkeeping requirements. Consequently, it need not be reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
The goals of the PREP Multi-Component Evaluation are to document how PREP programs are designed and implemented in the field, collect performance measure data for PREP programs, and assess the effectiveness of selected PREP-funded programs.
The PREP Multi-Component Evaluation contains three components: The “Design and Implementation Study,” the “Performance Analysis Study,” and the “Impact and In-Depth Implementation Study.” This notice is specific to data collection activities for the implementation portion of the Design and Implementation Study.
The goals of this portion of the study are to document how States and sub-awardees actually implemented their PREP programs, given their program designs. In order to meet this goal, both State PREP Administrators and a selection of sub-awardee program providers will be interviewed. The interviews will be used to understand important aspects of implementation, such as training, technical assistance and program fidelity monitoring.
ISIS is one project within the broader portfolio of research that OPRE is utilizing to assess the success of the career pathways programs and models. In addition to ISIS, this strategy includes a multi-pronged research and evaluation approach for the Health Profession Opportunity Grants (HPOG) Program to better understand and assess the activities conducted and their results. In order to maximize learning across this portfolio, survey development for the HPOG and ISIS baseline and follow up surveys is being coordinated, and the majority of the data elements collected in these surveys are similar.
Two data collection efforts have been approved for ISIS, including one for baseline data collection (approved November 2011), a second for data collection activities to document program implementation, data collection activities for an initial follow-up survey of participants to be administered approximately 15 months after random assignment, and data collection through in-depth interviews for a small sample of study participants (approved August 2013). Additionally, three related data collection efforts for HPOG research were approved by OMB under OMB #0970–0394. These include approval of a Performance Reporting System (PRS) (approved September 2011), for collection of additional baseline data for the HPOG-Impact study (approved October 2012), and for collection of data for the National Implementation Evaluation (approved August 2013). Additionally, a new request is being submitted at the same time as this request.
This
Data collection activities to submit in a future information collection request include a third follow-up survey for ISIS study participants approximately 60 months after study enrollment.
Previously approved collection activities under 0970–0397 will continue under this new request, including additional data collection using the following previously approved instruments: The Basic Information Form; the Self-Administered Questionnaire; 15-Month Follow-Up Survey; 15-Month Follow-Up Survey Tracking Letters; Study Participant In-depth Interview Guide; and Study Participant Check-in Call. The estimated number of study participants for the 15-Month Survey and in-depth interviews is reduced from the previous OMB submission. Total sample size targets were reduced at a number of ISIS program sites to reflect actual study enrollment experiences. The number of in-depth interviews projected was also reduced to incorporate experiences to date recruiting participants.
Additional Information: Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: OPRE Reports Clearance Officer. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. Email address:
The goal of HPOG-Impact is to evaluate the effectiveness of approaches used by 20 of the HPOG grantees to provide TANF recipients and other low‐income individuals with opportunities for education, training and advancement within the health care field. HPOG-Impact also is intended to evaluate variation in participant impact that may be attributable to different HPOG program components and models. The impact study design is a classic experiment in which eligible applicants will be randomly assigned to a treatment group that is offered participation in HPOG and a control group that is not permitted to enroll in HPOG. In a subset of sites, eligible applicants will be randomized into two treatment arms (a basic and an enhanced version of the intervention) and a control group.
The goal of HPOG–NIE is to describe and assess the implementation, systems change, and outcomes and other important information about the operations of the 27 HPOG grantees focused on TANF recipients and other low-income individuals. To achieve these goals, it is necessary to collect information about the composition and intensity of services received, participant characteristics and HPOG experiences, and participant outputs and outcomes.
HPOG-Impact and HPOG–NIE are two projects within the broader portfolio of research that OPRE is utilizing to assess the success of the career pathways programs and models. This strategy includes a multi-pronged research and evaluation approach for the HPOG program to better understand and assess the activities conducted and their results as well as the Innovative Strategies for Improving Self-Sufficiency (ISIS) project. In order to maximize learning across the portfolio, survey development for the HPOG and ISIS baseline and follow up surveys is being coordinated, and the majority of the data elements collected in these surveys are similar.
Three data collection efforts related to HPOG research were approved by OMB, including approval of a Performance Reporting System (PRS) (approved September 2011), for collection of additional baseline data for the HPOG-Impact study (approved October 2012), and for collection of data for the National Implementation Evaluation (approved August 2013). Additionally, two data collection efforts for ISIS were approved (November 2011 and August 2013), and a new request is being submitted at the same time as this request (under OMB #0970–0397).
This Federal Register Notice provides the opportunity to comment on proposed new information collection activities for HPOG-Impact and HPOG–NIE: (1)
Previously approved collection activities under 0970–0394 will continue this new request, including additional data collection using the following previously approved instruments: The Performance Reporting System (PRS); the HPOG-Impact 15-month follow-up survey of treatment and control group members; and the HPOG–NIE 15-month Participant Follow-Up survey.
Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:
[This information collection request is for a three-year period.]
Additional Information: Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: OPRE Reports Clearance Officer. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. Email address:
The data collected will inform State/Tribal/Federal policy decisions, program management, and responses to Congressional and Departmental inquiries. Specifically, the data are used for short/long-term budget projections, trend analysis, child and family service reviews, and to target areas for improved technical assistance. The data will provide information about foster care placements, adoptive parents, length of time in care, delays in termination of parental rights and placement for adoption.
Office of Refugee Resettlement, ACF, HHS.
Announcement of the award of a single-source program expansion supplement to the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants (USCRI) to support expanded services to foreign trafficking victims, potential trafficking victims, and certain family members.
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) announces the award of a single-source program expansion supplement grant to U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants in Arlington, Virginia for a total of $361,286.
The supplemental funding will ensure sufficient that clients' essential needs, such as housing, transportation, communication, food, and medical care will be met.
The period of support under these supplements is June 26, 2014 through September 29, 2014.
Maggie Wynne, Director, Division of Anti-Trafficking in Persons, Office of Refugee Resettlement, 901 D Street SW., Washington, DC 20447, Telephone (202) 401–4664. Email:
The National Human Trafficking Victim Assistance Program (NHTVAP) provides funding for comprehensive case management services on a per capita basis. The NHTVAP grantees help victims gain access to housing, employability services, mental health screening and therapy, medical care, and some legal services, enabling them to live free of violence and exploitation. During FY 2014, the current grantee, U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants (USCRI), served more clients than it had originally planned for in its budget. Without the additional funding, significant cuts in services to clients would be made and the enrollment of new clients will be limited. With the supplemental funding, USCRI will be able to ensure that all of the clients' essential needs will be met.
Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (TVPA), as amended, Section 107(b)(1)(B), 22 U.S.C. 7105(b)(1)(B), authorizes funding for benefits and services to foreign victims of severe forms of trafficking in persons in the United States, potential victims of trafficking seeking HHS Certification, and certain family members.
Administration for Community Living, HHS.
Notice.
The Administration for Community Living (ACL) announces the intent to award a single-source cooperative agreement in the amount of $220,000 to the National Association of State Units on Aging and Disability (NASUAD) to support and stimulate the expansion of work already under way by NASUAD to create a valid and reliable National Core Indicator (NCI) Survey for older adults and people with physical disabilities.
The award will be issued for a project period of September 30, 2014 through September 29, 2015.
Shawn Terrell, Center for Disability and Aging Policy, Administration for Community Living, 1 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20001. Telephone: 202–357–3517; Email:
In 2009, NASUAD started to partner with National Association of State Directors of Developmental Disabilities Services (NASDDDS) and Human Services Research Institute (HSRI) to expand the NCI to include older adults and people with physical disabilities. As a result of the NASUAD/NASDDDS/HSRI partnership, the expanded tool, National Core Indicators—Aging and Disability (NCI–AD), is currently being piloted in 3 states. NASUAD is the lead partner for the NCI–AD project.
With this one-year of grant funding, through a cooperative agreement, NASUAD will be able to recruit additional state aging and disability agencies to participate in the National Core Indicators—Aging & Disability (NCI–AD) project and expand the project's technical assistance to the three states already participating in this project.
This program is authorized under Title IV of the Older Americans Act (OAA) (42 U.S.C. 3032), as amended by the Older Americans Act Amendments of 2006, Public Law 109–365 (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 93.048, Title IV Discretionary Projects) as well as Title I, Subtitle E of the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 15081), Public Law 106–402 (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 93.631, Developmental Disabilities Projects of National Significance).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA).
Fax written comments on the collection of information by September 26, 2014.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: 202–395–7285, or emailed to
FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE–14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
In the
Under the guidance, facilities that elect to register must submit the following registration information to FDA for each facility:
• Name of the facility;
• place of business;
• unique facility identifier;
• point of contact email address and phone number;
• whether the facility intends to compound drugs that appear on FDA's drug shortage list in effect under section 506E of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 356e); and
• an indication of whether the facility compounds from bulk drug substances, and if so, whether it compounds sterile or nonsterile drugs from bulk drug substances.
After initial registration, outsourcing facilities that wish to remain an outsourcing facility must re-register annually between October 1 and December 31 of each year. Registration information should be submitted to FDA electronically using the Structured Product Labeling (SPL) format and in accordance with section IV of the FDA guidance entitled “Providing Regulatory Submissions in Electronic Format—Drug Establishment Registration and Drug Listing.” In the draft guidance issued on December 4, 2013, FDA described an alternative interim registration mechanism for use after initial passage of the DQSA and until September 30, 2014. The final guidance specifies the use of the SPL format for all registrations. Under the final guidance, outsourcing facilities may request a waiver from the SPL electronic submission process by submitting a written request to FDA explaining why the use of electronic means is not reasonable for the person requesting the waiver.
In response to the December 4, 2013,
(Issue 1) Several commenters noted that the final guidance should clarify what product information will be included on the public list of registered outsourcing facilities required under section 503B(b)(1)(B)(ii) of the FD&C Act. Specifically, page 4, lines 133–134, of the draft guidance state that “information collected from the outsourcing facility registration, as well as certain product information, will be published in a list” authorized under section 503B(b)(1)(B)(ii) of the FD&C Act. The commenters requested assurances that confidential information submitted in product reports would remain confidential and not be posted on the Web. Other commenters requested clarification about how often the information will be updated.
(Response) FDA has clarified the guidance. Specifically, the guidance now reads: “Section 503B(b)(1)(B)(ii) of the FD&C Act requires FDA to publish on the Internet a list of registered outsourcing facilities that includes the name of each registered outsourcing facility, the state in which it is located, whether the facility compounds from bulk drug substances and whether such compounding from bulk drug substances is for sterile or non-sterile drugs. FDA will publish the information required, as well as the date of registration as an outsourcing facility and certain publicly disclosable information related to past FDA inspections and compliance actions. FDA intends to update the list of registered outsourcing facilities weekly.”
Some of the commenters may have been confusing disclosure of registration information with disclosure of proprietary information required to be reported under section 503B(b)(2) of the FD&C Act. That provision specifies that, upon initially registering as an outsourcing facility, once during the month of June of each year, and once during the month of December of each year, each facility that registers with the Secretary of Health and Human Services as an outsourcing facility shall submit to the Secretary a report providing certain information about the drugs that were compounded by the facility during the previous 6-month period. Unlike section 503B(b)(1), section 503B(b)(2) of the FD&C Act does not require that information reported be posted and specifies that reports submitted under the provision shall be exempt from inspection unless the Secretary finds that such an exemption would be inconsistent with the protection of the public health (section 503B(b)(2)(C) of the FD&C Act). FDA intends to address product reporting information in a separate guidance, “Electronic Product Reporting for Human Drug Compounding Outsourcing Facilities Under Section 503B of the FD&C Act.” At this time, FDA does not intend to routinely disclose such information.
(Issue 2) Another commenter noted that all registration information from the outsourcing facility should be made public using the SPL format. The commenter suggested FDA obtain and make publicly available the following information: Name/license number of supervising pharmacist(s), an indicator of compliance registration or date of first and last registration, and a link to FDA disciplinary actions and to a list of recalled products for that outsourcing facility.
(Response) The list of registered outsourcing facilities includes most of the information that the commenter suggested, including each facility's date of registration as an outsourcing facility and any action FDA has taken based on the most recent inspection. FDA publishes drug product recalls in its
(Issue 3) One commenter requested insight on how FDA intends to communicate with industry those facilities that had previously registered as human drug compounders before the implementation of section 503B and those that are now registering under section 503B of the FD&C Act.
(Response) FDA has made available on the Internet a list of the facilities that have registered under section 503B of the FD&C Act as outsourcing facilities. FDA does not have a list of facilities that had previously registered as human drug compounders before section 503B of the FD&C Act was enacted as there was no category of registered human drug compounder before this. Some human drug compounding facilities may have registered prior to the enactment of section 503B as human drug manufacturers under section 510 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360). A list of all firms that are registered as manufacturers under section 510 is available to the public on FDA's Drug Establishments Current Registration Site, which is separate from the list of outsourcing facilities that have registered under section 503B of the FD&C Act.
(Issue 4) Another commenter noted that FDA should define what would constitute an undue burden justifying the granting of a waiver from the submission of registration information electronically.
(Response) Section 503B(b)(3) of the FD&C Act specifies the standard FDA is to use to determine whether a waiver should be granted. FDA may grant a waiver if it finds that “use of electronic means is not reasonable for the person requesting the waiver.” FDA does not anticipate many instances in which electronic submission of registration information will not be reasonable for the person requesting the waiver, because the information requested is minimal, and the electronic system for submitting the information is an Internet-based system accessible to all firms seeking to register. Because human drug compounders are not currently required to register and report as outsourcing facilities, it is difficult to anticipate the number of outsourcing facilities that will participate in the process.
As a result of comments received on the “Draft Guidance for Industry on Fees for Human Drug Compounding Outsourcing Facilities Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act,” FDA has increased its estimates of the number of outsourcing facilities that are subject to each guidance. We now estimate that 50 outsourcing facilities will register and pay establishment fees, and we have adjusted the other estimates in the table (except for the “average burden per response”) accordingly.
We estimate that 50 outsourcing facilities (“number of respondents” and “total annual responses” in table 1, row 1) will annually submit to FDA registration information using the SPL format as specified in the guidance, and that preparing and submitting this information will take 4.5 hours per registrant (“average burden per response” in table 1, row 1). We expect to receive no more than one waiver request from the electronic submission process annually (“number of respondents” and “total annual responses” in table 1, row 2), and that each request should take 1 hour to prepare and submit to us (“average burden per response” in table 1, row 2).
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS
Notice; correction.
The Food and Drug Administration is correcting a notice entitled “Biosimilar User Fee Rates for Fiscal Year 2015” that appeared in the
Lisa Granger, Office of Policy, Food and Administration, 10990 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 3330, Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002, 301–796–9115.
In the
1. On page 44795, in the third column, in the Docket No. heading, “[Docket No. FDA–2013–N–0007]” is corrected to read “[Docket No. FDA–2014–N–0007]”.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is announcing the fee rates for using a tropical disease priority review voucher for fiscal year (FY) 2015. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act), as amended by the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (FDAAA), authorizes FDA to determine and collect priority review user fees for certain applications for approval of drug or biological products when those applications use a tropical disease priority review voucher awarded by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. These vouchers are awarded to the sponsors of certain tropical disease product applications, submitted after September 27, 2007, upon FDA approval of such applications. The amount of the fee submitted to FDA with applications using a tropical disease priority review voucher is determined each FY based on the average cost incurred by FDA in the review of a human drug application subject to priority review in the previous FY. This notice establishes the tropical disease priority review fee rate for FY 2015.
Robert J. Marcarelli, Office of Financial Management, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE–14202F, Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002, 301–796–7223.
Section 1102 of FDAAA (Pub. L. 110–85) added section 524 to the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360n). In section 524, Congress encouraged development of new drug and biological products for prevention and treatment of certain tropical diseases by offering additional incentives for obtaining FDA approval of such products. Under section 524, the sponsor of an eligible human drug application submitted after September 27, 2007, for a qualified tropical disease (as defined in section 524(a)(3) of the FD&C Act), shall receive a priority review voucher upon approval of the tropical disease product application. The recipient of a tropical disease priority review voucher may either use the voucher with a future submission to FDA under section 505(b)(1) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 355(b)(1)) or section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262), or transfer (including by sale) the voucher to another party that may then use it. A priority review is a review conducted with a Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) goal date of 6 months after the filing date.
The applicant that uses a priority review voucher is entitled to a priority review but must pay FDA a priority review user fee in addition to any other fee required by PDUFA. FDA published a draft guidance on its Web site about how this tropical disease priority review voucher program operates (available at:
This notice establishes the tropical disease priority review fee rate for FY 2015 as $2,562,000 and outlines FDA's process for implementing the collection of the priority review user fees. This rate is effective on October 1, 2014, and will remain in effect through September 30, 2015, for applications submitted with a tropical disease priority review voucher. The payment of this priority review user fee is required in addition to the payment of any other fee that would normally apply to such an application under PDUFA before FDA will consider the application complete and acceptable for filing.
Under section 524(c)(2) of the FD&C Act, the amount of the tropical disease priority review user fee is determined each FY based on the average cost incurred by FDA in the review of a human drug application subject to priority review in the previous FY. The priority review voucher fee is intended to cover the incremental costs for FDA to do a priority review on a product that would otherwise get a standard review. The formula provides the Agency with the added resources to conduct a priority review while still ensuring a robust priority review voucher program that is consistent with the Agency's public health goal of encouraging the development of new drug and biological products.
A priority review is a review conducted with a PDUFA goal date of 6 months after the filing date. Normally, an application for a Center for Drug Evaluation and Research product will qualify for a priority review if FDA determines that the product, if approved, provides a safe and effective therapy where no satisfactory alternative therapy exists or is a significant improvement compared to marketed products, including non-drug products and/or therapies, in the treatment, diagnosis, or prevention of a disease. A Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research product will qualify for a priority review if FDA determines that the product, if approved, is a significant improvement in the safety or effectiveness of the treatment, diagnosis, or prevention of a serious or life-threatening disease. FDA committed to review and act on 90 percent of the applications granted priority review status no later than 6 months after the filing date. An application that does not receive a priority designation will receive a standard review. Under the goals identified in the letters referenced in section 101(b) of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (Pub. L. 112–144), FDA commits to reviewing and acting on 90 percent of standard applications within 10 months of the date of filing. A priority review involves a more intensive level of effort and a higher level of resources than a standard review.
Section 524 of the FD&C Act specifies that the fee amount should be based on the average cost incurred by the Agency in the review of a human drug application subject to a priority review in the previous FY. FDA is setting fees for FY 2015, and the previous fiscal year is FY 2014. However, the FY 2014 submission cohort has not been closed out yet, and the cost data for FY 2014 are not complete. The latest year for which FDA has complete cost data is FY 2013. Furthermore, because FDA has never tracked the cost of reviewing applications that get priority review as a separate cost subset, FDA estimated this cost based on other data that the Agency has tracked. FDA uses data that the Agency estimates and publishes on its Web site each year—standard costs for review. FDA does not publish a standard cost for “the review of a human drug application subject to priority review in the previous fiscal year.” However, we expect all such applications would contain clinical data. The standard cost application categories with clinical data that FDA does publish each year are: (1) New drug applications (NDAs) for a new molecular entity (NME) with clinical data, and (2) biologics license applications (BLAs).
The worksheets for standard costs for FY 2013, the latest year for which standard cost data are available, show a
For FY 2015 fee, FDA will need to adjust the FY 2013 incremental cost by the average amount by which FDA's average costs increased in the 3 years prior to FY 2014, to adjust the FY 2013 amount for cost increases in FY 2014. That adjustment, published in the
The fee rate for FY 2015 is set out in table 1:
Under section 524(c)(4)(A) of the FD&C Act, the priority review user fee is due upon submission of a human drug application for which the priority review voucher is used. Section 524(c)(4)(B) of the FD&C Act specifies that the application will be considered incomplete if the priority review user fee and all other applicable user fees are not paid in accordance with FDA payment procedures. In addition, FDA may not grant a waiver, exemption, reduction, or refund of any fees due and payable under this section of the FD&C Act and FDA may not collect priority review voucher fees prior to a relevant appropriation for fees for that FY. Beginning with FDA's appropriation for FY 2009, the annual appropriation language states specifically that “priority review user fees authorized by 21 U.S.C. 360n (section 524 of the FD&C Act) may be credited to this account, to remain available until expended.” (Pub. L. 111–8, Section 5, Division A, Title VI).
The priority review fee established in the new fee schedule must be paid for any application that is received on or after October 1, 2014, and submitted with a priority review voucher. This fee must be paid in addition to any other fee due under PDUFA. Payment must be made in U.S. currency by check, bank draft, or U.S. postal money order payable to the order of the Food and Drug Administration. The user fee identification (ID) number should be included on the check, followed by the words “Priority Review.” Payments can be mailed to: Food and Drug Administration, P.O. Box 979107, St. Louis, MO 63197–9000.
If checks are sent by a courier that requests a street address, the courier can deliver the checks to: U.S. Bank, Attention: Government Lockbox 979107, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101. (Note: This U.S. Bank address is for courier delivery only.) The FDA post office box number (P.O. Box 979107) must be written on the check. The tax identification number of FDA is 53–0196965.
Wire transfer payments may also be used. Please reference your unique user fee ID number when completing your transfer. The originating financial institution may charge a wire transfer fee. Please ask your financial institution about the fee and include it with your payment to ensure that your fee is fully paid. The account information is as follows: New York Federal Reserve Bank, U.S. Dept. of Treasury, TREAS NYC, 33 Liberty St., New York, NY 10045, Account Number: 75060099, Routing Number: 021030004, SWIFT: FRNYUS33, Beneficiary: FDA, 8455 Colesville Rd., Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Controlled
Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by October 27, 2014. Submit either electronic or written comments concerning the collection of information proposed in the draft guidance by October 27, 2014.
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 2201, Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance and the collection of information proposed in the draft guidance to
Maryll Toufanian, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 75, Rm. 1682, Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002, 240–402–7944,
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Controlled Correspondence Related to Generic Drug Development.” On July 9, 2012, the Generic Drug User Fee Amendments of 2012 (GDUFA) were signed into law by the President to speed the delivery of safe and effective generic drugs to the public and to reduce costs to industry. Under GDUFA, FDA agreed to certain obligations as laid out in the GDUFA Commitment Letter that accompanies the legislation (Ref. 1). Among these obligations is FDA's commitment to performance metrics for the response to controlled correspondence for fiscal years (FYs) 2015 through 2017. For example, FDA has committed to respond to 90 percent of controlled correspondence within 2 months from the date of submission in Year 5 of the program, which begins on October 1, 2016.
The GDUFA Commitment Letter described controlled correspondence as follows: “FDA's Office of Generic Drugs provides assistance to pharmaceutical firms and related industry regarding a variety of questions posed as `controlled documents.' See [
This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the Agency's current thinking on controlled correspondence related to generic drug development. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
This draft guidance contains information collection provisions that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). The title, description, and respondent description of the information collection are given under this section with an estimate of the reporting burden. Included in the estimate is the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.
We invite comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
The following information is based on inquiries considered controlled correspondence and submitted to FDA for FYs 2011, 2012, and 2013. FDA estimates approximately 217 generic drug manufacturers and related industry (e.g., contract research organizations conducting bioanalytical or bioequivalence clinical trials) or their
Because the content of inquiries considered controlled correspondence is widely varied, we are providing an average burden hour for each inquiry. We estimate that it will take an average of 5 hours per inquiry for industry to gather necessary information, prepare the request, and submit the request to FDA. As a result, we estimate that it will take an average of 5,100 total hours annually for industry to prepare and submit inquiries considered controlled correspondence.
Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of the guidance entitled “Highly Multiplexed Microbiological/Medical Countermeasure In Vitro Nucleic Acid Based Diagnostic Devices.” This guidance is to provide industry and Agency staff with recommendations for studies to establish the analytical and clinical performance of highly multiplexed microbiological/medical countermeasure in vitro nucleic acid-based diagnostic devices (HMMDs) intended to simultaneously detect and identify multiple pathogen nucleic acids extracted from a single appropriate human specimen or culture.
Submit either electronic or written comments on this guidance at any time. General comments on Agency guidance documents are welcome at any time.
An electronic copy of the guidance document is available for download from the Internet. See the
Submit electronic comments on the guidance to
John Hobson, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5560, Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002, 301–796–5892.
This guidance is to provide industry and Agency staff with recommendations for studies to establish the analytical and clinical performance of HMMDs intended to simultaneously detect and identify multiple pathogen nucleic acids extracted from a single appropriate human specimen or culture. For the purposes of this guidance document, the multiplex level that is used to define HMMDs is the capability to detect ≥20 different organisms/targets, in a single reaction, using a nucleic acid-based technology and involves testing multiple targets through a common process of specimen preparation, amplification and/or detection, and result interpretation. HMMDs are used
The scope of this guidance includes nucleic acid-based devices that employ technologies such as polymerase chain reaction, reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction, bead-based liquid arrays, microarrays, re-sequencing approaches as well as the measurement of individual targets via a common process of sample preparation, target or signal amplification, allele discrimination, and collective interpretation, and are reported out simultaneously. This guidance is not intended to address devices that utilize detection mechanisms other than nucleic acid-based approaches. The document does not apply to devices that are intended to screen donors of blood and blood components, and donors of human cells, tissues, and cellular- and tissue-based products for communicable diseases.
The draft of this guidance was issued on November 9, 2012 (77 FR 67379). The comment period closed on February 7, 2013. Two sets of comments were received and reviewed by FDA. The guidance was updated to address comments where appropriate.
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the Agency's current thinking on HMMDs. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statute and regulations.
Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the guidance may do so by downloading an electronic copy from the Internet. A search capability for all Center for Devices and Radiological Health guidance documents is available at
This guidance refers to currently approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR parts 801 and 809 have been approved under OMB control number 0910–0485; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 807, subpart E, have been approved under OMB control number 0910–0120; and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 820 have been approved under OMB control number 0910–0073.
Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability for public comment of modified risk tobacco product applications (MRTPAs) submitted by Swedish Match North America Inc. for 10 tobacco products.
Submit either electronic or written comments on the applications by February 23, 2015. Please note, however, that it will be more likely that the Agency is able to consider your comments before referring the applications to the Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee if you submit your comments by November 25, 2014.
Submit electronic comments to
Center for Tobacco Products, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993, 1–877–CTP–1373,
On June 22, 2009, the President signed the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (Pub. L. 111–31) (Tobacco Control Act) into law. The Tobacco Control Act grants FDA authority to regulate the manufacture, marketing, and distribution of tobacco products to protect public health generally and to reduce tobacco use by minors. Section 911 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 387k) addresses the marketing and distribution of modified risk tobacco products (MRTPs). MRTPs are tobacco products that are sold or distributed for use to reduce harm or the risk of tobacco-related disease associated with commercially marketed tobacco products. Section 911(a) of the FD&C Act prohibits the introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of any MRTP unless an order issued by FDA under section 911(g) of the FD&C Act is effective with respect to such product.
Section 911(d) of the FD&C Act describes the information that must be included in an MRTPA, which must be filed and evaluated by FDA before an applicant can receive an order from FDA. FDA is required by section 911(e) of the FD&C Act to make an MRTPA available to the public (except for matters in the application that are trade secrets or otherwise confidential commercial information) and to request comments by interested persons on the information contained in the application and on the label, labeling, and advertising accompanying the application. The determination whether an order is appropriate under section 911of the FD&C Act is based on the
Section 911(g) of the FD&C Act describes the demonstrations applicants must make to obtain an order from FDA under either section 911(g)(1) or (g)(2). The applicant, Swedish Match North America Inc., is seeking an order under section 911(g)(1) for each of the 10 products that are the subject of the submitted MRTPAs.
An order under section 911(g)(1) of the FD&C Act is for a modified risk tobacco product that significantly reduces harm and the risk of tobacco-related disease to individual tobacco users; and benefits the health of the population as a whole. A person seeking an order under section 911(g)(1) of the FD&C Act must show that the tobacco product, as it is actually used by consumers, will significantly reduce harm and the risk of tobacco-related disease to individual tobacco users and will benefit the health of the population as a whole taking into account both users of tobacco products and persons who do not currently use tobacco products. Section 911(g)(4) of the FD&C Act describes factors that FDA must take into account in evaluating whether a tobacco product benefits the health of individuals and the population as a whole.
FDA is issuing this notice to inform the public that MRTPAs submitted by Swedish Match North America Inc. for the following products (identified by FDA Submission Tracking Numbers (STN) (MR0000020—MR0000029)) have been filed and are being made available for public comment for 180 days:
• MR0000020: General Loose, smokeless tobacco, loose snus, 1.59 oz (45g), cardboard can (SKU 4852);
• MR0000021: General Dry Mint Portion Original Mini, smokeless tobacco, snus portions, 0.21 oz (6g), 20—0.3g portions, plastic can (SKU 4800);
• MR0000022: General Portion Original Large, smokeless tobacco, snus portions, 0.9 oz (24g), 24—1g portions, plastic can (SKU 4880);
• MR0000023: General Classic Blend Portion White Large, smokeless tobacco, snus portions, 0.48 oz (13.5g), 15—0.9g portions, plastic can (SKU 4877);
• MR0000024: General Classic Blend Portion White Large, smokeless tobacco, snus portions, 0.38 oz (10.8g), 12—0.9g portions, plastic can (SKU 4878);
• MR0000025: General Mint Portion White Large, smokeless tobacco, snus portions, 0.9 oz (24g), 24—1g portions, plastic can (SKU 4352);
• MR0000026: General Nordic Mint Portion White Large, smokeless tobacco, snus portions, 0.48 oz (13.5g), 15—0.9g portions, plastic can (SKU 4876);
• MR0000027: General Nordic Mint Portion White Large, smokeless tobacco, snus portions, 0.38 oz (10.8g), 12—0.9g portions, plastic can (SKU 4875);
• MR0000028: General Portion White Large, smokeless tobacco, snus portions, 0.9 oz (24g), 24—1g portions, plastic can (SKU 4881); and
• MR0000029: General Wintergreen Portion White Large, smokeless tobacco, snus portions, 0.9 oz (24g), 24—1g portions, plastic can (SKU 4882).
FDA believes a 180-day comment period is appropriate because of the volume and complexity of the material being posted in the applications. If you submit comments that apply to some but not all 10 of the products, FDA asks that you identify the applicable product(s) using the STNs listed in this document in your comments. To encourage public participation consistent with section 911(e) of the FD&C Act, FDA is placing the MRTPAs (except for matters in the applications that are trade secrets or otherwise confidential commercial information) that are the subject of this notice on public display at the Division of Dockets Management (see
Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; correction.
The Food and Drug Administration is correcting a notice entitled “Outsourcing Facility Fee Rates for Fiscal Year 2015” that appeared in the
Lisa Granger, Office of Policy, Food and Administration, 10990 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 3330, Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002, 301–796–9115.
In the
1. On page 44805, in the first column, in the Docket No. heading, “[Docket No. FDA–2013–N–0007]” is corrected to read “[Docket No. FDA–2014–N–0007]”.
Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.
Notice of Class Deviation From Competition Requirements for Small Health Care Provider Quality Improvement.
The Office of Rural Health Policy (ORHP) will award program expansion supplemental awards to the current Small Health Care Provider
Public Health Service Act, Section 330A (g) (42 U.S.C. 254c(g)), as amended.
Ann Ferrero, MPH Community Based Division, Office of Rural Health Policy, Health Resources and Services Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 17W21–B, Rockville, Maryland 20857, By phone: 301–443–3999, or email:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The 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.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting.
The National Maritime Security Advisory Committee will meet in Baltimore, Maryland to discuss various issues relating to national maritime security. This meeting will be open to the public.
The Committee will meet on Tuesday, September 16, 2014 from 9 a.m. to 12 Noon and Wednesday, September 17, 2014 from 8 a.m. to 11a.m. These meetings may close early if all business is finished. All submitted written materials, comments, and requests to make oral presentations should reach the Coast Guard on or before September 11, 2014.
This meeting will be held at Berry Hall (Building 28A), U.S. Coast Guard Yard, 2401 Hawkins Point Road, Baltimore, Maryland 21226. Due to security, members of the public wishing to attend shall register with Mr. Ryan Owens, Alternate Designated Federal Officer of National Maritime Security Advisory Committee, telephone 202–372–1108 or
This meeting will be broadcasted via a web enabled interactive online format and teleconference line. To participate via teleconference, dial 866–810–4853; the pass code to join is 9760138#. Additionally, if you would like to participate in this meeting via the online web format, please log onto
For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact the person listed in the
To facilitate public participation, we are inviting public comment on the issues to be considered by the Committee as listed in the “Agenda” section below. Written comments must be submitted no later than September 11, 2014 if you want Committee members to review your comment prior to the meeting. Comments must be identified by the by docket number [USCG–2014–0790] and submitted by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Public comments will be sought throughout the meeting by the Designated Federal Officer as specific issues are discussed by the Committee. Additionally, a public oral comment period will be held during the meetings on September 16, 2014, from 11:30 p.m. to 12 Noon, and September 17, 2014 from 10:30 a.m. to 11 a.m. Speakers are requested to limit their comments to 5 minutes. Please note that the public comment period will end following the last call for comments. Contact the person listed in the
Any written material submitted by the public both before and after the meeting will be distributed to the National Maritime Security Advisory Committee and become part of the public record. A copy of each report, presentation, and the meeting agenda will be available at
Mr. Ryan Owens, Alternate Designated Federal Official of the National Maritime Security Advisory Committee, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., Stop 7581, Washington, DC 20593–7581; telephone 202–372–1108 or email
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Title 5, United
The Committee will meet to review, discuss and formulate recommendations on the following issues:
(1) Cyber Security Symposium. The Coast Guard has been actively working on the issue of cyber security and is looking to hold a one-day public cyber security symposium to discuss the issue in depth. This symposium will not be associated with National Maritime Security Advisory Committee, but the Committee's expertise is being sought to review a draft agenda on the symposium and provide guidance on what the issues should be focused on during the symposium.
(2) Suspicious Activity Reporting. The Suspicious Activity Reporting Working Group will report on their efforts to recommend specific guidelines for the Coast Guard to implement in refining the current policies/regulations governing Suspicious Activity Reporting. The Committee will discuss and formally present the guidelines to the Coast Guard.
(3) Radiation Portal Monitoring. This is a follow on discussion from the September, 2013 public meeting. In this meeting, the Committee will have an opportunity to review and discuss the Radiation Portal Monitoring Program with both members from the Department of Homeland Security Domestic Nuclear Detection Office and the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection to further discuss the challenges involved in replacing/altering current Radiation Portal Monitors within ports.
(4) Notification of Maritime Security Level Changes to International Partners. While the notification of Maritime Security level changes is well developed at the local and regional level, a gap exists in the notification to our international partners. The Committee will receive a brief and be tasked with providing guidance on how the Coast Guard can address this gap.
(5) Public Comment period. There will be a comment period for National Maritime Security Advisory Committee members and a comment period for the public after each report presentation, but before each is voted on by the Committee. The Committee will review the information presented and formulate recommendations for the Department's consideration.
The Committee will meet to review, discuss and formulate recommendations on the following issues:
(1) Working Group Briefing. The Committee will provide a briefing on the Working Group efforts of the previous afternoon.
(2) Future Security Issues. The Committee will review the results of the Coast Guard's Future Security survey and provide comment to help the Coast Guard develop a long term vision for its maritime security program.
(3) Public Comment Period. There will be a comment period for National Maritime Security Advisory Committee members and a comment period for the public after each report presentation, but before each is voted on by the Committee. The Committee will review the information presented and formulate recommendations for the Department's consideration.
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The Towing Safety Advisory Committee will meet in Washington, DC, September 24 and 25, 2014, to review and discuss recommendations from its Subcommittees and to receive briefs listed in the agenda under
The Towing Safety Advisory Committee Subcommittees will meet on Wednesday, September 24, 2014, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. The full Towing Safety Advisory Committee will meet on Thursday, September 25, 2014, from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. These meetings may close early if the Committee has completed its business. All submitted written materials, comments, and requests to make an oral presentation at the meetings should reach Mr. William J. Abernathy, Alternate Designated Federal Officer for the Towing Safety Advisory Committee, no later than September 19, 2014. For contact information, please see the
All meetings will be held at the Department of Transportation Headquarters, West Building, Rooms Oklahoma A–B–C Department of Transportation Conference Center, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. The email address for the Conference Center is:
For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact the individuals listed in the
To facilitate public participation, we are inviting public comment on the issues to be considered by the Committee as listed in the “Agenda” section below. Written comments must be submitted no later than September 19, 2014 if committee review is desired prior to the meeting. Comments must be identified by Docket No. USCG–2013–1065 and submitted by
•
•
•
•
• To avoid duplication, please use only one of these methods.
Mr. William J. Abernathy, Alternate Designated Federal Officer for the Towing Safety Advisory Committee; Commandant (CG–OES–2), U.S. Coast Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., Stop 7509, Washington, DC 20593–7509; telephone 202–372–1363, fax 202–372–8382; or email
Notice of this meeting is given under the
The Subcommittees will meet on September 24, 2014, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., to work on their specific task assignments:
(1) Recommendations Regarding Manning of Inspected Towing Vessels.
(2) Recommendations for Evaluating Placement of Structures Adjacent to or Within the Navigable Channel.
(3) Recommendations for Designation of Narrow Channels.
(4) Recommendations for the Maintenance, Repair, and Utilization of Towing Equipment, Lines, and Couplings.
(5) Recommendations For Mid-Stream Liquefied Natural Gas and Compressed Natural Gas Refueling of Towing Vessels.
(6) Recommendations for Improvement of Coast Guard Marine Casualty Reporting.
(7) Recommendations to Establish Criteria for Identification of Air Draft for Towing Vessels and Tows.
(8) Recommendations concerning the MODU KULLUK Report of Investigation.
On September 25, 2014, from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., the Towing Safety Advisory Committee will meet to hear remarks by:
(1) The Honorable Paul “Chip” Jaenichen, Maritime Administrator, U.S. Department of Transportation.
(2) Rear Admiral Paul F. Thomas, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Prevention Policy, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
The Committee will also receive oral and written reports from its Subcommittees on the following issues:
(1) Recommendations Regarding Manning of Inspected Towing Vessels.
(2) Recommendations for Evaluating Placement of Structures Adjacent to or Within the Navigable Channel.
(3) Recommendations for Designation of Narrow Channels.
(4) Recommendations for the Maintenance, Repair and Utilization of Towing Equipment, Lines and Couplings.
(5) Recommendations For Mid-Stream Liquefied Natural Gas and Compressed Natural Gas Refueling of Towing Vessels.
(6) Recommendations for Improvement of Coast Guard Marine Casualty Reporting.
(7) Recommendation to Establish Criteria for Identification of Air Draft for Towing Vessels and Tows.
(8) Recommendations concerning the MODU KULLUK Report of Investigation.
The Committee will be briefed on a proposed tasking statement tentatively entitled: “Recommendations Regarding Automation Equipment, Testing, Assessment, and Trial Periods to be considered by Officers in Charge of Marine Inspection for a Reduction in Engine Room Personnel on Towing Vessels.”
There will be a comment period for Towing Safety Advisory Committee members and a comment period for the public after each report presentation, but before each is voted on by the Committee. The Committee will review the information presented on each issue, deliberate on any recommendations presented in the Subcommittees' reports, and formulate recommendations for the Department's consideration.
A copy of each draft report and presentations, and the meeting agenda will be available at:
An opportunity for oral comments by the public will be provided during the meeting on September 25, 2014. Speakers are requested to limit their comments to 3 minutes. Please note the public oral comment period may end before 5:30 p.m., if the Committee has finished its business earlier than scheduled. Please contact Mr. William J. Abernathy, listed above in the
Minutes from the meeting will be available for public review and copying within 90 days following the close of the meeting and can be accessed from the Coast Guard Homeport Web site
To receive automatic email notices of any future Towing Safety Advisory Committee meetings in 2014, go to the online docket, USCG–2013–1065 (
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Minnesota (FEMA–4182–DR),
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–2833.
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Minnesota is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of July 21, 2014.
Hennepin and Ramsey Counties for Public Assistance.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Customs broker license revocation.
This document provides notice of the revocation of one (1) customs broker's license without prejudice.
Everett Burns, International Trade Specialist, Broker Management Branch, Office of International Trade, (202) 863–6319.
This document provides notice that, pursuant to section 641 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1641), and section 111.45(a) of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR 111.45(a)), the following customs broker's license is revoked by operation of law without prejudice.
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 the Hemisphere A Room, Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20001.
Joshua Winchell, Council Designated Federal Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wildlife Refuge System, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041–3803; telephone (703) 358–2639; 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; and
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:
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
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Land and Minerals Management proposes to withdraw, subject to valid existing rights, on behalf of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 10,094.03 acres of public lands located in San Bernardino County, California, from location and entry under the United States mining laws, but not from leasing under the mineral or geothermal leasing laws or disposal under the Materials Act of 1947. The purpose of the proposed withdrawal is to protect the botanical integrity of the Coolgardie Mesa and West Paradise Conservation Areas in San Bernardino County, California as a conservation measure for the federally endangered Lane Mountain Milkvetch. This notice temporarily segregates the lands from location and entry under the United States mining law for 2 years, gives the public an opportunity to comment on the proposed withdrawal application, and announces the date, time, and location of a public meeting.
The BLM must receive comments on or before November 25, 2014. The BLM will hold a public meeting in connection with the proposed withdrawal from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. on October 14, 2014, at the BLM Barstow Field Office at the address below.
Comments should be sent to Katrina Symons, Field Manager, Barstow Field Office, BLM, 2601 Barstow Road, Barstow, CA 92311.
Elizabeth Easley, California State Office, BLM, 916–978–4673. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 to contact the above individual. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
The BLM filed an application requesting that the Assistant Secretary for Land and
The areas described aggregate 10,094.03 acres, more or less, in San Bernardino County.
The following described non-Federal lands are within the exterior boundaries of the Coolgardie Mesa and West Paradise Conservation Areas. If title to these non-Federal lands is subsequently acquired by the United States, the lands will become subject to the terms and conditions of this withdrawal.
The areas described aggregate 4,055.87 acres, more or less, in San Bernardino County. The total areas described contain approximately 10,094.03 acres of public lands and 4,055.87 acres of non-Federal lands in San Bernardino County.
The Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management approved the BLM's petition/application. Therefore, the petition/application constitutes a withdrawal proposal of the Secretary of the Interior (43 CFR 2310.1–3(e)).
The purpose of the proposed withdrawal is to protect the botanical integrity of the Coolgardie Mesa and West Paradise Conservation Areas in San Bernardino County, California as a conservation measure for the federally endangered Lane Mountain Milkvetch.
The use of a right-of-way, interagency agreement, or cooperative agreement would not adequately constrain non-discretionary uses that may result in disturbance of the critical habitat of the Lane Mountain Milkvetch, a species of limited geographical range. The area covered comprises approximately two-thirds of the entire known range of the species.
There are no suitable alternative sites as the described lands contain the resource values to be protected, and there is no alternative strategy to assure avoidance of adverse impacts to habitat and individuals.
No additional water rights will be needed to fulfill the purpose of the requested withdrawal.
Records relating to the application may be examined by contacting the BLM at the above address and phone number.
For a period until November 25, 2014, all persons who wish to submit comments, suggestions, or objections in connection with the proposed withdrawal may present their views in writing to the Field Manager, BLM Barstow Field Office, at the above address. Information regarding the proposed withdrawal will be available for public review at the BLM's Barstow Field Office during regular business hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. 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. Individuals who submit written comments may request confidentiality by asking us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review; however, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Notice is hereby given that a public meeting in connection with the proposed withdrawal will be held on October 14, 2014 at the Barstow Field office at the address stated above from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. The BLM will publish a notice of the time and place in at least one newspaper of general circulation no less than 30 days before the scheduled meeting date.
For a period until August 29, 2016, subject to valid existing rights, the public lands described in this notice will be segregated from location and entry under the United States mining laws, but not from leasing under the mineral or geothermal leasing laws or disposal under the Mineral Materials Act of 1947, unless the application is denied or canceled or the withdrawal is approved prior to that date.
Licenses, permits, cooperative agreements, or discretionary land use authorizations of a temporary nature that enhance the species or its habitat and will not significantly impact the values to be protected by the withdrawal may be allowed with the approval of the authorized officer of the BLM during the temporary segregation period.
The application will be processed in accordance with the regulations set forth in 43 CFR part 2300.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of deletion of an existing system of records.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974, the Department of the Interior is issuing public notice of its intent to delete the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Privacy Act system of records, “Safety Management Information, BLM–13” from its existing inventory of records systems. The BLM relies on the Department of the Interior “Safety Management Information
This deletion is effective on August 27, 2014.
Suzanne Wachter, Bureau of Land Management Privacy Act Officer, 20 M Street SE., Mail Stop 590, Washington, DC 20003; or by email at
Pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the BLM is deleting the “Safety Management Information, BLM–13,” system of records notice last published on July 10, 1986 (51 FR 25109) because the notice is obsolete and the records previously maintained within this system have been incorporated into the “Safety Management Information System, DOI–60” system of records (April 7, 1999, 64 FR 16991). Deleting the “Safety Management Information, BLM–13” system of records notice will have no adverse impacts on individuals as the records are covered under the Department-wide safety management system notice and individuals may seek access or correction to their records under the “Safety Management Information System, DOI–60” system of records notice. This deletion will also promote the overall streamlining and management of DOI Privacy Act systems of records.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Public Land Order.
This order partially revokes a withdrawal created by an Executive Order insofar as it affects 40 acres of public land withdrawn from settlement, sale, location, or entry under the public land laws, including location for non-metalliferous minerals under the United States mining laws, for protection of springs and waterholes and designated as Public Water Reserve No. 107. This order also opens the land to sale to resolve an occupancy trespass.
Laura Underhill, BLM, Idaho State Office, 1387 S. Vinnell Way, Boise, ID 83709, 208–373–3866 or Jeremy Bluma, BLM, Boise District Office, 3948 Development Avenue, Boise, ID 83705, 208–384–3348.
The Bureau of Land Management has determined that a portion of the withdrawal created by the Executive Order dated April 17, 1926, for Public Water Reserve No. 107, is no longer used for the purpose for which the land was withdrawn, and partial revocation of the withdrawal is needed to facilitate a land sale to resolve an occupancy trespass.
By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior by Section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714, it is ordered as follows:
1. The withdrawal created by the Executive Order dated April 17, 1926, which established Public Water Reserve No. 107, is hereby revoked insofar as it affects the following described land:
The area described contains 40 acres in Elmore County.
2. At 9 a.m., on August 27, 2014, the land described in Paragraph 1 will be open to sale pursuant to Section 203 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended, (43 U.S.C. 1713), subject to valid existing rights, the provisions of existing withdrawals, other segregations of record and the requirements of applicable law.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
On August 19, 2014, the Department of Commerce published notice in the
Michael Szustakowski (202–205–3169), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. 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 (
This investigation is being terminated under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 201.10 of the Commission's rules (19 CFR 201.10).
By order of the Commission.
National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.
60-day Notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs,
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until October 27, 2014.
If you have additional 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 Christine Crossland, National Institute of Justice, Office of Research & Evaluation, 810 Seventh Street NW., Washington, DC 20531 (overnight 20001) or via email at
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:
Overview of this information collection:
1.
2.
3.
4.
The NBS will be conducted in geographically dispersed tribal communities across the U.S. (lower 48 and Alaska) using a NIJ-developed sampling strategy for which the primary aim is to provide an accurate
The NBS is critical to quantifying the magnitude of violence and victimization in tribal communities and understanding service needs. At the end of this study, the NBS is expected to produce a deeper understanding of the issues faced by Native American women living in Indian Country and Alaska Native villages and help formulate public policies and prevention strategies to decrease the incidence of violent crimes against AI and AN women.
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.
Bureau of Justice Assistance, DOJ.
Notice of meeting.
This is an announcement of a meeting (in-person and virtual) of the Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor Review Board, primarily intended to consider nominations for the 2013–2014 Medal of Valor. Additional issues of importance to the Board will also be discussed, to include but not limited to a discussion about a joint presentation ceremony to recognize and award the 2011–2012, and 2012–2013, Medal of Valor to the recipients from those award years. The meeting/conference call date and time is listed below.
September 25, 2014, 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. (ET).
This meeting will be held at the Office of Justice Programs, and will also support participation of Members via conference call-in.
Gregory Joy, Policy Advisor, Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, 810 7th Street NW., Washington, DC 20531, by telephone at (202) 514–1369, toll free (866) 859–2687, or by email at
The Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor Review Board carries out those advisory functions specified in 42 U.S.C. 15202. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 15201, the President of the United States is authorized to award the Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor, the highest national award for valor by a public safety officer.
The purpose of this meeting/conference call is primarily to consider nominations for the 2013–2014 Medal of Valor, and make a limited number of recommendations for submission to the U.S. Attorney General. Additional issues of importance to the Board will also be covered, to include but not limited to a discussion about a joint presentation ceremony to recognize and award the 2011–2012, and 2012–2013, Medal of Valor to the recipients from those award years.
This meeting is open to the public at the Office of Justice Programs. For security purposes, members of the public who wish to participate must register at least seven (7) days in advance of the meeting/conference call by contacting Mr. Joy. All interested participants will be required to meet at the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs; 810 7th Street NW., Washington, DC and will be required to sign in at the front desk.
Access to the meeting will not be allowed without prior registration. Anyone requiring special accommodations should contact Mr. Joy at least seven (7) days in advance of the meeting. Please submit any comments or written statements for consideration by the Review Board in writing at least seven (7) days in advance of the meeting date.
National Institute of Justice, DOJ.
Notice.
National Institute of Justice has recently developed draft minimum performance standards for offender tracking systems. In order to ensure that the test methods in the standards are adequate and properly documented, NIJ is requesting proposals (including price quotes) for test method validation efforts from testing laboratories. Additional information for these efforts may be found through the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center's Web site by following the link below:
Please submit proposals no later than October 14, 2014.
Joe Russo by telephone at (303) 588–6015 or by email at
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Grain Handling Facilities Standard,” 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 September 26, 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–OSHA, 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 Grain Handling Facilities Standard information collection requirements codified in regulations 29 CFR 1910.272, which requires an Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) covered employer engaged in the operation of a grain handling facility to develop a housekeeping plan, an emergency action plan, and procedures for the use of tags and locks. The Standard also addresses the circumstances under which an employer must issue a hot work permit or a permit authorizing entry into a grain storage structure. Certification records are also required after inspections of the mechanical and safety control equipment associated with dryers, grain stream processing equipment, etc. OSH Act sections 2(b)(9), 6(b)(7), and 8(c) authorize this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection
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 ADDRESSES section within thirty (30) days of publication of this notice 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 Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Construction Standards on Posting Emergency Telephone Numbers and Floor Load Limits,” 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 September 26, 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–OSHA, 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 Construction Standards on Posting Emergency Telephone Numbers and Floor Load Limits information collection requirements codified in regulations 29 CFR 1926.50(f) and 1926.250(a)(2). More specifically, regulations 29 CFR 1926.50(f) requires an Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) covered employer engaged in construction to post emergency telephone numbers at the worksite, if the 911 emergency telephone service is not available; 29 CFR 250(a)(2) requires a subject employer to post the maximum safe load limit of a floor located in a storage area inside a building or other structure, unless the floor is on grade. OSH Act sections 2(b)(9), 6(b)(7), and 8(c) 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
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 Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Mechanical Power Presses Standard,” 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 September 26, 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–OSHA, 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 Mechanical Power Presses Standard information collection requirements codified in regulations 29 CFR 1910.217(e)(1). The inspection and certification records required by the Standard help to ensure that mechanical power presses are in safe operating condition and that all safety devices work as intended. Failure of a safety device could cause serious injury or death to a worker. Occupational Safety and Health Act sections 2(b)(9), 6(b)(7), and 8(c) 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 rule 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
• 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.
Employee Benefits Security Administration, Department of Labor.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (the Department), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA 95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the reporting burden on the public and helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. Currently, the Employee Benefits Security Administration is soliciting comments on a revision of the EBSA Form 700 information collection request (ICR) to reflect Supreme Court of the United States interim order in connection with an application for an injunction in the pending case of
Written comments must be submitted to the office shown in the Addresses section on or before October 27, 2014.
Direct all written comments regarding the information collection request and burden estimates to the Office of Policy and Research, Employee Benefits Security Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N–5718, Washington, DC 20210. Telephone: (202) 693–8410; Fax: (202) 219–4745. These are not toll-free numbers. Comments may also be submitted electronically to the following Internet email address:
Elsewhere in today's issue of the
As authorized by final regulations issued on July 2, 2013 (78 FR 39870), and consistent with the HRSA guidelines, group health plans established or maintained by certain religious employers (and group health insurance coverage provided in connection with such plans) are exempt from the otherwise applicable requirement to cover certain contraceptive services. Additionally, under the final regulations, group health plans established or maintained by certain nonprofit organizations that hold themselves out as religious organizations and that have religious objections to contraceptive coverage (eligible organizations) are eligible for an accommodation.
The final regulations require each organization seeking accommodation to self-certify that it meets the definition of an eligible organization. The organization must send a copy of the self-certification to an issuer or third-party administrator. The organizations seeking the accommodation must maintain the self-certification/notification in a manner consistent with the record retention requirements under section 107 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, which generally requires records to be maintained for six years. The form that is used by eligible organizations for their self-certification is EBSA Form 700, which is an information collection request (ICR) subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act.
The interim final regulations augment the final regulations and revise the EBSA Form 700 ICR in light of the Wheaton order. Specifically, the interim final regulations continue to allow eligible organizations to notify an issuer or third party administrator using EBSA Form 700, as set forth in the July 2013 final regulations. In addition, the interim final regulations permit an alternative process, consistent with the Wheaton order, under which an eligible organization could notify the Secretary of HHS that it will not act as the plan administrator or claims administrator with respect to, or contribute to the funding of, coverage of all or a subset of contraceptive services. The notification must include information sufficient to identify the plan, plan type (including whether it is a church plan within the meaning of ERISA section 3(33)), and the identity and mailing addresses of any third party administrators.
On August 21, 2014, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved the amendments to EBSA Form 700 required as a revision to OMB Control Number 1210–0150 under the emergency procedures for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) and 5 CFR 1320.13. OMB's approval of the revision currently is schedule to expire on February 28, 2015.
This notice requests public comment pertaining to the Department's request for extension of OMB's approval of its revision to EBSA Form 700. After considering comments received in
The Department of Labor (Department) is particularly interested in comments that:
• 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., by permitting electronic submissions of responses.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the ICR for OMB approval of the extension of the information collection; they will also become a matter of public record.
Office of Job Corps, Employment and Training Administration (ETA), Labor.
Notice.
The Employment and Training Administration (ETA) of the U.S. Department of Labor (Department or DOL) issues this notice to announce the Final Methodology for selecting Job Corps Centers for closure and one selected Job Corps center for closure. The Office of Job Corps in ETA published a proposed methodology for selecting centers for closure at 78 FR 2284 on January 10, 2013. We received a total of eighteen (18) public comments in response to this proposal. Based on public comments received, the Office of Job Corps published a revised methodology for selecting centers for closure at 79 FR 36823 on June 30, 2014. A total of eleven (11) public comments were received in response to the second draft methodology. After reviewing all comments, the Department has decided to make no changes to the revised methodology. This notice goes on to describe how the final methodology was used to select Job Corps centers for closure and how based on the application of the final closure methodology, the Treasure Lake Job Corps Center in Indiahoma, Oklahoma, was selected for closure. The methodology is now final, and the Department is not accepting further comments on the methodology. However, the Department requests public comment on the selection of the Treasure Lake Job Corps center for closure.
To be ensured consideration, comments must be submitted in writing on or before September 26, 2014.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket Number ETA–2014–0002, by only one of the following methods:
Lenita Jacobs-Simmons, Acting National Director, Office of Job Corps, ETA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N–4463, Washington, DC 20210; Telephone (202) 693–3000 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with hearing or speech impairments may access the telephone number above via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at 1–(877) 889–5627 (TTY/TDD).
Large and small businesses, nonprofit organizations, and Native American tribes manage and operate 97 of the Job Corps centers through contractual agreements with the Department of Labor following competitive procurement, while 28 centers are operated through an interagency agreement with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Job Corps also receives annual Construction, Rehabilitation, and Acquisition (CRA) funding to build, maintain, expand, or upgrade new and existing facilities at all 125 centers.
The decision to close any chronically low-performing centers identified by the final methodology is part of an effort by the Department to reform and improve the Job Corps program in order to obtain better outcomes for students. Job Corps is a cost-intensive training program, and the Department is seeking to ensure that those resources are used to deliver the best possible results for students. As part of this strategy, the Department believes it should no longer invest in centers that have demonstrated chronic low performance.
The Department expects to maintain the overall level of enrolled students throughout any closure process, and intends to reinvest savings from closure in serving students at higher-performing centers. In addition, Job Corps students in a chronically low-performing center will have the opportunity to either complete their training and graduate while the center remains open or transfer to higher-performing centers if additional time is needed to complete their training. The Department believes it is critical to ensure that the program's resources are deployed in a manner that maximizes results for students.
It is important to note that the Department, in making decisions on center closures, will maintain at least one Job Corps center in each state, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia. (The Department is in the process of opening new centers in Wyoming and New Hampshire, the two states currently without centers.) In addition, the methodology set forth in this notice permits the Department to take into consideration whether a center's closure would have a disproportionate impact on students in any one state.
The Department's ambitious reform agenda for Job Corps was discussed in the June 30, 2014,
For the purpose of identifying chronically low-performing centers as candidates for closure, DOL has defined “chronically low-performing centers” as those that consistently lagged in overall performance over the past five consecutive program years without evidence of significant recent performance improvement.
On August 14, 2012, the Office of Job Corps hosted a national Job Corps listening session, via webinar, with the Job Corps community to solicit input on the methodology factors. More than 100 Job Corps stakeholders participated in the session and provided criteria-related suggestions in the areas of performance, geographic location, local economic impact, contract budgets, facilities, and the time period for evaluating chronic low performance.
On January 10, 2013, the Office of Job Corps published a
On June 30, 2014, the Office of Job Corps published a second
Eleven public comments were received in response to the revised methodology for selecting Job Corps centers for closure. The Department considered these comments when finalizing the closure methodology. The comments are summarized and discussed below.
Three commenters expressed concern that the proposed methodology looks at a center's performance relative to other centers rather than the center's performance relative to its performance goals. The first commenter noted that low performance remains undefined, stating that looking at a center's performance relative to other centers could result in the closure of a center that has met its assigned performance goals. The two other commenters also expressed concern that a center could be positively evaluated by the Department yet still be closed due to its relative performance.
Job Corps' Outcome Measurement System (OMS) has always used absolute ratings and relative rankings. While we acknowledge the commenters' concerns, as noted in the previous
DOL received a similar comment stating that performance improvement should be defined independent of other centers' performance. The commenter noted that under the methodology a center could meet its performance goals and still be selected for closure. For the reasons discussed above, we believe that using a center's relative ranking rather than absolute performance best accomplishes the Department's goals of efficiently allocating resources to maximize student outcomes. Moreover, those centers at the very bottom of the rankings have been chronically unable to achieve their performance goals, and have consistently underperformed the average performance of the rest of the system.
DOL received one comment stating that five years (one two-year contract term, plus 3 option years) is too short a period to make a final determination that a center's low performance is chronic and cannot be corrected and improved. As noted in the June 30, 2014
DOL received one comment stating that center performance analysis must consider the impact and effectiveness of the center's Outreach and Admissions (OA) and Career Transition Services (CTS) contractors. The commenter argued that a center's OMS and On-Board Strength (OBS) ratings could be adversely affected by the performance of the OA and CTS contractors. This could, according to the commenter, lead to a situation where a center is selected for closure because of factors outside of its control.
The Department understands the commenter's concern, and acknowledges that a center should not be held solely responsible for factors independent of its operations. In recognition of that concern, the proposed weight of the OBS factor in the June 30, 2014,
Three commenters noted that the Department should consider the effect of the recent passage of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) of 2014 on the methodology. The first commenter noted that DOL now has the tools necessary to improve performance at Job Corps centers, regardless of location. Two commenters noted that WIOA expands the ability of the Department to take action necessary to improve performance at underperforming centers. The second and third commenters suggested that there may be considerable costs for DOL associated with the closure of Job Corps centers that may be better used to improve the performance of the centers slated for closure in accordance with the recently passed WIOA.
While WIOA contains new provisions that stipulate a specific time by which a center's operator must change because of underperformance, the actions available to Job Corps to improve performance at a center under WIOA are consistent with those in the Workforce Investment Act (WIA). Waiting until WIOA takes effect on July 1, 2015 rather than taking action now will adversely affect those students who would receive a higher quality education and training experience if they had the opportunity to be served instead by a higher performing center. In response to the second and third commenters, the Department reiterates its position that center closure is part of Job Corps' reform agenda, and centers are being considered for closure solely on the basis of performance. Cost was not a factor in the proposed methodology for selecting centers for closure. Moreover, as noted above, the Department is focused on the longer-term cost-efficiencies that will result from getting better results for students with the limited federal funds made available for the program each year. Finally, we note that the Job Corps reform agenda and WIOA are ultimately focused on improving performance and achieving better outcomes. The Department believes that implementing its reform agenda while implementing WIOA will most effectively achieve the goals of both and lead to the greatest performance improvements across the Job Corps system. As new performance data becomes available, the Department will continue to consider the closure of Job Corps Centers as an option where warranted and as consistent with applicable law, including the amendments contained in the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act.
One commenter expressed concern that closing centers is not an effective way to reduce program costs, and that measures to reduce costs over the past two years had a direct impact on students and the services provided to them. The mission of the Job Corps program is to provide economically-disadvantaged youth with the academic, career and technical, and employability skills to enter the workforce, enroll in post-secondary education, or enlist in the military. To achieve that result, it must ensure that centers are performing at the highest possible level of performance to continue to be funded. Center closure considerations and the closure methodology are based on performance, not cost savings. As stated above, closing a center whose performance unfavorably compares with other centers, and reassigning the students to higher performing centers, allows the Department to more
Three commenters expressed concern about the Department's decision to use data from PY 2011 and 2012. One commenter expressed concern that actions taken by centers at the behest of DOL during these program years, such as hiring freezes, could, at least in part, account for negative performance during that time period. The commenter further expressed concern that different cuts were imposed on Civilian Conservation Centers than were imposed on contract centers that almost certainly impacted their relative performance. The second commenter noted that the methodology uses data from program years when the program experienced budget shortfalls necessitating a system-wide enrollment freeze and a hiring freeze and layoffs at centers. The commenter believes that use of data from these years will result in a flawed assessment that does not accurately reflect the performance of individual centers.
While the methodology uses data from these two program years, which included the program adjustments identified by the commenters, the Department does not believe that use of this data is prejudicial. The impact of the budget constraints and enrollment freeze were spread evenly and equally across the entire Job Corps system. Despite the programmatic adjustments that were made by the Department in the referenced years, the performance results in PY 2012 and PY 2011 were actually better than PY 2010 on most of the program's performance measures. Rather than have a negative effect on performance, the program adjustments were followed by generally better performance outcomes for the entire system. Students received more concentrated services and had better outcomes during the period of the enrollment suspension. In addition, the center rankings did not change materially during this period.
One commenter stated that while the draft methodology provides protection for states with only a single center, it is silent with respect to states that send students outside of their state due to lack of training slots, and that consideration should be made to centers in states that enroll significantly higher numbers of students compared to slot capacity. While the commenter's concern regarding enrollment relative to slot capacity is reflected in the inclusion of OBS as one of the primary criteria in the closure methodology, the Department did not include the number of students from the state as part of the proposed methodology. DOL expects a center will perform well and produce good outcomes with the students that it receives, regardless of the student's state of origin.
One commenter stated that in recent years the Federal government has made substantial capital investments in the Job Corps program and its centers through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). Due to the scale of these construction projects, the commenter believes that many are just being completed and are not captured in the Facility Condition Index (FCI) scores. The Department agrees there will always be ongoing construction projects that will not be reflected in the most current snapshot of FCI results. The Department believes that the reduction of the FCI weighting factor from 10% to 5%, as discussed in the June 30 Notice, balances the importance of the Department's investments in center facilities with the realization that a center's FCI score is not entirely under the control of center operators. Accordingly, the Department has decided not to take further action regarding the FCI criteria.
Four commenters requested that DOL consider the impact of closing a center on the local economy and take it into account. The Department recognizes the beneficial effects of a center's operation on a given local area, and that closing such a center may affect that local economy. However, the core mission of the Job Corps program is to train students to become more employable, responsible, and productive citizens. The Department's intent is to ensure high-quality training for America's youth by improving performance of the entire training system. The center closure methodology is based on the overall performance of centers considered for closure, and economic impact was not a factor in determining a center's performance.
Several commenters provided comments related to the operation and management of individual centers and program budgetary constraints. To the extent that these comments did not address any changes to the proposed methodology, they were noted as received but outside the scope of the requested response to the proposed methodology.
Provided below is a description of the final methodology:
As the Department proposed in both the January 10, 2013
1. Five-year OMS performance level;
2. Five-year OBS; and
3. Five-year FCI.
After ranking the centers based on the primary criteria, DOL then applied the following additional considerations:
1. Continued availability of Job Corps services in each state, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico;
2. Sufficiency of data available to evaluate center performance over five years;
3. Indication of significant recent performance improvement; and
4. Job Corps' continuing commitment to diversity.
Given that the Job Corps' performance metrics provide a comprehensive assessment of center performance, allow for comparison of performance among centers, and supply enough data for decision makers to determine trends over time, the OMS performance data are the primary factor in selecting a center for closure. The Department believes this approach is the most equitable and transparent for both stakeholders and the public, as these published performance metrics have driven center performance and programmatic decisions for over a decade.
The Department used the final closure methodology to evaluate each center's overall OMS ratings for five full program years to derive a weighted five-year average performance rating. The final methodology uses OMS performance data for PY 2008–2012, with recent years receiving a greater weight than earlier years. Further, the original OMS ratings for each of the five program years, which exceeded 100% for some centers, were normalized at one hundred percent (100%) to be consistent with OBS and FCI. “Normalized” means the data has been placed on a 100-point scale. The calculation formula for the final methodology also contains normalized data for OMS.
The year-by-year weighted structure is as follows:
The calculation formula for five-year performance for the final closure methodology is as follows:
On-Board Strength is an efficiency rating that demonstrates the extent to which a center operates at full capacity. The measure is reported as a percentage, calculated by the actual slot capacity divided by the planned slot capacity (daily number of students that a center is authorized to serve). The national goal for OBS is 100% in order to operate the program at full capacity, maximize program resources, and fulfill the mission of serving the underserved student population.
This criterion of the methodology evaluates each center's end of Program Year OBS rating for five full program years to derive a five-year average rating. As explained above in the context of OMS data, the June 30, 2014,
The final closure methodology weights each of the five program year's OBS data, with recent years receiving more weight to incorporate performance improvement. Finally, the OBS ratings for each of the five program years were normalized at one hundred percent (100%) so as to be consistent with the OMS and FCI data.
The year-by-year weighted structure is as follows:
The calculation formula for five-year OBS for the final closure methodology is as follows:
For a program that operates 24 hours per day, seven days per week and is primarily residential, facility conditions are important. The quality of Job Corps' residential and learning facilities has a direct impact on students' experiences and, ultimately, their educational achievement. Each Job Corps center is a fully operational complex with academic and career technical training facilities, dining and recreation buildings, administrative offices, and residence halls (with the exception of solely non-residential facilities), including the surrounding owned or leased property on which the center is located.
To properly manage the program's facility and condition needs, Job Corps uses the FCI and gives each center an annual rating. This rating, which is expressed as a percentage, accounts for the value of a center's construction, rehabilitation, and repair backlog, as compared to the replacement value of the center's facilities. Facility condition affects the outcomes of the Job Corps program because good outcomes begin with facilities that contribute to a safe learning environment.
For this factor, the Department evaluated each center's PY 2008–PY 2012 FCI, which takes into account all construction projects completed over the same five-year period as the other two factors.
As with the performance and OBS criteria, the final closure methodology applies weights to each of the five program year's FCI data, with recent years receiving more weight to incorporate any recent improvement. The year-by-year weighted structure is as follows:
The calculation formula for FCI for the final closure methodology is as follows:
Applying the factors above yielded an overall rating for each center. This allowed DOL to create a list that ranked all centers based on historical performance, with the lowest performing center receiving the lowest rating. The calculation formula for the final methodology is as follows:
In addition to the methodology described above, the Department will utilize the following additional criteria:
a. Job Corps Services in Each State, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia. The Department is committed to providing services in a broad geographic area. In implementing the methodology, DOL ensured that it maintained at least one Job Corps center in each state, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia, and took into consideration whether a center's closure would have a disproportionate impact on the training opportunities for students in any one state.
b. Sufficiency of Data Available to Evaluate Center Performance. The centers in Ottumwa, Milwaukee, Pinellas, Denison, Long Beach, Gulfport and New Orleans are not included for consideration for closure. For each of these centers, there is not enough OMS data to evaluate the center's performance over the full five-year performance period. The reasons for the lack of five years' continuous data for these centers include: New centers were opened during the five-year performance period (Ottumwa and Milwaukee); centers were excluded from OMS evaluation because of their selection as Center for Excellence (CFE) pilot sites (Pinellas County, Denison, and Long Beach); and centers were temporarily closed because of damage received during Hurricane Katrina (Gulfport and New Orleans).
c. Indication of Significant Recent Performance Improvement. The Department determined that performing in the top half of centers in PY 2013 should be taken as evidence of significant recent performance improvement. Therefore, a center was removed from closure consideration if it demonstrated significant improvement in PY 2013, the most recent full year of performance data.
d. Job Corps' Commitment to Diversity. Job Corps currently serves a diverse student population and remains committed to serving disadvantaged youth from all backgrounds. In making final closure decisions, we considered whether a center's closure would result in a significant reduction in student
Chronic underperformance in a center, despite repeated and varied efforts by the Department to improve its performance, is a circumstance that cannot be allowed to persist. Closing such a center not only allows the program to better serve the nation's youth in acquiring career skills through quality job training, but also results in a more effective use of the program's resources.
Based on the final closure methodology and the additional considerations described above, the Treasure Lake Job Corps center has been selected for closure.
In applying the final closure methodology, the Department first calculated the five-year OMS performance level, the five-year OBS, and the five-year FCI and then calculated the Overall Rating for Primary Selection Factors, as described above. Treasure Lake clearly received the lowest Overall Rating for Primary Selection Factors and, therefore, the lowest ranking. After ranking the centers based on the primary criteria, the Department then applied the additional considerations and determined that none of the additional considerations prevented the selection of Treasure Lake for closure. The Department is requesting public comments on the Treasure Lake Job Corps center's selection for closure.
The Department will implement the closure process pursuant to the center closure requirements outlined in the WIA at section 159(g) and as stipulated in the DOL/USDA Interagency Agreement.
The Department will ensure that our process for closing Job Corps centers will follow the requirements of section 159(g) of the WIA, which include the following:
• The proposed decision to close a particular center is announced in advance to the general public through publication in the
• A reasonable comment period, not to exceed 30 days, is established for interested individuals to submit written comments to the Secretary; and
• The Member of Congress who represents the district in which such center is located is notified within a reasonable period of time in advance of any final decision to close the center.
This Notice serves as the public announcement of the decision to close Treasure Lake. The Department is providing a 30-day period for interested individuals to submit written comments on the decision.
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget.
Notice of availability of the OMB Sequestration Update Report to the President and Congress for FY 2015.
OMB is issuing the
SUBMISSION AND AVAILABILITY OF REPORTS.—Each report required by this section shall be submitted, in the case of CBO, to the House of Representatives, the Senate and OMB and, in the case of OMB, to the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the President on the day it is issued. On the following day a notice of the report shall be printed in the
The OMB Sequestration Reports to the President and Congress is available on-line on the OMB home page at:
Thomas Tobasko, 6202 New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, Email address:
9:30 a.m., Tuesday, September 9, 2014.
NTSB Conference Center, 429 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20594.
The two items are open to the public.
Telephone: (202) 314–6100.
The press and public may enter the NTSB Conference Center one hour prior to the meeting for set up and seating.
Individuals requesting specific accommodations should contact Rochelle Hall at (202) 314–6305 or by email at
The public may view the meeting via a live or archived webcast by accessing a link under “News & Events” on the NTSB home page at
Schedule updates, including weather-related cancellations, are also available at
Candi Bing, (202) 314–6403 or by email at
Eric Weiss, (202) 314–6100 or by email at
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
Notice of request for OMB approval.
PBGC is requesting that OMB approve, under the Paperwork Reduction Act, a collection of information under its regulations on the disclosure of termination information for distress terminations, 29 CFR part 4041, Subpart C, and for PBGC-initiated terminations under 29 CFR part 4042 (OMB control number 1212–0065; expires September 30, 2014). This notice informs the public of PBGC's request and solicits public comment on the collection of information that must be provided by plan administrators and plan sponsors to affected parties upon request.
Comments should be submitted by September 26, 2014.
Comments should be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, via electronic mail at
Copies of the request (including the collection of information) may be obtained without charge by writing to the Disclosure Division of the Office of the General Counsel of PBGC at the above address, visiting the Disclosure Division, faxing a request to 202–326–4042, or calling 202–326–4040 during normal business hours. (TTY and TDD users may call the Federal relay service toll-free at 1–800–877–8339 and ask to be connected to 202–326–4040.) The Disclosure Division will email, fax, or mail the request to you, as you request.
The regulations relating to this collection of information may be found on PBGC's Web site at
Jo Amato Burns, Attorney, or Catherine B. Klion, Assistant General Counsel (326–4400, ext. 3041), Office of the General Counsel, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20005, 202–326–4024. (For TTY and TDD, call 800–877–8339 and ask to be connected to 202–326–4024.)
Sections 4041 and 4042 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA), 29 U.S.C 1301–1461, govern the termination of single-employer defined benefit pension plans that are subject to Title IV of ERISA. A plan administrator may initiate a distress termination under section 4041(c), and PBGC may itself initiate proceedings to terminate a pension plan under section 4042 if PBGC determines that certain conditions are present. Sections 4041 and 4042 of ERISA were amended by Section 506 of the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109–280) to require that, upon a request by an affected party—
• A plan administrator must disclose information it has submitted to PBGC in connection with a distress termination filing, and
• A plan administrator or plan sponsor must disclose information it has submitted to PBGC in connection with a PBGC-initiated termination.
PBGC is also required to disclose the administrative record relating to a PBGC-initiated termination upon request by an affected party. The above provisions are applicable to terminations initiated on or after August 17, 2006. The applicable regulatory provisions can be found at 29 CFR 4041.51 and 4042.5.
This collection of information has been approved by OMB under control number 1212–0065 (expires September 30, 2014). PBGC is requesting that OMB extend its approval for three years, without change. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Based on its experience and information from practitioners, PBGC estimates that two participants or other affected parties will annually make requests for termination information. PBGC estimates that the total annual burden for the collection of information will be about 30 hours and $600 (15 hours and $300 per request).
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94–409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold an Open Meeting on Wednesday, August 27, 2014 at 10:00 a.m., in the Auditorium, Room L–002.
The subject matters of the Open Meeting will be:
• The Commission will consider whether to adopt rules revising the disclosure, reporting and offering process for asset-backed securities. The revisions would require asset-backed issuers to provide enhanced disclosures, including information for certain asset classes about each asset in the underlying pool in a standardized, tagged format, and revise the shelf offering process and eligibility criteria for asset-backed securities.
• The Commission will consider whether to adopt rule amendments and new rules to implement provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act concerning nationally recognized statistical rating organizations, providers of third-party due diligence services for asset-backed securities, and issuers and underwriters of asset-backed securities under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The duty officer has determined that no earlier notice was practicable.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.
For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted, or postponed, please contact: The Office of the Secretary at (202) 551–5400.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend its rules governing the Short-Term Option Series program to introduce finer strike price intervals for Related non-Short Term Options. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its rules governing the Short-Term Option Series (“STOS”) program to introduce finer strike price intervals for Related non-Short Term Options. In particular, the Exchange proposes to amend its rules to permit the listing of Related non-Short Term Options during the month prior to expiration in the same strike price intervals as allowed for STOS. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would increase market efficiency as it would harmonize strike price intervals for contracts that are close to expiration—whether listed pursuant to a weekly or monthly expiration schedule—and would align the Exchange's rules with recently approved changes to the rules governing STOS programs of other options exchanges,
Pursuant to Commentary .07(b) to Rule 6.4, the Exchange may list short term options in up to fifty option classes, in addition to option classes that are selected by other securities exchanges that employ a similar program under their respective rules.
The Exchange may also list standard expiration contracts, which are listed in accordance with the regular monthly expiration cycle, in wider strike price intervals of $2.50, $5, or $10,
For example, assume ABC is trading at $56.54 and the monthly expiration contract is three weeks to expiration. Assume also that the Exchange has listed all available STOS expirations and thus has STOS listed on ABC for weeks one, two, four, five, and six. Each of the five weekly ABC expiration dates can be listed with strike prices in $0.50 intervals, including, for example, the $56.50 at-the-money strike. Because the monthly expiration contract has three weeks to expiration, however, the at-the-money strikes must be listed in $5 intervals unless those options are eligible for one of the Exchange's other strike price programs. In this instance, that would mean that investors would be limited to choosing, for example, between the $55 and $60 strike prices instead of the $56.50 at-the-money strike available for STOS. This is the case even though contracts on the same option class that expire both several weeks before and several weeks after the monthly expiration are eligible for finer strike price intervals. Under the proposed rule change, the Exchange would be permitted to list the Related non-Short Term Option on ABC, which is less than a month to expiration, in the same strike price intervals as allowed for short term option series. Thus, the Exchange would be able to list, and investors would be able to trade, all expirations described above with the same uniform $0.50 strike price interval.
As proposed, the Exchange would be permitted to begin listing the monthly expiration contract in these narrower intervals at any time during the month prior to expiration, which begins on the first trading day after the prior month's expiration date, subject to the provisions of other Exchange rules. For example, since the April 2014 monthly option expired on Saturday, April 19, the proposed rule change would allow the Exchange to list the May 2014 monthly option in short term option intervals starting Monday, April 21.
Thus, the Exchange proposes to amend Commentary .05(c) and .07(e) to Rule 6.4 to reflect that the Exchange may list Related non-Short Term Options in the same strike price intervals as allowed for STOS at any time during the month prior to expiration.
With regard to the impact of this proposal on system capacity, the Exchange has analyzed its capacity and represents that it and the Options Price Reporting Authority (“OPRA”) have the necessary systems capacity to handle any potential additional traffic associated with this proposed rule change. The Exchange believes that its OTP Firms and OTP Holders will not have a capacity issue as a result of this proposal. The Exchange also represents that it does not believe this expansion will cause fragmentation of liquidity.
The Exchange believes that the proposed change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed change will result in a continuing benefit to investors by giving them more flexibility to closely tailor their investment and hedging decisions, thus allowing them to better manage their risk exposure. As noted above, standard expiration options currently trade in wider intervals than their weekly counterparts, except during the week prior to expiration. As a result, contracts on the same option class that expire both several weeks before and several weeks after the standard expiration are eligible to trade in strike price intervals that the standard expiration contract is not. This inconsistency is [sic] has arisen due the growth and expansion of the STOS program in response to customer demand. In fact, the Exchange had been limited to listing one short term option expiration date pursuant to the STOS program and it is only in the last two years that the Exchange amended its rules to permit it to list up to five short term option expiration dates in addition to standard expiration options.
As noted above, the STOS program has been very well-received by market participants, in particular by retail investors. There is continuing strong customer demand for having the ability to execute hedging and trading strategies in the finer strike price intervals available in STOS, and the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will increase market efficiency by harmonizing strike price intervals for contracts that are close to expiration, whether those contracts happen to be listed pursuant to weekly or monthly expiration cycles. The Exchange notes that, in addition to listing standard expiration contracts in short term option intervals during the expiration week, it already operates several programs that allow for strike price intervals for standard expiration contracts that range from $0.50 to $2.50.
With regard to the impact of this proposal on system capacity, the Exchange has analyzed its capacity and represents that it and the OPRA have the necessary systems capacity to handle any potential additional traffic associated with this proposed rule change. The Exchange believes that its OTP Firms and OTP Holders will not have a capacity issue as a result of this proposal. The Exchange also represents that it does not believe this expansion will cause fragmentation of liquidity.
The Exchange does not believe that the Proposal will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will result in additional investment options and opportunities to achieve the investment objectives of market participants seeking efficient trading and hedging vehicles, to the benefit of investors, market participants, and the marketplace in general. Specifically, the Exchange believes that investors will benefit from the availability of strike price intervals in standard expiration contracts that match the intervals currently permitted for short term options with a similar time to expiration, and from the clarification regarding the listing of additional series during the week of expiration. In addition, as noted above, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is pro-competitive and will allow the Exchange to compete more effectively with other options exchanges that have already adopted changes to their STOS programs that are substantially identical to the changes proposed by this filing.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange stated that waiver of this requirement would enable the Exchange to, as soon as possible, have the ability to compete with other exchanges that have incorporated the proposed rule change to their STOS Programs and would help eliminate investor confusion and promote competition among the option exchanges. For these reasons, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change presents no novel issues and that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest; and will allow the Exchange to remain competitive with other exchanges. Therefore, the Commission designates the proposed rule change to be operative upon filing.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is 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.
On June 27, 2014, NYSE MKT LLC filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On June 27, 2014, New York Stock Exchange LLC filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 86—Equities to extend the hours for the Core Bond Trading Session for NYSE MKT Bonds. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 86—Equities (“Rule 86”) to extend the hours for the Core Bond Trading Session for NYSE MKT Bonds.
NYSE MKT Bonds is the Exchange's electronic system for receiving, processing, executing and reporting bids, offers and executions in bonds. Rule 86 prescribes how bonds are traded through the NYSE MKT Bonds trading platform, including the receipt, execution and reporting of bond transactions. NYSE MKT Bonds has three Bond Trading Sessions, (1) the Opening Bond Trading Session, (2) the Core Bond Trading Session, and (3) the Late Bond Trading Session. The Opening Bond Trading Session currently commences at 4:00 a.m. Eastern Time (“ET”) and concludes at 9:30 a.m. ET. The Core Bond Trading Session currently commences at 9:30 a.m. ET and concludes at 4:00 p.m. ET. The Late Bond Trading Session currently commences at 4:00 p.m. ET and concludes at 8:00 p.m. ET.
The Exchange proposes to extend the hours of the Core Bond Trading Session so that it would commence at 8:00 a.m. ET and end at 5:00 p.m. ET, adding a total of 2.5 hours to the Core Bond Trading Session and better aligning its hours with those of other bond trading venues. The Exchange proposes to amend the references to the various time periods throughout Rule 86 to effect this change, including, for example, that the Core Bond Auction would commence at 8:00 a.m. ET instead of the current 9:30 a.m. ET. Similarly, the Exchange proposes to amend the hours of the Opening Bond Trading Session and the Late Bond Trading Session to reflect this change. The Opening Bond Trading Session would conclude at 8:00 a.m. E.T. instead of the current 9:30 a.m. E.T., and the Late Bond Trading Session would commence at 5:00 p.m. E.T. instead of the current 4:00p.m. E.T. The Exchange notes, for example, that the proposed extended Core Bond Trading Session would also result in the ability for an “NYSE MKT Bonds Good `Til Cancelled Order” or an “NYSE MKT Bonds Day Order” to remain in effect for a longer period of time. The Exchange would announce the date on which the expanded Core Bond Trading Session hours would take effect via Trader Update.
The proposed change is not otherwise intended to address any other issues, and the Exchange is not aware of any problems Users would have in complying with the proposed change.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed change would foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in bond transactions by more closely aligning the hours of the Core Bond Trading Session with the hours of other marketplaces on which bonds trade (e.g., various alternative trading systems). The proposed change would also remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a free and open market and a national market system by permitting Users to be active in the Core Bond Trading Session for 2.5 additional hours each day. Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement regarding the burden on competition.
For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b–4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On June 20, 2014, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “NYSE Arca”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to list and trade the Shares under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600, which governs the listing and trading of Managed Fund Shares.
Each Fund will be an actively-managed exchange-traded fund (“ETF”) and will not seek to replicate the performance of a specified index. Each Fund will, under normal market conditions,
According to the Exchange, the WBI SMID Tactical Growth Shares will seek long-term capital appreciation and the potential for current income, while also seeking to protect principal during unfavorable market conditions.
Under normal market conditions, the Fund will invest at least 80% of its net assets in the exchange-listed equity securities of small-capitalization and mid-capitalization domestic and foreign companies.
While the Fund, under normal circumstances, will invest at least 80% of its net assets as described above, the Fund may directly invest in certain other investments. According to the Exchange, to enhance the Fund's returns or to mitigate risk and volatility, the Fund may invest up to 20% of the Fund's net assets in large-capitalization
The Fund may invest in the following types of debt securities: Fixed, floating and variable corporate debt securities, U.S. Government securities, debt securities of foreign issuers, sovereign debt securities, U.S. government agency securities, and high-yield bonds. The Fund also may invest in agency and non-agency residential mortgage-backed securities (“RMBS”) and asset-backed securities.
In addition, the Fund may utilize equity options for individual securities including writing (selling) covered calls, buying puts, using combinations of calls and puts, using combinations of calls and combinations of puts, and entering into cap and floor agreements.
The Fund also may enter into the following types of financial instruments: futures overlying equity indexes, interest rates, debt instruments, and currencies; government debt repurchase agreements; depository receipt conversion swaps
According to the Exchange, the WBI SMID Tactical Value Shares will seek long-term capital appreciation and the potential for current income, while also seeking to protect principal during unfavorable market conditions.
Under normal market conditions, the Fund will invest at least 80% of its net assets in the exchange-listed equity securities of small-capitalization and mid-capitalization domestic and foreign companies selected by the Sub-Adviser. The types of equity securities in which the Fund will invest are common stocks, preferred stocks, rights, warrants, convertibles, MLPs, and REITs. The Fund may invest up to 50% of the Fund's principal investments in the securities of issuers in emerging markets, which could consist of Depositary Receipts, dollar denominated foreign securities and foreign equity securities. The Fund's principal investments also may consist of ETFs that invest predominantly in small-capitalization and mid-capitalization equity securities and will be considered small-capitalization and mid-capitalization equity securities for purposes of the Fund's equity allocation target.
While the Fund, under normal circumstances, will invest at least 80% of its net assets in its investments as described above, the Fund may directly invest in certain other investments. According to the Registration Statement, the Fund may invest up to 20% of its net assets in large-capitalization equities, domestic and foreign debt securities (including junk bonds), ETFs (other than ETFs noted in the Principal Investments section for the Fund, above, that invest predominantly in small-capitalization and mid-capitalization equity securities), and/or in Options Strategies to enhance the Fund's returns or to mitigate risk and volatility. The Fund also may use Financial Instruments. Cash balances arising from the use of Financial Instruments typically will be held in money market instruments.
The types of debt securities in which the Fund will invest are fixed, floating and variable corporate debt securities, U.S. Government securities, debt securities of foreign issuers, sovereign debt securities, U.S. government agency securities, and high-yield bonds. The Fund also may invest in debt-based ETNs. The Fund expects to invest in debt securities of all maturities, from less than one year up to thirty years, depending on the portfolio manager's assessment of the risks and opportunities along the yield curve.
According to the Exchange, the WBI SMID Tactical Yield Share will seek long-term capital appreciation and the potential for current income, while also seeking to protect principal during unfavorable market conditions.
Under normal market conditions, the Fund will invest at least 80% of its net assets in the exchange-listed dividend-paying equity securities of small-capitalization and mid-capitalization domestic and foreign companies selected by the Sub-Adviser. The types of equity securities in which the Fund will invest are common stocks, preferred stocks, rights, warrants, convertibles, MLPs, and REITs. The Fund may invest up to 50% of the Fund's principal investments in the securities of issuers in emerging markets, which could consist of Depositary Receipts, dollar-denominated foreign securities and foreign equity securities. The Fund's principal investments also may consist of ETFs that invest predominantly in small-capitalization and mid-capitalization equity securities and will be considered small-capitalization and mid-capitalization equity securities for purposes of the Fund's equity allocation target.
While the Fund, under normal circumstances, will invest at least 80% of its net assets in its investments as described above, the Fund may directly invest in certain other investments. According to the Registration Statement, the Fund may invest up to 20% of the Fund's net assets in large-capitalization equities, domestic and foreign debt securities, high-yield bonds and/or in Options Strategies and Financial Instruments. Cash balances arising from the use of Financial Instruments typically will be held in money market instruments.
The types of debt securities in which the Fund will invest are fixed, floating and variable corporate debt securities, U.S. Government securities, debt
According to the Exchange, the WBI SMID Tactical Select Shares will seek long-term capital appreciation and the potential for current income, while also seeking to protect principal during unfavorable market conditions.
Under normal market conditions, the Fund will invest at least 80% of its net assets in the exchange-listed equity securities of small-capitalization and mid-capitalization domestic and foreign companies selected by the Sub-Adviser. The types of equity securities in which the Fund will invest are common stocks, preferred stocks, rights, warrants, convertibles, MLPs, and REITs. The Fund may invest up to 50% of the Fund's principal investments in the securities of issuers in emerging markets, which could consist of Depositary Receipts, dollar denominated foreign securities and foreign equity securities. The Fund also may invest up to 20% of the Fund's principal investments in junk bonds. The Fund's principal investments also may consist of ETFs that invest predominantly in small-capitalization and mid-capitalization equity securities and will be considered small-capitalization and mid-capitalization equity securities for purposes of the Fund's equity allocation target.
While the Fund, under normal circumstances, will invest at least 80% of its net assets in its investments as described above, the Fund may directly invest in certain other investments. The Fund may invest up to 20% of the Fund's net assets in large-capitalization equities, domestic and foreign debt securities, high-yield bonds and/or in Options Strategies and Financial Instruments. Cash balances arising from the use of Financial Instruments typically will be held in money market instruments.
The types of debt securities in which the Fund will invest are fixed, floating and variable corporate debt securities, U.S. Government securities, debt securities of foreign issuers, sovereign debt securities, U.S. government agency securities, and high-yield bonds. The Fund also may invest in debt-based ETNs and ETFs. The Fund expects to invest in debt securities of all maturities, from less than one year up to thirty years, depending on the portfolio manager's assessment of the risks and opportunities along the yield curve.
According to the Exchange, the WBI Large Cap Tactical Growth Shares objectives are to seek long-term capital appreciation and the potential for current income, while also seeking to protect principal during unfavorable market conditions.
Under normal market conditions, the Fund will invest at least 80% of its net assets in the exchange-listed equity securities of large capitalization domestic and foreign companies selected by the Sub-Adviser. The types of equity securities in which the Fund will invest are common stocks, preferred stocks, rights, warrants, convertibles, MLPs, and REITs. The Fund may invest up to 50% of the Fund's principal investments in the securities of issuers in emerging markets, which could consist of Depositary Receipts, dollar denominated foreign securities and foreign equity securities. The Fund's principal investments also may consist of ETFs that invest predominantly in small-capitalization and mid-capitalization equity securities and will be considered small-capitalization and mid-capitalization equity securities for purposes of the Fund's equity allocation target.
While the Fund, under normal circumstances, will invest at least 80% of its net assets in its investments as described above, the Fund may directly invest in certain other investments. Namely, up to 20% of the Fund's net assets may be invested in small-capitalization and mid-capitalization equities, domestic and foreign debt securities, and high-yield bonds and/or in Options Strategies and Financial Instruments. Cash balances arising from the use of Financial Instruments typically will be held in money market instruments.
The types of debt securities in which the Fund will invest are fixed, floating and variable corporate debt securities, U.S. Government securities, debt securities of foreign issuers, sovereign debt securities, U.S. government agency securities, and high-yield bonds. The Fund also may invest in debt-based ETNs and ETFs. The Fund expects to invest in debt securities of all maturities, from less than one year up to thirty years, depending on the portfolio manager's assessment of the risks and opportunities along the yield curve.
According to the Exchange, the WBI Large Cap Tactical Value Shares objectives are to seek long-term capital appreciation and the potential for current income, while also seeking to protect principal during unfavorable market conditions.
Under normal market conditions, the Fund will invest at least 80% of its net assets in the exchange-listed equity securities of large capitalization domestic and foreign companies selected by the Sub-Adviser. The types of equity securities in which the Fund will invest are common stocks, preferred stocks, rights, warrants, convertibles, MLPs, and REITs. The Fund may invest up to 50% of the Fund's principal investments in the securities of issuers in emerging markets, which could consist of Depositary Receipts, dollar denominated foreign securities and foreign equity securities. The Fund also may invest up to 20% of the Fund's principal investments in junk bonds. The Fund's principal investments also may consist of ETFs that invest predominantly in small-capitalization and mid-capitalization equity securities and will be considered small-capitalization and mid-capitalization equity securities for purposes of the Fund's equity allocation target.
While the Fund, under normal circumstances, will invest at least 80% of its net assets in its investments as described above, the Fund may directly invest in certain other investments Specifically, up to 20% of the Fund's net assets may be invested in small-capitalization and mid-capitalization equities, domestic and foreign debt securities, and high-yield bonds and/or in Options Strategies and Financial Instruments. Cash balances arising from the use of Financial Instruments typically will be held in money market instruments.
The types of debt securities in which the Fund will invest are fixed, floating and variable corporate debt securities, U.S. Government securities, debt
According to the Exchange, the WBI Large Cap Tactical Yield Shares will seek long-term capital appreciation and the potential for current income, while also seeking to protect principal during unfavorable market conditions.
Under normal market conditions, the Fund will invest at least 80% of its net assets in the exchange-listed dividend-paying equity securities of large capitalization domestic and foreign companies selected by the Sub-Adviser. The types of equity securities in which the Fund will invest are common stocks, preferred stocks, rights, warrants, convertibles, MLPs, and REITs. The Fund may invest up to 50% of the Fund's principal investments in the securities of issuers in emerging markets, which could consist of Depositary Receipts, dollar denominated foreign securities and foreign equity securities. The Fund also may invest up to 20% of the Fund's principal investments in high-yield bonds. The Fund's principal investments also may consist of ETFs that invest predominantly in small-capitalization and mid-capitalization equity securities and will be considered small-capitalization and mid-capitalization equity securities for purposes of the Fund's equity allocation target.
While the Fund, under normal circumstances, will invest at least 80% of its net assets in its investments as described above, the Fund may directly invest in certain other investments Namely, up to 20% of the Fund's net assets may be invested in small-capitalization and mid-capitalization equities, domestic and foreign debt securities, high-yield bonds and/or in Options Strategies and Financial Instruments. Cash balances arising from the use of Financial Instruments typically will be held in money market instruments.
The types of debt securities in which the Fund will invest are fixed, floating and variable corporate debt securities, U.S. Government securities, debt securities of foreign issuers, sovereign debt securities, U.S. government agency securities, and high-yield bonds. The Fund also may invest in debt-based ETNs and ETFs. The Fund expects to invest in debt securities of all maturities, from less than one year up to thirty years, depending on the portfolio manager's assessment of the risks and opportunities along the yield curve.
According to the Registration Statement, the WBI Large Cap Tactical Select Shares objectives are to seek long-term capital appreciation and the potential for current income, while also seeking to protect principal during unfavorable market conditions.
Under normal market conditions, the Fund will invest at least 80% of its net assets in the exchange-listed equity securities of large capitalization domestic and foreign companies selected by the Sub-Adviser. The types of equity securities in which the Fund will invest are common stocks, preferred stocks, rights, warrants, convertibles, MLPs, and REITs. The Fund may invest up to 50% of the Fund's principal investments in the securities of issuers in emerging markets, which could consist of Depositary Receipts, dollar denominated foreign securities and foreign equity securities. The Fund also may invest up to 20% of the Fund's principal investments in junk bonds. The Fund's principal investments also may consist of ETFs that invest predominantly in small-capitalization and mid-capitalization equity securities and will be considered small-capitalization and mid-capitalization equity securities for purposes of the Fund's equity allocation target.
While the Fund, under normal circumstances, will invest at least 80% of its net assets in its investments as described above, the Fund may directly invest in certain other investments. Namely, up to 20% of the Fund's net assets may be invested in small-capitalization and mid-capitalization equities, domestic and foreign debt securities, and high-yield bonds and/or in Options Strategies described above and Financial Instruments. Cash balances arising from the use of Financial Instruments typically will be held in money market instruments.
The types of debt securities in which the Fund will invest are fixed, floating and variable corporate debt securities, U.S. Government securities, debt securities of foreign issuers, sovereign debt securities, U.S. government agency securities, and high-yield bonds. The Fund also may invest in debt-based ETNs and ETFs. The Fund expects to invest in debt securities of all maturities, from less than one year up to thirty years, depending on the portfolio manager's assessment of the risks and opportunities along the yield curve.
According to the Exchange, the WBI Tactical Income Shares objectives are to seek current income with the potential for long-term capital appreciation, while also seeking to protect principal during unfavorable market conditions.
Under normal market conditions, the Fund will invest at least 80% of its net assets in income producing debt and exchange listed equity securities of foreign and domestic issuers, including the securities of foreign and domestic corporate and governmental entities selected by the Sub-Adviser. The types of debt securities in which the Fund will invest are corporate debt securities, U.S. Government securities, debt securities of foreign issuers, sovereign debt securities, U.S. government agency securities, high- yield bonds and variable and floating rate securities. The Fund also may invest in debt-based ETNs. The Fund expects to invest in debt securities of all maturities, from less than one year up to thirty years, depending on the portfolio manager's assessment of the risks and opportunities along the yield curve. The types of equity securities in which the Fund will invest are common stocks, preferred stocks, rights, warrants, convertibles MLPs, and REITs. The Fund may invest in companies of any size market capitalization.
The Fund may invest up to 50% of the Fund's principal investments in the securities of issuers in emerging markets, which could consist of Depositary Receipts, dollar denominated foreign securities and foreign equity securities. The Fund also may invest up to 40% of the Fund's principal investments in junk bonds. The Fund's principal investments also may consist of ETFs that invest predominantly in debt securities and will be considered debt securities for the purposes of the Fund's debt target allocation and investments in other investment companies that invest predominantly in dividend-paying equity securities are considered
While the Fund, under normal circumstances, will invest at least 80% of its net assets in its investments as described above, the Fund may directly invest in certain other investments. Namely, up to 20% of the Fund's net assets may be invested in exchange listed foreign and domestic equities (other than the foreign and domestic equities noted in the Principal Investment section for the Fund, above), ETFs, ETNs (other than the debt-based ETFs and ETNs noted in the Principal Investment section for the Fund, above), and/or in Options Strategies and Financial Instruments. Cash balances arising from the use of Financial Instruments typically will be held in money market instruments.
According to the Exchange, the WBI Tactical High Income Shares investment objectives are to seek high current income with the potential for long-term capital appreciation, while also seeking to protect principal during unfavorable market conditions.
Under normal market conditions, the Fund will invest at least 80% of its net assets in income producing debt and exchange listed equity securities of foreign and domestic issuers, including the securities of foreign and domestic corporate and governmental entities selected by the Sub-Adviser.
The types of debt securities in which the Fund will invest are corporate debt securities, U.S. Government securities, debt securities of foreign issuers, sovereign debt securities, U.S. government agency securities, high-yield bonds, variable and floating rate securities, and debt-based ETNs and ETFs. The Fund expects to invest in debt securities of all maturities, from less than one year up to thirty years, depending on the portfolio manager's assessment of the risks and opportunities along the yield curve.
The types of equity securities in which the Fund will invest are common stocks, preferred stocks, rights, warrants, convertibles, MLPs, and REITs. The Fund may invest in companies of any size market capitalization.
The Fund may invest up to 50% of the Fund's principal investments in the securities of issuers in emerging markets, which could consist of Depositary Receipts, dollar denominated foreign securities and foreign equity securities. The Fund also may invest up to 80% of the Fund's principal investments in junk bonds. The Fund's principal investments also may consist of ETFs that invest predominantly in debt securities and will be considered debt securities for the purposes of the Fund's debt target allocation and investments in other investment companies that invest predominantly in dividend-paying equity securities are considered dividend-paying equity securities for the purposes of the fund's income producing securities target allocation.
While the Fund, under normal circumstances, will invest at least 80% of its net assets in its investments as described above, the Fund may directly invest in certain other investments. According to the Exchange, up to 20% of the Fund's net assets may be invested in exchange listed foreign and domestic equities (other than the foreign and domestic equities noted in the Principal Investment section for the Fund, above), ETFs, ETNs (other than the debt-based ETFs and ETNs noted in the Principal Investment section for the Fund, above), and/or in Options Strategies and Financial Instruments. Cash balances arising from the use of Financial Instruments typically will be held in money market instruments.
Each Fund will seek to qualify for treatment as a regulated investment company (“RIC”) under Subchapter M of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
A Fund may hold up to an aggregate amount of 15% of its net assets in illiquid assets (calculated at the time of investment), including Rule 144A securities. The Funds will monitor their portfolio liquidity on an ongoing basis to determine whether, in the light of current circumstances, an adequate level of liquidity is being maintained, and will consider taking appropriate steps in order to maintain adequate liquidity if, through a change in values, net assets, or other circumstances, more than 15% of a Fund's net assets are held in illiquid securities and other illiquid assets.
A Fund will not invest more than 25% of its total assets, directly or indirectly, through underlying ETFs, in an individual industry, as defined by the Standard Industrial Classification Codes utilized by the Division of Corporate Finance of the Commission.
According to the Exchange, a Fund may not purchase or sell physical commodities or physical commodity contracts unless acquired as a result of ownership of securities or other instruments issued by persons that purchase or sell commodities or commodities contracts, but this shall not prevent a Fund from purchasing, selling and entering into financial futures contracts (including futures contracts on indices of securities, interest rates and currencies), options on financial futures contracts (including futures contracts on indices of securities, interest rates and currencies), warrants, swaps, forward contracts, or other derivative instruments that are not related to physical commodities.
No Fund will invest more than 10% of its net assets in unsponsored Depositary Receipts. For each Fund, not more than 10% of the net assets invested in exchange-traded equity securities shall consist of equity securities whose principal market is not a member of the ISG or is a market with which the Exchange does not have a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. Further, for each Fund, not more than 10% of the net assets invested in futures contracts or options contracts shall consist of futures contracts or options contracts whose principal market is not a member of ISG or is a market with which the Exchange does not have a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement.
No Fund will invest in leveraged or inverse leveraged (
After careful review, the Commission finds that the Exchange's proposal to list and trade the Shares is consistent with the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Commission finds that the proposal to list and trade the Shares on the Exchange is consistent with Section 11A(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the Exchange Act,
Quotation information for unsponsored Depositary Receipts will be available from major market data vendors. Quotation information for non-exchange-traded derivatives, including OTC options, forwards, and swaps may be obtained from brokers and dealers who make markets in such securities or major market data vendors. Price information on futures and options on futures will be available from major market data vendors and from securities and futures exchanges, as applicable.
Quotation information for debt securities, including fixed, floating and variable corporate debt securities, U.S. Government securities, debt securities of foreign issuers, sovereign debt securities, U.S. government agency securities and high-yield bonds, will be available from major market data vendors. In addition, quotation information from brokers and dealers or major market data vendors will be available for mortgage-backed; asset-backed securities; money market instruments; short-term debt securities; and Financial Instruments. Information regarding market price and trading volume of the Shares will be continually available on a real-time basis throughout the day on brokers' computer screens and other electronic services. Information regarding the previous day's closing price and trading volume information for the Shares will be published daily in the financial section of newspapers. Price information regarding equity securities and options traded on non-U.S. securities exchanges will be available from the exchanges trading such securities, automated quotation systems, published or other public sources, or on-line information services such as Bloomberg or Reuters.
The Commission also believes that the proposal to list and trade the Shares is reasonably designed to promote fair disclosure of information that may be necessary to price the Shares appropriately and to prevent trading when a reasonable degree of transparency cannot be assured. On each business day, before commencement of trading in Shares in the Core Trading Session (9:30 a.m. E.T. to 4:00 p.m. E.T.) on the Exchange, each Fund will disclose on its Web site the Disclosed Portfolio as defined in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600(c)(2) that will form the basis for a Fund's calculation of NAV at the end of the business day.
The Exchange represents that trading in Shares of a Fund will be halted if the circuit breaker parameters in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.12 have been reached.
The Exchange states that it has a general policy prohibiting the distribution of material, non-public information by its employees. Consistent with NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600(d)(2)(B)(ii), each Fund's Reporting Authority will implement and maintain, or be subject to, procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material non-public information regarding the actual components of each Fund's portfolio.
The Exchange states that the Adviser is a registered broker-dealer and is affiliated with a broker-dealer, and that the Sub-Adviser is also affiliated with a broker-dealer. The Exchange represents that the Adviser and Sub-Adviser will implement a firewall with respect to their relevant personnel and their broker-dealer affiliates regarding access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to a portfolio, and will be subject to procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material non-public information regarding such portfolio.
The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”), on behalf of the Exchange, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares, underlying exchange-traded equity securities (including, without limitation, domestic and foreign common stocks, preferred stocks, rights, warrants, convertibles, Depositary Receipts, ETFs, ETNs, MLPs and REITS), exchange-traded options, futures, options on futures contracts and options on securities indices with markets and entities that are members of ISG, and FINRA may obtain, on behalf of the Exchange, trading information regarding trading in the Shares, underlying exchange-traded equity securities, exchange-traded options, futures, options on futures contracts and
The Exchange deems the Shares to be equity securities, thus rendering trading in the Shares subject to the Exchange's existing rules governing the trading of equity securities. In support of this proposal, the Exchange represented that:
(1) The Shares will conform to the initial and continuing listing criteria under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600.
(2) Trading in the Shares will be subject to the existing trading surveillances administered by FINRA on behalf of the Exchange, which are designed to detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws, and these procedures are adequate to properly monitor Exchange trading of the Shares in all trading sessions and to detect and help deter violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws.
(3) The Exchange has appropriate rules to facilitate transactions in the Shares during all trading sessions.
(4) Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its Equity Trading Permit Holders (“ETP Holders”) in an Information Bulletin of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Specifically, the Information Bulletin will discuss the following: (a) The procedures for purchases and redemptions of Shares in Creation Unit aggregations (and that Shares are not individually redeemable); (b) NYSE Arca Equities Rule 9.2(a), which imposes a duty of due diligence on its ETP Holders to learn the essential facts relating to every customer prior to trading the Shares; (c) the risks involved in trading the Shares during the Opening and Late Trading Sessions when an updated IIV will not be calculated or publicly disseminated; (d) how information regarding the IIV is disseminated; (e) the requirement that ETP Holders deliver a prospectus to investors purchasing newly issued Shares prior to or concurrently with the confirmation of a transaction; and (f) trading information.
(5) For initial and/or continued listing, each Fund will be in compliance with Rule 10A–3 under the Act,
(6) Each Fund may hold up to an aggregate amount of 15% of its net assets in illiquid securities, including Rule 144A securities.
(7) Unsponsored Depository Receipts will not exceed 10% of a Fund's net assets.
(8) For each Fund, not more than 10% of the net assets invested in exchange-traded equity securities shall consist of equity securities whose principal market is not a member of the ISG or is a market with which the Exchange does not have a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement.
(9) For each Fund, not more than 10% of the net assets invested in futures contracts or options contracts shall consist of futures contracts or options contracts whose principal market is not a member of ISG or is a market with which the Exchange does not have a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement.
(10) No Fund will invest in leveraged or inverse leveraged (
(11) A minimum of 100,000 Shares will be outstanding at the commencement of trading on the Exchange.
This approval order is based on all of the Exchange's representations, including those set forth above and in the Notice, and the Exchange's descriptions of the Funds. For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to [sic] its rules governing the Short-Term Option Series program to introduce finer strike price intervals for Related non-Short Term Options. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its rules governing the Short-Term Option Series (“STOS”) program to introduce finer strike price intervals for Related non-Short Term Options. In particular, the Exchange proposes to amend its rules to permit the listing of Related non-Short Term Options during the month prior to expiration in the same strike price intervals as allowed for STOS. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would increase market efficiency as it would harmonize strike price intervals for contracts that are close to expiration—whether listed pursuant to a weekly or monthly expiration schedule—and would align the Exchange's rules with recently approved changes to the rules governing STOS programs of other options exchanges,
Pursuant to Commentary .10(a) to Rule 903, the Exchange may list short term options in up to fifty option classes, in addition to option classes that are selected by other securities exchanges that employ a similar program under their respective rules.
The Exchange may also list standard expiration contracts, which are listed in accordance with the regular monthly expiration cycle, in wider strike price intervals of $2.50, $5, or $10
For example, assume ABC is trading at $56.54 and the monthly expiration contract is three weeks to expiration. Assume also that the Exchange has listed all available STOS expirations and thus has STOS listed on ABC for weeks one, two, four, five, and six. Each of the five weekly ABC expiration dates can be listed with strike prices in $0.50 intervals, including, for example, the $56.50 at-the-money strike. Because the monthly expiration contract has three weeks to expiration, however, the at-the-money strikes must be listed in $5 intervals unless those options are eligible for one of the Exchange's other strike price programs. In this instance, that would mean that investors would be limited to choosing, for example, between the $55 and $60 strike prices instead of the $56.50 at-the-money strike available for STOS. This is the case even though contracts on the same option class that expire both several weeks before and several weeks after the monthly expiration are eligible for finer strike price intervals. Under the proposed rule change, the Exchange would be permitted to list the Related non-Short Term Option on ABC, which is less than a month to expiration, in the same strike price intervals as allowed for short term option series. Thus, the Exchange would be able to list, and investors would be able to trade, all expirations described above with the same uniform $0.50 strike price interval.
As proposed, the Exchange would be permitted to begin listing the monthly expiration contract in these narrower intervals at any time during the month prior to expiration, which begins on the first trading day after the prior month's expiration date, subject to the provisions of other Exchange rules. For example, since the April 2014 monthly option expired on Saturday, April 19, the proposed rule change would allow the Exchange to list the May 2014 monthly option in short term option intervals starting Monday, April 21.
Thus, the Exchange proposes to amend Commentary .05(c) and .10(d) to Rule 903 to reflect that the Exchange may list Related non-Short Term Options in the same strike price intervals as allowed for STOS at any time during the month prior to
With regard to the impact of this proposal on system capacity, the Exchange has analyzed its capacity and represents that it and the Options Price Reporting Authority (“OPRA”) have the necessary systems capacity to handle any potential additional traffic associated with this proposed rule change. The Exchange believes that its ATP Holders will not have a capacity issue as a result of this proposal. The Exchange also represents that it does not believe this expansion will cause fragmentation of liquidity.
The Exchange believes that the proposed change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed change will result in a continuing benefit to investors by giving them more flexibility to closely tailor their investment and hedging decisions, thus allowing them to better manage their risk exposure. As noted above, standard expiration options currently trade in wider intervals than their weekly counterparts, except during the week prior to expiration. As a result, contracts on the same option class that expire both several weeks before and several weeks after the standard expiration are eligible to trade in strike price intervals that the standard expiration contract is not. This inconsistency is [sic] has arisen due the growth and expansion of the STOS program in response to customer demand. In fact, the Exchange had been limited to listing one short term option expiration date pursuant to the STOS program and it is only in the last two years that the Exchange amended its rules to permit it to list up to five short term option expiration dates in addition to standard expiration options.
As noted above, the STOS program has been very well-received by market participants, in particular by retail investors. There is continuing strong customer demand for having the ability to execute hedging and trading strategies in the finer strike price intervals available in STOS, and the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will increase market efficiency by harmonizing strike price intervals for contracts that are close to expiration, whether those contracts happen to be listed pursuant to weekly or monthly expiration cycles. The Exchange notes that, in addition to listing standard expiration contracts in short term option intervals during the expiration week, it already operates several programs that allow for strike price intervals for standard expiration contracts that range from $0.50 to $2.50.
With regard to the impact of this proposal on system capacity, the Exchange has analyzed its capacity and represents that it and the OPRA have the necessary systems capacity to handle any potential additional traffic associated with this proposed rule change. The Exchange believes that its ATP Holders will not have a capacity issue as a result of this proposal. The Exchange also represents that it does not believe this expansion will cause fragmentation of liquidity.
The Exchange does not believe that the Proposal will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will result in additional investment options and opportunities to achieve the investment objectives of market participants seeking efficient trading and hedging vehicles, to the benefit of investors, market participants, and the marketplace in general. Specifically, the Exchange believes that investors will benefit from the availability of strike price intervals in standard expiration contracts that match the intervals currently permitted for short term options with a similar time to expiration, and from the clarification regarding the listing of additional series during the week of expiration. In addition, as noted above, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is pro-competitive and will allow the Exchange to compete more effectively with other options exchanges that have already adopted changes to their STOS programs that are substantially identical to the changes proposed by this filing.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time
The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange stated that waiver of this requirement would enable the Exchange to, as soon as possible, have the ability to compete with other exchanges that have incorporated the proposed rule change to their STOS Programs and would help eliminate investor confusion and promote competition among the option exchanges. For these reasons, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change presents no novel issues and that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest; and will allow the Exchange to remain competitive with other exchanges. Therefore, the Commission designates the proposed rule change to be operative upon filing.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is 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.
On July 25, 2014, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (the “Exchange” or “CBOE”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”)
The Exchange proposes to amend its Rule 24.19 (Multi-Class Broad-Based Index Option Spread Orders).
The Exchange represents that currently not all Multi-Class Spread Orders may be entered electronically due to systems constraints, but that it is in the process of modifying its electronic order-entry systems to provide for the electronic entry and validation of all Multi-Class Spread Orders to the floor of the Exchange. In order for the Exchange's systems to determine that two separate legs are part of the same Multi-Class Spread Order (allowing for treatment as a Multi-Class Spread Order), both legs must be entered together on a single order
CBOE Rule 24.19 currently states that a Multi-Class Spread Order may be represented at the trading station of either Broad-Based Index Option comprising the order, and also provides that the TPH initiating the order in the trading crowd must contact an Order Book Official (“OBO”), Designated Primary Market-Maker (“DPM”), or appropriate Exchange staff, as applicable, at the other trading station to have a notice of such order disseminated to the other trading crowd. CBOE is proposing to modify the Rule to require that a Multi-Class Spread Order be represented at the primary trading station,
CBOE Rule 24.19 requires that notice of a Multi-Class Spread Order “shall be disseminated by the Recipient who shall verbalize the terms of the order to the other trading crowd.” The Exchange proposes to replace the word “verbalize” with the word “announce,” as the Exchange is currently contemplating changes that will allow such notice to be posted on screens electronically to the other trading crowd (which could be a more efficient method of posting such order information).
CBOE represents that no later than 90 days following the effective date of the proposed rule change, the Exchange will announce to TPHs via Regulatory Circular the implementation date by which TPHs must be in compliance with the changes described herein, and that the implementation date will be no later than 180 days following the effective date of the proposed rule change, and will be at least 30 days following the release of the abovementioned Regulatory Circular (in order to give TPHs ample time to come into compliance with the changes described herein).
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed change to amend CBOE Rule 24.19 is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange.
The Commission also believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(1) of the Act,
In addition, the Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
In notice document 2014–20056, appearing on pages 50726–50727, in the issue of Monday, August 25, 2014, make the following correction:
On page 50727, in the first column, under the heading titled “
The U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy will hold a public meeting from 10:00 a.m. until 11:30 a.m., Tuesday, September 16, 2014 in SVC 209–08 on the Senate Side of the Capitol Visitor's Center at First St. SE., Washington, DC 20515.
The meeting's topic will be on “Evaluating Public Diplomacy and International Broadcasting's Impact” and will announce findings from the Commission's six-month deep dive into the research designs, processes and structures in place for research and evaluation at the U.S. Department of State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors. This is the first major report the Commission has released since 2010. The meeting will feature contributors to the report, including Sean Aday, Associate Professor at The George Washington University; Amelia Arsenault, Assistant Professor at Georgia State University; Craig Hayden, Assistant Professor at American University; and Shawn Powers, Assistant Professor at Georgia State University. Official representatives who focus on research and evaluation in public diplomacy and international broadcasting will also be in attendance.
This meeting is open to the public, Members and staff of Congress, the State Department, Defense Department, the media, and other governmental and non-governmental organizations. To attend and make any requests for reasonable accommodation, email
The United States Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy appraises U.S. Government activities intended to understand, inform, and influence foreign publics. The Advisory Commission may conduct studies, inquiries, and meetings, as it deems necessary. It may assemble and disseminate information and issue reports and other publications, subject to the approval of the Chairperson, in consultation with the Executive Director. The Advisory Commission may undertake foreign travel in pursuit of its studies and coordinate, sponsor, or oversee projects, studies, events, or other activities that it deems desirable and necessary in fulfilling its functions.
The Commission consists of seven members appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The members of the Commission shall represent the public interest and shall be selected from a cross section of educational, communications, cultural, scientific, technical, public service, labor, business, and professional backgrounds. Not more than four members shall be from any one political party. The President designates a member to chair the Commission.
The current members of the Commission are: Mr. William Hybl of Colorado, Chairman; Ambassador Lyndon Olson of Texas, Vice Chairman; Mr. Sim Farar of California, Vice Chairman; Ambassador Penne Korth-Peacock of Texas; Ms. Lezlee Westine of Virginia; and Anne Terman Wedner of Illinois. One seat on the Commission is currently vacant.
The following individual has been nominated to the Commission but awaits Senate confirmation as of this writing: Alfredo Balsera of Florida.
To request further information about the meeting or the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy, you may contact its Executive Director, Katherine Brown, at
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App § 10(a)(2), the Department of State announces a meeting of the International Security Advisory Board (ISAB) to take place on October 2, 2014, at the Department of State, Washington, DC.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App § 10(d), and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1), it has been determined that this Board meeting will be closed to the public because the Board will be reviewing and discussing matters properly classified in accordance with Executive Order 13526. The purpose of the ISAB is to provide the Department with a continuing source of independent advice on all aspects of arms control, disarmament, nonproliferation, political-military affairs, international security, and related aspects of public diplomacy. The agenda for this meeting will include classified discussions related to the Board's studies on current U.S. policy and issues regarding arms control, international security, nuclear proliferation, and diplomacy.
For more information, contact Richard W. Hartman, II, Executive Director of the International Security Advisory Board, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC 20520, telephone: (202) 736–4290.
Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before September 26, 2014.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary of Transportation, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, email:
Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
A comment to OMB is most effective if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication of this notice.
Leonardo San Roman, Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, Office of the Secretary, W56–312, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366–1930.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. 3501–3520, as amended; and 49 CFR 1:48.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA confirms its decision to exempt 72 individuals from its rule prohibiting persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) from operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce. The exemptions allow these individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The new exemptions were granted on July 25, 2014. All exemptions expire two years from the effective date.
Elaine M. Papp, Chief, Medical Programs Division, 202–366–4001, U.S. Department of Transportation, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64–224, Washington, DC 20590–0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at:
FMCSA has published notices of receipt of Federal diabetes exemption applications and its intent to grant the exemptions. The Agency also requested comments from the public. The comment period closed 30 days after the publication date and the exemptions were issued the day after the comment period closed.
FMCSA evaluated the eligibility of the drivers and determined that granting the exemptions to these individuals would achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3).
The determining criteria for and the conditions and requirements of the exemptions, to which all exempted drivers are subject, were discussed in detail when the docket was originally published (79 FR 35844). As always, any adverse comments that come in after the exemption is granted will be evaluated, and if they indicate that the driver is not achieving a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level of safety that would be obtained by complying with the regulation, the exemption will be revoked. When
The following 72 individuals were included in Docket No. FMCSA–2014–0017 (79 FR 35844), published on June 24, 2014:
The public comment period for this docket closed on July 24, 2014 and the exemptions were issued and effective on July 25, 2014. The exemptions will expire two years from the effective date on July 25, 2016.
FMCSA received two comments in this proceeding. The comments are considered and discussed below.
An anonymous commenter stated that he or she is in favor of granting the exemptions to the aforementioned drivers.
Another anonymous commenter stated that a person “with diabetes that monitors their sugar levels, takes their medications as directed, watches their food intake and regularly makes doctor visits is healthier than most people.”
Two drivers published in the Docket No. FMCSA–2014–0017 (79 FR 35844), Gary L. Burkett (IL) and Frank E. Shamer (MD), are no longer using insulin and therefore do not need an exemption.
In accordance with section 999(a)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, the Department of the Treasury is publishing a current list of countries which require or may require participation in, or cooperation with, an international boycott (within the meaning of section 999(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986).
On the basis of the best information currently available to the Department of the Treasury, the following countries require or may require participation in, or cooperation with, an international boycott (within the meaning of section 999(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986).
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 5498–SA; HSA, Archer MSA, or Medicare Advantage MSA Information.
Written comments should be received on or before October 27, 2014 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to R. Joseph Durbala, Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Sara Covington, Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13(44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 730, Monthly Tax Return for Wagers.
Written comments should be received on or before October 27, 2014 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to R. Joseph Durbala, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Martha R. Brinson, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13(44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form SS–4, Application for Employer Identification Number, and Form SS–4PR, Solicitud de Numero de Indentification Patronal (EIN).
Written comments should be received on or before October 27, 2014 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to R. Joseph Durbala, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Martha R. Brinson, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW.,
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 8404, Interest Charge on DISC-Related Deferred Tax Liability.
Written comments should be received on or before October 27, 2014 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to R. Joseph Durbala, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Martha R. Brinson, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning disclosure of tax return information for purposes of quality or peer reviews, disclosure of tax return information due to incapacity or death of tax return preparer (§ 301.7216–2(o)).
Written comments should be received on or before October 27, 2014 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to R. Joseph Durbala, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection should be directed to Martha R. Brinson, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 8050, Direct Deposit of Corporate Tax Refund.
Written comments should be received on or before October 27, 2014 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to R. Joseph Durbala, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Martha R. Brinson, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number.
Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Notice-2005–38, Limitations on Dividends Received Deduction and Other Guidance.
Written comments should be received on or before October 27, 2014 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to R. Joseph Durbala, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the regulation should be directed to Sara Covington, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet, at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.