Agricultural Marketing Service
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Food and Nutrition Service
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
Procurement and Property Management Office, Agriculture Department
Antitrust Division
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled
Economic Development Administration
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Patent and Trademark Office
Air Force Department
Army Department
Navy Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Fish and Wildlife Service
Indian Affairs Bureau
Land Management Bureau
Antitrust Division
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Justice Programs Office
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission
Fiscal Service
United States Sentencing Commission
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Fiscal Service
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.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Correcting amendment.
In a final rule that was published in the
Effective January 17, 2014.
Dr. Rachel Cezar, Horse Protection National Coordinator, Animal Care, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 84, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851-3746.
In a final rule that was published in the
Paragraph (c)(6) of § 11.25 sets out the minimum penalty for a shoeing violation, which is that the horse must be dismissed from the remainder of the horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction at which it is being inspected. The paragraph specifically cites the shoeing violation in paragraph (b)(18) of § 11.2, a section that lists various equipment-related violations. However, in the final rule, we neglected to include paragraph (b)(19) as a violation for which this minimum penalty must be assessed. Paragraph (b)(19) of § 11.2 indicates that the following is prohibited:
Lead or other weights attached to the outside of the hoof wall, the outside surface of the horseshoe, or any portion of the pad except the bottom surface within the horseshoe. Pads may not be hollowed out for the purpose of inserting or affixing weights, and weights may not extend below the bearing surface of the shoe. Hollow shoes or artificial extensions filled with mercury or similar substances are prohibited.
As this is a shoeing-related prohibition, the minimum penalty for a shoeing violation should be assessed when a horse is found to be in violation of paragraph (b)(19). This document corrects the error by amending paragraph (c)(6) of § 11.25 to refer to both paragraphs (b)(18) and (b)(19) as shoeing violations for which the minimum penalty must be assessed.
Animal welfare, Horses, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 9 CFR part 11 is corrected by making the following correcting amendment:
15 U.S.C. 1823-1825 and 1828; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.7.
(c) * * *
(6)
Farm Credit Administration.
Notice of effective date.
The Farm Credit Administration (FCA or we) adopted a final rule that amends regulations governing operational and strategic planning of the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation (Farmer Mac). Among other things, the final rule requires Farmer Mac to submit a capital plan to the Office of Secondary Market Oversight (OSMO) on an annual basis and requires Farmer Mac to notify OSMO under certain circumstances before making a capital distribution. The final rule revised the current capital adequacy planning requirements to place more emphasis on the quality and level of Farmer Mac's capital base and promote best practices for capital adequacy planning and stress testing. In accordance with the law, the effective date of the rule is 30 days from the date of publication in the
Under the authority of 12 U.S.C. 2252, the regulation amending 12 CFR part 652 published on October 31, 2013 (78 FR 65145) is effective January 3, 2014.
The Farm Credit Administration (FCA or we) adopted a final rule that amends regulations governing operational and strategic planning of the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation (Farmer Mac). Among other things, the final rule requires Farmer Mac to submit a capital plan to the Office of Secondary Market Oversight (OSMO) on an annual basis and requires Farmer Mac to notify OSMO under certain circumstances before making a capital distribution. The final rule revised the current capital adequacy planning requirements to place more emphasis on the quality and level of Farmer Mac's capital base and promote best practices for capital adequacy planning and stress testing. In accordance with 12 U.S.C. 2252, the effective date of the interim rule is 30 days from the date of publication in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.
This rule is effective January 17, 2014. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of January 17, 2014.
Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:
1. FAA Rules Docket, FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591;
2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected airport is located;
3. The National Flight Procedures Office, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
1. FAA Public Inquiry Center (APA-200), FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; or
2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected airport is located.
Richard A. Dunham III, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Divisions, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125) Telephone: (405) 954-4164.
This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing, amending, suspending, or revoking SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS. The complete regulators description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The applicable FAA Forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when required by an entry on 8260-15A.
The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, in addition to their complex nature and the need for a special format make publication in the
This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as contained in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The circumstances which created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPS and Takeoff Minimums and ODPS, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPS contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPS and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air traffic control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, and Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or revoking Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and/or Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0902 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.
This rule is effective January 17, 2014. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of January 17, 2014.
Availability of matter incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:
1. FAA Rules Docket, FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591;
2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected airport is located;
3. The National Flight Procedures Office, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
1. FAA Public Inquiry Center (APA-200), FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; or
2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected airport is located.
Richard A. Dunham III, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420) Flight Technologies and Programs Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK. 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082 Oklahoma City, OK. 73125) telephone: (405) 954-4164.
This rule amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) by amending the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (FDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated by reference in the amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and § 97.20 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the
This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP as modified by FDC/P-NOTAMs.
The SIAPs, as modified by FDC P-NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The circumstances which created the need for all these SIAP amendments requires making them effective in less than 30 days.
Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before adopting these SIAPs are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, that good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air traffic control, airports, Incorporation by reference, and Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, part 97, 14 CFR part 97, is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.
By amending: § 97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or TACAN; § 97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; § 97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; § 97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, MLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV; § 97.31 RADAR SIAPs; § 97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and § 97.35 COPTER SIAPs, Identified as follows:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Energy.
Final rule; annual update to fee schedule.
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Commission, by its designee, the Executive Director, issues this notice of the annual update to the fee schedule in Appendix A to Part 11, which lists per-acre rental fees by county (or other geographic area) for use of government lands by hydropower licensees.
This rule is effective January 17, 2014 and updates Appendix A to Part 11 with the fee schedule of per-acre rental fees by county (or other geographic area) from October 1, 2013, through September 30, 2014 (Fiscal Year 2014).
Norman Richardson, Financial Management Division, Office of the Executive Director, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-6219,
Section 11.2 of the Commission's regulations provides a method for
This Final Rule is effective January 17, 2014. The provisions of 5 U.S.C. 804, regarding Congressional review of final rules, do not apply to this Final Rule because the rule concerns agency procedure and practice and will not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. This Final Rule merely updates the fee schedule published in the Code of Federal Regulations to reflect scheduled adjustments, as provided for in section 11.2 of the Commission's regulations.
Public lands.
By the Executive Director.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends Appendix A to Part 11, Chapter I, Title 18,
16 U.S.C. 792-828c; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final order.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is issuing a final order to require the filing of a premarket approval application (PMA) for the transilluminator for breast evaluation and sorbent hemoperfusion system (SHS) devices for the treatment of hepatic coma and metabolic disturbances and to reclassify SHS devices for the treatment of poisoning and drug overdose, a preamendments class III device, into class II (special controls).
This order is effective January 17, 2014.
Rebecca Nipper, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 1540, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-6527.
The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act), as amended by the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 (the 1976 amendments) (Pub. L. 94-295), the Safe Medical Devices Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-629), the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA) (Pub. L. 105-115), the Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-250), the Medical Devices Technical Corrections Act (Pub. L. 108-214), the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-85), and the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA) (Pub. L. 112-144), among other amendments, established a
Under section 513 of the FD&C Act, devices that were in commercial distribution before the enactment of the 1976 amendments, May 28, 1976 (generally referred to as preamendments devices), are classified after FDA has: (1) Received a recommendation from a device classification panel (an FDA advisory committee); (2) published the panel's recommendation for comment, along with a proposed regulation classifying the device; and (3) published a final regulation classifying the device. FDA has classified most preamendments devices under these procedures.
Devices that were not in commercial distribution prior to May 28, 1976 (generally referred to as postamendments devices), are automatically classified by section 513(f) of the FD&C Act into class III without any FDA rulemaking process. Those devices remain in class III and require premarket approval unless, and until, the device is reclassified into class I or II or FDA issues an order finding the device to be substantially equivalent, in accordance with section 513(i) of the FD&C Act, to a predicate device that does not require premarket approval. The Agency determines whether new devices are substantially equivalent to predicate devices by means of premarket notification procedures in section 510(k) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)) and part 807 (21 CFR part 807).
A preamendments device that has been classified into class III and devices found substantially equivalent by means of premarket notification (510(k)) procedures to such a preamendments device or to a device within that type (both the preamendments and substantially equivalent devices are referred to as preamendments class III devices) may be marketed without submission of a PMA until FDA issues a final order under section 515(b) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360e(b)) requiring premarket approval or until the device is subsequently reclassified into class I or class II. Section 515(b)(1) of the FD&C Act directs FDA to issue an order requiring premarket approval for a preamendments class III device.
Although, under the FD&C Act, the manufacturer of class III preamendments device may respond to the call for PMAs by filing a PMA or a notice of completion of a product development protocol (PDP), in practice, the option of filing a notice of completion of a PDP has not been used. For simplicity, although corresponding requirements for PDPs remain available to manufacturers in response to a final order under section 515(b) of the FD&C Act, this document will refer only to the requirement for the filing and receiving approval of a PMA.
On July 9, 2012, FDASIA was enacted. Section 608(a) of FDASIA (126 Stat. 1056) amended section 513(e) of the FD&C Act, changing the mechanism for reclassifying a device from rulemaking to an administrative order. Section 608(b) of FDASIA amended section 515(b) of the FD&C Act changing the mechanism for requiring premarket approval for a preamendments class III device from rulemaking to an administrative order. Prior to the enactment of FDASIA, FDA published proposed rules under section 515(b) to require PMAs for the transilluminator for breast evaluation and sorbent hemoperfusion devices for the treatment of hepatic coma and metabolic disturbances (75 FR 52294 at 52299, August 25, 2010; 77 FR 9610 at 9617, February 17, 2012). FDA also published a proposed rule to reclassify sorbent hemoperfusion for the treatment of poisoning or drug overdose under section 513(e) of the FD&C Act prior to FDASIA (77 FR 9610 at 9617).
Subsequent to the proposed rules, FDA issued a proposed administrative order to comply with the new procedural requirements created by FDASIA when requiring premarket approval for preamendments class III devices or reclassifying preamendments class III devices (78 FR 20268 at 20276, April 4, 2013). Comments submitted to the aforementioned proposed rules and proposed administrative order were considered when developing this final order.
FDA is requiring PMAs for the transilluminator for breast evaluation and SHS devices when indicated for the treatment of hepatic coma and metabolic disturbances.
Section 515(b)(1) of the FD&C Act sets forth the process for issuing a final order. Specifically, prior to the issuance of a final order requiring premarket approval for a preamendments class III device, the following must occur: (1) Publication of a proposed order in the
Section 515(b)(3) of the FD&C Act provides that FDA shall, after the close of the comment period on the proposed order, consideration of any comments received, and a meeting of a device classification panel described in section 513(b) of the FD&C Act, issue a final order to require premarket approval or publish a document terminating the proceeding together with the reasons for such termination.
A preamendments class III device may be commercially distributed without a PMA until 90 days after FDA issues a final order (a final rule issued under section 515(b) of the FD&C Act prior to the enactment of FDASIA is considered to be a final order for purposes of section 501(f) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 351(f))) requiring premarket approval for the device, or 30 months after final classification of the device under section 513 of the FD&C Act, whichever is later. For transilluminator for breast evaluation and sorbent hemoperfusion devices for the treatment of hepatic coma and metabolic disturbances, the preamendments class III devices that are the subject of this proposal, the later of these two time periods is the 90-day period. Since these devices were classified in 1995 and 1983, respectively, the 30-month period has expired (60 FR 36639, July 18, 1995, and 48 FR 53012 at 53028, November 23, 1983). Therefore, section 501(f)(2)(B) of the FD&C Act requires that a PMA for such devices be filed within 90 days of the date of issuance of this final order. If a PMA is not filed for such devices within 90 days after the issuance of this final order, the devices will be deemed adulterated under section 501(f) of the FD&C Act.
Also, a preamendments device subject to the order process under section 515(b) of the FD&C Act is not required to have an approved investigational device exemption (IDE) (see part 812 (21
On January 11, 1991, the Obstetrics and Gynecology Devices Panel recommended that transilluminator devices for breast evaluation be classified into class III and subject to premarket approval to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. The panel concluded that there were no published studies or clinical data demonstrating the safety and effectiveness of the device. The panel indicated that the device presents a potential unreasonable risk of illness or injury to the patient if the clinician relies on the device. The panel found further that although the device's illumination level, wavelength, and image quality can be controlled through tests and specifications, insufficient evidence exists to determine that special controls can be established to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use.
In addition, the Radiologic Devices Panel considered the classification of the transilluminator for breast evaluation on April 12, 2012, and expressed concerns regarding the effectiveness of the device and the potential for delayed diagnosis. The panel determined that general controls and special controls are not sufficient to provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device for the diagnosis of cancer, other conditions, diseases, or abnormalities. Accordingly, the panel concluded that the device should remain in class III. FDA agreed and continues to agree with the recommendations of both panels and is aware of no information submitted in response to the 515(i) Order (74 FR 16214, April 9, 2009) or otherwise available to FDA that would support a different classification. The Agency notes that the device has fallen into disuse and that the published data are not adequate to demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of the device.
FDA received and has considered two comments on this proposed order, as well as one comment received in response to the August 25, 2010 (75 FR 52294), proposed rule as discussed in section II of this document.
FDA held a meeting of a device classification panel described in section 513(b) of the FD&C Act with respect to SHS devices on July 27, 2013. The panel unanimously recommended that SHS devices for the treatment of hepatic coma and metabolic disturbances should remain in class III (subject to premarket approval application) because there was insufficient information to establish special controls, and that the application of general controls is insufficient to provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness for SHS devices that are life-supporting and life-sustaining and, because there is no clear benefit from the use of these devices in these vulnerable populations, there is a potential unreasonable risk of illness or injury when used for the treatment of hepatic coma and metabolic disturbances. The panel also unanimously supported FDA's conclusion that the effectiveness of SHS when indicated for the treatment of hepatic coma and metabolic disturbances had not been established through adequate scientific evidence. FDA published a proposed order in the
FDA is reclassifying SHS devices when indicated for the treatment of poisoning and drug overdose from class III to class II (special controls). Section 513(e) of the FD&C Act governs reclassification of classified preamendments devices. This section provides that FDA may, by administrative order, reclassify a device based upon “new information.” FDA can initiate a reclassification under section 513(e) or an interested person may petition FDA to reclassify a preamendments device. The term “new information,” as used in section 513(e) of the FD&C Act, includes information developed as a result of a reevaluation of the data before the Agency when the device was originally classified, as well as information not presented, not available, or not developed at that time. (See, e.g.,
Reevaluation of the data previously before the Agency is an appropriate basis for subsequent action where the reevaluation is made in light of newly available authority (see
FDA relies upon “valid scientific evidence” in the classification process to determine the level of regulation for devices. To be considered in the reclassification process, the “valid scientific evidence” upon which the Agency relies must be publicly available. Publicly available information excludes trade secret and/or confidential commercial information, e.g., the contents of a pending PMA. (See section 520(c) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360j(c)). Section 520(h)(4) of the FD&C Act, added by FDAMA, provides that FDA may use, for reclassification of a device, certain information in a PMA 6 years after the application has been approved. This includes information from clinical and preclinical tests or studies that demonstrate the safety or effectiveness of the device but does not include descriptions of methods of manufacture or product composition and other trade secrets.
Section 513(e)(1) of the FD&C Act sets forth the process for issuing a final
FDA received and has considered two comments on this proposed order, as discussed in section II of this document, as well as one comment on the prior proposed rule (77 FR 9610).
In response to the August 25, 2010, proposed rule (75 FR 52294 at 52299) and the April 4, 2013, proposed order to maintain the class III classification and require the filing of a PMA for the transilluminator for breast evaluation, FDA received three comments.
Two of the comments supported the call for PMAs for this device. The other comment suggested the transilluminator for breast evaluation be reclassified as a class I device. FDA disagrees. FDA convened a meeting of the Radiological Devices Panel on April 12, 2012, as discussed in section I of this document, which was announced in a notice in the
In response to the February 17, 2012, proposed rule and the April 4, 2013, proposed order to maintain the class III classification and require the filing of a PMA for SHS devices for the treatment of hepatic coma and metabolic disturbances, and to reclassify sorbent hemoperfusion devices into class II (special controls) when indicated for the treatment of poisoning and drug overdose, FDA received three comments.
The first comment disagreed with FDA's intent to reclassify SHS devices for the treatment of poisoning or drug overdose to class II, stating: “The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) proposal for these devices raises fundamental questions about whether the Center for Devices and Radiological Health is following the law regarding the regulation of devices that are life-sustaining or life-supporting.” The commenter suggested that the devices proposed to be reclassified “are high-risk devices that can cause serious injury and death, and therefore they should remain in class III and be reviewed through the premarket approval process for all indications.” FDA disagrees with this comment. According to section 513(a)(1)(C) of the FD&C Act, a class III device is defined as a device which (1) cannot be classified as a class I device because insufficient information exists to determine that the application of general controls are sufficient to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device, and (2) cannot be classified as a class II device because insufficient information exists to determine that the special controls * * * would provide reasonable assurance of its safety and effectiveness, and (3) is purported or represented to be for a use in supporting or sustaining human life or for a use which is of substantial importance in preventing impairment of human health, or (4) presents a potential unreasonable risk of illness or injury. Although FDA considers SHS devices for the treatment of poisoning and drug overdose to be life-supporting or life-sustaining, a viewpoint which was supported by the panel members at the June 27, 2013, device classification panel meeting (2013 Panel), FDA believes that based on the available evidence, special controls, in addition to general controls, will provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness.
FDA also believes that, while the risks to health posed by SHS devices may be similar for its various uses, their severity in terms of patient outcomes and mitigation strategies are different for the drug overdose and poisoning uses, compared to the hepatic coma and metabolic disturbances uses. This viewpoint was supported by the 2013 Panel, as also described in section I.B. The panel provided the following rationale for recommending that SHS devices, when indicated for drug overdose and poisoning be reclassified to class II: (1) The special controls listed would be effective in providing a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness and (2) the risk/benefit data demonstrates that SHS devices for drug overdose and poisoning do not pose a potential unreasonable risk of illness or injury. Therefore, FDA disagrees that SHS devices intended for the treatment of poisoning and drug overdose should remain classified as class III devices.
The second commenter responded to the proposed order, reiterating the commenter's previous comments to the 2012 proposed rule. They stated their continued support for the requirement
The commenter also noted that SHS devices for the treatment of hepatic coma and metabolic disturbances have a long list of health risks including platelet loss, blood loss, hypotension, toxic reactions, metabolic disturbances, and electrical shock, while there is “no proof that the device provides clinical improvement in hepatic coma and metabolic disturbances.” Further, they “strongly support FDA's class III PMA recommendation, so that these products could not be sold unless new data are provided that prove their safety and efficacy for this indication.” FDA agrees that SHS devices intended for the treatment of hepatic coma or metabolic disturbances be kept as class III devices for which a PMA is required to be filed. Although FDA has identified the risks to health posed by these devices in hepatic coma and metabolic disturbances uses, we believe we cannot adequately identify mitigation strategies for these risks, as they apply to these patient populations. Given the limited study of these devices and lack of evidence of clinically meaningful effectiveness for their use in the treatment of hepatic coma or metabolic disturbances, FDA does not believe that there is sufficient evidence to determine that special controls would provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness for these patient populations. The panel unanimously agreed that these devices, when used for hepatic coma and metabolic disturbances, should remain in class III. They also stated that it is appropriate to maintain SHS devices for hepatic coma and metabolic disturbances in class III because they are life-supporting and life-sustaining and, because there is no clear benefit from the use of these devices in these vulnerable populations, there is a potential unreasonable risk of illness or injury.
The third commenter stated that “Premarket approvals are necessary to establish the safety and efficacy of [the SHS devices] and prove that [the] possible benefits outweigh these substantial known risks.” They “agree with the FDA's conclusion that the safety and effectiveness of sorbent hemoperfusion devices has not been established by adequate scientific evidence for the treatment of hepatic coma, because only a few randomized, controlled trials have been conducted using this device, and these were small, poorly designed, and not adequately powered.” They also “agree with the FDA that `bench testing is not adequate in establishing the devices' safety and effectiveness, particularly since characterizing a sorbent hemoperfusion system's performance and adsorption capabilities has not correlated to patient outcomes, such as resolution of the patients' hepatic coma, or improvements in mortality.' Moreover, they note that `there is no consensus [within the scientific literature] on the clinical endpoints necessary to adequately evaluate sorbent hemoperfusion devices for the treatment of hepatic coma and metabolic disturbances or on the patient populations who will benefit the most from the use of these devices.' ” FDA agrees with this comment regarding the intended use of hepatic come and metabolic disturbances.
With respect to the reclassification proposal concerning SHS devices for the treatment of poisoning and drug overdose, the commenter stated “The fact that quick removal of a poison or drug can generally be expected to impact clinical outcomes does not establish that sorbent hemoperfusion is effective in treating poisoning and drug overdose. Several alternative mechanisms are available to remove poisons and drugs from the body, including (1) allowing the human body to clear a drug from the bloodstream through endogenous means (i.e. in absence of any enhanced assistance) and (2) hemodialysis. Hemodialysis is more effective at removing water-soluble low molecular weight compounds and is considered preferable to hemoperfusion because it will also correct a concurrent acid-base disturbance. It is also generally better understood and more widely available than hemoperfusion. Hemoperfusion treatment carries substantial risks, and death or long-term morbidity may result due to complications from treatment. In order to assess whether these substantial risks are outweighed by potential benefits, the device must be compared with alternative approaches in well-controlled clinical investigations.” FDA disagrees with this comment in part. While hemodialysis may be more widely used as a first line therapy for drug overdose and poisoning, especially for water-soluble low molecular weight compounds, not all drugs and poisons are water-soluble. Hemoperfusion has been demonstrated to effectively remove lipids and protein-soluble substances (e.g., barbiturates, digitalis, carbamazepine, methotrexate, acetaminophen, and paraquat), as well as some water-soluble substances. Sorbent hemoperfusion system devices can be sufficiently tested on the bench for their removal capabilities using drugs and substances typically associated with overdoses and poisonings, and labeled to indicate which drugs or poisons are preferentially removed by hemoperfusion and the extent of their removal. The number of treatments required for the majority of cases of drug overdose or poisonings would be expected to be low depending on the degree of overdose, patient symptomatology, and the timing of the treatment with relation to the introduction of the toxin, thus minimizing the risks to health posed by the device. There is ample literature to establish the safety of hemoperfusion for drug overdose and poisoning. The published literature was presented to and discussed with the 2013 Panel, which helped to identify the risks to health posed by the device, and FDA believes that these known risks can be mitigated with the special controls identified. The panel agreed with reclassifying SHS devices for the
The commenter also opposed reclassification of SHS devices for drug overdose into class II on the ground that the proposed special controls will not adequately deter off-label use of these devices for treatment of hepatic coma and metabolic disturbances, conditions that are far more prevalent in the general population than accidental poisonings or drug overdoses. They state that they “believe that there will be substantial financial incentives for potentially harmful off-label use of these devices, and the proposed protections will fail to adequately deter such use.” FDA disagrees with this comment in that we regulate the use of a device as indicated by the party offering the device for interstate commerce. The intended uses for SHS devices are limited by the codified classification.
FDA is adopting its findings as published in the preamble of the proposed order (78 FR 20268) by issuing this final order to require the filing of a PMA for the transilluminator for breast evaluation and SHS devices for the treatment of hepatic coma and metabolic disturbances under section 515(b) of the FD&C Act.
In addition, FDA is issuing this final order under section 513(e) of the FD&C Act to reclassify SHS devices for the treatment of poisoning and drug overdose from class III to class II and establish special controls. This final order will revise 21 CFR part 876.
Under the final order, a PMA is required to be filed on or before 90 days after the date of publication of the final order in the
If a PMA for any of the class III preamendments devices is not filed on or before the 90th day past the effective date of this final order, that device will be deemed adulterated under section 501(f)(1)(A) of the FD&C Act, and commercial distribution of the device must cease immediately. The device may, however, be distributed for investigational use, if the requirements of the IDE regulations (part 812) are met.
Following the effective date of this final order, firms submitting a 510(k) premarket notification for a SHS devices intended for the treatment of poisoning and drug overdose will need either to (1) comply with the particular mitigation measures set forth in the special controls guideline or (2) use alternative mitigation measures, but demonstrate to the Agency's satisfaction that those alternative measures identified by the firm will provide at least an equivalent assurance of safety and effectiveness.
Section 510(m) of the FD&C Act provides that FDA may exempt a class II device from the premarket notification requirements under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act if FDA determines that premarket notification is not necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the devices. FDA has determined that premarket notification is necessary to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of sorbent hemoperfusion devices for the treatment of poisoning and drug overdose, and therefore, this device type is not exempt from premarket notification requirements.
An applicant whose device was legally in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, or whose device has been found to be substantially equivalent to such a device, who does not intend to market such device for the treatment of hepatic coma, and/or metabolic disturbances may remove such intended uses from the device's labeling by initiating a correction within 90 days after issuance of any final order based on this proposal. Under 21 CFR 806.10(a)(2) a device manufacturer or importer initiating a correction to remedy a violation of the FD&C Act which may present a risk to health is required to submit a written report of the correction to FDA.
The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.30(h) and 25.34(b) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
This final order refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in part 812 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0078; the collections of information in part 807, subpart E, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814, subpart B, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0231; and the collections of information under 21 CFR part 801 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485.
Prior to the amendments by FDASIA, section 513(e) provided for FDA to issue regulations to reclassify devices and section 515(b) of the FD&C Act provided for FDA to issue regulations to require approval of an application for premarket approval for preamendments devices or devices found to be substantially equivalent to preamendments devices. Sections 513(e) and 515(b) as amended require FDA to issue final orders rather than regulations, and FDASIA provides for FDA to revoke previously issued regulations by order. FDA will continue to codify reclassifications and requirements for approval of an application for premarket approval in the Code of Federal Regulations. Therefore, under section 513(e)(1)(A)(i) of the FD&C Act, as amended by FDASIA, in this final order, we are revoking the requirements in 21 CFR 876.5870 related to the classification of sorbent hemoperfusion system devices for the treatment of poisoning and drug overdose as class III devices and codifying the reclassification of these devices into class II.
Medical devices.
Medical devices, Radiation protection, X-rays.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 360l, 371.
(a)
(b)
(i) The device must be demonstrated to be biocompatible;
(ii) Performance data must demonstrate the mechanical integrity of the device (e.g., tensile, flexural, and structural strength), including testing for the possibility of leaks, ruptures, release of particles, and/or disconnections under anticipated conditions of use;
(iii) Performance data must demonstrate device sterility and shelf life;
(iv) Bench performance testing must demonstrate device functionality in terms of substances, toxins, and drugs removed by the device, and the extent that these are removed when the device is used according to its labeling, and to validate the device's safeguards;
(v) A summary of clinical experience with the device that discusses and analyzes device safety and performance, including a list of adverse events observed during the testing, must be provided;
(vi) Labeling must include the following:
(A) A detailed summary of the device-related and procedure-related complications pertinent to the use of the device;
(B) A summary of the performance data provided for the device, including a list of the drugs and/or poisons the device has been demonstrated to remove, and the extent for removal/depletion; and
(vii) For those devices that incorporate electrical components, appropriate analysis and testing must be conducted to verify electrical safety and electromagnetic compatibility of the device.
(2) Class III (premarket approval) when the device is intended for the treatment of hepatic coma and metabolic disturbances.
(c)
21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 371.
(c)
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Final and temporary regulations.
This document contains temporary regulations that identify certain stock of a foreign corporation that is disregarded in calculating ownership of the foreign corporation for purposes of determining whether it is a surrogate foreign corporation. These regulations also provide guidance with respect to the effect of transfers of stock of a foreign corporation after the foreign corporation has acquired substantially all of the properties of a domestic corporation or of a trade or business of a domestic partnership. These regulations affect certain domestic corporations and partnerships (and certain parties related thereto), and foreign corporations that acquire substantially all of the properties of such domestic corporations or of the trades or businesses of such domestic partnerships. The text of the temporary regulations serves as the text of the proposed regulations set forth in the Proposed Rules section in this issue of the
David A. Levine, (202) 317-6937 (not a toll-free number).
A foreign corporation (foreign acquiring corporation) generally is treated as a surrogate foreign corporation under section 7874(a)(2)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code if pursuant to a plan (or a series of related transactions): (i) The foreign acquiring corporation completes after March 4, 2003, the direct or indirect acquisition of substantially all of the properties held directly or indirectly by a domestic corporation; (ii) after the acquisition, at least 60 percent of the stock (by vote or value) of the foreign acquiring corporation is held by former shareholders of the domestic corporation by reason of holding stock in the domestic corporation; and (iii) after the acquisition, the expanded affiliated group that includes the foreign acquiring corporation does not have substantial business activities in the foreign country in which, or under the law of which, the foreign acquiring corporation is created or organized, when compared to the total business activities of the expanded affiliated group. Similar provisions apply if a foreign acquiring corporation acquires substantially all of the properties constituting a trade or business of a domestic partnership.
Under section 7874(c)(2)(B) (statutory public offering rule), stock of the foreign acquiring corporation that is sold in a public offering related to the acquisition described in section 7874(a)(2)(B)(i) (acquisition) is not taken into account for purposes of calculating the ownership percentage described in section 7874(a)(2)(B)(ii) (ownership fraction). The statutory public offering rule furthers the policy that section 7874 is intended to curtail inversion transactions that “permit corporations and other entities to continue to conduct business in the same manner as they did prior to the inversion.” S. Rep. No. 192, 108th Cong., 1st. Sess. 142 (2003); Joint Committee on Taxation, General Explanation of Tax Legislation Enacted in the 108th Congress (JCS-5-05) (May 2005), at 343.
Under section 7874(c)(4), a transfer of properties or liabilities (including by contribution or distribution) is disregarded if such transfer is part of a plan a principal purpose of which is to avoid the purposes of section 7874. Section 7874(c)(6) grants the Secretary authority to prescribe regulations as may be appropriate to determine whether a corporation is a surrogate foreign corporation, including regulations to treat stock as not stock. In addition, section 7874(g) grants the Secretary authority to provide regulations necessary to carry out section 7874, including regulations adjusting the application of section 7874 as necessary to prevent the avoidance of the purposes of section 7874.
On September 17, 2009, the IRS and the Department of the Treasury (Treasury Department) issued Notice 2009-78 (2009-40 IRB 452) (notice), which announced that regulations would be issued under section 7874 to identify certain stock of a foreign acquiring corporation that is not taken into account in determining the ownership fraction. See § 601.601(d)(2)(ii)(
The notice states that regulations will provide that stock of the foreign acquiring corporation issued in exchange for “nonqualified property” in a transaction related to the acquisition is not taken into account for purposes of the ownership fraction, without regard to whether such stock is publicly traded on the date of issuance or otherwise. The notice further provides that the term nonqualified property generally will mean: (i) Cash or cash equivalents; (ii) marketable securities as defined in section 453(f)(2); and (iii) any other property acquired in a transaction with a principal purpose of avoiding the purposes of section 7874.
The notice also states that regulations will clarify that certain stock of the foreign acquiring corporation, including certain stock otherwise described in the statutory public offering rule, nonetheless will be taken into account for purposes of the ownership fraction. Specifically, the notice states that marketable securities will not include stock of (or a partnership interest in) a member of the expanded affiliated group (as defined in section 7874(c)(1)) that, after the acquisition, includes the foreign acquiring corporation, unless a principal purpose of issuing the stock of the foreign acquiring corporation in exchange for such stock or partnership interest was the avoidance of the purposes of section 7874. Accordingly, even if issued in a public offering, stock of the foreign acquiring corporation issued in exchange for stock of (or a partnership interest in) a member of the expanded affiliated group that, after the acquisition, includes the foreign acquiring corporation, will be taken into account for purposes of the ownership fraction, unless a principal purpose of issuing the stock of the foreign acquiring corporation in exchange for such stock or partnership interest was the avoidance of the purposes of section 7874.
The notice provides that the regulations will apply to acquisitions completed on or after September 17, 2009.
The temporary regulations set forth the rules described in the notice, subject to certain modifications, in part, to address comments received.
Under the statutory public offering rule of section 7874(c)(2)(B), stock of the foreign acquiring corporation is not taken into account for purposes of the ownership fraction if the stock is sold in a public offering related to the acquisition. Absent the statutory public offering rule, the purposes of section 7874 could be avoided by having the foreign acquiring corporation issue stock to the public in exchange for cash in order to reduce the ownership fraction while not significantly altering the manner in which the domestic entity did business before the inversion transaction. Consistent with the notice, the IRS and the Treasury Department believe that stock of the foreign acquiring corporation transferred in exchange for certain property in a transaction related to the acquisition, but not through a public offering, presents the same opportunity to inappropriately reduce the ownership fraction. For example, a private placement of the stock of a foreign acquiring corporation in exchange for cash raises the same policy concern that the ownership fraction will be inappropriately reduced by increasing the net assets of the foreign acquiring corporation.
Consistent with the notice, the IRS and the Treasury Department also believe that the statutory public offering rule can result in an over-inclusive application of section 7874 to certain business combinations. That is, the statutory public offering rule can apply to certain business combinations in which the unrelated shareholders of a foreign target corporation receive publicly traded stock of the foreign acquiring corporation in transactions that, while they do increase the net assets of the foreign acquiring corporation, generally are expected to meaningfully alter the way the expanded affiliated group that includes the foreign acquiring corporation does business and therefore such publicly traded stock should be taken into account in calculating the ownership fraction.
To address these concerns, the temporary regulations modify the
The temporary regulations describe all situations in which stock will be excluded from the denominator of the ownership fraction under section 7874(c)(2)(B). Thus, even when a foreign acquiring corporation issues stock in a public offering, the statutory public offering rule will not exclude such stock from the denominator unless the stock is disqualified stock. Accordingly, the exclusion rule also addresses the potentially over-inclusive application of the statutory public offering rule.
Because stock of the foreign acquiring corporation held by former shareholders or former partners by reason of holding stock or a partnership interest in the domestic entity will never be subject to the nonqualified property rule or the associated liability rule, the exclusion rule will never apply to such stock.
Comments questioned whether the rules described in the notice would exclude from the denominator of the ownership fraction stock of the foreign acquiring corporation that is transferred by persons that are not members of the expanded affiliated group that includes the foreign acquiring corporation in exchange for nonqualified property. Such a transfer may occur, for example, if an individual holds stock of the foreign acquiring corporation at the time of the acquisition and sells such stock to another individual for cash (which is nonqualified property) in a transaction related to the acquisition.
The purpose of the exclusion rule is to prevent certain stock of the foreign acquiring corporation that is transferred in a transaction that increases the net assets of the foreign acquiring corporation from inappropriately increasing the denominator of the ownership fraction and thereby reducing the ownership fraction. Thus, provided that the stock of the foreign acquiring corporation that is transferred is not hook stock (that is, where the foreign acquiring corporation holds a direct or indirect interest in the selling shareholder), the IRS and the Treasury Department do not believe that the exclusion rule should apply to transfers of stock by a shareholder of the foreign acquiring corporation to another person because such transfers do not increase the net assets of the foreign acquiring corporation. Accordingly, the temporary regulations provide that stock of the foreign acquiring corporation is disqualified stock if the stock is transferred in exchange for certain property but only to the extent the exchange increases the net assets of the foreign acquiring corporation (that is, the exchange increases the fair market value of the assets of the foreign acquiring corporation or decreases the amount of its liabilities). The extent to which such an exchange increases the net assets of the foreign acquiring corporation is determined on a transfer-by-transfer basis. Therefore, a related transaction that might decrease the net assets of the foreign acquiring corporation, such as a related distribution by the foreign acquiring corporation with respect to its stock, is not taken into account for purposes of determining whether a specific transfer of stock in exchange for property increases the net assets of the foreign acquiring corporation.
Under the temporary regulations, stock of the foreign acquiring corporation that is transferred in any transaction described in section B.2.a. or B.2.b. of the preamble is treated as disqualified stock if the transaction is related to the acquisition, unless the exception described in section B.1. of the preamble applies.
Disqualified stock includes stock of the foreign acquiring corporation that is transferred to a person other than the domestic entity in exchange for nonqualified property (nonqualified property rule). Transfers of stock of the foreign acquiring corporation to the domestic entity in exchange for nonqualified property are not subject to the nonqualified property rule because such transferred stock generally is treated as either: (i) Stock that is received by reason of holding stock or a partnership interest in the domestic entity (for example, if the domestic entity is a corporation that distributes the transferred stock to its shareholders in cancellation of their stock in the domestic entity), and, therefore, generally is included in the numerator and the denominator of the ownership fraction; or (ii) disqualified stock under the associated obligation rule described in paragraph (b) of this section B.2. of the preamble.
The term
In the notice, the definition of nonqualified property includes cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities, but not a disqualified obligation. Nevertheless, based on further consideration, the IRS and the Treasury Department believe that, for purposes of the temporary regulations, a transfer of stock of the foreign acquiring corporation in exchange for a
Consistent with the notice, the temporary regulations exclude from the definition of marketable securities (which constitute nonqualified property) stock of a corporation (or an interest in a partnership) that becomes a member of the expanded affiliated group that includes the foreign acquiring corporation in a transaction related to the acquisition, unless a principal purpose of the acquisition of such stock (or partnership interest) was the avoidance of the purposes of section 7874. Thus, for example, subject to an anti-abuse rule, publicly traded stock of a foreign target corporation does not constitute marketable securities for purposes of the temporary regulations and therefore is not nonqualified property.
In addition, the IRS and the Treasury Department believe that a transfer of stock of the foreign acquiring corporation in exchange for the satisfaction or the assumption of an obligation of the transferor should be treated similarly to a transfer of stock of the foreign acquiring corporation in exchange for nonqualified property because such a transfer also presents opportunities to inappropriately reduce the ownership fraction by increasing the net assets of the foreign acquiring corporation. For example, if the foreign acquiring corporation is a debtor with respect to an obligation and satisfies the obligation with its stock, the transfer of the stock to the creditor in satisfaction of the obligation increases the net assets of the foreign acquiring corporation, and, absent a special rule, would increase the denominator of the ownership fraction. Accordingly, under the temporary regulations, disqualified stock includes stock of the foreign acquiring corporation that is transferred to a person other than the domestic entity in exchange for the satisfaction or the assumption of an obligation of the transferor. Solely for purposes of applying the temporary regulations, stock of the foreign acquiring corporation described in the preceding sentence is treated as if it were transferred to the transferee in exchange for an amount of cash (which is nonqualified property) equal to the fair market value of the stock of the foreign acquiring corporation that is transferred in exchange for the satisfaction or the assumption of the obligation.
One comment suggested that the phrase “related to the acquisition” in section 7874(c)(2)(B) can be read to suggest that the statutory public offering rule should apply only if the proceeds of a public offering are used to acquire, or fund the business of, the domestic entity. Accordingly, the comment suggested that the statutory public offering rule should not apply if, for example, the proceeds are used to acquire business assets unrelated to those of the domestic entity. Another comment recommended an exception to the statutory public offering rule for offerings that further a significant business purpose, such as allowing an insolvent domestic entity to continue its operations. The IRS and the Treasury Department believe that the use of the offering proceeds is irrelevant to the application of the statutory public offering rule. Neither the statute nor the legislative history indicates that Congress intended for the statutory public offering rule to apply based on the use of the proceeds. Accordingly, the temporary regulations do not adopt these recommendations. Therefore, the determination of whether stock of the foreign acquiring corporation transferred in exchange for nonqualified property is disqualified stock is made without regard to the use of the nonqualified property.
The IRS and the Treasury Department believe that a transfer of stock of the foreign acquiring corporation in exchange for property when the transferee subsequently transfers the stock in exchange for the satisfaction or the assumption of the transferee's obligations associated with the property exchanged also presents opportunities to inappropriately decrease the ownership fraction. For example, assume that a domestic entity (DE) has $100x of assets employed in a trade or business and $25x of obligations that arose from conducting that trade or business. A foreign acquiring corporation (FA) wants to acquire all the assets of DE in a transaction in which DE will liquidate. FA could acquire the $100x of assets of DE by issuing $75x of stock and assuming the $25x of obligations, in which case DE would distribute the $75x of FA stock to its shareholders in liquidation. Alternatively, FA could acquire the $100x of assets of DE by issuing $100x of stock and not assuming the $25x of obligations, in which case DE would transfer $25x of FA stock to satisfy the $25x of obligations and distribute the remaining $75x of FA stock to its shareholders in liquidation. In either case, the shareholders of DE will receive $75x of FA stock by reason of holding stock in DE and FA will own the $100x of assets formerly owned by DE; however, absent a special rule, the denominator of the ownership fraction would not be the same in both cases. In the first case, the denominator would include only $75x of FA stock and FA would owe the $25x of obligations. In the second case, the denominator would include $100x of FA stock and FA would not owe the $25x of obligations. In the latter case, the ownership fraction would be inappropriately reduced.
Accordingly, to address such transfers, the temporary regulations provide that disqualified stock includes stock of the foreign acquiring corporation transferred to a person (including the domestic entity) in exchange for property to the extent, pursuant to the same plan (or series of related transactions), the transferee subsequently transfers the stock in exchange for the satisfaction or the assumption of an obligation associated with the property exchanged (associated obligation rule). An obligation is associated with property exchanged if, for example, the obligation arose from the conduct of a trade or business in which the property exchanged has been used, regardless of whether the obligation is a non-recourse obligation. For an example of a rule that applies when liabilities associated with a trade or business are assumed by a corporate transferee of the trade or business in certain nonrecognition exchanges, see section 358(h)(2).
In this case, the requirement that the transfer of stock of the foreign acquiring corporation increase the net assets of the foreign acquiring corporation applies only with respect to the transfer of the stock in exchange for property of the transferee, and not with respect to the subsequent transfer of the stock of the foreign acquiring corporation by the transferee in exchange for the satisfaction or the assumption of an obligation of the transferee.
Unlike the nonqualified property rule, which does not apply to a transfer of stock of the foreign acquiring corporation to the domestic entity, the associated obligation rule may apply to a transfer of stock of the foreign acquiring corporation to the domestic entity to the extent the stock is subsequently transferred by the domestic entity in exchange for the satisfaction or the assumption of one or
The temporary regulations limit the application of the associated obligation rule when the property exchanged (including cash deemed to be exchanged when stock of the foreign acquiring corporation is transferred in exchange for the satisfaction or the assumption of an obligation of the transferor) includes nonqualified property and the person exchanging the property is not the domestic entity. The limitation has the effect of treating a portion of the obligation as being satisfied with stock of the foreign acquiring corporation that is disqualified stock under the nonqualified property rule (with the result that such portion does not give rise to additional disqualified stock under the associated obligation rule) and the remaining portion of the obligation as being satisfied with stock of the foreign acquiring corporation that is not disqualified stock under the nonqualified property rule (with the result that satisfaction of this portion of the obligation with stock of the foreign acquiring corporation gives rise to additional disqualified stock under the associated obligation rule). The portions of an obligation described in the preceding sentence are determined based on the relative amount of nonqualified property and qualified property exchanged, respectively. This limitation does not apply when stock of the foreign acquiring corporation is transferred to the domestic entity because the nonqualified property rule does not apply to such transfers of stock.
One comment noted that under the notice the amount of nonqualified property exchanged for stock of the foreign acquiring corporation can differ depending on whether the stock or assets of a corporation are acquired. For example, if a foreign acquiring corporation issues stock in exchange for all of the stock of another foreign corporation in a transaction related to the acquisition, none of the stock of the foreign acquiring corporation is considered to be issued in exchange for nonqualified property, without regard to whether the acquired foreign corporation held nonqualified property, unless a principal purpose of the acquisition of the stock of such acquired foreign corporation is the avoidance of the purposes of section 7874. The comment further noted that, if the transaction instead is structured as the acquisition of all the assets of the acquired foreign corporation, the stock of the foreign acquiring corporation would not be taken into account to the extent it is treated as issued in exchange for nonqualified property held by the acquired foreign corporation. The comment suggested that the dissimilar treatment is not supported by policy and raises form-over-substance concerns.
The structure of a transaction as an acquisition of stock or assets can often result in different U.S. tax consequences. In addition, the IRS and the Treasury Department believe that the complexity of adopting rules to harmonize the treatment of stock and asset acquisitions, such as by applying a look-through approach to stock acquisitions, would outweigh the benefits of consistent treatment. Moreover, the IRS and the Treasury Department believe that the treatment of property acquired in a transaction with a principal purpose of avoiding the purposes of section 7874 as nonqualified property addresses the concern that taxpayers may exploit this dissimilar treatment by engaging in transactions intended to convert nonqualified property into stock that is not nonqualified property. See
Comments asserted that both the statutory public offering rule and the rule set forth in the notice that disregards stock issued in exchange for nonqualified property can lead to inappropriate results when the former owners of the domestic entity own only a minimal equity interest in the foreign acquiring corporation after the acquisition. These comments recommended that, in such a case, the regulations provide exceptions from the application of those rules.
First, comments recommended an exception for large cash public or private offerings where the cash remains in the foreign acquiring corporation and results in a change of ownership in the domestic entity of such a magnitude that the predominant effect of the transaction is that of a sale or joint venture. Because such offerings have independent economic significance, comments suggested that they should not be treated as “related to” the acquisition, so that they would be taken into account for purposes of the ownership fraction.
Second, comments recommended an exception for transactions that in substance resemble a purchase by the foreign acquiring corporation of a substantial portion of the stock of the domestic entity from the former owners of the domestic entity. The comments asserted that this may occur, for example, when a significant amount of the consideration received by the former owners of the domestic entity is cash (or other nonqualified property) that, related to the acquisition, was received by the foreign acquiring corporation in exchange for its stock (which stock would not be taken into account in determining the ownership fraction under the notice). The comments stated that section 7874 should not apply to such transactions because the former owners of the domestic entity sold the majority of their interests in the domestic entity. These comments recommended that the exclusion rule be limited to transactions in which the former owners of the domestic entity own at least a threshold percentage of the equity of the foreign acquiring corporation.
The IRS and the Treasury Department agree that an exception from the exclusion rule is appropriate for certain transactions, but believe that any such exception should apply only when the former owners of the domestic entity own a de minimis equity interest in the foreign acquiring corporation after the acquisition. Accordingly, the temporary regulations provide that the exclusion rule will not apply to certain transactions involving unrelated parties if the ownership fraction, determined without regard to the exclusion rule, is less than five percent (by vote and value).
Comments questioned the effect on the ownership fraction of certain subsequent transfers of stock of the foreign acquiring corporation in transactions related to the acquisition. This may occur, for example, when former shareholders of the domestic corporation receive stock of the foreign acquiring corporation by reason of holding stock in the domestic corporation and then transfer that stock to another person pursuant to the terms
The IRS and the Treasury Department believe that determining the ownership fraction by taking into account such subsequent transfers of stock of the foreign acquiring corporation could inappropriately reduce the numerator of the ownership fraction and thereby reduce the ownership fraction. For example, if such a subsequent transfer of stock of the foreign acquiring corporation were taken into account in determining the ownership fraction, the exclusion rule could be avoided by restructuring an inversion transaction so that an investor participates by purchasing stock of the foreign acquiring corporation received by a former owner of the domestic entity instead of purchasing newly issued stock of the foreign acquiring corporation. Accordingly, the temporary regulations clarify that stock of the foreign acquiring corporation that is described in section 7874(a)(2)(B)(ii) will not cease to be so described as a result of any subsequent transfer of the stock by the former shareholder or former partner of the domestic entity that received such stock, even if the subsequent transfer is related to the acquisition.
In addition, the IRS and the Treasury Department continue to study the extent to which such subsequent transfers of stock of the foreign acquiring corporation should be taken into account in applying section 7874(c)(2)(A) (which disregards stock held by members of the expanded affiliated group that includes the foreign acquiring corporation) and § 1.7874-1 (which provides exceptions to the application of section 7874(c)(2)(A)) (collectively, with the rule of section 7874(c)(2)(A), the expanded affiliated group rules). Section K of the preamble to temporary and final regulations published on June 12, 2009 (TD 9453, 2009-28 IRB 114), describes certain divisive transactions described in section 355 that involve subsequent distributions by a corporation of the stock of the foreign acquiring corporation that is described in section 7874(a)(2)(B)(ii). These issues can also arise when there is a subsequent sale by a corporation of the stock of the foreign acquiring corporation, or in connection with an acquisitive asset reorganization described in section 368 in which the target corporation distributes such stock. In each of these cases, a corporation receives and only temporarily holds the stock of the foreign acquiring corporation, and, after the transfer of such stock, the corporation no longer is a member of the expanded affiliated group that includes the foreign acquiring corporation. The IRS and the Treasury Department request comments on whether different results may be appropriate depending on whether the corporation that receives the stock of the foreign acquiring corporation and only temporarily holds that stock is a foreign or domestic corporation.
One comment questioned the interaction of the rules set forth in the notice with the expanded affiliated group rules in cases other than those involving subsequent transfers of the stock of the foreign acquiring corporation (which are discussed in section E of this preamble). The comment suggested that stock of the foreign acquiring corporation that is disregarded under the rules set forth in the notice nonetheless should be taken into account for purposes of determining whether an entity is a member of an expanded affiliated group that includes the foreign acquiring corporation under section 7874(c)(2)(A), as well as for purposes of the “internal group restructuring” and “loss of control” exceptions to section 7874(c)(2)(A) provided in § 1.7874-1(c). The comment further suggested that the policy underlying the internal group restructuring and loss of control exceptions requires that stock that would be included in the denominator of the ownership fraction under those exceptions should continue to be so included even if such stock would otherwise be excluded under the exclusion rule.
The IRS and the Treasury Department believe that the policies underlying the exclusion rule differ from those underlying the expanded affiliated group rules such that they should operate independently. Because the exclusion rule and the expanded affiliated group rules operate independently, the IRS and the Treasury Department do not believe that qualification for the internal group restructuring or loss of control exceptions should cause stock of the foreign acquiring corporation that would otherwise be excluded from the denominator of the ownership fraction under the exclusion rule to be included in the denominator of the ownership fraction. Instead, the IRS and the Treasury Department believe that the de minimis exception is the appropriate exception to the exclusion rule when the former owners own only a small equity interest in the foreign acquiring corporation after the acquisition. Accordingly, the temporary regulations provide that stock of the foreign acquiring corporation to which the exclusion rule applies is not included in the denominator of the ownership fraction regardless of whether it would otherwise be included in the denominator as a result of the acquisition being described in the internal group restructuring exception or loss of control exception. That is, stock of the foreign acquiring corporation will not be taken into account in the denominator of the ownership fraction if either the exclusion rule or the expanded affiliated group rule set forth in section 7874(c)(2)(A) and § 1.7874-1(b) applies to such stock. However, consistent with the comment, the temporary regulations provide that the exclusion rule does not apply for purposes of applying the expanded affiliated group rules.
The IRS and the Treasury Department are aware that the de minimis exception (described in section D of this preamble) may facilitate the acquisition of a domestic corporation by a foreign corporation in circumstances that implicate the policies underlying section 7874. This may occur, for example, in connection with the buyout of a publicly traded domestic corporation. In such a transaction, the buyer may contribute cash to a newly formed foreign acquiring corporation that uses such cash, along with the proceeds from borrowings and a small amount of its stock, to acquire all of the stock of a publicly traded domestic corporation. The small amount of stock of the foreign acquiring corporation often is issued to the management of the domestic corporation. After a period of time, the buyer may sell its stock of the foreign acquiring corporation pursuant to a public offering. The public offering of the stock of the foreign acquiring corporation may have been one of the intended exit strategies of the buyer when it organized the foreign acquiring corporation to acquire the stock of the domestic corporation.
The IRS and the Treasury Department believe that these transactions, which have the effect of converting a publicly traded domestic corporation into a publicly traded foreign corporation over time, can be viewed as inconsistent with the policies underlying section 7874. The IRS and the Treasury Department are studying these transactions and request comments on the application of section 7874 to such transactions.
The rules described in the notice and set forth in the temporary regulations apply to acquisitions completed on or after September 17, 2009. All other rules set forth in the temporary regulations apply to acquisitions completed on or after January 16, 2014. However, a taxpayer may elect to apply all the rules of the temporary regulations to acquisitions completed before January 16, 2014 if the taxpayer applies all of the rules consistently to all acquisitions completed before such date.
Comments recommended an exception to the rules described in the notice for transactions that were subject to a binding commitment but not completed before September 17, 2009. Because the rules described in the notice address transactions that are intended to avoid the purposes of section 7874, the IRS and the Treasury Department do not believe that providing a binding commitment exception is appropriate. Therefore, the applicability date in the temporary regulations does not include a binding commitment exception.
No inference is intended as to the treatment of transactions described in the temporary regulations under the law before the applicability date of these regulations. The IRS may, where appropriate, challenge such transactions under applicable provisions, including under section 7874(c)(4) or judicial doctrines such as the substance-over-form doctrine.
Notice 2009-78 (2009-40 IRB 452) is obsolete as of January 16, 2014.
It has been determined that this Treasury decision is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations. For the applicability of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6), refer to the Special Analyses section of the preamble of the cross-referenced notice of proposed rulemaking published in this issue of the
The principal authors of the temporary regulations are David A. Levine of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (International) and Mary W. Lyons, formerly of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (International). However, other personnel from the IRS and the 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 1.7874-4T also issued under 26 U.S.C. 7874(c)(6) and (g).
Section 1.7874-5T also issued under 26 U.S.C. 7874(c)(6) and (g).
(c) * * * (1) * * * For rules addressing the interaction of this section and § 1.7874-4T, see § 1.7874-4T(h).
(a)
(b)
(c)
(i)
(ii)
(A) The fair market value of the stock subsequently transferred by the transferee in exchange for the satisfaction or the assumption of such obligations; and
(B) A fraction, the numerator of which is the amount of qualified property exchanged by the transferee, and the denominator of which is the total amount of property exchanged by the transferee. See
(2)
(d)
(i) The ownership percentage described in section 7874(a)(2)(B)(ii), determined without regard to the application of paragraph (b) of this section, is less than five percent (by vote and value); and
(ii) After the acquisition and all transactions related to the acquisition, if any, are completed, former shareholders (within the meaning of § 1.7874-2(b)(2)) or former partners (within the meaning of § 1.7874-2(b)(3)), as applicable, in the aggregate, own (applying the attribution rules of section 318(a) with the modifications described in section 304(c)(3)(B)) less than five percent (by vote and value) of the stock of (or a partnership interest in) any member of the expanded affiliated group that includes the foreign acquiring corporation. See
(2)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(1) An
(2) A
(3) An
(4) A
(5) An
(6)
(7)
(i) Cash or cash equivalents.
(ii) Marketable securities, within the meaning of paragraph (i)(6) of this section.
(iii) An obligation owed by any of the following:
(A) A member of the expanded affiliated group that includes the foreign acquiring corporation;
(B) A former shareholder (within the meaning of § 1.7874-2(b)(2)) or former partner (within the meaning of § 1.7874-2(b)(3)) of the domestic entity; or
(C) A person that, before or after the acquisition, either owns stock of, or a partnership interest in, a person described in paragraph (i)(7)(iii)(A) or (i)(7)(iii)(B) of this section or is related (within the meaning of section 267 or 707(b)) to such a person. See
(iv) Any other property acquired in a transaction (or series of transactions) related to the acquisition with a principal purpose of avoiding the purposes of section 7874. See
(8) An
(9) The
(10) A
(j)
(1) FA, FMS, FS, and FT are foreign corporations, all of which have only one class of stock issued and outstanding;
(2) DMS and DT are domestic corporations;
(3) P and R are corporations that may be either domestic or foreign;
(4) PRS is a partnership with individual partners;
(5) The de minimis ownership exception in paragraph (d)(1) of this section does not apply;
(6) None of the shareholders or partners in the entities described in the examples are related persons;
(7) All transactions described in each example occur pursuant to the same plan; and
(8) No property is acquired with a principal purpose of avoiding the purposes of section 7874.
(ii)
(ii)
(ii)
(iii)
(ii)
(ii)
(iii)
(ii)
(ii)
(ii)
(iii)
(k)
(2)
(i) Nonqualified property does not include property described in paragraph (i)(7)(iii) of this section.
(ii) A transfer is limited to an issuance of stock of the foreign acquiring corporation.
(iii) The determination of whether stock of the foreign acquiring corporation is described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section is made without regard to paragraphs (c)(1)(ii), (c)(2), and (e) of this section.
(iv) Paragraphs (d) and (h) of this section do not apply.
(3)
(l)
(a)
(b)
(i)
(ii)
(c)
(d)
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission.
Interim rule with request for comments; correction.
The Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission is correcting an interim rule that appeared in the
Effective January 22, 2014.
Michael A. McCord, General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, at (202) 434-9935 or
In FR Doc. 2013-29842 appearing on page 77354 in the
(f)
(g)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Interim rule and request for comments.
The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone in the Houma Navigation Canal, from Mile Marker 35.5 to 36.5, and in the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW), from Mile Marker 59.0 to 60.0, West of Harvey Locks, bank to bank, during the completion of construction and repair work on the HWY 661 Swing Bridge, Terrebonne Parish, LA. Restrictions under this safety zone will be enforced intermittently as necessary to protect persons and property from hazards associated with the construction and repair operations on the Highway 661 Swing Bridge.
This rule is effective without actual notice January 17, 2014 through July 1, 2014. For purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from the date the rule was signed, December 13, 2013 until January 17, 2014.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before February 18, 2014.
Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of Docket Number USCG-2012-0880. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
You may submit comments, identified by docket number, 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 rule, call or email MST1 Isaac Chavalia, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (985) 850-6456, email
We encourage you to participate in this 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, 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 at
To submit your comment online, go to
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8
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. But you may submit a request for one, using one of the methods specified under
As provided under the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” section above, this interim rule includes a request for comments and the Coast Guard encourages the public to participate through the comment process. Comments received will be reviewed to determine if this interim safety zone requires further review or revision.
The Coast Guard is issuing this interim rule without prior notice pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not providing notice and making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard received notice of a revised and extended timeline to complete construction and repair on the Highway 661 Swing Bridge on November 15, 2013. The Coast Guard reviewed the revised and extended timeline and remaining construction work to be done and determined that additional safety measures to ensure safety of navigation remain necessary. Based on the necessity of the work to be done and extended construction timeline presented to the Coast Guard, immediate action is required to establish this interim safety zone. Delaying the effective date for this interim rule to provide a full 30 days notice through publication in the
For the same reason discussed above, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard received notice on November 15, 2013 that the construction and repair work on the Highway 661 Swing Bridge, Houma Navigation Canal, Mile Marker 36.0, to refurbish and retrofit the bridge to better serve the maritime commerce will continue through mid 2014. To protect the general public, vessels and tows from destruction, loss or injury due to the hazards associated with these construction operations in and around the waterways, the Coast Guard is establishing this interim safety zone which will continue through July 1, 2014.
The legal basis and authorities for this rulemaking establishing a safety zone are found in 33 U.S.C. 1231, 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to establish and define regulatory safety zones.
The purpose of this safety zone is to provide additional safety measures for persons and vessels transiting in and through a specified area on the waterway and to protect life and property during the construction and repair operations on the Highway 661 Swing Bridge, Houma Navigation Canal Mile Marker 36.0. There will be numerous work and support vessels and personnel present and associated with the construction and repair operation. This operation poses significant safety hazards to both vessels and mariners operating in the vicinity of the Highway 661 Swing Bridge, Houma Navigation Canal Mile Marker 36.0.
The Coast Guard is establishing an interim safety zone in the Houma Navigation Canal, from Mile Marker 35.5 to 36.5, and in the GIWW, from Mile Marker 59.0 to 60.0, West of Harvey Locks, bank to bank. This safety zone is effective December 13, 2013 and will continue through July 1, 2014.
The Captain of the Port (COTP) Morgan City or a designated representative will inform the public through Broadcast Notice to Mariners of schedule changes in the construction work and changes in effective dates and times for the safety zone. At all times, vessels and tows transiting between Houma Navigation Canal Mile Markers 35.5 to 36.5 and GIWW Mile Markers 59.0 to 60.0, West of Harvey Locks, are required to proceed at slowest safe speed to minimize wake until construction is completed or July 1, 2014, whichever occurs earlier. Additionally, Houma Navigation Canal, from Mile Marker 35.5 to 36.5 will have varying restricted horizontal clearance for marine traffic from 6:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., seven days a week. To minimize waterway impact, this area will be open without channel restrictions to marine traffic from 6:00 p.m. to 6:30 a.m. and from 11:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. or until traffic clears, seven days a week. Waterway closures, if necessary to assist in the construction and repair process, will be made through Broadcast Notice to
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and executive orders.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.
The safety zone listed in this rule will only restrict vessel traffic during construction and repair operations and enforcement periods are short in duration. The effect of this regulation will not be a significant regulatory action because: (1) This rule will only affect vessel traffic for short durations of time; (2) vessels may request permission from the COTP to deviate from this rule; and (3) the impacts on routine navigation are expected to be minimal due to scheduled periods without channel restrictions and required channel openings to clear traffic following a closure, if a closure is necessary. Notifications to the marine community will be made through Broadcast Notice to Mariners and Local Notice to Mariners. These notifications will allow the public to plan operations around the affected area and enforcement periods.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit in the affected portions of the GIWW and Houma Navigation Canal in the vicinity of the Highway 661 Bridge, Houma Navigation Canal Mile Marker 36.0. This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: The zone is limited in size, enforcement periods are of short duration and vessel traffic may request permission from the COTP Morgan City or a designated representative to deviate from the safety zone.
If you are a small business entity and are significantly affected by this regulation, please contact MST1 Isaac Chavalia, Marine Safety Unit Houma, at (985) 850-6456.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. The safety zone provides safety for the public while the Highway 661 Swing Bridge is being refurbished. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph (34)-(g.) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination will be made available as indicated under
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(2) Vessels requiring entry into or transit through the safety zone must request permission from the COTP Morgan City, or a designated representative. As a designated representative, the DOT 661 swing bridge operator may be contacted on VHF Channel 13 or 71.
(3) Mariners should contact the DOT 661 swing bridge operator prior to arrival at the safety zone for permission to enter or transit through the safety zone.
(4) If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the COTP Morgan City or a designated representative and pass at slowest safe speed to minimize wake.
(5) While the safety zone is in effect, there will be restricted clearance for marine traffic on the Houma Navigation Canal, from Mile Marker 35.5 to 36.5 from 6:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., seven days a week. To minimize waterway impact, this area will be open without restriction to marine traffic from 6:00 p.m. to 6:30 a.m. and from 11:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. or until traffic clears, seven days a week.
(6) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the COTP Morgan City and designated on-scene patrol personnel. On-scene patrol personnel include commissioned, warrant, and petty officers of the U.S. Coast Guard.
(e)
Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
Final regulations.
The Secretary amends the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program (Direct Loan Program) regulations to implement the changes to the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), resulting from the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21). These final regulations reflect the provisions of the HEA, as amended by MAP-21.
Effective March 18, 2014.
Nathan Arnold, U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, 1990 K Street NW., Room 8084, Washington, DC 20006-8542. Telephone: (202) 219-7134.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
On May 16, 2013, the Secretary published interim final regulations (IFR) in the
In the IFR, the Secretary—
• Provided that a Direct Subsidized Loan first disbursed on or after July 1, 2012, and before July 1, 2013, has an interest rate of 3.4 percent.
• Established new Direct Loan Program regulations that provide that a first-time borrower on or after July 1, 2013, is no longer eligible to receive additional Direct Subsidized Loans if the period during which the borrower has received such loans meets or exceeds 150 percent of the published length of the program in which the borrower is currently enrolled. These borrowers may still receive Direct Unsubsidized Loans for which they are otherwise eligible.
• Established new Direct Loan Program regulations that provide that first-time borrowers who are ineligible for Direct Subsidized Loans as a result of these provisions and who enroll in a program for which the borrower would otherwise be eligible for a Direct Subsidized Loan become responsible for accruing interest on all previously received Direct Subsidized Loans during future periods, beginning on the date of the triggering enrollment, unless the student completes his or her prior program of study and has not lost eligibility for Direct Subsidized Loans as a result of these provisions.
• Prorated periods of Direct Subsidized Loan receipt during part-time enrollment for purposes of the 150 percent limit on Direct Subsidized Loan eligibility.
• Established special rules for applying the 150 percent limit on Direct Subsidized Loan eligibility for borrowers enrolled in preparatory coursework required for enrollment in an undergraduate program, preparatory coursework required for enrollment in a graduate or professional program or teacher certification coursework necessary for a State teaching credential for which the institution awards no academic credential. These special rules limit the borrower's responsibility for accruing interest in certain circumstances.
• Modified existing entrance- and exit-counseling requirements to require institutions to provide borrowers with information regarding the 150 percent limit on Direct Subsidized Loans.
The IFR was effective on the date of publication, May 16, 2013, and the Secretary requested public comment on those regulations.
• Modify the rule for rounding borrowers' subsidized usage periods to ensure that similarly situated borrowers have similar subsidized usage periods;
• Modify the calculation of the subsidized usage period for borrowers who are enrolled on a part-time basis for a period of less than a full academic year, but who receive a Direct Subsidized Loan in the amount of the full annual loan limit;
• Modify the calculation of the maximum eligibility period for two-year baccalaureate degree programs that require an associate degree or at least two years of postsecondary coursework as a prerequisite for admission; and
• Modify the calculation of the maximum eligibility period for certain associate degree programs that have special admissions requirements.
Chart 1 summarizes the benefits, costs, and transfers stemming from the IFR and these final regulations, which are discussed in more detail in the
The changes to the IFR included in these final regulations were developed through the analysis of comments received on the IFR published on May 16, 2013. In response to the Secretary's invitation, 14 parties submitted comments on the IFR.
An analysis of the comments submitted in response to the IFR and the changes we are making in these final regulations follows. We group major issues according to subject, with appropriate sections of the regulations referenced in parentheses. Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes and suggested changes the law does not authorize the Secretary to make. We also do not respond to
A commenter expressed appreciation for the Department seeking public comment on the IFR, even though Congress waived the negotiated rulemaking requirement.
A commenter expressed appreciation for the Department's efforts to assume responsibility for tracking and notification of eligibility determinations and loss of interest subsidy.
The commenter also asked whether a borrower who owed a loan balance prior to July 1, 2013, who then borrows a new Direct Loan after July 1, 2013, and then pays off all loans in full is considered a first-time borrower.
In the first circumstance described by the commenter, it is of no practical consequence whether a borrower pays off the balance of his or her Direct Subsidized Loans before or after July 1, 2013, before receiving a new Direct Subsidized Loan. In both cases, the borrower will not have a Direct Loan or FFEL program loan balance when the borrower receives his or her Direct Subsidized Loan on or after July 1, 2013. Therefore, in both cases, the borrower is a first-time borrower under the terms of § 685.200(f)(1)(i).
In the second circumstance described by the commenter, when the borrower receives his or her Direct Subsidized Loan after July 1, 2013, the borrower does owe a balance on a Direct Loan or a FFEL Program Loan. Therefore, at that point in time, the borrower would not be considered a first-time borrower. If the borrower subsequently pays off the balance of his or her loans and then borrows a new Direct Subsidized Loan, the borrower would then be considered a first-time borrower.
One commenter noted that the satisfactory academic progress regulations in 34 CFR 668.34 specify that the pace at which a student progresses through his or her educational program must ensure that the student completes the program within the maximum timeframe for that program. The definition of the term “maximum timeframe” in 34 CFR 668.34(b) specifies that, for undergraduate programs, the maximum timeframe is “no longer than 150 percent of the published length of the educational program.” The commenter recommended that, to make it easier for financial aid administrators to understand § 685.200(f), the Department should use the maximum timeframe standard in 34 CFR 668.34(b) for purposes of determining the borrowers' Direct Subsidized Loan eligibility, rather than using the maximum eligibility period in § 685.200(f)(1)(ii).
Two commenters recommended that the definition of “maximum eligibility period” mirror the Pell Grant Lifetime Eligibility Used (LEU) limit, which limits a student's receipt of Pell Grants to 12 semesters or an equivalent period.
Section 455(q)(1) of the HEA provides that the calculation of the 150 percent limit is based on the published length of the borrower's educational program and the period of time for which the borrower received Direct Subsidized Loans. The statute does not mention satisfactory academic progress or related measurements or the Pell Grant LEU measurement. Those standards do not reflect section 455(q)(1) of the HEA. Therefore, the Secretary is not adopting those standards for purposes of calculating the 150 percent limit.
A commenter also noted that there are certain associate degree programs that are similar to the baccalaureate degree programs addressed in the preceding paragraphs. These are programs, often at community colleges, that confer a two-year associate degree in a specialized field, but which are offered at institutions that do not offer a four-year baccalaureate degree. As a prerequisite to admission into the associate degree program, students generally must complete at least two-years of general education coursework. Afterward, the two-year associate degree program provides the necessary “upper-division” or “specialized” coursework, which is often practical or clinical in nature. These programs generally lead to State licensure in occupations that are fundamentally similar to programs offering these specializations at the four-year bachelor's degree level.
For example, imagine two borrowers, one enrolled in a program with a published length of four years and the other initially enrolled in a program with a published length of two years before going on to complete a two-year bachelor's degree at another institution in a program that only offers the upper-division coursework required to receive the bachelor's degree. The first borrower would have a maximum eligibility period of six years to complete the bachelor's degree program. The second borrower would have a maximum eligibility period of three years because each of the programs in which the borrower is enrolled has a published length of two years, and loans previously received will continue to count in the second program. The effect of this treatment is that, under the IFR, the second borrower has only three years of eligibility for Direct Subsidized Loans, while the first borrower has six years of eligibility despite being enrolled in a program with an equivalent degree and effectively equivalent program length. We believe this result is contrary to the intent of the statute.
To ensure that borrowers' maximum eligibility periods are calculated consistent with the statutory intent, we have revised § 685.200(f) to specify that certain two-year programs that meet specific criteria are, for purposes of determining a borrower's maximum eligibility period, considered bachelor's degree programs equivalent to those that are four years in duration. To be in this category, a two-year degree-completion program must be a bachelor's degree program that requires an associate degree or the successful completion of at least two years of postsecondary coursework from an eligible program as a prerequisite for admission. The successful completion of coursework means receiving academic credit for coursework that is deemed sufficient to meet admissions requirements as determined by the accepting institution.
Institutions which offer programs that meet the requirements of this provision would report a program length of four years for those programs to the Department for a maximum eligibility period of six years.
We also agree with the commenter that there are certain associate degree programs that are similar to these bachelor's degree programs. Under the IFR, borrowers attending these programs would have limited maximum eligibility periods for the same reasons as borrowers in bachelor's degree-completion programs; even completing the program on time could result in the borrower's loss of eligibility for further Direct Subsidized Loans. We do not believe that these consequences for borrowers who complete these programs on time are consistent with the statutory intent of MAP-21. We have therefore revised § 685.200(f) to provide that these programs will be considered to have a program length of four years.
Applying this provision broadly to attendance in any subsequent associate degree program or to multiple, unrelated associate degree programs would be contrary to the statutory intent of encouraging students to complete their programs in a timely manner. Selective-admissions associate degree programs, by contrast, only admit individuals who have completed prerequisite coursework and are analogous to longer baccalaureate degree programs. Therefore, we will apply this provision narrowly to associate degree programs that are designed specifically to confer a more specialized credential after completion of two years of postsecondary coursework and which are, for practical purposes, equivalent in length to a baccalaureate degree program.
To ensure that these provisions are implemented in a manner consistent with the goals of the statute, the special treatment for selective-admissions associate degree programs applies only to programs that meet certain criteria. To be treated as a four-year program for purposes of the maximum eligibility period calculation, a two-year associate degree program must require, as a prerequisite to admission, that the student have successfully completed an associate degree or at least two years of postsecondary coursework in an eligible program. Furthermore, the program must be a selective admission program, which means that the program is not an “open admission” program, and admits students based on competitive criteria. These criteria may include, but are not limited to, entrance exam scores, class rank, grade point average, written essays, or recommendation letters. Finally, these programs must provide the academic qualifications necessary for a profession that requires licensure or a certification by the State in which the program is offered. Typically, a baccalaureate degree is required in order to obtain the licensure or certification that the selective-admission associate degree program leads to, and this requirement would ensure that programs qualifying for this provision are comparable to four-year baccalaureate degree programs. Examples of programs that would likely
It should also be noted that § 685.200(f)(8) does not confer title IV program eligibility on programs that are otherwise ineligible to participate in those programs. Programs seeking to qualify for the special rule provided under this regulation must meet and comply with all other statutory and regulatory requirements to award Federal student aid.
To ensure compliance with the requirements of this regulation, during the Department's program compliance reviews we will evaluate whether an institution with selective admission associate degree programs which have certified that they meet the requirements under this regulation do satisfy those requirements. If we determine that the institution did not qualify for the special rule provided in this regulation, the institution will not be permitted to report a program length of four years for that program and must instead report a program length of two years. However, students who were previously enrolled in such a program will not lose interest subsidy retroactively as a result of such a determination or required to return the loan proceeds under § 685.211(e).
For the duration of the student's enrollment in the program as an undergraduate student, the institution must report the program's credential level to the Common Origination and Disbursement (COD) System and the National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS) as a bachelor's degree program. Upon the student's receipt of a Direct Unsubsidized Loan for the master's degree portion of the program, the institution must report the student's enrollment as a graduate student to both NSLDS and the COD system.
Another commenter stated that the combination of using calendar days in the calculation of the usage period and rounding down to the nearest quarter of a year could result in inequitable treatment of borrowers who are enrolled in similar programs that use slightly different academic calendars. While the commenter appreciated that rounding down preserves as much borrower eligibility as possible, the commenter also felt that rounding down would lead to inequitable results for similarly situated borrowers.
Two commenters asked if it is possible that a subsidized usage period calculation could be rounded down to zero.
We agree with the commenters who identified an unintended consequence of the rounding rules in § 685.200(f)(1)(iii). Because the calculation of a subsidized usage period includes all calendar days of the academic year for annual loan limit purposes (e.g., including breaks between terms), under the IFR it would have been possible for borrowers who received a loan for a single term of an academic year to have had a subsidized usage period that is less than the ratio of the number of terms in the academic year for which the borrower receives a Direct Subsidized Loan to the number of total terms in the academic year.
In creating a rounding rule, we intended to make the subsidized usage period both easier to understand and a round number that would make it more likely that the borrower could utilize his or her remaining eligibility. We believe that these are still important considerations; however, we also believe it is important to ensure that borrowers who are in a similar situation are treated in a similar manner. Accordingly, we have revised the regulations to provide for rounding a borrower's subsidized usage period either up or down (as appropriate) to the nearest tenth of a year, rather than down (and not up) to the nearest quarter of a year.
This approach reduces the likelihood that similarly situated borrowers will have significantly divergent subsidized usage periods. We believe that continuing to round borrowers' subsidized usage periods will make remaining eligibility periods easier to understand and will make it more likely that borrowers have a remaining eligibility period that can be used to borrow an additional Direct Subsidized Loan.
The approach to rounding in the final regulations will eliminate the possibility that a borrower's subsidized usage period could be rounded to zero. Section 685.301(a)(10) specifies that for standard term programs and certain nonstandard term programs, the minimum permissible length of a loan period is a term, or, for non-term and certain nonstandard term programs, the lesser of the length of a program or an academic year. It would not be possible for a term to have a sufficiently short
We have also revised § 685.200(f)(1)(iii) to specify that a subsidized usage period is rounded up or down to the nearest tenth of a year.
Another commenter supported the inclusion of § 685.200(f)(3)(i)(B), which limits a borrower's loss of the interest subsidy to attendance in those programs in which an otherwise-eligible borrower could receive a Direct Subsidized Loan. However, the commenter did not support the regulations which result in reverse transfer students losing the interest subsidy without receiving an additional Direct Subsidized Loan. As noted by the commenter, a borrower who transfers from a two-year program to a one-year certificate program will have a maximum eligibility period of 1.5 years in the one-year program. If that student received two years of Direct Subsidized Loans while in the two-year program, the student would lose eligibility for Direct Subsidized Loans and would lose the interest subsidy on outstanding Direct Subsidized Loans upon enrollment in the one-year program. The lower maximum eligibility period for the one year program results in the borrower having no remaining eligibility period (causing the loss of eligibility). The fact that the borrower is enrolled in an undergraduate program while having no remaining eligibility period results in the loss of the interest subsidy. The commenter believed that this approach penalizes a student who has chosen to continue education in what may, for that student, be a more appropriate program.
With respect to the commenter's request to limit the loss of the interest subsidy so that borrowers who transfer to programs of shorter duration do not lose the interest subsidy, doing so would be inconsistent with the statute. Section 455(q) of the HEA requires that a borrower who exceeds the 150 percent limitation loses the interest subsidy on existing Direct Subsidized Loans. However, a consequence related to the commenter's concern is limited by § 685.200(f)(3)(iv), which provides that if a borrower completes his or her prior educational program before losing the interest subsidy, enrolling in a shorter program would not cause the borrower to lose interest subsidy.
Cohort B begins attendance in the program in the first quarter of year 2. The costs also support borrowers in cohort B receiving Direct Subsidized Loans in the amount of the annual loan limit, but for a period of the full academic year. Cohort B would therefore be able to start and finish the program in an academic year without losing eligibility for Direct Subsidized Loans or the interest subsidy on those loans. The commenter recommended revising § 685.200(f)(4)(i), or, as an alternative, allowing institutions to award less than the maximum eligible loan amount.
Another commenter agreed in general with the proration approach for part-time enrollment included in the IFR. However, this commenter noted that this approach produces different results depending on a borrower's enrollment patterns when the borrower receives a loan in the amount of the annual loan limit (see, e.g., examples 1 and 2 in the subsequent discussion section). The commenter believed that a borrower should not be disadvantaged because he or she demonstrated need for a loan in the amount of the full annual loan limit for less than a full year of attendance. The commenter believed that a borrower enrolled part-time should have a prorated subsidized usage period even if he or she received a Direct Subsidized Loan in the amount of the full annual loan limit for a period that is less than a full academic year.
With respect to the commenter's example illustrating concerns regarding the effect of this provision, if, due to program cost, a borrower receives in a single quarter a loan in the amount of the full annual loan limit for an entire academic year, then the borrower would have a subsidized usage period of one year. However, in the absence of § 685.200(f)(4)(i), the borrower in the commenter's example would be able to again receive the full annual loan limit at the beginning of the next academic year, and upon completion of the one-year program, would have received twice the amount of the full annual loan limit of Direct Subsidized Loan funds for the same program. We believe this is directly contrary to statutory intent. We believe that § 685.200(f)(4)(i) will effectively mitigate this problem. We do note that institutions are permitted to counsel borrowers on the amount of loan funds that may be advisable to accept and may refuse to originate loans on a case-by-case basis.
However, we agree with the other commenter's concerns regarding the interaction of the annual loan limit exception and the proration of subsidized usage periods for part-time borrowers under § 685.200(f)(4)(ii). Under the IFR, a part-time student who receives a loan in the amount of the annual loan limit for a period less than an academic year has a subsidized usage period of one year, notwithstanding the part-time enrollment. This framework results in differences in borrowers' subsidized usage periods that is disproportionate to their relative enrollment levels (see the discussion of examples 1 and 2 in the next paragraph). To mitigate this difference, the final regulations apply the annual loan limit provision of § 685.200(f)(4)(i), but also apply the proration of § 685.200(f)(4)(ii) based on the borrower's part-time enrollment status. The final regulations therefore minimize differing treatment of similarly situated borrowers while continuing to limit circumvention of the 150 percent limitation.
The following two examples illustrate the operation of the final regulations. (Note: these examples incorporate the revised rounding rule discussed earlier in the preamble to the final regulations.)
Borrower A and Borrower B are both enrolled half-time and both enrolled in the fall term only. Borrower A receives a Direct Subsidized Loan in the amount of the annual loan limit and Borrower B receives a loan for less than the annual loan limit.
Under the IFR, when two half-time students are each receiving a Direct Subsidized Loan for a single term, the borrower who receives a loan in the amount of the annual loan limit has a subsidized usage period five times greater than the borrower who does not.
The final regulations continue to apply the annual loan limit exception to part time borrowers—limiting the potential loophole by ensuring that such a borrower's subsidized usage period reflects the amount of Direct Subsidized Loan funds that the borrower receives—but would also take into account the borrower's less-than-full-time enrollment. As the example shows, the effect of this revised treatment is that Borrower A has a subsidized usage period of 0.5 years rather than one year for receiving the full annual loan limit for a single term when enrolled half-time.
Borrower C and Borrower D are both enrolled half-time and both receive a Direct Subsidized Loan in the amount of the annual loan limit. Borrower C receives a loan for the fall semester only and Borrower D receives a loan for both the fall and spring semesters (the full academic year).
Both borrowers receive a loan in the amount of the full annual loan limit. Under the IFR, however, Borrower C receives a loan for a shorter period and has a subsidized usage period that is twice as large as Borrower D, who receives an equivalent loan amount for a longer period.
One commenter objected to the requirement that institutions report the CIP Code, credential level, and length of program to both NSLDS and the COD System. The commenter believed that requiring this information to be reported to both systems was unnecessary, because the Department could distribute the data internally, as needed.
Another commenter asserted that these regulations require reporting that is impractical for institutions with large enrollments. The commenter also stated that updating loan periods or academic year dates so frequently is not feasible without extraordinary manual intervention.
One goal of MAP-21 and the IFR and final regulations is to encourage students to complete their programs of study in a timely fashion by limiting Direct Subsidized Loan receipt and the interest subsidy. Without the collection of CIP Codes, we would not have sufficient information to perform meaningful analysis of this policy. The collection of the CIP Code is therefore necessary for the Department to implement the requirements of section 455(q) of the HEA.
With respect to the commenter's suggestion that the Department transfer data internally, we note that the two systems will be collecting the data at different times and for different purposes. For example, the data in the COD System will be used to determine a borrower's eligibility for a Direct Subsidized Loan under the 150 percent limit. Institutions report information to the COD system when originating or disbursing a Direct Loan (or reporting a change to a previously submitted origination or disbursement record). Because the COD System and NSLDS need the information about a borrower's program of study as of different times, institutions must report the same types of information to both systems. Although the information reported through the two systems is similar, the specific information being reported will sometimes differ due to the passage of time. Thus, the internal transfer of data is not a viable approach.
Finally, with respect to the commenter with concerns regarding the burden on institutions associated with adjusting borrowers' records in COD and NSLDS: While we understand that the patterns described by the commenter do occur, we believe they are rare, and that for most borrowers, reporting enrollment and loan data will be straightforward. Nevertheless, we appreciate that for some borrowers, adjusting loan records requires additional work, and we appreciate that this task is one of many required of title IV aid administrators to help ensure the appropriate administration and awarding of title IV aid.
We also note, however, that the requirement that institutions update information is not new—institutions should have always been updating loan period and academic year dates, as necessary, in the COD system. This is especially the case for borrowers who withdraw and commence attendance at another institution, which must rely on the original institution's reporting of loan period and academic year information in tracking the borrower's progress toward the annual loan limit. If this information is not updated, it is possible that an institution will allow a borrower to receive Direct Loan funds in excess of the annual loan limit. To participate in the title IV programs, an institution is required to maintain proper records and meet numerous reporting requirements. Compliance with these requirements is necessary not only for the integrity of the taxpayer funds used to finance the title IV programs, but to ensure that only eligible students are receiving aid.
Congress required that a borrower's receipt of Direct Subsidized Loans be limited to a period of 150 percent of the borrower's program length. To attempt to ease the burden on institutions, the Department undertook the obligation of determining the borrowers' eligibility and possible loss of the interest subsidy. We believe that the alternative—requiring institutions to track borrower histories and make eligibility determinations with negative institutional consequences when funds were improperly disbursed—would be even more burdensome than properly reporting loan period dates, academic year dates, and additional information pertaining to a borrower's program of study.
Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether this
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to as an “economically significant” rule);
(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the Executive order.
The regulatory changes made by the IFR were estimated to have an annual effect on the economy of more than $100 million because the transfers between borrowers who exceed the 150 percent limit and the government total approximately $3.9 billion over loan cohorts 2013 to 2023 and the extension of the 3.4 percent interest rate for subsidized loans made between July 1, 2012 and June 30, 2013 represented a transfer from the Federal government to Direct Subsidized Loan borrowers of $5.7 billion over loan cohorts 2012 to 2022.
For purposes of this analysis, we deem the rulemaking to consist of the IFR as modified by these final regulations. Therefore, this final regulatory action is “economically significant” and subject to review by OMB under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866. Notwithstanding this determination, we have assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of this regulatory action and have determined that the benefits justify the costs.
We have also reviewed these regulations pursuant to Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency—
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages, distributive impacts, and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices can be made by the public.
Executive Order 13563 requires agencies “to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.” The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within OMB emphasized that these techniques may include “identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.”
We are issuing these final regulations only upon a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that these final regulations are consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that these final regulations will not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.
In this regulatory impact analysis (RIA) we discuss the potential costs and benefits of the IFR as revised by the final regulations. To provide context for the changes made in response to comments received about the IFR, we have included a brief summary of the statutory and regulatory requirements relating to the 150 percent limitation. A full description and analysis of the 150 percent statutory and regulatory requirements and the regulatory impact of the IFR is available in the IFR published in the
The IFR implemented the statutory requirements in MAP-21 that limit the availability of Direct Subsidized Loans to 150 percent of the program length and that cause borrowers to become responsible for accruing interest if they are no longer eligible for Direct Subsidized Loans as a result and then enroll in a program of study. The IFR included regulations: (i) Implementing the 3.4 percent interest rate for Direct Subsidized loans first disbursed on or after July 1, 2012, and before July 1, 2013; (ii) establishing the rules implementing the 150 percent policy including how the relevant periods would be measured, and under what circumstances students would become responsible for accruing interest on existing loans and be ineligible for further subsidized loans; (iii) determining the treatment of part-time enrollment, teacher preparation programs, and preparatory coursework; and (iv) modifying exit and entrance counseling requirements for providing borrowers information regarding the 150 percent limit on Direct Subsidized loans. The estimated $3.957 billion in net budget savings that will be generated by the IFR will contribute to paying for the extension of the 3.4 percent interest rate on Direct Subsidized Loans made between July 1, 2012, and June 30, 2013, which was estimated to cost $5.6 billion in outlays over the 2012 to 2022 loan cohorts.
The Federal government and student borrowers are most directly affected by the statutory changes implemented in the IFR. As discussed in the IFR, first-time borrowers as of July 1, 2013, who are otherwise eligible for Direct Subsidized Loans will not be eligible for additional Direct Subsidized Loans after taking out Direct Subsidized Loans for a period that equals or exceeds 150 percent of the published length of their program. The limitation has two parts: (1) The determination that a borrower has received Direct Subsidized Loans for a period equal to or greater than 150 percent of the length of the borrower's program, and (2) once that limit has been reached or exceeded, the borrower's responsibility for accruing interest on prior undergraduate loans is triggered by the borrower's further enrollment in an undergraduate program of equal or shorter duration, except for borrowers who complete their programs before becoming responsible for accruing interest. The borrower is responsible for interest that accrues from the date that he or she becomes
As detailed in the IFR, the Department used a simulated pool of borrowers, borrowing patterns in existing NSLDS cohorts, and the Department's student loan model to estimate which borrowers will become ineligible for further Direct Subsidized loans, which borrowers would become responsible for accruing interest, and the net budget impact of a shift in volume from subsidized to unsubsidized loans. The IFR also described the treatment of teacher preparation programs and preparatory coursework for undergraduate and graduate programs. As discussed, the estimated net budget impact of the 150 percent regulations in the IFR was a savings of $3.957 billion. The process also allowed the Department to quantify the effect of the IFR on student borrowers. The percentage of borrowers estimated to exceed the 150 percent limit increases in later cohorts as the percentage of the cohort representing first-time borrowers after July 2013 increases. The percentage of borrowers affected reaches approximately 6.54 percent by the 2023 cohort; by that date, almost all borrowers should be first-time borrowers who are subject to the final regulations. The affected borrowers, approximately 578,000 by the 2023 cohort, would lose eligibility for future Direct Subsidized Loans and become responsible for accruing interest.
While the 150 percent limitation implemented in the IFR most directly affects the Federal government and students, institutions of higher education (IHEs) will face additional reporting and financial aid counseling requirements. The Department estimated that this reporting and financial aid counseling activity will cost IHEs approximately $1.6 million, as detailed in the
In this portion of the RIA we describe the regulatory alternatives that the Department considered for the interim final regulations and significant changes made in these final regulations as compared to the alternative of retaining the treatment of the issue from the IFR. As described in the
Several commenters also pointed out that some associate degree programs are similar to the baccalaureate degree completion programs previously described in that they require the completion of a separate associate degree or two years of coursework prior to admission. If these programs are treated as two year programs for purposes of the 150 percent limitation, students in these programs would not have a sufficient remaining subsidized usage period to complete the program if they received Direct Subsidized Loans to complete the prerequisite degree or coursework. The Department decided to create a narrowly tailored special rule to address the concern for these specialized programs. Under these final regulations, associate degree programs that are designed specifically to confer a more specialized credential after completion of postsecondary coursework and that are equivalent in length to a baccalaureate degree program are allowed to report a program length of four years. Qualifying programs must be selective admission programs that admit students based on competitive criteria such as grade point average, entrance exam scores, written essays, recommendation letters and class rank, or other factors and be in a profession that requires licensure or certification by the State.
Taken together, the Department estimates that the changes in these final regulations will not have a significant net budget impact. Rounding up or down to the nearest tenth instead of down to the nearest quarter may result in some students losing Direct Subsidized Loan eligibility or interest subsidy absent the revised calculations. However, the other changes in these final regulations (the proration for part-time, part-year borrowers who receive the full annual loan limit or the special rule for selective admission or bachelor's degree completion programs)
The IFR described the Department's consideration of multiple approaches to the treatment of preparatory coursework and teacher certification coursework. In the case of preparatory coursework, the Department wanted to ensure that the regulations did not have a significant negative impact on borrowers who need this coursework to prepare for undergraduate studies. Research shows that preparatory coursework only has a modest effect on the length of time that students take to graduate.
As required by OMB Circular A-4 (available at
In the IFR, published May 16, 2013, the Department analyzed the effect of the regulations on small entities and asked for comments about the analysis. The estimated burden on small entities from the requirements in the IFR is summarized in Table 1.
We did not receive any comments on our regulatory flexibility analysis in the IFR, and did not make any changes in the final regulations that affected this analysis. Therefore, the estimated
We received no comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act portion of the IFR and none of the changes to the regulation increase or decrease the burden associated with the regulation. OMB initially approved the collection of information necessary to implement the 150 percent limit under OMB control number 1845-0116 on an emergency basis, which limited the collection's authority to six months (the emergency approval of the collection expires on December 31, 2013). The collection is currently undergoing full Paperwork Reduction Act review, with the attendant 60- and 30-day comment periods.
This program is not subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79.
In the IFR we requested comments on whether the regulations would require transmission of information that any other agency or authority of the United States gathers or makes available.
Based on the response to this request and our review, we have determined that these final regulations do not require transmission of information that any other agency or authority of the United States gathers or makes available.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
You may also view this document in text or PDF at the following site:
Colleges and universities, Education loan programs—education, Student aid.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Secretary amends part 685 of title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
20 U.S.C. 1070g, 1087a,
The addition reads as follows:
(f) * * *
(8)
(ii) For purposes of calculating the maximum eligibility period, a selective admission associate degree program that requires an associate degree or the successful completion of at least two years of postsecondary coursework as a prerequisite for admission has a program length of four years. For purposes of this paragraph (f)(8)(ii), a selective admission associate degree program—
(A) Admits only a selected number of applicants based on additional competitive criteria which may include entrance exam scores, class rank, grade point average, written essays, or recommendation letters; and
(B) Provides the academic qualifications necessary for a profession that requires licensure or a certification by the State.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a portion of Indiana's construction permit rule for sources subject to the state operating permit program regulations. These provisions authorize the state to incorporate terms from Federal consent decrees and Federal district court orders into these construction permits. EPA is also approving public notice requirements for these permit actions. These rules will help streamline the process for making Federal consent decree and Federal district court order requirements permanent and Federally enforceable.
This final rule is effective on February 18, 2014.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2012-0650. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Sam Portanova, Environmental Engineer, Air Permits Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-3189,
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:
On March 15, 2013, EPA published a direct-final rule approving 326 IAC 2-7-10.5(b) and 326 IAC 2-7-10.5(k) as revisions to Indiana's State Implementation Plan (SIP) (78 FR 16412). This rule revision authorizes Indiana to issue construction permits to sources subject to the state operating permit program regulations at 40 CFR part 70 (part 70 sources) that include requirements from Federal district court orders that adjudicate violations and Federal consent decrees. Permits incorporating these requirements are issued to sources that are subject to title V of the Clean Air Act (CAA). This rule revision also requires public notice procedures for these permitting actions.
On the same date, EPA also proposed to approve the revisions (78 FR 16449). On May 6, 2013, in a separate action, we withdrew the direct final rule because we received adverse comments (78 FR 26258). The proposed approval remained in effect. Today, we are responding to those comments and taking final action to approve Indiana's SIP revision request.
EPA received one set of adverse comments on the March 15, 2013, proposed approval of this Indiana rule. EPA's response to these comments is as follows:
Response: The title V issue raised by this comment is not directly related to this action because this action authorizes Indiana to incorporate consent decree terms in construction permits, not title V permits. However, if consent decree terms are incorporated into a construction permit, there are consequences under title V. The definition of “applicable requirement” in 40 CFR 70.2 includes “[a]ny term or condition of any preconstruction permits issued pursuant to regulations approved or promulgated through rulemaking under title I of the Act. . . .” These construction permits are issued pursuant to programs approved by EPA under title I of the CAA. Thus, once the title I permits are issued, the terms, including terms reflecting requirements from Federal district court orders and Federal consent decrees, are “applicable requirements” under this provision of the title V regulations and must be included in the source's title V permit. See also 326 IAC 2-7-1(6)).
Response: For the reasons discussed above, the title V issue raised by this comment is not directly related to this action. The rule does not require the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) to incorporate all consent decree requirements into construction permits, only “control requirements and emission limitations.” However, some requirements are intended to remain in effect after the consent decree terminates. Specifically, some consent decrees require a source to establish emission limitations and control requirements on a permanent basis (e.g., through a SIP revision or a construction permit).
Response: For the reasons discussed above, the title V issue raised by this comment is not directly related to this action. However, once the title I permits are issued, the terms are “applicable requirements” under subparagraph (2) of the definition of “applicable requirement” in 40 CFR 70.2 and must be included in the source's title V permit. Also, the rule does not require IDEM to incorporate all consent decree provisions into the construction permits, only those relating to control requirements and emission limitations.
Response: The CAA requires SIPs to contain enforceable limitations. See Section 110(a)(2)(A). It does not address the Federal enforceability of state agreed orders. As such, it is not necessary to establish a Federally enforceable requirement pursuant to title I of the CAA for state orders.
Response: For the reasons discussed above, the title V issue raised by this comment is not directly related to this action because this action authorizes Indiana to incorporate consent decree terms in construction permits, not title V permits. The intent of this rule is to lessen the bureaucratic burden on the state with regards to implementing consent decree requirements. The method IDEM currently uses for establishing consent decree requirements as permanent and Federally enforceable is to adopt them as source-specific SIP requirements. This process is more resource-intensive and time consuming than the state construction permit process provided for in 326 IAC 2-7-10.5(b).
EPA is approving Indiana's source construction permit rule provisions applicable to Part 70 sources at 326 IAC 2-7-10.5(b) and 326 IAC 2-7-10.5(k). These provisions authorize the state to incorporate terms from Federal consent decrees or Federal district court orders
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 18, 2014. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) adopts rules to improve the reliability and resiliency of 911 communications networks nationwide by requiring that 911 service providers take “reasonable measures” to provide reliable 911 service. Providers subject to the rule can comply with the reasonable measures requirement by either implementing certain industry-backed “best practices” the Commission adopted, or by implementing alternative measures that are reasonably sufficient to ensure reliable 911 service. The FCC also requires 911 service providers to provide public safety answering points (PSAPs) with timely and actionable notification of 911 outages.
Effective February 18, 2014 except for § 12.4(c) and (d)(1), which contain information collection requirements that have not been approved by Office of Management and Budget. The Federal Communications Commission will publish a document in the
Eric P. Schmidt, Attorney Advisor, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, (202) 418-1214 or
This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order in PS Docket No. 13-75 and PS Docket No. 11-60, FCC 13-158, released on December 12, 2013. The full text of this document is available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554, or online at
1. The Commission was spurred to adopt these rules following the devastating impact many telecommunications networks experienced as a result of the unanticipated “derecho” storm in June 2012. This storm swiftly struck the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic United States, leaving millions of Americans without 911 service and revealing significant, but avoidable, vulnerabilities in 911 network architecture, maintenance, and operation. After a comprehensive inquiry into the causes of 911 outages during the derecho, as well as 911 network reliability more generally, the FCC's Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB or Bureau) determined that many of these failures could have been mitigated or avoided entirely through implementation of network-reliability best practices and other sound engineering principles.
2. The Commission requires 911 service providers to take “reasonable measures” to provide reliable 911 service, based on best practices developed by the FCC's Communications Security, Reliability, and Interoperability Council (CSRIC) advisory committee, with refinements designed to add clarity and specific guidance regarding how those practices should be implemented in the context of 911 networks. Providers will demonstrate their compliance by filing an annual certification. The certification elements the Commission are based on best practices identified by CSRIC as critical or highly important, indicating that they significantly reduce the potential for a catastrophic failure of communications or—at a minimum—improve the likelihood of emergency call completion.
3. The Commission seeks to maximize flexibility and account for differences in network architectures without sacrificing 911 service reliability. Accordingly, service providers that certify annually that they have implemented certain industry-backed “best practices,” will be deemed to satisfy the reasonable measures requirement. Providers may also certify that they have taken alternative measures reasonably sufficient in light of the provider's particular facts and circumstances to ensure reliable 911 service, so long as they briefly describe such measures and provide supporting documentation to the Commission. Similarly, service providers may respond by demonstrating that a particular certification element is not applicable to their networks, but they must include a brief explanation of why the element does not apply.
4. Based on the information included in the certifications, the Commission may require remedial action to correct vulnerabilities in a service provider's 911 network if it determines that (a) the service provider has not, in fact, adhered to the best practices incorporated in our rules or, (b) in the case of providers employing alternative measures, that those measures were not reasonably sufficient to mitigate the associated risks of failure in one or more of these three key areas. The Commission delegates authority to the Bureau to review certification information and follow up with service providers as appropriate to address deficiencies revealed by the certification process.
5. The FCC also amends its outage reporting rules under part 4 to clarify Covered 911 Service Providers' obligations to provide PSAPs with timely and actionable notification of outages affecting 911 service.
6. The primary function of the 911 network is to route emergency calls to the geographically appropriate PSAP based on the caller's location. When a caller dials 911 on a wireline telephone, the call goes to the local switch serving that caller, as is typical with any other call. The local switch then sends the call to an aggregation point called a selective router, which uses the caller's phone number and address to determine the appropriate PSAP to which the call should be sent. Calls to 911 from wireless phones flow through a switch called a mobile switching center before reaching the selective router. For wireless calls, the sector of the cell tower serving the call provides the approximate location of the caller and is used to determine to which PSAP the call is sent. To complete the call, a connection is set up between the selective router and the appropriate PSAP, typically through a central office serving that PSAP.
7. Once a 911 call reaches the appropriate PSAP, the PSAP queries an automatic location information (ALI) database to determine the location of the caller. For wireline calls, ALI is based on the address associated with the caller's phone number. For wireless calls, providers use various technologies to determine the caller's location. Because ALI is passed to the PSAP
8. The 911 network architecture described above is evolving from a circuit-switched network to a Next Generation 911 (NG911) network based on Internet protocol (IP) technology. NG911 networks offers certain advantages over legacy technologies, including greater redundancy and reliability, the ability to provide more useful information for first responders, wider public accessibility (including to those with disabilities), and enhanced capabilities for sharing data and resources among emergency responders.
9. The Commission has generally approached communications reliability issues by working with service providers to develop voluntary best practices and by measuring the effectiveness of those best practices through outage reporting. For example, federal advisory committees such as CSRIC, which includes representatives from both industry and public safety organizations, have developed numerous network-reliability best practices that communications providers have been encouraged to adopt on a voluntary basis. Since 1992, the Commission has turned to CSRIC and its predecessors, the Network Reliability and Interoperability Council (NRIC) and Media Security and Reliability Council (MSRC), to make recommendations on communications network and system reliability and security. Because of the collaborative and consensus-based nature of this process, CSRIC's best practices generally involve aspects of service that providers have indicated they were already adopting consistently.
10. The Commission's mandatory Network Outage Reporting System (NORS) and voluntary Disaster Information Reporting System (DIRS) provide outage data that help gauge whether best practices have been implemented in certain circumstances or service areas, but the Commission has not required service providers to implement these practices. From time to time, however, the Bureau has publicly reminded 911 service providers of the importance of following industry-developed best practices in light of outage trends suggesting to the Bureau that they have not been implemented adequately. The Bureau also works with service providers on an informal basis to identify and resolve communications reliability issues revealed through the outage reporting process.
11. On June 29, 2012, a fast-moving derecho storm brought a wave of destruction across wide swaths of the United States, beginning in the Midwest and continuing through the Appalachians and Mid-Atlantic states until the early morning of June 30. The derecho resulted in twenty-two deaths and widespread property damage, and left millions of residents without electrical power for as long as two weeks. While the destruction caused by the derecho resembled that of other major storms in some respects, it also proved different in others. For example, the landfall of a hurricane is typically predicted days in advance, allowing first responders and communications providers time to prepare. In contrast, the derecho moved rapidly across multiple states with very little warning, putting critical infrastructure to an unexpected test and revealing significant vulnerabilities in service providers' networks and operations.
12. The derecho's effects were particularly severe in northern Virginia, where four PSAPs in the densely-populated National Capital Region lost service completely, and in West Virginia, where eleven PSAPs could not receive 911 calls for as long as twelve hours. Fairfax County, Virginia noted that the disruption of 911 service after the derecho was the longest and most severe 911 outage since Fairfax County implemented Enhanced 911 in 1988, leaving 1.1 million county residents without access to 911 for seven hours and preventing nearly 1,900 911 calls from reaching the Fairfax County PSAP.
13. Immediately after communications and 911 services were restored, the Bureau began a comprehensive inquiry to determine why each outage occurred and how such problems could be prevented in the future. The Bureau analyzed more than 500 confidential NORS reports containing information on the cause, duration, and resolution of each outage, as well as numerous DIRS reports from the areas hit hardest by the derecho. Bureau staff also interviewed representatives of eight communications providers, twenty-eight PSAPs, three battery manufacturers, one generator manufacturer, and numerous state and county entities. In addition, the Bureau participated in several federal, state, and local meetings and hearings on the effects of the derecho. These interactions clarified and expanded the information the Commission had already received via NORS and DIRS.
14. In its January 2013 Derecho Report, available at
15. On March 20, 2013, the Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (911 Reliability NPRM or NPRM), available at
16. A primary responsibility of the Commission is to make available, so far as possible, to all people of the United States, a wire and radio communication service for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property. Consistent with that overarching obligation, the Commission has specific statutory responsibilities with respect to 911 service. The outage reporting process has often been effective in improving the reliability and resiliency of many communications services, and the
17. The rules adopted apply to every “Covered 911 Service Provider,” defined as any entity that provides 911, E911, or NG911 capabilities such as call routing, ALI, ANI, or the functional equivalent of those capabilities, directly to a PSAP, statewide default answering point, or appropriate local emergency authority (as that term is defined elsewhere in the Commission's rules), or that operates one or more central offices that directly serve a PSAP. For purposes of these rules, a central office “directly serves a PSAP” if it (1) hosts a selective router or ALI/ANI database (2) provides functionally equivalent NG911 capabilities, or (3) is the last service-provider facility through which a 911 trunk or administrative line passes before connecting to a PSAP. This definition encompasses entities that provide capabilities to route 911 calls and associated data such as ALI and ANI to the appropriate PSAP, but not entities that merely provide the capability for customers to originate 911 calls.
18. This definition reflects the fact that, while most current 911 networks rely on the infrastructure of an incumbent local exchange carrier (ILEC), no single type of entity will always provide 911 service in every community. In addition, the transition to an Internet protocol (IP) architecture for NG911 services will allow an expanded range of entities beyond ILECs to route and deliver 911 calls, as well as location and callback information, to local PSAPs or consolidated call centers. Consistent with the goals of the Next Generation 911 Advancement Act of 2012, the Commission seeks to promote NG911 adoption and account for changing technologies that support these functions while ensuring that legacy 911 infrastructure remains reliable as long as it is in use. The Commission takes this step in recognition that overbroad rules could inadvertently impose obligations on entities that provide peripheral support for NG911 but may not play a central role in ensuring 911 reliability or benefit as much as a typical circuit-switched ILEC from the best practices discussed below. To minimize the risk of unintended effects, the Commission describes covered entities in terms of the core 911 capabilities they provide rather than the technology they employ or how they are currently classified under our rules.
19. While the FCC strongly supports the transition to NG911, it is not persuaded that NG911 technologies have evolved to the point that reliability certification rules should apply to entities beyond those that offer core services functionally equivalent to current 911 and E911 capabilities. The Commission might, however, revisit this distinction in the future as technology evolves, as discussed below with regard to review and sunset of the rules. In a similar vein, the FCC does not adopt a definition that covers all operators of emergency services Internet protocol networks (ESInets). Some ESInets may provide capabilities other than those at issue here, and other ESInets may be operated directly by PSAPs and 911 authorities. Under the rules, ESInet operators will be required to certify reliability only to the extent they qualify as Covered 911 Service Providers under our rules.
20. The FCC adopts rules requiring Covered 911 Service Providers to: (1) Take reasonable measures to ensure reliable 911 service, and (2) certify annually whether they do so by adhering either to specified practices based on established industry consensus or to alternative measures demonstrated to be reasonably sufficient to mitigate the risk of failure. Regarding reasonable measures, the record in this proceeding demonstrates a number of concrete and objective indications of whether a service provider's practices with respect to 911 reliability are reasonable. For example, best practices are developed in a “consensus-based environment” reflecting the collective judgment of industry, and other stakeholders. It follows that compliance with best practices is a strong indication that a service provider is taking reasonable measures to ensure reliable 911 service. While there may be situations in which it would be reasonable for a service provider to depart from best practices, there should be a reasonable basis for such decisions, coupled with appropriate steps to compensate for any increased risk of failure.
21. Regarding annual certification, a Covered 911 Service Provider that performs and certifies all the specific certification elements outlined in the rules regarding 911 circuit auditing, backup power at central offices that directly serve PSAPs, and diverse network monitoring links, is not required to provide additional documentation to support its certification that it has met the reasonable measures requirement. These providers will be deemed to satisfy the obligation to take reasonable measures to provide reliable 911 service, provided that the certification is accurate and complete. In the alternative, if a Covered 911 Service Provider cannot certify affirmatively to every element in a substantive area, but believes that its actions are nevertheless reasonably sufficient to mitigate the risk of 911 service failure based on the configuration of its network and other factors, then it may certify that it has taken alternative measures in that substantive area. For each element where the Covered 911 Service Provider certifies to taking alternative measures, it must include with its certification a brief explanation of those alternative measures with respect to each PSAP, central office, or 911 service area where they are in use, and why those measures are reasonable under the circumstances to mitigate the risk of failure. Finally, a Covered 911 Service Provider may respond that certain elements of the certification do not apply to all or part of its network, but it must include with its certification a reasonable explanation of why those elements are not applicable.
22. In addition, the Commission will require Covered 911 Service Providers to maintain for two years the records supporting each annual certification and to make relevant records available to the Commission upon request. For providers with existing electronic recordkeeping capabilities, these records must be maintained in an electronic format for ease of access and review. While certifications require only a brief description of alternative measures, the Commission reserves the right to request additional information, at the time of certification or thereafter, to verify the accuracy of a certification or determine whether alternative measures are reasonable. This approach lessens the reporting burden on service providers while ensuring that supporting documentation is available when necessary. Examples of such records include diagrams of network routing, records of circuit audits,
23. While the FCC adopts the certification approach, it notes that a very high-level certification will not provide the Commission with either the information it needs to identify important weaknesses in 911 networks or a reasonable basis on which to hold service providers accountable for decisions affecting 911 reliability. It therefore will require all Covered 911 Service Providers to certify annually to certain basic measures in the three substantive areas, and delegates to the Bureau the responsibility to review the certifications and take additional action as appropriate, and the authority and responsibility to develop the certification form and filing system. The reliability certifications will be subject to penalties for false or misleading statements both under the United States Code and the Commission's rules. The certification shall also be accompanied by a statement explaining the basis for such certification and shall be subscribed to as true under penalty of perjury in substantially the form set forth in section 1.16 of the Commission's rules.
24. Certification Standards. In response to call by some commenters to convene a new group to develop new certification standards and procedures unique to these rules, the Commission notes that the process these commenters describe is virtually indistinguishable from the Commission's existing CSRIC process. These revised CSRIC best practices are available to stakeholders for application on a voluntary basis; the Commission therefore sees no reason to defer its refinement and implementation of these best practices in a Commission rule, in light of its experiences with voluntary standards.
25. The FCC understands that, as NG911 deployment advances, the certification standards may have to change, and the Commission may then need to turn to multi-stakeholder bodies like CSRIC for recommendations in these areas. Accordingly, the Commission adopts certification standards that are consistent with current best practices but also flexible enough to account for differences in 911 and NG911 networks.
26. Certifying Official. To ensure accuracy and accountability, each certification must be made by a corporate officer responsible for network operations in all relevant service areas. Thus, the certifying official must have supervisory and budgetary authority over a Covered 911 Service Provider's entire 911 network, not merely certain regions or service areas.
27. Effect of Certification. Under the certification process, a Covered 911 Service Provider that performs all the certification elements in a substantive area will be deemed to comply with the requirement to take reasonable measures in that area. This result is subject only to any determination the Commission or as delegated, the Bureau, may make afterward, based on complaints, outage reports or other information, that the Covered 911 Service Provider did not, in fact, perform as claimed in its certification. If, however, a Covered 911 Service Provider certifies that it has taken alternative measures to mitigate the risk of failure, or that a certification element is not applicable to its network, its certification is subject to a more detailed Bureau review. In such cases, the Covered 911 Service Provider must provide an explanation of its alternative measures and why they are reasonable under the circumstances, or why the certification element is not applicable. The Bureau will consider a number of factors in determining whether the particular alternative measures are reasonably sufficient to ensure reliable 911 service. Such factors may include the technical characteristics of those measures, the location and geography of the service area, the level of service ordered by the PSAP, and state and local laws (such as zoning and noise ordinances). The Bureau may rely on information from a variety of sources, including: (1) The certifications and descriptions of alternative measures; (2) supplemental responses to Commission inquiries; (3) supporting records retained pursuant to the record retention requirement; (4) NORS and DIRS data; (5) formal and informal complaints; and/or (6) news reports or other information available to the Commission.
28. If the Bureau's review indicates that a provider's alternative measures are not reasonably sufficient to ensure reliable 911 service, the Bureau should engage with the provider and other interested stakeholders (e.g., affected PSAPs) to address any shortcomings. To the extent that a collaborative process with a provider does not yield satisfactory results, the Bureau may order remedial action, consistent with the authority delegated in this Report and Order. Any service provider ordered to take remedial action may seek reconsideration or review of the Bureau's decision in accordance with the Commission's rules. In extreme cases, such as where a provider is not acting in good faith, the Bureau may also refer cases to the Enforcement Bureau for further action as appropriate. This approach will place the least burden on those Covered 911 Service Providers that provide consistently reliable 911 service, while allowing the Commission to focus its attention and resources where most needed.
29. Certification Phase-In. The rules, including the underlying obligation to take reasonable measures to provide reliable 911 service, become effective thirty days after publication in this
30. Although service providers indicate that they already perform many of the elements of our annual certification, the rules we adopt will require a phase-in period so that all covered entities, particularly smaller entities with limited staff and resources, have time to come into full compliance. Therefore, the FCC requires that, one year after the effective date of the rules, all Covered 911 Service Providers file an initial certification that they have made substantial progress toward meeting the standard of the full certification, “substantial progress” in this context meaning at least 50-percent compliance with each of the three substantive certification requirements. For example, regarding circuit diversity, Covered 911 Service Providers must certify they have conducted at least 50 percent of the circuit audits. The Bureau has delegated authority to implement this initial certification, including the form and process through which it is submitted. After the first full certification two years from the effective date of the rules, all Covered 911 Service Providers will file a 911 reliability certification on an annual basis.
31. Regarding costs and benefits of the Commission's actions, the FCC notes that no commenter questioned the basic premise that 911 communications provide significant public health and safety benefits, nor provided an alternative method of quantifying the public safety benefits associated with reliable 911 service. Further, the FCC considers it fortunate that the effects of
32. The 911 Reliability NPRM estimated total costs to service providers of $16.1 million to $44.1 million. By relaxing or eliminating several of the requirements proposed in the NPRM, however, the Commission reduced the impact on service providers far below those estimates. The expected costs also are within an acceptable range of the $9.1 million floor value of benefits estimated in this Report and Order. As explained below, we estimate that the total annual incremental cost to service providers is approximately $9 million, which includes $6.4 million for circuit audit costs, $1.9 million for backup power costs, and $732,000 for monitoring costs. The FCC finds that its statutory mandate to promote the safety of life and property and to implement our specific statutory 911 responsibilities makes the benefits of reliable 911 service well worth these costs, particularly since the approach adopted is based on best practices developed through broad industry consensus.
33. Covered 911 Service Providers must certify annually whether they have, within the past year, audited the physical diversity of critical 911 circuits or equivalent data paths to each PSAP they serve, tagged those circuits to minimize the risk that they will be reconfigured at some future date, and eliminated all single points of failure between the selective router, ALI/ANI database, or equivalent NG911 component, and the central office serving each PSAP. In lieu of eliminating single points of failure, they may describe why these single points of failure cannot be eliminated and the specific, reasonably sufficient alternative measures they have taken to mitigate the risks associated with the lack of physical diversity.
34. Alternatively, Covered 911 Service Providers may certify that they believe this element of the certification is not applicable to their network, although they must explain why it is not applicable. Under these rules, all Covered 911 Service Providers must conduct annual audits of the physical diversity of their critical 911 circuits and tag those circuits to prevent rearrangement, but they may take a range of corrective measures most appropriate for their networks and PSAP customers.
35. Covered 911 Service Providers must also retain records of circuit audits for confidential review by the Commission, upon request, for two years.
36. “Critical 911 circuits” include transmission facilities between a 911 selective router or its functional equivalent and the final point in the local exchange serving the PSAP where these facilities appear in the network (e.g., the main distribution frame) before leaving this exchange on their way to the PSAP. For purposes of this requirement, a selective router is a 911 network component that selects the appropriate destination PSAP for each 911 call based on the location of the caller. Critical 911 circuits also include links from ANI/ALI databases to central offices that serve PSAPs. The definition does not include the connections between the calling party and the selective router that serves this person. Because IP-based NG911 networks may not employ circuit-switched technologies, the auditing obligation extends to data transport paths for the core 911 capabilities, regardless of whether they are technically “circuits.” Likewise, the selective router function could be hosted by a third party. The facilities connecting the third party's selective router with the PSAPs to which it is interconnected are “critical 911 circuits.”
37. Physical diversity, sometimes called route diversity, means that two circuits follow different routes separated by some physical distance so that a single failure such as a power outage, equipment failure, or cable cut will not result in both circuits failing. Logical diversity, sometimes called equipment diversity, implies that two circuits are provisioned to use different transmission equipment, but could share the same transmission medium (for example, the same fiber or conduit). For example, two circuits that are modulated onto two wavelengths are logically diverse. If they are then placed onto two physically separate optical fibers whose routes do not meet, they are also physically diverse, provided they do not share other equipment prior to being placed on the fibers. If, instead, they are placed onto the same optical fiber, they are no longer physically diverse, but they retain their logical diversity. In the context of critical 911 circuits, the Commission focuses on physical diversity as the optimum standard for certification, but also recognizes that logical diversity may be appropriate where a PSAP has not ordered physically diverse service or where physical diversity is not feasible in a particular location. Thus, there is no blanket requirement that all critical 911 circuits be physically diverse in all circumstances, but we require Covered 911 Service Providers that do not provision physically diverse 911 circuits to explain why those measures are reasonably sufficient.
38. Auditing method. To be in conformance with CSRIC best practices, an auditing method must reflect the geographic routing of circuits, as well as the logical flow of data, which could occur over a common physical path. In cases where a party provides 911 services directly to a PSAP (pursuant to contract or tariff) over leased facilities, the auditing obligation would apply to that party, and not to the facilities lessor. Although it could contract with the underlying facilities lessor, if necessary, to audit its facilities, the Covered 911 Service provider would remain responsible under our rules for ensuring compliance with the auditing requirement.
39. Frequency of audits. The FCC concludes that a requirement that Covered 911 Service Providers conduct annual audits of their 911 circuits, coupled with a requirement for submission of annual certifications, best serves the public interest. Regular auditing of critical 911 circuits can significantly improve network reliability, and the FCC concludes that annual auditing of 911 circuits and network monitoring links is necessary to prevent a loss of diversity in these critical circuits due to routine circuit rearrangements between audits.
40. Corrective measures. Covered 911 Service Providers must certify annually whether they have, within the past year, audited the physical diversity of critical 911 circuits or equivalent data paths to each PSAP they serve, tagged those circuits, and eliminated single points of failure in these circuits. In lieu of eliminating single points of failure, providers also may certify that they have taken specific, alternative measures reasonably sufficient to mitigate the risk of insufficient physical diversity. The Commission will also require Covered 911 Service Providers to explain why measures short of physical diversity are reasonably sufficient to ensure reliable 911 service in individual cases.
41. Cost effectiveness. In the worst case, where the single-stranded PSAP audits cost as much as those for PSAPs served by dual selective routers, we would expect the annual incremental cost of those audits to be about $4.5 million when based on the assumptions in the NPRM. The Commission believes that most of these costs associated with these audits are already being incurred by Covered 911 Service Providers and will decrease over time as their auditing
42. All told, commenters provided estimates ranging from $6.4 million to $11.2 million in annual incremental costs, even if we accept the industry view that critical 911 circuit audits require more time than we estimated in the NPRM. In light of comments from AT&T describing the “minimal incremental cost” of computerized audits and from Frontier and CenturyLink indicating that even their existing auditing methods require less than 40 hours per PSAP, the Commission does not accept that Verizon's considerably-higher estimate accurately represents the cost of our rules to the industry as a whole. Furthermore, the certification's two-year phase-in will allow all Covered 911 Service Providers to reexamine their existing circuit auditing practices and implement more efficient systems. As such, the FCC believes that the lower end of the industry range—about $6.4 million—is a reasonable estimate of the annual incremental cost of our circuit auditing requirement once the audits we require are put into practice. Notably, these estimates reflects the cost of a “highly important” best practice that virtually all Covered 911 Service Providers claim to follow already to some degree. The incremental cost of conducting circuit audits in conformance with our certification will be substantially less than the total cost, regardless of how it is calculated.
43. Covered 911 Service Providers must certify annually whether they have sufficient, reliable backup power in any central office that directly serves a PSAP to maintain full service functionality, including network monitoring capabilities, for at least 24 hours at full office load. In addition especially critical central offices that host selective routers must be equipped with at least 72 hours of backup power at full office load. The specified level of backup power may be provided through fixed generators, portable generators, batteries, fuel cells, or a combination of those or other such sources so long as it meets the applicable certification standard.
44. If that level of backup power is not feasible at a particular central office that directly serves a PSAP or hosts a selective router, the certification will be required to indicate this. The service provider must briefly state why it is not feasible and describe the specific alternative measures it has taken to mitigate the risk associated with backup power configurations that fail to satisfy the certification standard. Covered 911 Service Providers may also certify that they believe this element of the certification is not applicable to their network, although they must explain why it is not applicable. As noted above with regard to covered entities, a central office “directly serves a PSAP” if it: (1) Hosts a selective router or ALI/ANI database; (2) provides equivalent NG911 capabilities; or (3) is the last service-provider facility through which a 911 trunk or administrative line passes before connecting to a PSAP. Service providers must also certify whether: (1) They test and maintain all backup power equipment in all central offices directly serving PSAPs in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications, per CSRIC best practice; (2) adhere to CSRIC best practices regarding fully automatic, non-interdependent generators that can be started manually if necessary; and (3) retain records of backup power deployment and maintenance for confidential review by the Commission, upon request, for two years. If the specified standards related to testing and tandem generator configurations cannot be met, the service provider must briefly state why it is not feasible to meet them and describe the specific alternative measures it has taken to mitigate the risk associated with the failure to satisfy the certification standards.
45. Because different central offices present different backup power challenges and a single solution may not be suitable for all, Covered 911 Service Providers may certify and describe reasonable alternative measures on a case-by-case basis. For these reasons, rather than codifying existing best practices as prescriptive rules, the certification requirement allows 911 service providers flexibility to maintain adequate central-office backup power based on best practices and reasonable alternatives to suit site-specific circumstances.
46. Testing standards. The rules require Covered 911 Service Providers, consistent with CSRIC best practice, to certify that they test their backup power equipment according to the relevant manufacturers' specifications. Further, because failure of interdependent generators was a significant factor in the communications failures during the June 2012, the Commission believes that tandem generators should be electronically separated to ensure that failure of one generator does not cause the other to fail, and will require the certification to confirm whether the 911 provider employs stand-alone backup power sources. 911 providers will have the opportunity to demonstrate that alternative measures upon which they rely (e.g., load shedding) are reasonably sufficient to mitigate the risk of failure.
47. Cost effectiveness. The NPRM estimated that the incremental cost incurred to perform backup power certifications, including remediation, ranged from $11.7 million to $37.5 million depending on whether the Commission would require fixed generators at all central offices. The Report and Order includes no such requirement, meaning that there would be no incremental costs for central offices appropriately provisioned with portable generators. As a result, the Commission estimates the cost to conform to its backup power standards is much closer to $11.7 million than $37.5 million. Further, the approach adopted will also significantly reduce the cost of compliance by covering only central offices directly serving PSAPs or hosting selective routers or ALI databases, and allowing alternative measures where the specified level of backup power is not feasible. Limiting these requirements to central offices that directly serve PSAPs reduces our estimate of cost by 72 percent, from $11.7 million to about $3.3 million.
48. Covered 911 Service Providers must certify annually whether they have, within the past year: (1) Audited the physical diversity of the aggregation points that they use to gather network monitoring data in each 911 service area and the network monitoring links between such aggregation points and their NOC(s); and (2) implemented physically diverse aggregation points for network monitoring data in each 911 service area and physically diverse links from such aggregation points to at least one NOC or, in light of the required audits, taken specific alternative measures reasonably sufficient to mitigate the risk of insufficient physical diversity. They may also certify that they believe this element of the certification is not applicable to their network, although they must explain why it is not applicable.
49. Covered 911 Service Providers also must retain records of their network monitoring routes and capabilities for confidential review by the Commission, upon request, for two years.
50. For purposes of the certification, network monitoring links transmit data about failed or degraded network equipment and facilities from monitoring points within the network to a NOC or other location where the data are analyzed and decisions made about corrective action. Links from multiple individual monitoring points may be routed through and aggregated onto common transport facilities at one or more hubs in each service area for distribution to remote NOCs, in which case those hubs are described as aggregation points for network monitoring data. “Physical diversity” applied to aggregation points refers to aggregation points that are not physically co-located.
51. Corrective Measures. Recognizing that circumstances are likely to exist in real-world networks that prevent the achievement of complete physical diversity and diverse aggregation points for network monitoring data, the Commission believes that service providers should retain the flexibility to implement diversity and the migration of telemetry to the IP network as appropriate for their network evolution, management, and monitoring. As such, the certification approach provides Covered 911 Service Providers with the flexibility to compensate for an inability to conform to our certification standard by employing appropriate alternative measures to promote reliable and resilient network monitoring where diverse aggregation points or monitoring links may not be feasible.
51A. Cost effectiveness. The Commission calculates the costs of network monitoring to be $732,000, as opposed to the $2,196,000 suggested in the NPRM. In the absence of more detailed cost estimates from commenters, the Commission finds that the certification approach is cost effective because it uses standards that are already widely in use by communications providers and includes flexibility to allow communications providers to address circumstances where the standards cannot be feasibly implemented.
52. Covered 911 Service Providers must notify PSAPs of outages potentially affecting 911 service to that PSAP within 30 minutes of discovering the outage and provide contact information such as a name, telephone number, and email for follow-up. Whenever additional material information becomes available, but no later than two hours after the initial contact, the Covered 911 Service Provider must communicate additional detail to the PSAP, including the nature of the outage, its best-known cause, the geographic scope of the outage, and the estimated time for repairs.
53. In light of the Commission's express statutory responsibilities, regulation of additional capabilities related to reliable 911 service, both today and in an NG911 environment, would be well within Commission's foregoing statutory authority. A full statement of the Commission's legal authority to adopt these rules is contained in the Report and Order.
54. The Commission recognizes that some components of annual 911 reliability certifications are likely to raise genuine public safety and competitive concerns, while other portions of the certification will not and may be of legitimate interest to the public. For example, there is little threat to public safety or competition in the mere fact of whether a Covered 911 Service Provider has filed a certification, or whether a service provider answers in the affirmative or negative to each element of the certification. Thus, a service provider's responses on the face of the form with respect to whether it adheres to certification elements or relies on alternative measures to satisfy other elements of the certification will not in and of itself be considered confidential.
55. Nevertheless, confidentiality concerns increase significantly if a certification includes proprietary information about a service provider's specific network architecture or operations on less than an aggregated basis. Accordingly, certain information will be treated as presumptively confidential and exempt from routine public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA): (1) Descriptions and documentation of alternative measures to mitigate the risks of nonconformance with certification standards; (2) information detailing specific corrective actions taken; and (3) supplemental information requested by the Commission or Bureau with respect to a certification. The Commission would expect, without requiring it, that a Covered 911 Service Provider will, at the request of the PSAP (or state 911 authority, as relevant), enter into discussions concerning the content of the provider's 911 circuit auditing certification with respect to the PSAP.
56. The Commission will review the rules adopted in this Report and Order in five years to determine whether they are still technologically appropriate and both adequate and necessary to ensure reliability and resiliency of 911 networks. Review of the rules will also include consideration of whether they should be revised or expanded to cover new best practices or additional entities that provide NG911 capabilities, or in light of its understanding about how NG911 networks may differ from legacy 911 service. Factors for consideration will include outage reporting trends, adoption of NG911 capabilities on a nationwide basis, and whether the certification approach has yielded the necessary level of compliance. If, after review, the Commission determines that some or all of these rules are no longer effective in promoting 911 reliability, it will establish an appropriate sunset date for those portions of the rules that are no longer necessary. The Commission declines to set a specific sunset date or triggering event because there are still too many uncertainties about the timeline for widespread adoption of NG911 and the effect of new technologies on the need for 911 reliability rules.
57. PSHSB has delegated authority to implement the rules adopted in the Report and Order, consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act and relevant portions of the Communications Act. The Commission directs the Bureau to develop such forms and procedures as may be required to collect and process certifications, and to periodically update those forms and procedures as necessary, subject to Paperwork Reduction Act requirements. Through its experience with electronic outage reports in NORS and DIRS, the Bureau has developed expertise with outage reports and trends that will be useful when reviewing such certifications and identifying issues for follow-up with service providers. The Bureau also has delegated authority to order appropriate remedial actions on a case-by-case basis where 911 reliability certifications indicate such actions are necessary to protect public safety and consistent with the guidelines set forth in this Report and Order.
58. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to
59. The Report and Order contains new information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. It will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other interested parties are invited to comment on the new information collection requirements contained in this proceeding.
60. We note that pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission previously sought specific comment on how the Commission might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. We have described impacts that might affect small businesses, which includes most businesses with fewer than 25 employees, in the FRFA in Appendix C of the Report and Order, paragraphs 14-15.
61. The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
62. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was included in the NPRM in PS Docket No. 11-60 and PS Docket No. 13-75. The Commission sought written comment on the proposals in this docket, including comment on the IRFA. This Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis conforms to the RFA.
63. Accordingly,
64.
65.
66.
67.
Commission organization; Confidential material; Delegation of authority.
Telecommunications.
Certification; Telecommunications.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 0, 4, and 12 as follows:
Sec. 5, 48 Stat. 1068, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 155.
(j) The Chief of the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau is delegated authority to administer the communications reliability and redundancy rules and policies contained in part 12 of this chapter, develop and revise forms and procedures as may be required for the administration of part 12 of this chapter, review certifications filed in connection therewith, and order remedial action on a case-by-case basis to ensure the reliability of 911 service in accordance with such rules and policies.
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(viii) Information submitted with a 911 reliability certification pursuant to 47 CFR 12.4 that consists of descriptions and documentation of alternative measures to mitigate the risks of nonconformance with certification elements, information detailing specific corrective actions taken with respect to certification elements, or supplemental information requested by the Commission with respect to such certification.
Sec. 5, 48 Stat. 1068, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 154, 155, 201, 251, 307, 316, 615a-1, 1302(a), and 1302(b).
(h)
Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 4(o), 5(c), 218, 219, 301, 303(g), 303(j), 303(r), 332, 403, 621(b)(3), and 621(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 154(o), 155(c), 218, 219, 301, 303(g), 303(j), 303(r), 332, 403, 621(b)(3), and 621(d), unless otherwise noted.
(a)
(1)
(2)
(i) Has satisfied the obligations of paragraph (c) of this section.
(ii) Has adequate internal controls to bring material information regarding network architecture, operations, and maintenance to the certifying official's attention.
(iii) Has made the certifying official aware of all material information reasonably necessary to complete the certification.
(iv) The term “certification” shall include both an annual reliability certification under paragraph (c) of this section and an initial reliability certification under paragraph (d)(1) of this section, to the extent provided under paragraph (d)(1) of this section.
(3)
(4)
(i) Any entity that:
(A) Provides 911, E911, or NG911 capabilities such as call routing, automatic location information (ALI), automatic number identification (ANI), or the functional equivalent of those capabilities, directly to a public safety answering point (PSAP), statewide default answering point, or appropriate local emergency authority as defined in §§ 64.3000(b) and 20.3 of this chapter; and/or
(B) Operates one or more central offices that directly serve a PSAP. For purposes of this section, a central office directly serves a PSAP if it hosts a selective router or ALI/ANI database, provides equivalent NG911 capabilities, or is the last service-provider facility through which a 911 trunk or administrative line passes before connecting to a PSAP.
(ii) The term “covered 911 service provider” shall not include any entity that:
(A) Constitutes a PSAP or governmental authority to the extent that it provides 911 capabilities; or
(B) Offers the capability to originate 911 calls where another service provider delivers those calls and associated number or location information to the appropriate PSAP.
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(b)
(c)
(1)
(i) A covered 911 service provider shall certify whether it has, within the past year:
(A) Conducted diversity audits of critical 911 circuits or equivalent data paths to any PSAP served;
(B) Tagged such critical 911 circuits to reduce the probability of inadvertent
(C) Eliminated all single points of failure in critical 911 circuits or equivalent data paths serving each PSAP.
(ii) If a covered 911 service provider does not conform with the elements in paragraph (c)(1)(i)(C) of this section with respect to the 911 service provided to one or more PSAPs, it must certify with respect to each such PSAP:
(A) Whether it has taken alternative measures to mitigate the risk of critical 911 circuits that are not physically diverse or is taking steps to remediate any issues that it has identified with respect to 911 service to the PSAP, in which case it shall provide a brief explanation of such alternative measures or such remediation steps, the date by which it anticipates such remediation will be completed, and why it believes those measures are reasonably sufficient to mitigate such risk; or
(B) Whether it believes that one or more of the requirements of this paragraph are not applicable to its network, in which case it shall provide a brief explanation of why it believes any such requirement does not apply.
(2)
(i) With respect to any central office it operates that directly serves a PSAP, a covered 911 service provider shall certify whether it:
(A) Provisions backup power through fixed generators, portable generators, batteries, fuel cells, or a combination of these or other such sources to maintain full-service functionality, including network monitoring capabilities, for at least 24 hours at full office load or, if the central office hosts a selective router, at least 72 hours at full office load; provided, however, that any such portable generators shall be readily available within the time it takes the batteries to drain, notwithstanding potential demand for such generators elsewhere in the service provider's network.
(B) Tests and maintains all backup power equipment in such central offices in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications;
(C) Designs backup generators in such central offices for fully automatic operation and for ease of manual operation, when required;
(D) Designs, installs, and maintains each generator in any central office that is served by more than one backup generator as a stand-alone unit that does not depend on the operation of another generator for proper functioning.
(ii) If a covered 911 service provider does not conform with all of the elements in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section, it must certify with respect to each such central office:
(A) Whether it has taken alternative measures to mitigate the risk of a loss of service in that office due to a loss of power or is taking steps to remediate any issues that it has identified with respect to backup power in that office, in which case it shall provide a brief explanation of such alternative measures or such remediation steps, the date by which it anticipates such remediation will be completed, and why it believes those measures are reasonably sufficient to mitigate such risk; or
(B) Whether it believes that one or more of the requirements of this paragraph are not applicable to its network, in which case it shall provide a brief explanation of why it believes any such requirement does not apply.
(3)
(i) A covered 911 service provider shall certify whether it has, within the past year:
(A) Conducted diversity audits of the aggregation points that it uses to gather network monitoring data in each 911 service area;
(B) Conducted diversity audits of monitoring links between aggregation points and NOCs for each 911 service area in which it operates; and
(C) Implemented physically diverse aggregation points for network monitoring data in each 911 service area and physically diverse monitoring links from such aggregation points to at least one NOC.
(ii) If a Covered 911 service provider does not conform with all of the elements in paragraph (c)(3)(i)(C) of this section, it must certify with respect to each such 911 service area:
(A) Whether it has taken alternative measures to mitigate the risk of network monitoring facilities that are not physically diverse or is taking steps to remediate any issues that it has identified with respect to diverse network monitoring in that 911 service area, in which case it shall provide a brief explanation of such alternative measures or such remediation steps, the date by which it anticipates such remediation will be completed, and why it believes those measures are reasonably sufficient to mitigate such risk; or
(B) Whether it believes that one or more of the requirements of this paragraph are not applicable to its network, in which case it shall provide a brief explanation of why it believes any such requirement does not apply.
(d)
(1) Initial reliability certification. One year after February 18, 2014, a certifying official of every covered 911 service provider shall certify to the Commission that it has made substantial progress toward meeting the standards of the annual reliability certification described in paragraph (c) of this section. Substantial progress in each element of the certification shall be defined as compliance with standards of the full certification in at least 50 percent of the covered 911 service provider's critical 911 circuits, central offices that directly serve PSAPs, and independently monitored 911 service areas.
(2)
(i) The fact of filing or not filing an annual reliability certification or initial reliability certification and the responses on the face of such certification forms shall not be treated as confidential.
(ii) Information submitted with or in addition to such certifications shall be presumed confidential to the extent that it consists of descriptions and documentation of alternative measures to mitigate the risks of nonconformance with certification elements, information detailing specific corrective actions taken with respect to certification elements, or supplemental information requested by the Commission or Bureau with respect to a certification.
(3)
(i) With respect to diversity audits of critical 911 circuits, such records shall include, at a minimum, audit records separately addressing each such circuit, any internal report(s) generated as a result of such audits, records of actions taken pursuant to the audit results, and records regarding any alternative measures taken to mitigate the risk of critical 911 circuits that are not physically diverse.
(ii) With respect to backup power at central offices, such records shall include, at a minimum, records regarding the nature and extent of backup power at each central office that directly serves a PSAP, testing and maintenance records for backup power equipment in each such central office, and records regarding any alternative measures taken to mitigate the risk of insufficient backup power.
(iii) With respect to network monitoring, such records shall include, at a minimum, records of diversity audits of monitoring links, any internal report(s) generated as a result of such audits, records of actions taken pursuant to the audit results, and records regarding any alternative measures taken to mitigate the risk of aggregation points and/or monitoring links that are not physically diverse.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule; announcement of effective date.
In this document, the Commission announces that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved, for a period of three years, the information collection associated with the Commission's Report and Order (
The effective date for §§ 1.946, 27.10, 27.12, and 27.17 that were adopted on June 27, 2013, and published in the
Matthew Pearl, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Broadband Division, at (202) 418-BITS or by email at
This document announces that, on September 26, 2013, OMB approved, for a period of three years, the new information collection requirements contained in the Commission's
To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received OMB approval on September 26, 2013, which contained new and modified information collection requirements, in 47 CFR 1.946(d), 27.10(d), 27.12, and 27.17, which would not be effective until approved by the Office of Management and Budget. The information collection was adopted in the Report and Order in WT Docket No. 12-357, FCC 13-88, which appears at 78 FR 50213, August 16, 2013, adopts flexible use rules for 10 megahertz of spectrum in the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz spectrum bands (H Block) that would increase the nation's supply of spectrum for mobile broadband. We adopt H Block terrestrial service rules, modified as necessary to account for issues unique to the H Block bands. First, we find the spectrum is properly allocated for commercial use as required by the Spectrum Act. Second, we determine the H Block can be used without causing harmful interference to PCS operations in the 1930-1995 MHz band. Third, we establish 1915-1920 MHz paired with 1995-2000 MHz as the H Block band plan. Fourth, we adopt technical rules that authorize mobile and fixed operations in the bands and protect operations in adjacent and nearby spectrum bands from harmful interference pursuant to the requirements of the Spectrum Act. Fifth,
The effective date of the rules adopted in that Report and Order was published as August 16, 2013, except for §§ 1.946(d), 27.10(d), 27.12, and 27.17. Through this document, the Commission announces that it has received this approval (new OMB Control No. 3060-1184, Expiration Date: September 30, 2016) and that §§ 1.946(d), 27.10(d), 27.12, and 27.17 were approved by OMB on September 26, 2013.
The Commission has also received approval to add the national security certification required by Section 6004 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, 47 U.S.C 1404, to the FCC Form 601. Additionally, the FCC Form 601 is revised to update the Alien Ownership certifications pursuant to the Second Report and Order, FCC 13-50, IB Docket 11-133, Review of Foreign Ownership Policies for Common Carrier and Aeronautical Radio Licensees under section 310(b)(4) of the Communications Act of 1934, as Amended, published at 78 FR 41314-01 on July 10, 2013,
Under 5 CFR Part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Numbers are 3060-1184 and 3060-0798. The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.
The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:
(a) Section 1.946 requires H Block licensees to file a construction notification and certify that they have met the applicable performance benchmarks.
(b) Section 27.10 requires an H Block licensee to notify the Commission within 30 days if it changes, or adds to, the carrier status on its license.
(c) Section 27.12 requires H Block licensees to comply with certain eligibility reporting requirements.
(d) Section 27.17 requires H Block licensees to notify the Commission within ten days if they permanently discontinue service by filing FCC Form 601 or 605 and requesting license cancellation.
The data collected on FCC Form 601 include the FCC Registration Number (FRN), which serves as a “common link” for all filings an entity has with the FCC. The Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 requires that those entities filing with the Commission to use a FRN.
FCC Form 601 is being used for auctionable services as they are implemented; FCC Form 601 is used to apply for a new authorization, or to amend a pending application for an authorization to operate a license wireless radio services. This includes Public Mobile Services, Personal Communications Services, General Wireless Communications Services, Private Land Mobile Radio Services, Broadcast Auxiliary Services, Fixed Microwave Services, Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS) and the
The FCC Form 601 is revised to add a National Security Certification that is applicable to applicants for licenses issued as a result of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (2012 Spectrum Act). Section 6004 of the 2012 Spectrum Act, 47 U.S.C 1404, prohibits a person who has been, for reasons of national security, barred by any agency of the Federal Government from bidding on a contract, participating in an auction, or receiving a grant from participating in any auction that is required or authorized to be conducted pursuant to the 2012 Spectrum Act.
Additionally, the FCC Form 601 is being revised to update the Alien Ownership certifications pursuant to the Second Report and Order FCC 13-50 IB Docket 11-133 Review of Foreign Ownership Policies for Common Carrier and Aeronautical Radio Licensees under section 310(b)(4) of the Communications Act of 1934, as Amended.
The Commission will use the information to ensure H Block licensees' compliance with required filings of notifications, certifications, regulatory status changes, and applicable performance benchmarks. Also, such information will be used to verify whether H Block applicants and, in the context of the national security certification requirement, whether other applicants for Spectrum Act licenses are legally and technically qualified to hold licenses; and to determine compliance with Commission rules. Any submissions made through the Universal Licensing System must be filed electronically.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
At the request of Sydney Allison Sugg, the Audio Division amends the FM Table of Allotments, by allotting Channel 270C3 at Heber Springs, Arkansas, as the community third local FM transmission service. A staff engineering analysis confirms that Channel 270C3 can be allotted to Heber Springs consistent with the minimum distance separation requirements of the Rules with a site restriction 12.8 kilometers (7.9 miles) northeast of the community. The reference coordinates are 35-34-12 NL and 91-55-41 WL.
Effective February 3, 2014.
Rolanda F. Smith, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2700.
This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Radio, Radio broadcasting.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 73 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336 and 339.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule; petition for reconsideration.
The Media Bureau approves a settlement request filed by Univision Radio License Corporation (“Univision”) and Grenax Broadcasting II, LLC (“Grenax”), vacates the
Effective January 21, 2014.
Andrew J. Rhodes, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2700.
This is a synopsis of the Commission's
This document does not contain proposed information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden “for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198,
Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding.
Earlier in this proceeding, the Bureau comparatively evaluated conflicting proposals filed by Grenax and Univision and found that, under Priority 4 of the FM Allotment Priorities, Grenax's proposal for a second local service at Munds Park was preferable to an increase in existing service at Wickenburg. Therefore, the
Under the settlement, Grenax agrees to withdraw its Counterproposal for the Munds Park allotment and to implement an Order to Show Cause to change the frequency of its Station KBTK(FM), Kachina Village, Arizona, to accommodate the grant of Univision's application for an upgrade of its Station KHOV-FM, Wickenburg, from Channel 287C2 to Channel 286C0 at a new transmitter site. In return, Univision agrees to reimburse Grenax $59,628 for its legitimate and prudent expenses incurred for prosecution of its Counterproposal and for the negotiation and settlement process and an estimated $101,112 for its reasonable expenses that will be incurred in changing Station's KBTK(FM)'s frequency.
The Bureau finds that the settlement agreement complies with Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules because Grenax is withdrawing its Counterproposal in return for reimbursement of its legitimate and prudent expenses that have been incurred or will be incurred under our
To accommodate Univision's application, the Bureau grants the allotments proposed in the Petition for Rule Making. First, the Bureau modifies the license of Station KBTK(FM), Kachina Village, to specify operation on Channel 246C2 in lieu of Channel 286C2. Second, it substitutes Channel 228C2 for vacant Channel 286C2 at Ehrenberg, Arizona at reference coordinates of 33-36-54 NL and 114-24-14 WL. Third, the Bureau retains Channel 281C at First Mesa, Arizona, at reference coordinates of 35-41-09 NL and 110-21-43 WL because this channel was already substituted for vacant Channel 247C at First Mesa in the
Due to changes to the Commission's processing rules, modifications of FM channels for existing stations are reflected in the Media Bureau's Consolidated Data Base System (“CDBS”) instead of being listed in Section 73.202(b).
Radio, Radio broadcasting.
As stated in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 73 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; trip limit reduction.
NMFS reduces the commercial trip limit of Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel in or from the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in the Atlantic migratory group southern zone to 1,500 lb (680 kg), round weight, per day. This trip limit reduction is necessary to maximize the socioeconomic benefits of the quota.
Effective 6 a.m., local time, January 17, 2014, until 12:01 a.m., local time, March 1, 2014, unless changed by subsequent notification in the
Susan Gerhart, telephone: 727-824-5305, or email:
The fishery for coastal migratory pelagic fish (king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, and cobia) is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils (Councils) and is
Amendment 18 to the FMP (76 FR 82058, December 29, 2011) implemented a commercial annual catch limit (equal to the commercial quota) of 3.13 million lb (1.42 million kg) for the Atlantic migratory group of Spanish mackerel. Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel are divided into a northern and southern zone for management purposes. The southern zone for Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel extends from 30°42′45.6″ N. lat., which is a line directly east from the Georgia/Florida boundary, to 25°20.4′ N. lat., which is a line directly east from the Miami-Dade/Monroe County, Florida, boundary.
For the southern zone, seasonally variable trip limits are based on an adjusted commercial quota of 2.88 million lb (1.31 million kg). The adjusted commercial quota is calculated to allow continued harvest in the southern zone at a set rate for the remainder of the current fishing year, February 28, 2014, in accordance with 50 CFR 622.385(b)(2). As specified at 50 CFR 622.385(b)(1)(ii)(B), beginning December 1, annually, the trip limit is unlimited on weekdays and limited to 1,500 lb (680 kg) of Spanish mackerel per day on weekends. As specified at 50 CFR 622.385(b)(1)(ii)(C), after 75 percent of the adjusted commercial quota of Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel is taken until 100 percent of the adjusted commercial quota is taken, Spanish mackerel in or from the EEZ in the southern zone may not be possessed on board or landed from a permitted vessel in amounts exceeding 1,500 lb (680 kg) per day.
NMFS has determined that 75 percent of the adjusted commercial quota for Atlantic group Spanish mackerel has been taken. Accordingly, the 1,500-lb (680-kg) per day commercial trip limit applies to Spanish mackerel in or from the EEZ in the southern zone effective 6 a.m., local time, January 17, 2014, until 12:01 a.m., local time, March 1, 2014, unless changed by subsequent notification in the
The Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS, has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.385(b)(1)(ii)(C) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
These measures are exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the temporary rule is issued without opportunity for prior notice and comment.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and the opportunity for public comment on this temporary rule. Such procedures are unnecessary because the rule itself has already been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the trip limit reduction.
Allowing prior notice and opportunity for public comment is contrary to the public interest because of the need to immediately implement this action to protect the Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel resource because the capacity of the commercial fleet allows for rapid harvest of the quota. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment would require time and could potentially result in a harvest well in excess of the established quota.
For the aforementioned reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in 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; quota transfer.
NMFS announces that the State of North Carolina is transferring a portion of its 2013 commercial summer flounder quota to the Commonwealth of Virginia. NMFS is adjusting the quotas and announcing the revised commercial quota for each state involved.
Effective January 17, 2014. The quota transfer is applicable from December 3, 2013, through December 31, 2013.
Carly Bari, Fishery Management Specialist, 978-281-9224.
Regulations governing the summer flounder fishery are in 50 CFR part 648, and require annual specification of a commercial quota that is apportioned among the coastal states from North Carolina through Maine. The process to set the annual commercial quota and the percent allocated to each state are described in § 648.102.
The final rule implementing Amendment 5 to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan, which was published on December 17, 1993 (58 FR 65936), provided a mechanism for summer flounder quota to be transferred from one state to another. Two or more states, under mutual agreement and with the concurrence of the Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), can transfer or combine summer flounder commercial quota under § 648.102(c)(2). The Regional Administrator is required to consider the criteria in § 648.102(c)(2)(i) to evaluate requests for quota transfers or combinations.
North Carolina has agreed to transfer 29,373 lb (13,323 kg) of its 2013 commercial quota to Virginia. This transfer was prompted by summer flounder landings of four North Carolina vessels that were granted safe harbor in Virginia due to mechanical failures between December 3, 2013, and December 16, 2013, thereby requiring a quota transfer to account for an increase in Virginia's landings that would have otherwise accrued against the North Carolina quota. The Regional Administrator has determined that the criteria set forth in § 648.102(c)(2)(i) have been met. The revised summer flounder commercial quotas for calendar year 2013 are: North Carolina, 373,400 lb (169,371 kg); and Virginia, 5,314,380 lb (2,410,562 kg).
This action is taken under 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Agricultural Marketing Service, Agriculture.
Referendum order.
This document directs that a referendum be conducted among eligible producers of peanuts to determine whether they favor continuance of the Peanut Promotion, Research and Information Order (Order).
The referendum will be conducted from April 7 through April 18, 2014. To vote in this referendum, producers must have paid assessments on peanuts produced during the representative period from January 1 through December 31, 2013, and must currently be a peanut producer.
Copies of the Order may be obtained from: Referendum Agent, Promotion and Economics Division (PED), Fruit and Vegetable Program (FVP), AMS, USDA, Stop 0244, Room 1406-S, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-0244; telephone: (888) 720-9917 (toll free), (202) 720-9915 (direct line); facsimile: (202) 205-2800.
Jeanette Palmer, Marketing Specialist, PED, FVP, AMS, USDA, Stop 0244, Room 1406-S, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-0244; telephone: (888) 720-9917 (toll free), (202) 720-9915 (direct line); facsimile: (202) 205-2800; or electronic mail:
Pursuant to the Commodity Promotion, Research and Information Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7411-7425) (Act), it is hereby directed that a referendum be conducted to ascertain whether continuance of the Order is favored by producers of peanuts covered under the program. The Order is authorized under the Act.
The representative period for establishing voter eligibility for the referendum shall be the period from January 1 through December 31, 2013. Persons who are currently producers of peanuts, and who produced peanuts and paid assessments during the representative period are eligible to vote. Persons who received an exemption from assessments for the entire representative period are ineligible to vote. The referendum shall be conducted by mail from April 7 through April 18, 2014.
Section 518 of the Act authorizes continuance referenda. Under section 1216.82 of the Order, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (Department) must conduct a referendum every five years or when 10 percent or more of the eligible peanut producers petition the Secretary of Agriculture to hold a referendum to determine if persons subject to assessment favor continuance of the Order. The Department would continue the Order if continuance is approved by a simple majority of the producers voting in the referendum.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the referendum ballot has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581-0093. It has been estimated that there are approximately 9,208 producers who will be eligible to vote in the referendum. It will take an average of 15 minutes for each voter to read the voting instructions and complete the referendum ballot.
Jeanette Palmer and Sonia Jimenez, PED, FVP, AMS, USDA, Stop 0244, Room 1406-S, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-0244, are designated as the referendum agents to conduct this referendum. The referendum procedures 7 CFR 1216.100 through 1216.107, which were issued pursuant to the Act, shall be used to conduct the referendum.
The referendum agents will mail the ballots to be cast in the referendum and voting instructions to all known producers prior to the first day of the voting period. Persons who are producers at the time of the referendum and who produced peanuts and paid assessments during the representative period are eligible to vote. Persons who received an exemption from assessments during the entire representative period are ineligible to vote. Any eligible producer who does not receive a ballot should contact the referendum agent no later than one week before the end of the voting period. Ballots must be received by the referendum agent, not later than close of business 4:30 p.m. Eastern time, April 18, 2014, in order to be counted.
Administrative practice and procedure, Advertising, Consumer information, Marketing agreements, Peanut promotion, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
7 U.S.C. 7411-7425 and 7 U.S.C. 7401.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to supersede airworthiness directives (ADs) 90-26-01, 91-20-02, and 2009-05-02, which apply to all General Electric Company (GE) CF6-80C2 and CF6-80E1 series turbofan engines. Since we issued ADs 90-26-01, 91-20-02, and 2009-05-02, we received a report of an undercowl fire caused by a manifold high-pressure fuel leak, and several additional reports of fuel leaks. This proposed AD would require additional repetitive inspections, replacement of tube (block) clamp, and inspection of fuel manifolds for wear at each tube (block) clamp location. We are proposing this AD to
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 3, 2014.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact General Electric Company, GE Aviation, Room 285, 1 Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215; phone: 513-552-3272; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Kasra Sharifi, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. 01830; phone 781-238-7773; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
On December 20, 1990, we issued AD 90-26-01 (55 FR 49611, November 30, 1990), for GE CF6-80C2 series turbofan engines. That AD requires replacing fuel manifold, part numbers (P/Ns) 1303M31G04 and 1303M32G04, within 30 calendar days after the effective date of the AD. That AD resulted from a report of an engine fire.
On November 15, 1991, we issued AD 91-20-02 (56 FR 55231, October 25, 1991), for the same engines. That AD requires replacing fuel manifold, P/Ns 1303M31G06, 1303M32G06, 1303M31G07, 1303M32G07, 1303M31G08, and 1303M32G08, at the next engine removal, but no later than June 30, 1993. That AD also resulted from a report of an engine fire.
On March 31, 2009, we issued AD 2009-05-02 (74 FR 8161, February 24, 2009), for GE CF6-80C2 and CF6-80E1 series turbofan engines with fuel manifolds, P/Ns 1303M31G12 and 1303M32G12, installed in drainless fuel manifold assemblies. That AD requires removing the loop clamps that hold the fuel manifold to the compressor rear frame damper brackets, inspecting the fuel manifold for wear at each clamp location, and replacing the clamps with new zero-time parts. That AD also requires revising the Airworthiness Limitations Section to require repetitive fuel manifold inspection and loop clamp replacement. That AD resulted from reports of fuel leaks during engine operation.
We issued these ADs to prevent failure of the fuel manifold, which could lead to uncontrolled engine fire, engine damage, and damage to the airplane. We are superseding these ADs to eliminate potentially confusing and contradictory requirements in these ADs. This proposed AD expands the inspection mandated by AD 2009-05-02 and it expands the list of banned fuel manifolds mandated by AD 90-26-01 and AD 91-20-02.
Since we issued AD 90-26-01 (55 FR 49611, November 30, 1990); AD 91-20-02 (56 FR 55231, October 25, 1991); and AD 2009-05-02 (74 FR 8161, February 24, 2009); we received a report of an undercowl fire caused by a fuel manifold high-pressure fuel leak in engine model CF6-80C2, and several additional reports of fuel leaks; four in the CF6-80C2 and one in the CF6-80E1 model engine.
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would retain the requirements of AD 90-26-01 (55 FR 49611, November 30, 1990); and AD 91-20-02 (56 FR 55231, October 25, 1991); to remove certain fuel manifold P/Ns, and the requirements of AD 2009-05-02 (74 FR 8161, February 24, 2009); to inspect certain fuel manifold P/Ns and replace certain consumable components. This proposed AD would add a requirement to inspect an additional fuel manifold configuration and replacement of certain loop clamps. This proposed AD would also require repetitive inspection and replacement of tube (block) clamp, and inspection of the fuel manifold for wear at each tube (block) clamp location. This proposed AD would also require removing certain drainless fuel manifold assembly P/Ns from service.
We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 1,126 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that required parts cost about $34,894 per engine. We also estimate that is would take about 6 hours to accomplish the actions required by this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of the proposed AD to U.S. operators to be $39,864,904.
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,
We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by March 3, 2014.
This AD supersedes AD 90-26-01 (55 FR 49611, November 30, 1990); AD 91-20-02 (56 FR 55231, October 25, 1991); and AD 2009-05-02 (74 FR 8161, February 24, 2009).
This AD applies to all General Electric Company (GE) CF6-80C2 and CF6-80E1 turbofan engines with fuel manifold, part numbers (P/Ns) 1303M31G04,1303M32G04, 1303M31G06, 1303M32G06, 1303M31G07, 1303M32G07, 1303M31G08, 1303M32G08,1308M31G12, 1308M32G12, 2420M70G01, and 2420M71G01, installed.
This AD was prompted by a report of an undercowl fire caused by a fuel manifold high-pressure fuel leak, and several additional reports of fuel leaks. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the fuel manifold, which could lead to uncontrolled engine fire, engine damage, and damage to the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) Fuel Manifold Removal.
(i) For CF6-80C2 and CF6-80E1 series engines, before further flight after the effective date of this AD, remove fuel manifold, P/Ns 1303M31G04, 1303M32G04, 1303M31G06, 1303M32G06, 1303M31G07, 1303M32G07, 1303M31G08, and 1303M32G08, from service.
(ii) For CF6-80C2 and CF6-80E1 series engines, at the next engine shop visit after effective date of this AD, remove fuel manifold, P/Ns 1303M31G12, 1303M32G12, 2420M70G01, and 2420M71G01, from service.
(2) Fuel Manifold, Loop Clamp, and Tube (Block) Clamp Inspection and Replacement—Drainless Assembly.
(i) For CF6-80C2 series engines, with fuel manifold, P/N 1303M31G12 or 1303M32G12, installed, refer to Table 1 to paragraph (e) of this AD, accomplish the initial inspections of the fuel manifold and replacement of the loop clamps in accordance with paragraphs 3.A and 3.D of GE Service Bulletin (SB) CF6-80C2 S/B 73-0326, Revision 4, dated December 23, 2009.
(ii) For CF6-80C2 series engines, with fuel manifold, P/Ns 2420M70G01 or 2420M71G01, installed, refer to Table 1 to paragraph (e) of this AD, accomplish the initial inspection of the fuel manifold and replacement of the loop clamps in accordance with paragraphs 3.C and 3.D of GE SB CF6-80C2 S/B 73-0326, Revision 4, dated December 23, 2009.
(iii) For CF6-80E1 series engines, with fuel manifold, P/Ns 1303M31G12 or 1303M32G12, installed, refer to Table 1 to paragraph (e) of this AD, accomplish the initial inspection of the fuel manifold and replacement of the loop clamps in accordance with paragraphs 3.A and 3.C of GE SB CF6-80E1 S/B 73-0061, Revision 4, dated December 23, 2009.
(iv) For CF6-80E1 series engines, with fuel manifold P/Ns 2420M70G01 or 2420M71G01 installed, refer to Table 1 to paragraph (e) of this AD, accomplish the initial inspection of the fuel manifold and replacement of the loop clamps in accordance with paragraphs 3.B and 3.C of GE SB CF6-80E1 S/B 73-0061, Revision 4, dated December 23, 2009.
(v) Thereafter, inspect fuel manifolds P/Ns 1303M31G12, 1303M32G12, 2420M70G01, and 2420M71G01 installed, within every 7,500 flight hours (FH) since the last inspection, in accordance with paragraphs (e)(2)(i) through (e)(2)(iv) of this AD.
(3) For CF6-80C2 series engines, with fuel manifold, P/Ns 1303M31G12, 1303M32G12, 2420M70G01, or 2420M71G01, with tube (block) clamp, P/N 1153M26G15, refer to Table 2 to paragraph (e) of this AD, accomplish the initial inspection of the fuel manifold and tube (block) clamp, and replacement of the fuel manifold and tube (block) clamp, if required based on inspection results, in accordance with paragraph 3.A of GE SB CF6-80C2 S/B 73-0414, dated July 2, 2013.
(4) For CF6-80E1 series engines, with fuel manifold, P/Ns 1303M31G12, 1303M32G12, 2420M70G01, or 2420M71G01, with tube (block) clamp, P/N 1153M26G15, refer to Table 2 to paragraph (e) of this AD, accomplish the initial inspections of the fuel manifold and tube (block) clamp, and replacement of the fuel manifold and tube (block) clamp, if required based on inspection results, in accordance with paragraph 3.A of GE SB CF6-80E1 S/B 73-0121, dated July 2, 2013.
(5) Thereafter, inspect fuel manifold, P/Ns 1303M31G12, 1303M32G12, 2420M70G01, and 2420M71G01, within every 7,500 flight hours (FH) since the last inspection, in accordance with paragraphs (e)(3) and (e)(4) of this AD.
After the effective date of this AD, do not install fuel manifold, P/Ns 1308M31G04, 1303M32G04, 1303M31G06, 1303M32G06, 1303M31G07, 1303M32G07, 1303M31G08, 1303M32G08, 1308M31G12, 1308M32G12, 2420M70G01, or 2420M71G01, on any engine.
For the purpose of this AD, an engine shop visit is the induction of an engine into the shop for maintenance involving separation of pairs of major mating engine flanges (lettered flanges), except that the separation of engine flanges solely for the purposes of transporting the engine without subsequent engine maintenance does not constitute an engine shop visit.
The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your request. Previously approved AMOCs for AD 2009-05-02 (74 FR 8161, February 24, 2009) remain approved for the corresponding requirements of paragraphs (e)(1) through (e)(5) of this AD.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Kasra Sharifi, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01830; phone 781-238-7773; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
(2) General Electric Service Bulletin (SB) CF6-80C2 S/B 73-0326, Revision 4, dated December 23, 2009, SB CF6-80E1 S/B 73-0061, Revision 4, dated December 23, 2009, SB CF6-80C2 S/B 73-0414, dated July 2, 2013, and SB CF6-80E1 S/B 73-0121, dated July 2, 2013, pertain to the subject of this AD and can be obtained from GE using the contact information in paragraph (i)(3) of this AD.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact General Electric Company, GE Aviation, Room 285, 1 Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215; phone: 513-552-3272; email:
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
This document contains proposed regulations that provide rules for determining a taxable beneficiary's basis in a term interest in a charitable remainder trust upon a sale or other disposition of all interests in the trust to
Written or electronic comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by April 17, 2014.
Send submissions to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-154890-03), Room 5205, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-154890-03), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC or sent electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Concerning the proposed regulations, Allison R. Carmody at (202) 317-5279; concerning submissions of comments and requests for hearing, Oluwafunmilayo (Funmi) Taylor, at (202) 317-6901 (not toll-free numbers).
A charitable remainder trust (CRT) is a trust that provides for the distribution of an annuity or a unitrust amount, at least annually, to one or more beneficiaries, at least one of which is not a charity, for life or for a limited term of years, with an irrevocable remainder interest held for the benefit of, or paid over to, charity. Thus, there is at least one current income beneficiary of a CRT, and a charitable remainder beneficiary. A CRT is not subject to income tax. See section 664(c).
Property acquired by a trust from a decedent or as a gift generally has a uniform basis. This means that property has a single basis even though more than one person has an interest in that property. See §§ 1.1014-4(a)(1) and 1.1015-1(b). Generally, the uniform basis of assets transferred to a trust is determined under section 1015 for assets transferred by lifetime gift, or under section 1014 or 1022 for assets transferred from a decedent. Adjustments to uniform basis for items such as depreciation are made even though more than one person holds an interest in the property (adjusted uniform basis).
When a taxable trust sells assets, any gain is taxed currently to the trust, to one or more beneficiaries, or apportioned among the trust and its beneficiaries. If the trust reinvests the proceeds from the sale in new assets, the trust's basis in the newly purchased assets is the cost of the new assets. See section 1012. Thus, the adjusted uniform basis of that taxable trust is attributable to basis obtained with proceeds from sales that were subject to income tax.
However, a CRT does not pay income tax on gain from the sale of appreciated assets. A CRT may sell appreciated assets and accumulate undistributed income and undistributed capital gains, and may reinvest the proceeds of the sales in new assets. The treatment of distributions from a CRT to its income beneficiary depends upon the amount of undistributed income and undistributed capital gains in the CRT. Sections 664(b)(1) and (2).
Section 1001(e) governs the determination of gain or loss from the sale or disposition of a term interest in property, such as a life or term interest in a CRT. In general, section 1001(e)(1) provides that the portion of the adjusted basis of a term interest in property that is determined pursuant to sections 1014, 1015, or 1041 is disregarded in determining gain or loss from the sale or other disposition of such term interest. Thus, the seller of such an interest generally must disregard that portion of the basis in the transferred interest in computing the gain or loss.
Section 1001(e)(3), however, provides that section 1001(e)(1) does not apply to a sale or other disposition that is part of a transaction in which the entire interest in property is transferred. Therefore, in the case of a sale or other disposition that is part of a transaction in which all interests in the property (or trust) are transferred as described in section 1001(e)(3), the capital gain or loss of each seller of an interest is the excess of the amount realized from the sale of that interest over the seller's basis in that interest. Each seller's basis is the seller's portion of the adjusted uniform basis assignable to the interest so transferred. See § 1.1014-5(a)(1).
The basis of a term or remainder interest in a trust at the time of its sale or other disposition is determined under the rules provided in § 1.1014-5. See also §§ 1.1015-1(b) and 1.1015-2(a)(2), which refer to the rules of § 1.1014-5. Specifically, § 1.1014-5(a)(3) provides that, in determining the basis in a term or remainder interest in property at the time of the interest's sale or disposition, adjusted uniform basis is allocated using the factors for valuing life estates and remainder interests. Thus, the portions of the adjusted uniform basis attributable to the interests of the life tenant and remaindermen are adjusted to reflect the change in the relative values of such interests due to the lapse of time.
The IRS and the Treasury Department became aware of a type of transaction involving these provisions and, on October 31, 2008, the IRS and the Treasury Department published Notice 2008-99 (2008-47 IRB 1194) (“Notice”) to designate a transaction and substantially similar transactions as Transactions of Interest under § 1.6011-4(b)(6) of the Income Tax Regulations, and to ask for public comments on how the transactions might be addressed in published guidance. In this type of transaction, a sale or other disposition of all interests in a CRT subsequent to the contribution of appreciated assets to, and their reinvestment by, the CRT results in the grantor or other noncharitable beneficiary (the taxable beneficiary) receiving the value of the taxable beneficiary's trust interest while claiming to recognize little or no taxable gain.
Specifically, upon contribution of assets to the CRT, the grantor claims an income tax deduction under section 170 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) for the portion of the fair market value of the assets contributed to the CRT (which generally have a fair market value in excess of the grantor's cost basis) that is attributable to the charitable remainder interest. When the CRT sells or liquidates the contributed assets, the taxable beneficiary does not recognize gain, and the CRT is exempt from tax on such gain under section 664(c). The CRT reinvests the proceeds in other assets, often a portfolio of marketable securities, with a basis equal to the portfolio's cost. The taxable beneficiary and charity subsequently sell all of their respective interests in the CRT to a third party.
The taxable beneficiary takes the position that the entire interest in the CRT has been sold as described in section 1001(e)(3) and, therefore, section 1001(e)(1) does not apply to the transaction. As a result, the taxable beneficiary computes gain on the sale of the taxable beneficiary's term interest by taking into account the portion of the uniform basis allocable to the term interest under §§ 1.1014-5 and 1.1015-1(b). The taxable beneficiary takes the position that this uniform basis is
In response to the request for comments in the Notice, the IRS and the Treasury Department received three written comments. All three commenters agreed that a taxable beneficiary of a CRT should not benefit from a basis step-up attributable to tax-exempt gains, and each supported amending the uniform basis rules to foreclose this benefit. The IRS and the Treasury Department agree that it is inappropriate for a taxable beneficiary to share in the uniform basis obtained through the reinvestment of income not subject to tax due to a trust's tax-exempt status.
Accordingly, these proposed regulations provide a special rule for determining the basis in certain CRT term interests in transactions to which section 1001(e)(3) applies. In these cases, the proposed regulations provide that the basis of a term interest of a taxable beneficiary is the portion of the adjusted uniform basis assignable to that interest reduced by the portion of the sum of the following amounts assignable to that interest: (1) The amount of undistributed net ordinary income described in section 664(b)(1); and (2) the amount of undistributed net capital gain described in section 664(b)(2). These proposed regulations do not affect the CRT's basis in its assets, but rather are for the purpose of determining a taxable beneficiary's gain arising from a transaction described in section 1001(e)(3). However, the IRS and the Treasury Department may consider whether there should be any change in the treatment of the charitable remainderman participating in such a transaction.
In addition to the comments supportive of a basis limitation described above and proposed to be adopted herein, the commenters addressed additional issues in response to the Notice. One commenter requested guidance specifying what valuation methods the IRS will accept as a reasonable method for determining the amount of a life-income recipient's gain on the termination of certain types of CRTs. Another commenter suggested that the IRS and the Treasury Department could create a rule requiring a zero basis for all interests in CRTs in order to prevent an inappropriate result while still allowing for early termination of CRTs. The commenter also proposed that this rule be made applicable to all early terminations of CRTs. The IRS and the Treasury Department did not adopt a rule requiring a zero basis for all interests in CRTs because the IRS and the Treasury Department believe that the rule provided in the proposed regulations will prevent inappropriate results while treating parties to the transaction fairly. Additionally, the IRS and the Treasury Department believe that rules addressing early terminations other than those arising from a transaction described in section 1001(e)(3), and rules prescribing valuation methods, are beyond the scope of the issues intended to be addressed in these proposed regulations, and thus will not be considered as part of this guidance.
Finally, the rules in these proposed regulations are limited in application to charitable remainder annuity trusts and charitable remainder unitrusts as defined in section 664. The IRS and the Treasury Department request comments as to whether the rules also should apply to other types of tax-exempt trusts.
The issuance of these proposed regulations does not affect the disclosure obligation set forth in the Notice.
These regulations are proposed to apply to sales and other dispositions of interests in CRTs occurring on or after January 16, 2014, except for sales or dispositions occurring pursuant to a binding commitment entered into before January 16, 2014. However, the inapplicability of these regulations to an excepted sale or disposition does not preclude the IRS from applying legal arguments available to the IRS before issuance of these regulations in order to contest the claimed tax treatment of such a transaction.
The IRS notice cited in this preamble is published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin or Cumulative Bulletin and is available at the IRS Web site at
It has been determined that this notice of proposed rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply to these regulations because the regulations do not impose a collection of information on small entities. Therefore, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, this notice of proposed rulemaking has been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.
Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any written (a signed original and 8 copies) or electronic comments that are submitted timely to the IRS. The IRS and the Treasury Department also request comments on the administrability and clarity of the proposed rules, and how they can be made easier to understand. All comments will be available for public inspection and copying at
The principal author of these proposed regulations is Allison R. Carmody of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Passthroughs and Special Industries). Other personnel from the IRS and the Treasury Department participated in their development.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is proposed to be amended as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
The additions read as follows:
(c)
(i) That part of the adjusted uniform basis assignable to the term interest of the taxable beneficiary under the rules of paragraph (a) of this section reduced, but not below zero, by
(ii) An amount determined by applying the same actuarial share applied in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section to the sum of—
(A) The trust's undistributed net ordinary income within the meaning of section 664(b)(1) and § 1.664-1(d)(1)(ii)(
(B) The trust's undistributed net capital gains within the meaning of section 664(b)(2) and § 1.664-1(d)(1)(ii)(
(2)
(3)
(4)
(d) * * *
(a) Grantor creates a charitable remainder unitrust (CRUT) on Date 1 in which Grantor retains a unitrust interest and irrevocably transfers the remainder interest to Charity. Grantor is an individual taxpayer subject to income tax. CRUT meets the requirements of section 664 and is exempt from income tax.
(b) Grantor's basis in the shares of X stock used to fund CRUT is $10x. On Date 2, CRUT sells the X stock for $100x. The $90x of gain is exempt from income tax under section 664(c)(1). On Date 3, CRUT uses the $100x proceeds from its sale of the X stock to purchase Y stock. On Date 4, CRUT sells the Y stock for $110x. The $10x of gain on the sale of the Y stock is exempt from income tax under section 664(c)(1). On Date 5, CRUT uses the $110x proceeds from its sale of Y stock to buy Z stock. On Date 5, CRUT's basis in its assets is $110x and CRUT's total undistributed net capital gains are $100x.
(c) Later, when the fair market value of CRUT's assets is $150x and CRUT has no undistributed net ordinary income, Grantor and Charity sell all of their interests in CRUT to a third person. Grantor receives $100x for the retained unitrust interest, and Charity receives $50x for its interest. Because the entire interest in CRUT is transferred to the third person, section 1001(e)(3) prevents section 1001(e)(1) from applying to the transaction. Therefore, Grantor's gain on the sale of the retained unitrust interest in CRUT is determined under section 1001(a), which provides that Grantor's gain on the sale of that interest is the excess of the amount realized, $100x, over Grantor's adjusted basis in the interest.
(d) Grantor's adjusted basis in the unitrust interest in CRUT is that portion of CRUT's adjusted uniform basis that is assignable to Grantor's interest under § 1.1014-5, which is Grantor's actuarial share of the adjusted uniform basis. In this case, CRUT's adjusted uniform basis in its sole asset, the Z stock, is $110x. However, paragraph (c) of this section applies to the transaction. Therefore, Grantor's actuarial share of CRUT's adjusted uniform basis (determined by applying the factors set forth in the tables contained in § 20.2031-7 of this chapter) is reduced by an amount determined by applying the same factors to the sum of CRUT's $0 of undistributed net ordinary income and its $100x of undistributed net capital gains.
(e) In determining Charity's share of the adjusted uniform basis, Charity applies the factors set forth in the tables contained in § 20.2031-7 of this chapter to the full $110x of basis.
(a) Grantor creates a charitable remainder annuity trust (CRAT) on Date 1 in which Grantor retains an annuity interest and irrevocably transfers the remainder interest to Charity. Grantor is an individual taxpayer subject to income tax. CRAT meets the requirements of section 664 and is exempt from income tax.
(b) Grantor funds CRAT with shares of X stock having a basis of $50x. On Date 2, CRAT sells the X stock for $150x. The $100x of gain is exempt from income tax under section 664(c)(1). On Date 3, CRAT distributes $10x to Grantor, and uses the remaining $140x of net proceeds from its sale of the X stock to purchase Y stock. Grantor treats the $10x distribution as capital gain, so that CRAT's remaining undistributed net capital gains amount described in section 664(b)(2) and § 1.664-1(d) is $90x.
(c) On Date 4, when the fair market value of CRAT's assets, which consist entirely of the Y stock, is still $140x, Grantor and Charity sell all of their interests in CRAT to a third person. Grantor receives $126x for the retained annuity interest, and Charity receives $14x for its remainder interest. Because the entire interest in CRAT is transferred to the third person, section 1001(e)(3) prevents section 1001(e)(1) from applying to the transaction. Therefore, Grantor's gain on the sale of the retained annuity interest in CRAT is determined under section 1001(a), which provides that Grantor's gain on the sale of that interest is the excess of the amount realized, $126x, over Grantor's adjusted basis in that interest.
(d) Grantor's adjusted basis in the annuity interest in CRAT is that portion of CRAT's adjusted uniform basis that is assignable to Grantor's interest under § 1.1014-5, which is Grantor's actuarial share of the adjusted uniform basis. In this case, CRAT's adjusted uniform basis in its sole asset, the Y stock, is $140x. However, paragraph (c) of this section applies to the transaction. Therefore, Grantor's actuarial share of CRAT's adjusted uniform basis (determined by applying the factors set forth in the tables contained in § 20.2031-7 of this chapter) is reduced by an amount determined by applying the same factors to the sum of CRAT's $0 of undistributed net ordinary income and its $90x of undistributed net capital gains.
(e) In determining Charity's share of the adjusted uniform basis, Charity applies the factors set forth in the tables contained in § 20.2031-7 of this chapter to determine its actuarial share of the full $140x of basis.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations.
In the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the
Comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by April 17, 2014.
Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-121534-12), Room 5205, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-121534-12), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC, or sent electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Concerning the proposed regulations, David A. Levine, (202) 317-6937; concerning submissions of comments or requests for a public hearing, Oluwafunmilayo Taylor, (202) 317-6901 (not toll-free numbers).
Temporary regulations in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the
It has been determined that that these regulations are not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations. It is hereby certified that the collection of information contained in these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. Given the complexity and cost of a transaction to which these regulations may apply, the IRS and the Treasury Department anticipate that these regulations primarily will affect large domestic corporations and partnerships and their shareholders and partners. Although small entities could be shareholders or partners of a larger domestic corporation or partnership involved in a transaction affected by the regulations, the IRS and the Treasury Department do not anticipate the number of these shareholders or partners to be substantial. Pursuant to section 7805(f), these regulations have been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on their impact on small business.
Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any comments that are submitted timely to the IRS as prescribed in this preamble under the “Addresses” heading. The IRS and the Treasury Department request comments on all aspects of the proposed rules. All comments will be available at
The principal authors of these regulations are David A. Levine of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (International) and Mary W. Lyons, formerly of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (International). However, other personnel from the IRS and the Treasury Department participated in their development.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is proposed to be amended as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
Section 1.7874-4 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 7874(c)(6) and (g). Section 1.7874-5 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 7874(c)(6) and (g).
[The text of proposed § 1.7874-4(a) through (k) is the same as the text of § 1.7874-4T(a) through (k) published elsewhere in this issue of the
[The text of proposed § 1.7874-5(a) through (c) is the same as the text of § 1.7874-5T(a) through (c) published elsewhere in this issue of the
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Department of Commerce.
Notice of extension of public comment period.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO” or “Office”) published a notice of proposed rulemaking to change the rules of practice to implement Title I of the Patent Law Treaties Implementation Act of 2012 (“PLTIA”). Title I of the PLTIA amends the patent laws to implement the provisions of the 1999 Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement and is to take effect on the entry in force of the Hague Agreement with respect to the United States. On January 14, 2014, the Office conducted a public forum at the Alexandria, Virginia headquarters to discuss the proposed rules. The USPTO is extending the comment period in order to provide interested members of the public with additional time to submit written comments to the USPTO.
The comment deadline announced in the proposed rule published on November 29, 2013 (78 FR 71870) has been extended. To be ensured of consideration, written comments must be received on or before Tuesday, February 4, 2014.
Comments should be sent by electronic mail message over the Internet addressed to:
Additionally, comments may be sent by electronic mail message over the Internet via the Federal eRulemaking Portal.
Although comments may be submitted by postal mail, the Office prefers to receive comments by electronic mail message over the Internet because the Office may easily share such comments with the public. Electronic comments in plain text format are preferred, but electronic comments in ADOBE® portable document format or MICROSOFT WORD® format may be submitted. Comments not submitted electronically should be submitted on paper in a format that facilitates convenient digital scanning into ADOBE® portable document format.
Written comments will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Commissioner for Patents, currently located in Madison East, Tenth Floor, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia. Comments also will be available for viewing at
David Gerk, Office of Policy and International Affairs, by phone 571-272-9300, by email at
The Office published proposed rules to change the rules of practice to implement Title I of the PLTIA.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing approval of a revision to the South Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of South Carolina through the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SC DHEC) on December 28, 2012. South Carolina's December 28, 2012, SIP revision (“progress report SIP”) addresses requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or “the Act”) and EPA's rules that require states to submit periodic reports describing progress towards reasonable progress goals (RPGs) established for regional haze and a determination of the adequacy of the State's existing SIP addressing regional haze (“regional haze SIP”). EPA is proposing approval of South Carolina's progress report SIP on the basis that it addresses the progress report and adequacy determination requirements for the first implementation period for regional haze.
Comments must be received on or before February 18, 2014.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0389 by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Michele Notarianni, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Michele Notarianni can be reached at telephone number (404) 562-9031 and by electronic mail at
States are required to submit a progress report in the form of a SIP revision every five years that evaluates progress towards the RPGs for each mandatory Class I Federal area within the state and in each mandatory Class I Federal area outside the state which may be affected by emissions from within the state. 40 CFR 51.308(g). States are also required to submit, at the same time as the progress report, a determination of the adequacy of the state's existing regional haze SIP. 40 CFR 51.308(h). The first progress report SIP is due five years after submittal of the initial regional haze SIP. On December 17, 2007, SC DHEC submitted the State's first regional haze SIP in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b).
On December 28, 2012, SC DHEC submitted, in the form of a revision to South Carolina's SIP, a report on progress made in the first implementation period towards RPGs for Class I areas in the State and Class I areas outside the State that are affected by emissions from South Carolina's sources. This progress report SIP and accompanying cover letter also included a determination that the State's existing regional haze SIP requires no substantive revision to achieve the established regional haze visibility improvement and emissions reduction goals for 2018. EPA is proposing to approve South Carolina's progress report SIP on the basis that it satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g) and 51.308(h).
Under 40 CFR 51.308(g), states must submit a regional haze progress report as a SIP revision every five years and must address, at a minimum, the seven elements found in 40 CFR 51.308(g). As described in further detail in section III below, 40 CFR 51.308(g) requires a description of the status of measures in the approved regional haze SIP; a summary of emissions reductions achieved; an assessment of visibility conditions for each Class I area in the state; an analysis of changes in emissions from sources and activities within the state; an assessment of any significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside the state that have limited or impeded progress in Class I areas impacted by the state's sources; an assessment of the sufficiency of the approved regional haze SIP; and a review of the state's visibility monitoring strategy.
Under 40 CFR 51.308(h), states are required to submit, at the same time as the progress report SIP, a determination of the adequacy of their existing regional haze SIP and to take one of four possible actions based on information in the progress report. As described in further detail in section III below, 40 CFR 51.308(h) requires states to either: (1) Submit a negative declaration to EPA that no further substantive revision to the state's existing regional haze SIP is needed; (2) provide notification to EPA (and other state(s) that participated in the regional planning process) if the state determines that its existing regional haze SIP is or may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress at one or more Class I areas due to emissions from sources in other state(s) that participated in the regional planning process, and collaborate with these other state(s) to develop additional strategies to address deficiencies; (3) provide notification with supporting information to EPA if the state determines that its existing regional haze SIP is or may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress at one or more Class I areas due to emissions from sources in another country; or (4) revise its regional haze SIP to address deficiencies within one year if the state determines that its existing regional
On December 28, 2012, SC DHEC submitted a revision to South Carolina's regional haze SIP to address progress made towards RPGs of Class I areas in the State and Class I areas outside the State that are affected by emissions from South Carolina's sources. This progress report SIP also included a determination of the adequacy of the State's existing regional haze SIP. South Carolina has one Class I area within its borders: the Cape Romain Wilderness Area (Cape Romain). SC DHEC also identified, through an area of influence modeling analysis based on back trajectories, five Class I areas in two neighboring states potentially impacted by South Carolina sources: Wolf Island and Okefenokee Wilderness Areas in Georgia; and Joyce Kilmer, Shining Rock, and Swanquarter Wilderness Areas in North Carolina. 77 FR 11911.
The following sections summarize: (1) Each of the seven elements that must be addressed by the progress report under 40 CFR 51.308(g); (2) how South Carolina's progress report SIP addressed each element; and (3) EPA's analysis and proposed determination as to whether the State satisfied each element.
40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) requires a description of the status of implementation of all measures included in the regional haze SIP for achieving RPGs for Class I areas both within and outside the state.
The State evaluated the status of all measures included in its 2007 regional haze SIP in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1). Specifically, in its progress report SIP, South Carolina summarizes the status of the emissions reduction measures that were included in the final iteration of the Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast (VISTAS) regional haze emissions inventory and RPG modeling. The State also discusses the status of those measures that were not included in the final VISTAS emissions inventory and were not relied upon in the initial regional haze SIP to meet RPGs. The State notes that the emissions reductions from these measures, which are relied upon by South Carolina for reasonable progress, will help ensure Class I areas impacted by South Carolina sources achieve their RPGs. The measures include applicable Federal programs (e.g., mobile source rules, Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards, Federal and state consent agreements, and Federal and state control strategies for electric generating units (EGUs)). This summary includes a discussion of the benefits associated with each measure.
In instances where implementation of a measure did not occur on schedule, information is provided on the source category and the measure's relative impact on the overall future year emissions inventories. In aggregate, as noted in section III.A.2 and III.A.6 of this action, the emissions reductions from the identified measures are expected to result in lower emissions than originally projected in South Carolina's regional haze SIP. South Carolina states that it does not expect reasonable progress to be adversely impacted in any of the Class I areas in South Carolina or neighboring states by any of the changes to the emissions reductions projected.
EPA proposes to find that South Carolina's analysis adequately addresses 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1). The State documents the implementation status of measures from its regional haze SIP in addition to describing additional measures not originally accounted for in the final VISTAS emissions inventory used by the State that came into effect since the VISTAS analyses for the regional haze SIP were completed. South Carolina's progress report also describes significant measures resulting from EPA regulations other than the regional haze program as they pertain to the State's sources. The progress report SIP highlights the effect of several Federal control measures both nationally and in the VISTAS region, and when possible, in the State. For example, the SIP provides a copy of the Federal consent decree with Santee Cooper, a South Carolina utility, and summarizes the emissions effects of this decree.
The State's progress report discusses the status of key control measures that the State relied upon in the first implementation period to make reasonable progress. In its regional haze SIP, South Carolina identified sulfur dioxide (SO
Regarding the status of BART and reasonable progress control requirements for sources in the State, South Carolina's progress report SIP reviews the status of the State's 21 BART-eligible sources, including two sources—SCE&G-Williams and SCE&G-Wateree—found to be subject to BART. The progress report SIP indicates that flue gas desulfurization systems have been installed on these two BART-subject sources and are currently operating. Additionally, South Carolina summarized its reasonable progress control determinations from its regional haze SIP. Because the State found no additional controls to be reasonable for the first implementation period for sources evaluated for reasonable progress in South Carolina, no further discussion of the status of controls was necessary in the progress report SIP.
EPA proposes to conclude that South Carolina has adequately addressed the status of control measures in its regional haze SIP as required by 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1). The State describes the implementation status of measures from its regional haze SIP, including the status of control measures to meet BART and reasonable progress requirements, the status of significant measures resulting from EPA regulations and certain Federally-enforceable consent decrees, as well as measures that came into effect since the VISTAS analyses for the regional haze SIP were completed.
40 CFR 51.308(g)(2) requires a summary of the emissions reductions achieved in the state through the measures subject to 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1).
In its regional haze SIP and progress report SIP, South Carolina focuses its assessment on SO
Overall, SO
Between 2002 and 2011, heat input to these EGUs increased from approximately 418,577,515 million British thermal units (MMBtu) to 443,900,798 MMBtu. However, actual SO
South Carolina states that a comparison of 2009 and 2011 data for these EGUs shows similar results. Emissions fell from 93,941 tons of SO
South Carolina also identifies specific additional EGU SO
South Carolina also submitted data for the entire VISTAS region showing similar trends in SO
EPA proposes to conclude that South Carolina has adequately addressed 40 CFR 51.308(g)(2). The State provides estimates, and where available, actual emissions reductions of SO
40 CFR 51.308(g)(3) requires that states with Class I areas provide the following information for the most impaired and least impaired days for each area, with values expressed in terms of five-year averages of these annual values:
(i) Current visibility conditions;
(ii) the difference between current visibility conditions and baseline visibility conditions; and
(iii) the change in visibility impairment over the past five years.
The State provides figures with the latest supporting data available at the time that it developed the progress report SIP that address the three requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3) for Cape Romain. For the first regional haze SIPs, “baseline” conditions were represented by the 2000-2004 time period.
EPA proposes to conclude that South Carolina has adequately addressed 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3). The State provides the information regarding visibility conditions and changes necessary to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3). The progress report SIP includes current conditions based on the latest available Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) monitoring data for the years 2005-2009, the difference between current visibility conditions and baseline visibility conditions, and the change in visibility impairment over the most recent five-year period for which data were available at the time of progress report SIP development (i.e., 2005-2009).
40 CFR 51.308(g)(4) requires an analysis tracking emissions changes of visibility-impairing pollutants from the state's sources by type or category over the past five years based on the most recent updated emissions inventory.
In its progress report SIP, South Carolina presents data from a statewide emissions inventory developed for the year 2007 and compares this data to three sets of data from its initial regional haze SIP: a baseline emissions inventory for 2002 and estimated emissions inventories for the future years of 2009 and 2018 (as updated and provided by VISTAS to the State in 2008).
In addition, South Carolina augments the statewide 2007 actual emissions inventory data with more recent emissions data and control summary information for the years 2007 to 2011 for the EGU sector, which is the key source of SO
EPA proposes to conclude that South Carolina has adequately addressed 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4). While ideally the five-year period to be analyzed for emissions inventory changes is the time period since the current regional haze SIP was submitted, there is an inevitable time lag in developing and reporting complete emissions inventories once quality-assured emissions data becomes available. Therefore, EPA believes that there is some flexibility in the five-year time period that states can select. South Carolina tracked changes in emissions of visibility-impairing pollutants using an updated emissions inventory for 2007 that the State believes is more robust than the 2008 National Emissions Inventory pertaining to the State, the most recent updated inventory of actual emissions for the State at the time that it developed the progress report SIP. EPA believes that the State's use of the five-year period from 2002-2007 understates the actual reductions because substantial additional SO
40 CFR 51.308(g)(5) requires an assessment of any significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside the state that have occurred over the past five years that have limited or impeded progress in reducing pollutant emissions and improving visibility in Class I areas impacted by the state's sources.
In its progress report SIP, South Carolina states that sulfates continue to be the biggest single contributor to regional haze at Cape Romain. Accordingly, South Carolina first focused its analysis on addressing large SO
In addressing the requirements at 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5), South Carolina further examined other potential pollutants of concern affecting visibility at Cape Romain. After ammonium sulfate (64.1 percent), primary organic matter (POM) (14.4 percent) is the next largest contributor to visibility impairment at Cape Romain. To further examine spikes in POM monitoring data, the State conducted an analysis to determine potential contributors. This analysis indicated that fires reported within and/or outside the State appear to have contributed to visibility impairment on days exhibiting uncharacteristically high levels of POM.
EPA proposes to conclude that South Carolina has adequately addressed 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5). The State performed additional analyses to confirm its decision to focus on SO
40 CFR 51.308(g)(6) requires an assessment of whether the current regional haze SIP is sufficient to enable the state, or other states, to meet the RPGs for Class I areas affected by emissions from the state.
In its progress report SIP, South Carolina states that it believes that the elements and strategies outlined in its original regional haze SIP are sufficient to enable South Carolina and other neighboring states to meet all the established RPGs. To support this conclusion, South Carolina notes that the actual 2011 EGU emissions of 66,131 tons of SO
In its regional haze SIP, South Carolina established a RPG for the 20-percent best days that would result in a 1.4 deciview reduction in visibility impairment to 12.7 dv. After South Carolina submitted its regional haze SIP on December 17, 2007, VISTAS made several modifications to the original emissions inventory to improve model performance and reassess the RPGs for the VISTAS states. The final model simulation of the updated/revised VISTAS emissions inventory results in a slight change in the calculation of the Cape Romain RPG for the 20-percent best days from 12.7 to 12.8 dv. South Carolina requests that EPA acknowledge this update to the RPG as a revision to the State's regional haze SIP. EPA proposes to approve this revised RPG for the 20-percent best days for Cape Romain because it reflects the updated VISTAS baseline inventory used to generate the RPGs incorporated into the regional haze SIPs for the other VISTAS states.
EPA proposes to conclude that South Carolina has adequately addressed 40 CFR 51.308(g)(6). EPA views this requirement as a qualitative assessment that should evaluate emissions and visibility trends and other readily available information, including expected emissions reductions associated with measures with compliance dates that have not yet become effective. The State referenced the improving visibility trends and the downward emissions trends in the State, with a focus on SO
40 CFR 51.308(g)(7) requires a review of the state's visibility monitoring strategy and an assessment of whether any modifications to the monitoring strategy are necessary. In its progress report SIP, South Carolina summarizes the existing monitoring network at Cape Romain and the State's intended continued reliance on the IMPROVE monitoring network for its visibility planning. South Carolina also expresses its continued commitment to operate monitors supporting regional haze investigations where appropriate and when support is available. South Carolina is also encouraging VISTAS and the other regional planning organizations to maintain support of the existing data management system or an equivalent to facilitate availability analysis of the IMPROVE and visibility-related data. South Carolina concludes that the existing network is adequate and that no modifications to the State's visibility monitoring strategy are necessary at this time.
EPA proposes to conclude that South Carolina has adequately addressed the sufficiency of its monitoring strategy as required by 40 CFR 51.308(g)(7). The State reaffirmed its continued reliance upon the IMPROVE monitoring network and discussed its additional continuous sulfate monitors and fine particulate matter network used to further understand visibility trends in the State. South Carolina also explained the importance of the IMPROVE monitoring network for tracking visibility trends at Cape Romain and identified no expected changes in this network. The State did note that certain special monitoring studies that VISTAS performed in South Carolina during 2002-2005 will not be continued due to lack of funds; however, the discontinuance of these additional, specialized studies do not affect the adequacy of the State's current monitoring strategy.
Under 40 CFR 51.308(h), states are required to take one of four possible actions based on the information gathered and conclusions made in the progress report SIP. The following section summarizes: (1) The action taken by South Carolina under 40 CFR 51.308(h); (2) South Carolina's rationale for the selected action; and (3) EPA's analysis and proposed determination regarding the State's action.
In its progress report SIP, South Carolina took the action provided for by 40 CFR 51.308(h)(1), which allows a state to submit a negative declaration to EPA if the state determines that the existing regional haze SIP requires no further substantive revision at this time to achieve the RPGs for Class I areas affected by the state's sources. The basis for the State's negative declaration is the findings from the progress report (as discussed in section III.A of this action), including the findings that: Visibility has improved at Cape Romain; SO
EPA is proposing approval of a revision to the South Carolina SIP, submitted by the State of South Carolina on December 28, 2012, as meeting the applicable regional haze requirements as set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g) and 51.308(h).
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, EPA has preliminarily determined that this proposed rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because there are no “substantial direct effects” on an Indian Tribe as a result of this action and because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it has preliminarily determined that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. The Catawba Indian Nation and Reservation (Catawba Indian Nation) is located in Rock Hill, South Carolina. Pursuant to the Catawba Indian Claims Settlement Act, S.C. Code Ann. 27-16-120, “all state and local environmental laws and regulations apply to the Catawba Indian Nation and Reservation and are fully enforceable by all relevant state and local agencies and authorities.” Thus, the South Carolina SIP applies to the Catawba Reservation. On May 15, 2013, EPA offered consultation on South Carolina's progress report SIP to the Catawba Indian Nation and that same day, the Catawba Indian Nation declined formal consultation on South Carolina's progress report SIP.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
In this rulemaking action, NHTSA proposes to amend its procedures for obtaining an exemption from the vehicle theft prevention standard for vehicles equipped with immobilizers. NHTSA proposes to simplify the exemption procedure for immobilizer-equipped vehicles by adding performance criteria for immobilizers. The adoption of the proposed performance criteria for immobilizers would have the effect of bringing the U.S. anti-theft requirements more into line with those of Canada. This harmonization of U.S. and Canadian requirements is being undertaken pursuant to ongoing bilateral regulatory cooperation efforts.
Comments to this proposal must be received on or before March 18, 2014. In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, NHTSA is also seeking comment on amendments to an information collection. See the Paperwork Reduction Act section under Rulemaking Analyses and Notices below. Please submit all comments relating to the information collection requirements to NHTSA and to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) at the address listed in the
You may submit comments, identified by the docket number in the heading of this document, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Regardless of how you submit comments, you should mention the docket number of this document.
You may call the Docket Management Facility at 202-366-9826.
Comments regarding the proposed information collection should be submitted to NHTSA through one of the preceding methods and a copy should also be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: NHTSA Desk Officer.
For technical issues: Mr. Hisham Mohamed,
This rulemaking action proposes to amend 49 CFR Part 543,
The proposed criteria, which roughly correlate with the types of qualities for which petitioners have been submitting testing and technical design details under existing procedures, closely follow the immobilizer performance requirements in the anti-theft standard of Canada. For those performance requirements, the Canadian standard also sets forth tests that manufacturers of vehicles to be sold in Canada must certify to Canadian authorities that they have conducted.
Adopting the proposed performance criteria would simplify the exemption process for manufacturers who installed immobilizers meeting those criteria. Currently, in their petitions for exemption, vehicle manufacturers describe the testing that they have conducted on the immobilizer device and aspects of design of the immobilizer that address the areas of performance which the agency has determined are important to gauge the effectiveness of the immobilizer in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft. Adding performance criteria for immobilizers as another means of qualifying for an exemption from the theft prevention standard will allow manufacturers that are installing immobilizers as standard equipment for a line of motor vehicles in compliance with Canadian theft prevention standards to more easily gain an exemption. This proposal would reduce the amount of material that manufacturers would need to submit to obtain an exemption because manufacturers would only be required to indicate that the immobilizer met the proposed performance criteria, was certified to the Canadian standard and was durable and reliable in addition to the statutorily required information to be eligible for an exemption.
The adoption of the proposed performance criteria for immobilizers would have the effect of bringing the U.S. anti-theft requirements more into line with those of Canada. This harmonization of U.S. and Canadian requirements is being undertaken pursuant to ongoing bilateral regulatory cooperation efforts.
We are proposing to retain the current criteria for gaining an exemption from the vehicle theft prevention standard. Therefore, manufacturers would still be able to petition the agency to install other anti-theft devices as standard equipment in a vehicle line to obtain an exemption from the theft prevention standard. While NHTSA has granted many petitions for exemption from the theft prevention standard for vehicle lines equipped with an immobilizer type anti-theft device, we note that a manufacturer is not required to install an immobilizer in order to gain an exemption. We note also that this proposal would not increase the number of exemptions from the theft prevention standard available to a manufacturer.
The Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act (the Theft Act), 49 U.S.C. 33101 et seq., directs NHTSA
Pursuant to the Theft Act, NHTSA issued 49 CFR Part 541,
NHTSA promulgated Part 543 to establish the process for submitting petitions for exemption from the parts marking requirements in the theft prevention standard. A manufacturer may petition the agency for an exemption from the parts marking requirements for one vehicle line per model year if the manufacturer installs an anti-theft device as standard equipment on the entire line. In order to be eligible for an exemption, Part 543 requires manufacturers to submit a petition explaining how the anti-theft device will promote activation, attract attention to the efforts of unauthorized persons to enter or operate a vehicle by means other than a key, prevent defeat or circumvention of the device by unauthorized persons, prevent operation of the vehicle by unauthorized entrants, and ensure the reliability and durability of the device. Based on the materials in the petition, NHTSA decides whether to grant the petition in whole or in part or to deny it.
Under existing Part 543, manufacturers choose how they wish to demonstrate to the agency that the anti-theft device they are installing in a
More than 700,000 motor vehicle thefts took place in the U.S. in 2011, causing a loss of mobility and economic hardship to those affected.
An immobilizer is a type of anti-theft device based on microchip and transponder technology and combined with engine and fuel immobilizer components. When activated, an immobilizer device disables the vehicle's electrical or fuel systems at several points and prevents the vehicle from starting unless the correct code is received by the transponder.
NHTSA is aware of several sources of information demonstrating the effectiveness of immobilizer devices in reducing motor vehicle theft. In the 1980s, General Motors Corporation (GM) used an early generation of microchip devices, which later developed into the rolling code transponder device, which is currently installed in GM as well as many other vehicles. According to the Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI), immobilizer devices are up to 50 percent effective in reducing vehicle theft.
Mitsubishi Motors Corporation informed the agency that the theft rate for its MY 2000 Eclipse vehicle line (with an immobilizer device) was almost 42 percent lower than that of its MY 1999 Eclipse (without a immobilizer device).
On February 4, 2011, the U.S. and the Canadian governments created a United States-Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC), composed of senior regulatory, trade and foreign affairs officials from both governments. In recognition of the two countries' $1 trillion annual trade and investment relationship, the RCC is working together to promote economic growth, job creation and benefits to consumers and businesses through increased regulatory transparency and coordination.
The RCC has stated that regulatory cooperation can spur economic growth in each country; fuel job creation; lower costs for consumers, producers, and governments; and particularly help small and medium-sized businesses. The U.S. and Canada intend to eliminate unnecessary burdens on cross-border trade, reduce costs, foster cross-border investment and promote certainty for businesses and the public by coordinating, simplifying and ensuring the compatibility of regulations, where feasible.
The RCC has further stated that while the U.S. and Canadian regulatory systems are very similar in the objectives they seek to achieve, there is value in enhancing the mechanisms in place to foster cooperation in designing regulations or to ensure alignment in their implementation or enforcement. Unnecessary regulatory differences and duplicative actions hinder cross-border trade and investment and ultimately impose a cost on our citizens, businesses and economies. Given the integrated nature of the two countries' economies, greater alignment and better mutual reliance in regulatory approaches would lead to lower costs for consumers and businesses, create more efficient supply chains, increase trade and investment, generate new export opportunities and create jobs on both sides of the border.
On December 7, 2011, the RCC established an initial Joint Action Plan that identified 29 initiatives where the U.S. and Canada will seek greater alignment in their regulatory approaches. The Joint Action Plan highlights the areas and initiatives which were identified for initial focus. These areas include agriculture and food, transportation, health and personal care products and workplace chemicals, environment and cross-sectoral issues. One of the topics for regulatory cooperation identified in the transportation area is to pursue greater harmonization of existing motor vehicle standards. Theft prevention is one of the harmonization opportunities identified by the Motor Vehicles Working Group.
In addition to the theft and rollaway prevention requirements included in the U.S. version of the standard, CMVSS No. 114 requires the installation of an immobilization system for all new passenger vehicles, MPVs and trucks certified to the standard with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 4,536 kg or less with some exceptions. CMVSS No. 114 contains four different sets of requirements for immobilizers. The four sets of requirements are National Standard of Canada CAN/ULC-S338-98,
CAN/ULC-S338-98 contains design specifications, activation and deactivation requirements, durability tests, and tests to assess the resistance to physical attack for immobilizers. ECE R97 and ECE R116 contain design specifications, activation and deactivation requirements, durability tests, and tests to assess the resistance to physical attack for immobilizers similar to those contained in CAN/ULC-S338-98. The fourth set of requirements for immobilizers in CMVSS No. 114 contains design specifications, activation and deactivation requirements, and requirements testing the ability of the immobilizer to resist deactivation by physical attack derived from the other standards. The fourth set of requirements, however, does not include the environmental tests and durability requirements which are included in CAN/ULC-S338-98, ECE R97 and ECE R116.
In adopting the fourth set of performance requirements for immobilizers contained in CMVSS No. 114, Transport Canada stated that some of the environmental and durability requirements for immobilizers contained in CAN/ULC-S338-98, ECE R97, and ECE R116 were developed for aftermarket immobilizers and should not be applied to immobilizers that are installed as original equipment on a vehicle.
The agency is proposing to include performance criteria for immobilizers in Part 543 so that manufacturers may more easily apply for exemptions from the parts marking requirements for vehicles lines with immobilizers conforming to CMVSS No. 114. The agency is planning to add performance criteria to Part 543 to make our theft prevention standards more in line with those of Canada. In order to be eligible for an exemption under this proposal manufacturers would be required to state that the immobilizer device they are installing in the vehicle line meets the proposed performance criteria, has been certified to the Canadian standard and is durable and reliable.
The agency believes that adding performance criteria from CMVSS No. 114 to Part 543 is the simplest way to make our anti-theft regulations more in line with that standard and to reduce the burden to manufacturers, who are already installing immobilizers in compliance with that standard, of applying for an exemption from the parts marking requirements. The agency could not add performance requirements for immobilizers as part of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 114,
Currently, NHTSA has not formally or informally adopted any technical performance criteria for anti-theft devices. While NHTSA has granted many petitions for exemption from the parts marking requirements for vehicle lines equipped with an immobilizer type anti-theft device, a manufacturer is not required to install an immobilizer in order to gain an exemption. The agency is planning to retain the current exemption process so that manufacturers would still be able to gain an exemption for installing anti-theft devices that do not conform to the proposed performance criteria for immobilizers. The number of exemptions available to manufacturers would not increase as a result of this proposal. Thus, manufacturers will continue to be eligible for an exemption from the parts marking requirements for only one vehicle line per model year.
The agency has tentatively decided to propose only the fourth set of performance criteria for immobilizers contained in CMVSS No. 114 for inclusion in Part 543. The agency is proposing to adopt only this one set of performance criteria because of the factors articulated by Transport Canada discussed above. Furthermore, the agency has tentatively concluded that adopting only this one set of performance criteria is the simplest way to harmonize anti-theft regulations between the U.S. and Canada. The agency does note that, should this proposal be made final, vehicles equipped with immobilizers meeting the performance criteria in CAN/ULC-S338-98, ECE R97, or ECE R116 would still be able to obtain an exemption from the theft prevention standard via a petition filed under the current exemption procedures. We seek comment on whether adding the performance criteria in CAN/ULC-S338-98, ECE R97 and ECE R116 to Part 543 in addition to the performance criteria proposed below would better accomplish the agency's goal of harmonizing the process for obtaining an exemption with the Canadian theft prevention standard. We also seek comment on the number of manufacturers that are complying with CMVSS No. 114 by installing immobilizers that conform to the requirements in CAN/ULC-S338-98, ECE R97 or ECE R116 in their vehicles.
The agency has tentatively concluded that immobilizers meeting the proposed performance criteria are likely to be as
The proposed performance criteria for immobilizers include specifications for when the immobilizer should arm after the disarming device is removed from the vehicle. The performance criteria state that, when armed, the immobilizer should prevent the vehicle from moving more than three meters under its own power by inhibiting the operation of at least one of the vehicle's electronic control units (ECU). The performance criteria state that, when armed, the immobilizer should not disable the vehicle's brake system. During the disarming process, the immobilizer should send a code to the inhibited ECU to allow the vehicle to move under its own power. The immobilizer should be configured so that disrupting the device's normal operating voltage cannot disarm the immobilizer. The performance criteria state that the immobilizer must have a minimum capacity for 50,000 code variants and shall not be capable of processing more than 5,000 codes within 24 hours unless the immobilizer uses rolling or encrypted codes. The performance criteria state that it shall not be possible to replace the immobilizer without the use of software. In order to satisfy the performance criteria, the immobilizer in a vehicle must be designed so that it is not possible to disarm it using common tools within five minutes.
In order to promote understanding of the new terms used in the regulatory text, the agency is also proposing definitions for “immobilizer” and “accessory mode.” We seek comment on these definitions.
The agency plans on ensuring that immobilizer devices which manufacturers are installing to obtain an exemption conform with the proposed performance criteria by requiring manufacturers to state that they have certified the immobilizer installed on the vehicle to CMVSS No. 114. Manufacturers must provide Transport Canada with evidence that the immobilizer complies with CMVSS No. 114, along with all other applicable Canadian Standards, prior to certifying the vehicle under the Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Act.
The proposed regulatory text does not include a requirement that manufacturers provide a detailed description of the immobilizer device as part of the petition because we believe that the documentation that manufacturers are providing to Transport Canada, and would be required to provide to NHTSA, describes the immobilizer device in sufficient detail for the agency to be able to determine whether the device satisfies the performance criteria.
The proposed performance criteria do not include specifications that address the durability and reliability of immobilizers because the agency is concerned about the impacts of such specifications on immobilizer design. Part 543 currently requires manufacturers to explain how the design of their immobilizer device ensures that it is durable and reliable in order to be eligible for an exemption.
We seek comment on our decision to require manufacturers to submit a statement on the durability and reliability of the device as part of an application for exemption from the theft prevention standard. We also seek comment on the impact that our adoption of the durability and environmental resistance performance criteria in CAN/ULC-S338-98, ECE R97 and ECE R116 might have on the introduction of new and emerging immobilizer and ignition technologies.
The agency believes that the proposed performance criteria are consistent with the following anti-theft device attributes that are currently contained in Part 543:
• The specification in the proposed performance criteria that the immobilizer arm after the disarming device is removed from the vehicle will facilitate activation of the immobilizer by the driver and prevent unauthorized persons who have entered the vehicle by means other than a key from operating the vehicle.
• The specification in the proposed performance criteria that the immobilizer have certain code
The proposed performance criteria correspond to the aspects of performance of immobilizer devices that manufacturers now qualitatively describe in their exemption petitions. Manufacturers are currently demonstrating the effectiveness of immobilizers by describing the testing the immobilizer has been subjected to, how the immobilizer is activated, how the immobilizer interacts with the key to allow the vehicle to start and the encryption of electronic communications between the key and the immobilizer. These characteristics correspond to performance criteria in the proposal for how the immobilizer must arm, preventing the vehicle from moving under its own power, how the immobilizer must disarm to allow the driver to start the vehicle, the minimum number of code variants that the immobilizer is able to process, and the immobilizer's resistance to manipulation and physical attack. The proposed performance criteria simplify the process for applying for an exemption because manufacturers would no longer need to describe how the immobilizer achieves these aspects of performance. Instead, manufacturers would only need to state that their immobilizer device conforms to the performance criteria, is certified to the Canadian standard and is durable and reliable.
In order to allow manufacturers to more easily apply for an exemption from the theft prevention standard and to reduce the burden to the agency in processing exemption petitions we have tentatively decided that we will notify manufacturers of decisions to grant or deny exemption petitions by notifying them of the agency's decision in writing. Under this proposal the agency would not publish notices of our decisions to grant or deny exemption petitions from the theft prevention standard based on the manufacturer having satisfied the performance criteria in the
Today's proposed rule would amend Part 543 to add performance criteria for immobilizers that are contained in CMVSS No. 114. Because the agency is retaining the current exemption process as a means of gaining an exemption from the theft prevention standard, the addition of performance criteria to Part 543 would result in no costs to manufacturers. Manufacturers would not be required to make any changes to products in order to retain eligibility for an exemption.
The agency cannot quantify the benefits of this rulemaking. The agency does, however, expect some benefits to accrue from making the exemption process in Part 543 more closely harmonized with CMVSS No. 114. Adding the proposed performance criteria would allow manufacturers that are installing immobilizers as standard equipment for a line of motor vehicles in compliance with CMVSS No. 114 to more easily gain an exemption from the parts marking requirements. The agency believes this would reduce the cost to manufacturers of applying for an exemption from the parts marking requirements. Adding performance criteria to Part 543 would also result in a reduction in vehicle theft in cases for which the proposed rule improves the effectiveness of the anti-theft devices chosen by manufacturers.
If the proposed rule encourages more manufacturers to install immobilizers meeting CMVSS No. 114 on vehicles sold in the United States, it could result in cost saving to consumers seeking to import used vehicles into Canada. Importing used vehicles that already comply with CMVSS No. 114 into Canada saves consumers from having to pay to have an aftermarket immobilizer installed in the vehicle.
The agency proposes an effective date of 60 days after the date of issuance of the final rule, should one be issued, so that manufacturers would be eligible for an exemption for installing an immobilizer meeting the proposed performance criteria as soon as possible.
NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This rulemaking document was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review.” It is not considered to be significant under E.O. 12866 or the Department's regulatory policies and procedures.
Today's proposed rule would amend Part 543 to add performance criteria for immobilizers that are contained in CMVSS No. 114 to allow manufacturers who are installing immobilizers in compliance with that standard to more easily obtain an exemption from the theft prevention standard.
The agency concludes that the impacts of the proposed changes would be so minimal that preparation of a full regulatory evaluation is not required. This proposal would not result in any costs to manufacturers because the current exemption process would be left in place. Manufacturers would not be required to make any changes to current vehicles to retain eligibility for an exemption. It is also possible that this proposal would result in a reduction in motor vehicle thefts if immobilizers meeting the proposed performance criteria are more effective than current designs.
The policy statement in section 1 of Executive Order 13609 provides, in part:
The regulatory approaches taken by foreign governments may differ from those taken by U.S. regulatory agencies to address similar issues. In some cases, the differences between the regulatory approaches of U.S. agencies and those of their foreign counterparts might not be necessary and might impair the ability of American businesses to export and compete internationally. In meeting shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues, international regulatory cooperation can identify approaches that are at least as protective as those that are or would be adopted in the absence of such cooperation. International regulatory cooperation can also reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements.
NHTSA is issuing this proposal pursuant to a regulatory cooperation agreement between the United States and Canada. This proposal would more closely harmonize vehicle theft
NHTSA requests public comment on whether there are any “regulatory approaches taken by foreign governments” concerning the subject matter of this rulemaking, beyond those already mentioned in this notice, which the agency should consider.
We have reviewed this proposal for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act and determined that it would not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
NHTSA has considered the effects of the proposed rule under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I certify that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposal would amend Part 543 to add performance criteria for immobilizers that are contained in CMVSS No. 114 to allow manufacturers who are installing immobilizers in compliance with that standard to more easily obtain an exemption from the theft prevention standard. This proposal would not significantly affect any entities because it would leave in place the current exemption process so that manufacturers would not need to make any changes to products to retain eligibility for an exemption. Accordingly, we do not anticipate that this proposal would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation, section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform” (61 FR 4729; Feb. 7, 1996), requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) specifies whether administrative proceedings are to be required before parties file suit in court; (6) adequately defines key terms; and (7) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement.
Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. There is no requirement that individuals submit a petition for reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceedings before they may file suit in court. NHTSA has considered whether this rulemaking would have any retroactive effect. This proposed rule does not have any retroactive effect.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires Federal agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of a proposed or final rule that includes a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million in any one year (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995).
Before promulgating a rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires NHTSA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows NHTSA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the agency publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted.
This proposed rule is not anticipated to result in the expenditure by state, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector in excess of $100 million annually. The cost impact of this proposed rule is expected to be $0. Therefore, the agency has not prepared an economic assessment pursuant to the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501,
In compliance with the PRA, we announce that NHTSA is seeking comment on a revision of a currently approved collection.
This collection consists of information that motor vehicle manufacturers must submit in support of an application for an exemption from the vehicle theft prevention standard. Manufacturers wishing to apply for an exemption from the parts marking requirement because they have installed immobilizers meeting the proposed performance criteria would be required to submit a statement that the entire line of vehicles is equipped with an immobilizer, as standard equipment, that meets the performance criteria contained in that section, a statement that the immobilizer has been certified to the Canadian theft prevention standard, documentation provided to Transport Canada to demonstrate that the immobilizer was certified to the Canadian theft prevention standard, and a statement that the immobilizer device is durable and reliable. The proposed rule would not change the information that manufacturers would need to
The information is needed to determine whether a vehicle line is eligible for an exemption from the vehicle theft prevention standard.
Currently, nineteen manufacturers have one or more car lines exempted. We expect, should this proposal be made final, that twelve manufacturers would apply for an exemption per year: Ten under the current process and two under the proposed performance criteria.
We estimate that the burden for applying for an exemption under this proposal would be 2300 hours. The burden for applying for an exemption under the current process is estimated to be 226 hours × 10 respondents = 2260 hours. The burden for apply for an exemption under the proposed performance criteria is estimated to be 20 hours × 2 respondents = 40 hours
Comments are invited on:
• Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility.
• Whether the Department's estimate for the burden of the information collection is accurate.
• 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. Send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attn: NHTSA Desk Officer. PRA comments are due within 30 days following publication of this document in the
The agency recognizes that the collection of information contained in today's final rule may be subject to revision in response to public comments.
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) requires NHTSA to evaluate and use existing voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law (
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. Technical standards are defined by the NTTAA as “performance-based or design-specific technical specification and related management systems practices.” They pertain to “products and processes, such as size, strength, or technical performance of a product, process or material.”
Examples of organizations generally regarded as voluntary consensus standards bodies include the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). If NHTSA does not use available and potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards, we are required by the Act to provide Congress, through OMB, an explanation of the reasons for not using such standards.
We are not aware of any technical performance criteria for immobilizers issued by voluntary consensus standards bodies in the United States. National Standard of Canada CAN/ULC-S338-98,
Executive Order 13211
This proposal would amend Part 543 to add performance criteria for immobilizers that are contained in CMVSS No. 114 to allow manufacturers who are installing immobilizers in compliance with that standard to more easily obtain an exemption from the theft prevention standard. Therefore, this proposed rule would not have any significant adverse energy effects. Accordingly, this proposed rulemaking action is not designated as a significant energy action.
The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document to find this action in the Unified Agenda.
Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in plain language. Application of the principles of plain language includes consideration of the following questions:
• Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
• Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
• Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that isn't clear?
• Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
• Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
• Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?
• What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand?
If you have any responses to these questions, please include them in your comments on this proposal.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the
Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket number of this document in your comments. Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long.
Please submit your comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
If you are submitting comments electronically as a PDF (Adobe) file, we ask that the documents submitted be scanned using an Optical Character Recognition (OCR) process, thus allowing the agency to search and copy certain portions of your submissions.
Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet the information quality standards set forth in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and DOT Data Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult the guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may be accessed at
If you submit your comments by mail and wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket Management will return the postcard by mail.
If you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given above under
In addition, you should submit a copy, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business information, to the Docket by one of the methods set forth above.
We will consider all comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under
If a comment is received too late for us to consider in developing a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we will consider that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.
You may read the materials placed in the docket for this document (e.g., the comments submitted in response to this document by other interested persons) at any time by going to
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and Tires.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR Chapter V as set forth below.
49 U.S.C. 322, 33101, 33102, 33103, 33104 and 33105; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.
(b) * * *
(b) * * *
(2) Be submitted in three copies to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
(6) Identify whether the exemption is sought under § 543.6 or § 543.7.
(7) If the exemption is sought under § 543.6, set forth in full the data, views, and arguments of the petitioner supporting the exemption, including the information specified in that section.
(8) If the exemption is sought under § 543.7, a statement that the entire line
(9) Specify and segregate any part of the information or data submitted which the petitioner requests be withheld from public disclosure in accordance with part 512,
(a) In order to be eligible for an exemption under this section, the entire vehicle line must be equipped with an immobilizer meeting the following criteria:
(1) Subject to paragraph (a)(2) of this section, an immobilization system shall arm automatically within a period of not more than 1 minute after the disarming device is removed from the vehicle, if the vehicle remains in a mode of operation other than accessory mode or on throughout that period.
(2) If the disarming device is a keypad or biometric identifier, the immobilization system shall arm automatically within a period of not more than 1 minute after the motors used for the vehicle's propulsion are turned off, if the vehicle remains in a mode of operation other than accessory mode or on throughout that period.
(3) The immobilization system shall arm automatically not later than 2 minutes after the immobilization system is disarmed, unless:
(i) Action is taken for starting one or more motors used for the vehicle's propulsion;
(ii) Disarming requires an action to be taken on the engine start control or electric motor start control, the engine stop control or electric motor stop control, or the ignition switch; or
(iii) Disarming occurs automatically by the presence of a disarming device and the device is inside the vehicle.
(4) If armed, the immobilization system shall prevent the vehicle from moving more than 3 meters (9.8 feet) under its own power by inhibiting the operation of at least one electronic control unit and shall not have any impact on the vehicle's brake system except that it may prevent regenerative braking and the release of the parking brake.
(5) During the disarming process, a code shall be sent to the inhibited electronic control unit in order to allow the vehicle to move under its own power.
(6) It shall not be possible to disarm the immobilization system by interrupting its normal operating voltage.
(7) When the normal starting procedure requires that the disarming device mechanically latch into a receptacle and the device is physically separate from the ignition switch key, one or more motors used for the vehicle's propulsion shall start only after the device is removed from that receptacle.
(8)(i) The immobilization system shall have a minimum capacity of 50,000 code variants, shall not be disarmed by a code that can disarm all other immobilization systems of the same make and model; and
(ii) Subject to paragraph (a)(9), it shall not have the capacity to process more than 5,000 codes within 24 hours.
(9) If an immobilization system uses rolling or encrypted codes, it may conform to the following criteria instead of the criteria set out in paragraph (a)(8)(ii) of this section:
(i) The probability of obtaining the correct code within 24 hours shall not exceed 4 per cent; and
(ii) It shall not be possible to disarm the system by re-transmitting in any sequence the previous 5 codes generated by the system.
(10) The immobilization system shall be designed so that, when tested as installed in the vehicle neither the replacement of an original immobilization system component with a manufacturer's replacement component nor the addition of a manufacturer's component can be completed without the use of software; and it is not possible for the vehicle to move under its own power for at least 5 minutes after the beginning of the replacement or addition of a component referred to in this paragraph.
(11) The immobilization system's conformity to paragraph (a)(10) of this section shall be demonstrated by testing that is carried out without damaging the vehicle.
(12) Paragraph (a)(10) does not apply to the addition of a disarming device that requires the use of another disarming device that is validated by the immobilization system.
(13) The immobilization system shall be designed so that it can neither be bypassed nor rendered ineffective in a manner that would allow a vehicle to move under its own power, or be disarmed, using one or more of the tools and equipment listed in paragraph(a)(14);
(i) Within a period of less than 5 minutes, when tested as installed in the vehicle; or
(ii) Within a period of less than 2.5 minutes, when bench-tested outside the vehicle.
(14) During a test referred to in paragraph (a)(13) of this section, only the following tools or equipment may be used: scissors, wire strippers, wire cutters and electrical wires, a hammer, a slide hammer, a chisel, a punch, a wrench, a screwdriver, pliers, steel rods and spikes, a hacksaw, a battery operated drill, a battery operated angle grinder; and a battery operated jigsaw.
(f) If the petition is sought under § 543.6, NHTSA publishes a notice of its decision to grant or deny an exemption petition in the
(g) If the petition is sought under § 543.7 NHTSA notifies the petitioner in writing of the agency's decision to grant or deny an exemption petition.
Each exemption under this part continues in effect unless it is modified or terminated under § 543.10, or the manufacturer ceases production of the exempted line.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby given of the public meeting of the Board for International Food and Agricultural Development (BIFAD). The meeting will be held from 8:30 a.m. to 12:35 p.m. on Thursday, January, 30 2014 at the Ronald Reagan Building's Horizon Ballroom located at 1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The central theme of this year's meeting will be “
Dr. Brady Deaton, BIFAD Chairman, will preside over the meeting. The public business session will begin promptly at 8:30 a.m. with opening remarks by BIFAD Chair Brady Deaton. The Board will address both old and new business during this time and will hear from USAID, the university community and other experts on progress and mechanisms for advancing programming in agricultural research and capacity development. During the business session the BIFAD will host a panel of key authors who will discuss trends in funding for Higher Education—Strategy, Partnerships and Programs, moderated by BIFAD member Harold Martin. During this session the BIFAD will receive updates from USAID on its Feed the Future Innovation Labs and the Higher Education Solutions Network as well as a report on African Higher Education.
Starting at 10:15 a.m., BIFAD member Marty McVey will chair a panel on “Updates from USAID.” The purpose shall be to learn about any new or ongoing activities related to higher education and U.S. university student engagement from the Bureau for Food Security's senior leadership.
The final panel session, which will be again chaired by BIFAD Chairman Dr. Brady Deaton will focus on “U.S. University Engagement in Global Food Security.” This panel will have significant representation from the U.S. university community to address these issues.
Between 11:30 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. time for public questions and comments will be allowed, followed quickly by the BIFAD Award for Scientific Excellence in a Title XII Innovation Lab. Finally, closing remarks will occur from 12:35pm to 12:45pm by BIFAD Chairman Brady Deaton.
Those wishing to attend the meeting or obtain additional information about BIFAD should contact Susan Owens, Executive Director and Designated Federal Officer for BIFAD. Interested persons may write to her in care of the U.S. Agency for International Development, Ronald Reagan Building, Bureau for Food Security, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Room 2.09-067, Washington, DC 20523-2110 or telephone her at (202) 712-0218.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request an extension of approval of an information collection associated with the export of animals and animal products from the United States.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before March 18, 2014.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
For information on the export of animals and animal products from the United States, contact Dr. Jacek Taniewski, Assistant Director, Live Animal Export, NIES, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 39, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851-3300. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2908.
We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities for an additional 3 years.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1) 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;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the 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, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA.
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice invites the general public and other public agencies to comment on the proposed collection of data for the WIC Nutrition Education Study. This is a NEW information collection. The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) is administered at the Federal level by the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Through Federal grants to States, WIC provides supplemental foods, health care referrals, and nutrition education to low-income pregnant, breastfeeding, and non-breastfeeding postpartum women and to infants and children who are found to be at nutritional risk. The Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-296, Sec. 305) mandates programs under its authorization, including WIC, to cooperate with USDA program research and evaluation activities. WIC's mission is to safeguard the health of low-income women, infants, and children up to age 5 who are at nutritional risk by providing nutritious foods to supplement diets, information on healthy eating, and referrals to health care.
Nutrition education is the program feature often viewed as pivotal to WIC's success in achieving its mission to safeguard the health of low-income women, infants, and children. By Federal directive, all participants have the opportunity to participate in nutrition education at least two times during a 6-month period of eligibility or quarterly for a 12-month period. State and local WIC agencies have significant flexibility to design nutrition education appropriate for the demographics of their participants within established goals. This flexibility has yielded a range of messages, delivery systems and approaches, qualifications and training for educators, and quality.
The WIC Nutrition Education Study will provide a nationally representative description of how nutrition education is currently being provided to WIC recipients across the country. It will also conduct a pilot study of the impact of nutrition education on WIC recipients' nutrition and physical activity behaviors. This study will provide FNS with a better understanding of nutrition education practices and methods used by WIC and of the effectiveness of current WIC nutrition education services. The study will document how nutrition education is being provided subsequent to several program changes, including the 2009 food package changes, the implementation of the initiative to
Written comments must be submitted on or before March 18, 2014.
Written comments are invited on (a) whether the proposed data collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions that were used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological
Written comments may be sent to: Rich Lucas, Acting Associate Administrator, Office of Policy Support, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 1014, Alexandria, VA 22302. Comments may also be submitted via fax to the attention of Rich Lucas at 703-305-2576 or via email to
All written comments will be open for public inspection at the office of the Food and Nutrition Service during regular business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday) at 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 1014, Alexandria, Virginia 22302.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval. All comments will also be a matter of public record.
Requests for additional information should be directed to Rich Lucas at 703-305-2017.
In Phase I, data will be collected from WIC local agencies and their local sites via a nationally representative survey and in-depth telephone interviews with a subset of the survey respondents. The objectives of Phase I include:
• Describe the policies, practices, staff qualifications, and other features affecting nutrition education across all sites within a local agency.
• Describe the logistics and features of nutrition education service delivery, staff characteristics, modes of education, and facilities and resources for delivering nutrition education at the site level.
• Describe the dosage and duration of various nutrition education processes.
• Assess the frequency of various nutrition education processes overall and by geographic distribution and local agency and site characteristics.
• Inform the selection of the sites for the Phase II pilot study.
The Phase II pilot study will include a process and impact evaluation with six geographically dispersed local WIC sites. The objectives of Phase II include:
• Process evaluation: Describe the context for and implementation of nutrition education in each of the six pilot sites.
• Impact evaluation: Measure the strength of association between exposure to WIC nutrition education and changes in participant health behaviors and other outcomes (e.g., readiness for change, self-efficacy, food acquisition and management, eating behaviors, breastfeeding habits, dietary intake, and physical and sedentary activity habits).
Data collection for the process evaluation will include semi-structured interviews with WIC site staff, observations of nutrition education delivery, an online survey of nutrition educators, review of Local Agency Nutrition Education Plans and administrative data, and focus groups with WIC participants. Data collection for the impact evaluation will include a survey of WIC participants at three time points (baseline, interim, final) over a 12-month period.
Combined, Phases I and II of this study will result in a comprehensive description of WIC nutrition education processes that will provide information on optimal educational topics and methods, how to maximize participant engagement, and the best approaches for delivery and reinforcement of nutrition education messages. FNS will use this information to inform WIC nutrition education improvements, thus improving the health of low-income women and children at nutritional risk. There are no costs to respondents other than their time.
• State and local WIC agencies and sites (50 State agencies, 1,000 WIC local agencies and 2,000 WIC sites): State agency directors, local agency WIC directors/managers, local WIC site supervisors/nutritionists. We estimate 50 State agencies and 50 local agencies will need to be contacted and will provide information needed for drawing the sample for the Site Survey. We estimate that 80% or 800 of the local agencies and 80% or 1,600 of the WIC sites will participate in the survey and that 80 of the sites (from the 1,600 responding sites) will participate in the telephone interviews.
• State and local WIC sites (6 WIC sites selected from sites responding to Phase I): Local WIC site supervisors, nutritionists/nutrition assistants, WIC State agency staff. For the six pilot WIC sites, all of the local WIC site supervisors will participate in the baseline, interim, and final interviews and all of the State agencies for these sites will provide the requested administrative data. We estimate that 30 of the WIC nutritionists/nutrition assistants at these sites will complete the Web-based survey of nutrition educators.
• Individual/household (1,100 WIC participants): Respondent groups include pregnant and postpartum women enrolled in the WIC program and mothers or caregivers of children aged 1 year to age 4 years who are enrolled in the WIC program at the six selected WIC sites. A subset of these respondents (96) will take part in focus group discussions.
As presented in Table 1, the total number of respondents is 4,206. For Phase I, FNS estimates that 50 State agency directors and 50 local agency staff will provide information needed to draw the sample, 800 local agency WIC directors/program managers will complete the Local Agency Survey (of these, we estimate 50 individuals may need to be contacted to provide information to draw the sample), and 1,600 local WIC site supervisors/nutritionists will complete the Site Survey. The surveys are web-based with a paper version available for respondents without Internet access. A subset of the local WIC site supervisors/nutritionists (80) will complete in-depth telephone interviews.
For Phase II, 6 respondents are local WIC site supervisors who will complete three in-person or telephone interviews (baseline, interim, and final) during the 12-month study period (some of these individuals may have also participated in the Phase I Site Survey). Additionally, 30 are WIC nutritionists/nutrition assistants who will complete a web-based survey (some of these individuals may have also participated in the Phase I Site Survey), and 24 are
A total of 1,100 respondents are WIC participants from the six selected WIC sites. Of the 1,100 WIC participants approached for screening, 900 will agree to be screened and will be eligible for the study. Of these, 800 will agree to enroll in the study and complete the baseline survey, 640 will complete the interim survey, and 600 will complete the final survey. A subset of WIC participants (96) will take part in focus group discussions.
For Phase I, there is one response per respondent. For Phase II, the WIC participants will complete three surveys and the local WIC site supervisors will complete three interviews (baseline, interim, and final) during the 12-month study period. Data will be collected from other respondent types only once.
The total annualized estimated number of responses is 2,334. For Phase I this includes 17 responses from State agency directors, 351 responses for local agency WIC directors/program managers, and 668 responses for local WIC site supervisors/nutritionists. A subsample of 33 local WIC site supervisors/nutritionists will be contacted for the telephone interviews. For Phase II this includes 13 responses for WIC nutritionists/nutrition assistants, 6 responses for local WIC site supervisors, 4 responses from State Agency staff, and 1,242 responses for WIC participants. The Annualized burden (last column of Table 1) should be multiplied by 3 to get the burden over the life of the 3-year data collection period.
Phase I: State agency and local agency directors will take 30 minutes (0.5 hours) to respond to the request for information to draw the sample, local agency WIC directors/program managers will take 45 minutes (0.75 hours) to respond to the web-based Local Agency Survey, and local WIC site supervisors/nutritionists will take 45 minutes (0.75 hours) to respond to the web-based Site Survey. Local WIC site supervisors/nutritionists will take 30 minutes (0.5 hours) to respond to the in-depth telephone interviews.
Phase II: WIC nutritionists/nutrition assistants will take 20 minutes (0.334 hours) to respond to the web-based survey. Local WIC site supervisors will take 45 minutes (0.75 hours) to respond to the baseline interview, 15 minutes (0.25 hours) to respond to the interim interview, and 15 minutes (0.25 hours) to respond to the final interview. WIC State agency staff will take 1.5 hours to respond to the WIC administrative data request, which can be done once at the end of the 12-month study period. WIC participants will take 15 minutes (0.25 hours) to complete the in-person screening interview, 20 minutes (0.334 hours) to complete the baseline survey, 20 minutes (0.334 hours) to complete the interim survey, and 20 minutes (0.334 hours) to complete the final survey. Additionally, it will take 90 minutes (1.5 hours) for WIC participants who agree to take part in the focus group discussions.
Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, USDA.
Notice of public meeting and request for comments.
The Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services are sponsoring a public meeting on February 11, 2014, from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. The objective of the public meeting is to provide information and receive public comments on agenda items and draft United States (U.S.) positions that will be discussed at the 46th Session of the Codex Committee on Food Additives (CCFA) of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), taking place in Hong Kong, China, March 17-21, 2014. The Acting Under Secretary and FDA recognize the importance of providing interested parties the opportunity to obtain background information on the 46th Session of the CCFA and to address items on the agenda.
The public meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, February 11, 2014, from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m.
The public meeting will take place in Rooms 1A-001 and 1A-002, US FDA, Harvey Wiley Federal Building, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740. Documents related to the 46th Session of the CCFA will be accessible via the World Wide Web at the following address:
The U.S. Delegate to the 46th Session of the CCFA, Susan Carberry, and FDA, invite interested U.S. parties to submit their comments electronically to the following email address:
The CCFA establishes or endorses permitted maximum levels for individual food additives; prepares priority lists of food additives for risk assessment by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA); assigns functional classes and International Numbering System (INS) numbers to individual food additives; recommends specifications of identity and purity for food additives for adoption by Codex; considers methods of analysis for the determination of additives in food; and considers and elaborates standards or codes for related subjects such as labeling of food additives when sold as such. The CCFA is hosted by China.
The following items on the agenda for the 46th Session of the CCFA will be discussed during the public meeting:
• Matters referred by the Codex Alimentarius Commission and other Codex committees and Task Forces. (CX/FA 14/46/2)
• Matters of interest arising from FAO/WHO and from the 77th Meeting of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA). (CX/FA 14/46/3)
• Endorsement and/or revision of maximum levels for food additives and processing aids in Codex standards. (CX/FA 14/46/4)
• Alignment of the food additive provisions of commodity standards and relevant provisions of the GSFA. (CX/FA 14/46/5)
• Revision of
• Information on commercial use of selected food additives (replies to CL 2013/8-FA, Part B, point 4). (CX/FA14/46/7)
• Provisions in Tables 1 and 2 for food additives listed in Table 3 with “emulsifier, stabilizer and thickener” function, and horizontal approach—outstanding provisions from 45th CCFA. (CX/FA 14/46/8)
• Provisions in Tables 1 and 2 for food additives listed in Table 3 with: (i) “Acidity regulator” function for use other than as acidity regulators; and (ii) for other Table 3 food additives with functions other than “emulsifier, stabilizer, thickener,” “color,” and “sweetener.” (CX/FA 14/46/9)
• Food additive provisions of food category 14.2.3, “Grape wines,” and its sub-categories. (CX/FA 14/46/10)
• Descriptors and food additive provisions of food category 01.1.1, “Milk and butter milk (plain),” and its sub-categories and food category 01.1.2, “Dairy-based drinks, flavored and/or fermented (e.g., chocolate milk, cocoa, eggnog, drinking yoghurt, whey-based drinks).” (CX/FA 14/46/11)
• Recommendations for the entry of new provisions, including those for food category 16.0, “Prepared foods,” and for revision of existing food additive provisions (based on replies to CL 2012/5-FA, Part B, points 9 and 10). (CX/FA 14/46/12)
• Proposals for provisions of nisin (INS 234) in food category 08.0, “Meat and meat products, including poultry and game,” and its sub-categories (replies to CL 2012/5-FA, Part B, point 8)—outstanding from 45th CCFA. (CX/FA 14/46/13)
• Discussion paper on use of Note 161 in provisions for selected sweeteners. (CX/FA 14/46/14)
• Proposals for new and/or revision of food additive provisions (replies to CL 2013/8-FA Part B, point 5). (CX/FA 14/46/15)
• Proposed draft amendments to the International Numbering System (INS) for Food Additives. (CX/FA 14/46/16)
• Proposed draft specifications for the Identity and Purity of food additives arising from the 77th JECFA Meeting. (CX/FA 14/46/17)
• Discussion paper on the use of “additives in additives” (secondary additives). (CX/FA 14/46/18)
• Proposals for additions and changes to the Priority List of Food Additives proposed for evaluation by JECFA (replies to CL 2013/12-FA). (CX/FA14/46/19)
• Discussion paper on options for the use of outcomes of the prioritization exercise and other feasible steps to identify compounds for re-evaluation by JECFA. (CX/FA 14/46/20)
Each issue listed will be fully described in documents distributed, or to be distributed, by the Codex Secretariat prior to the meeting. Members of the public may access these documents at
At the February 11, 2014 public meeting, draft U.S. positions on the agenda items will be described and discussed, and attendees will have the opportunity to pose questions and offer comments. Written comments may be offered at the meeting or sent to the U.S. Delegate for the 45th Session of the CCFA, Dr. Susan Carberry at the following address:
FSIS will announce this notice online through the FSIS Web page located at
FSIS will also make copies of this
Options range from recalls to export information to regulations, directives, and notices. Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves, and have the option to password protect their accounts.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.)
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's Target Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY).
To file a written complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, USDA.
Notice of public meeting and request for comments.
The Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is sponsoring a public meeting that will take place on January 23, 2014. The objective of the public meeting is to provide information and receive public comments on agenda items and draft United States positions that will be discussed at the first session of the Codex Committee on Spices and Culinary Herbs (CCSCH) of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), taking place in Kochi (Cochin), India, February 11-14, 2014. The Acting Under Secretary for Food Safety recognizes the importance of providing interested parties the opportunity to obtain background information on the 1st Session of CCSCH and to address items on the agenda.
The public meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, January 23, 2014 from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.
The public meeting will take place at The United States Department of Agriculture, Jamie L. Whitten Building, Room 107-A, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250. Documents related to the 1st session of CCSCH will be accessible via the World Wide Web at the following address:
Mary Frances Lowe, The U.S. Codex Manager to invites U.S. interested parties to submit their comments electronically to the following email addresses:
If you wish to participate in the public meeting for the 1st session of CCSCH by conference call, please use the call in number and participant code listed below:
The Codex Alimentarius (Codex) was established in 1963 by two United Nations organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization. Through adoption of food standards, codes of practice, and other guidelines developed by its committees, and by promoting their adoption and implementation by governments, Codex seeks to protect the
The CCSCH is responsible for elaborating worldwide standards for spices and culinary herbs in their dried and dehydrated state in whole ground, and cracked or crushed form, consulting as necessary, with other international organizations in the standards development process to avoid duplication.
The Committee is hosted by India.
The following items on the Agenda for the 1st session of CCSCH will be discussed during the public meeting:
Each issue listed will be fully described in documents distributed, or to be distributed, by the Secretariat prior to the Meeting. Members of the public may access or request copies of these documents (see
At the January 23, 2014 public meeting, draft U.S. positions on the agenda items will be described and discussed, and attendees will have the opportunity to pose questions and offer comments. Written comments may be offered at the meeting or sent to the U.S. contacts for the 1st session of CCSCH, (see
FSIS will announce this notice online through the FSIS Web page located at
FSIS will also make copies of this
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.)
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's Target Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY).
To file a written complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, USDA.
Notice of public meeting and request for comments.
The Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), are sponsoring a public meeting to take place on January 30, 2014. The objective of the public meeting is to provide information and receive public comments on agenda items and draft United States positions that will be discussed at the 18th Session of the Codex Committee on Fresh Fruits and Vegetables (CCFFV) of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), taking place in Bangkok, Thailand, from February 24-28, 2014. The Acting Under Secretary for Food Safety and AMS recognize the importance of providing interested parties the opportunity to obtain background information on the 18th Session of CCFFV and to address items on the agenda.
The public meeting is scheduled for January 30, 2014, from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m.
The public meeting will be held at USDA, Jamie L. Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 107-A, Washington, DC 20250.
Documents related to the 18th session of CCFFV will be accessible via the World Wide Web at the following address:
Dorian Lafond, U.S. Delegate to the 18th session of CCFFV, invites U.S. interested parties to submit their comments electronically to the following email address:
If you wish to participate in the public meeting for the 18th session of CCFFV by conference call, please use the call-in number and participant code listed below:
Call-in Number: 1-888-844-9904.
Participant code: 512-6092.
Codex was established in 1963 by two United Nations organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization. Through adoption of food standards, codes of practice, and other guidelines developed by its committees, and by promoting their adoption and implementation by governments, Codex seeks to protect the health of consumers and ensure that fair practices are used in the food trade.
The CCFFV is responsible for elaborating worldwide standards and codes of practice as may be appropriate for fresh fruits and vegetables; consulting with the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Working Party on Agricultural Quality Standards in the elaboration of worldwide standards and codes of practice with particular regard to ensuring that there is no duplication of standards or codes of practice and that they follow the same broad format; consulting as necessary with other international organizations that are active in the area of standardization of fresh fruits and vegetables.
The Committee is hosted by Mexico.
The following items on the Agenda for the 18th session of CCFFV will be discussed during the public meeting:
Each issue listed will be fully described in documents distributed, or to be distributed, by the Codex Secretariat prior to the Committee meeting. Members of the public may access or request copies of these documents (see
At the January 30, 2014, public meeting, draft U.S. positions on the agenda items will be described and discussed, and attendees will have the opportunity to pose questions and offer comments. Written comments may be offered at the meeting or sent to the U.S. Delegate for the 18th session of CCFFV, Dorian Lafond (see
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.)
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's Target Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY).
To file a written complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
FSIS will announce this notice online through the FSIS Web page located at
FSIS will also make copies of this
Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves, and have the option to password protect their accounts.
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA.
Notice.
GIPSA is announcing the designation of Sioux City Inspection and Weighing Service Company (Sioux City) to provide official services under the United States Grain Standards Act (USGSA), as amended. Sioux City's geographical territory is amended to include the part of the area previously designated to Fremont Grain Inspection Department, Inc. (Fremont).
Eric J. Jabs, Chief, USDA, GIPSA, FGIS, QACD, QADB, 10383 North Ambassador Drive, Kansas City, MO 64153.
Eric J. Jabs, 816-659-8408 or
In the August 20, 2013
Sioux City was the sole applicant for designation to provide official services in this area. As a result, GIPSA did not ask for additional comments.
GIPSA evaluated all available information regarding the designation
Pursuant to Section 79(f)(2) of the United States Grain Standards Act, the following amended geographic area, is assigned to Sioux City:
Bounded on the North by the northern Iowa State line from the Big Sioux River east to U. S. Route 169; Bounded on the East by U.S. Route 169 south to State Route 9; State Route 9 west to U.S. Route 169; U.S. Route 169 south to the northern Humboldt County line; the Humboldt County line east to State Route 17; State Route 17 south to C54; C54 east to U.S. Route 69; U.S. Route 69 south to the northern Hamilton County line; the Hamilton County line west to R38; R38 south to U.S. Route 20; U.S. Route 20 west to the eastern and southern Webster County lines to U.S. Route 169; U.S. Route 169 south to E18; E18 west to the eastern Greene County line; the Greene County line south to U.S. Route 30; Bounded on the South by U.S. Route 30 west to E53; E53 west to N44; N44 north to U.S. Route 30; U.S. Route 30 west to U.S. Route 71;U.S. Route 71 north to the southern Sac and Ida County lines; the eastern Monona County line south to State Route 37; State Route 37 west to State Route 175; State Route 175 west to the Missouri River; and Bounded on the West by the Missouri River north to the Big Sioux River; the Big Sioux River north to the northern Iowa State line.
Yellow Medicine, Renville, Lincoln, Lyon, Redwood, Pipestone, Murray, Cottonwood, Rock, Nobles, Jackson, and Martin Counties.
Cedar, Dakota, Dixon, Pierce (north of U.S. Route 20), and Thurston Counties.
Bounded on the North by State Route 44 (U.S. 18) east to State Route 11; State Route 11 south to A54B; A54B east to the Big Sioux River; Bounded on the East by the Big Sioux River; and Bounded on the South and West by the Missouri River.
The following grain elevators are part of this geographic area assignment. In Central Iowa Grain Inspection Service, Inc.'s, area: West Central Coop, Boxholm, Boone County, Iowa. In D. R. Schaal Agency's area: Maxyield Coop, Algona, Kossuth County; Stateline Coop, Burt, Kossuth County; Gold-Eagle, Goldfield, Wright County; and North Central Coop, Holmes, Wright County, Iowa.
This designation action to provide official services in these specified areas, as amended, is effective December 1, 2013 and terminates on March 31, 2015.
Interested persons may obtain official services by contacting this agency at the following telephone number:
Section 79(f) of the USGSA authorizes the Secretary to designate a qualified applicant to provide official services in a specified area after determining that the applicant is better able than any other applicant to provide such official services (7 U.S.C. 79 (f)).
Under section 79(g) of the USGSA, designations of official agencies are effective for no longer than three years unless terminated by the Secretary; however, designations may be renewed according to the criteria and procedures prescribed in section 79(f) of the USGSA.
7 U.S.C. 71-87k.
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA.
Notice.
Central Illinois Grain Inspection, Inc. (Central Illinois) geographical area is amended to include the area previously designated to Decatur Grain Inspection, Inc. (Decatur).
Eric J. Jabs, Chief, USDA, GIPSA, FGIS, QACD, QADB, 10383 North Ambassador Drive, Kansas City, MO 64153.
Eric J. Jabs, 816-659-8408 or
In the March 22, 2011
Pursuant to Section 79(f)(2) of the United States Grain Standards Act, Central Illinois designation is amended to include the additional geographic area previously designated to Decatur. Central Illinois designation for the following amended geographical area is effective October 17, 2013 to March 31, 2014.
Bounded on the North by State Route 18 east to U.S. Route 51; U.S. Route 51 south to State Route 17; State Route 17 east to Livingston County; the Livingston County line east to State Route 47; Bounded on the East by State Route 47 south to State Route 116; State Route 116 west to Pontiac, which intersects with a straight line running north and south through Arrowsmith to the southern McLean County line; the southern McLean County line east to the eastern DeWitt County line; the eastern DeWitt County Line; the eastern Macon County line south to Interstate 72; Interstate 72 northeast to the eastern Piatt County line; the eastern Piatt, Moultrie, and Shelby County lines; Bounded on the South by the southern Shelby County line; a straight line running along the southern Montgomery
The following grain elevators are not part of this geographic area assignment and are assigned to: Champaign-Danville Grain Inspection Departments, Inc.: East Lincoln Farmers Grain Co., Lincoln, Logan County, Illinois; Okaw Cooperative, Cadwell, Moultrie County; ADM (3 elevators), Farmer City, Dewitt County; and Topflight Grain Company, Monticello, Piatt County, Illinois.
Interested persons may obtain official services by contacting this agency at the following telephone numbers:
Under section 79(g) of the USGSA, designations of official agencies are effective for no longer than three years unless terminated by the Secretary; however, designations may be renewed according to the criteria and procedures prescribed in section 79(f) of the USGSA.
7 U.S.C. 71-87k.
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA.
Notice.
GIPSA is announcing the designation of Detroit Grain Inspection Service, Inc. (Detroit) to provide Class X or Class Y weighing services under the United States Grain Standards Act (USGSA), as amended.
Eric J. Jabs, Chief, USDA, GIPSA, FGIS, QACD, QADB, 10383 North Ambassador Drive, Kansas City, MO 64153.
Eric J. Jabs, 816-659-8408 or
In the February 26, 2013
Detroit's designation is amended to include Class X or Class Y weighing within their assigned geographic area, effective October 18, 2013 to March 31, 2016.
Interested persons may obtain official services by contacting Detroit at (810) 404-3786.
7 U.S.C. 71-87k.
Departmental Management, Agriculture.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), this notice announces that the Department of Agriculture, Departmental Management, Office of Procurement and Property Management, is hereby requesting an extension for and a revision to a currently approved information collection, Voluntary Labeling Program for Biobased Products for Federal Biobased Products Preferred Procurement Program.
Comments on this notice must be received by March 18, 2014 to be assured of consideration.
Ron Buckhalt, USDA, Office of Procurement and Property Management, Room 361, Reporters Building, 300 7th St. SW., Washington, DC 20024; email:
•
•
•
• Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication for regulatory information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact the
Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to Ron Buckhalt, USDA, Office of Procurement and Property Management, Room 361, Reporters Building, 300 7th St. SW., Washington, DC 20024. All comments received will be available for public inspection during regular business hours at the same address.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.
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.
Dated: January 13, 2013.
On August 29, 2013, the Port of Moses Lake Public Corporation, grantee of FTZ 203, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board on behalf of AREVA Inc., within Site 4 of FTZ 203, in Richland, Washington.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
On August 28, 2013, the Puerto Rico Industrial Development Company, grantee of FTZ 7, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board on behalf of Patheon Puerto Rico, Inc., within FTZ 7, Site 1 in Caguas and within Subzone 7L, in Manatí, Puerto Rico.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400) including notice in the
On August 28, 2013, the South Carolina State Ports Authority, grantee of FTZ 38, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board on behalf of Benteler Automotive Corporation, operator of Subzone 38F, in Duncan, South Carolina.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
Mitsubishi Electric Power Products Inc. (MEPPI), operator of Subzone 181B, submitted a notification of proposed production activity for its facility located in Sebring, Ohio. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on December 26, 2013.
The facility is used for the production of high voltage, automatic circuit breakers. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status components and specific finished products described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.
Production under FTZ procedures could exempt MEPPI from customs duty payments on the foreign status components used in export production. On its domestic sales, MEPPI would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to high voltage, automatic circuit breakers (2.0, 2.7%) for the foreign status inputs noted below. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign status production equipment.
The components and materials sourced from abroad include: Oils; greases; glues; silicones; plastic pipes/hoses/fittings/tapes/films/sheets/containers; rubber pipes/hoses/gaskets/containers; paper labels; metal flanges/fittings/casters/name plates; screws; bolts; washers; rivets; cotter pins; springs; wire (steel, copper); cabinet hardware; copper fittings; aluminum struts/tanks; pumps; compressors; blowers; air conditioners; heat exchanger parts; filters; laser tools; portable computers and related parts; valves (reducing, transmission, check, safety); bearings (ball, roller, needle); universal joints; electric (AC/DC) motors and related parts; transformers; converters; inductors; parts of power supplies; resistors; capacitors; fuses; relays; contactors; connectors; alarm signaling indicators/equipment; electrical switches; surge suppressors; circuit and overload protectors; control panels; auxiliary switches; circuit breaker parts; interrupters; diodes; transistors; light emitting diodes; integrated circuit parts; insulated wire; coaxial cable; wiring harnesses; conductors; fiber optic cable; carbon electrodes; insulators (glass, ceramic); insulating fittings; temperature sensors; thermostats and related parts; monostats; voltage regulators; and, metal furniture (duty rate ranges from free to 6.7%; 5.25¢/bbl).
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 February 26, 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
For further information, contact Pierre Duy at
Enforcement and Compliance, Formerly Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On September 4, 2013, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published the
Emeka Chukwudebe, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0219.
The Department has conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”).
The scope of the order consists of shelving and racks for refrigerators, freezers, combined refrigerator-freezers, other refrigerating or freezing equipment, cooking stoves, ranges, and ovens (“certain kitchen appliance shelving and racks” or “the merchandise under order”). Certain kitchen appliance shelving and racks are defined as shelving, baskets, racks (with or without extension slides, which are carbon or stainless steel hardware devices that are connected to shelving, baskets, or racks to enable sliding), side racks (which are welded wire support structures for oven racks that attach to the interior walls of an oven cavity that does not include support ribs as a design feature), and subframes (which are welded wire support structures that interface with formed support ribs inside an oven cavity to support oven rack assemblies utilizing extension slides) with the following dimensions:
The merchandise under the order is comprised of carbon or stainless steel wire ranging in thickness from 0.050 inch to 0.500 inch and may include sheet metal of either carbon or stainless steel ranging in thickness from 0.020 inch to 0.2 inch. The merchandise under this order may be coated or uncoated and may be formed and/or welded. Excluded from the scope of this order is shelving in which the support surface is glass.
The merchandise subject to the order is currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) statistical reporting numbers 8418.99.8050, 8418.99.8060, 7321.90.5000, 7321.90.6090, 8516.90.8000, 7321.90.6040, 8516.90.8010 and 8419.90.9520. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party that requested the review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the initiation notice of the requested review. As noted in the
In the
The Department has made no changes to the
The
The Department announced a refinement to its assessment practice in NME cases.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For New King Shan (Zhu Hai) Co., Ltd., the cash deposit rate will be that established in the final results of this review; (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters that received a separate rate in a prior segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the existing exporter-specific rate; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be that for the PRC-wide entity; and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties has occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to the 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 notification of the 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 results and this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4) and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1).
Enforcement and Compliance, formerly Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
David Lindgren, Enforcement and Compliance, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3870.
On September 3, 2013, the Department of Commerce (Department) published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on certain new pneumatic off-the-road tires (OTR Tires) from the People's Republic of China (PRC) covering the period January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2013.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party that requested the review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. GTC timely submitted a withdrawal request within the 90-day period (
The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess CVDs on all appropriate entries. GTC shall be assessed CVDs at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated CVDs required at the time of entry, or
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to the administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under an APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, formerly Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Katie Marksberry or Josh Startup, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-7906 and 202-482-5260, respectively.
On December 2, 2013, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) initiated the countervailing duty investigation of 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane from the People's Republic of China.
Section 703(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), requires the Department to issue the preliminary determination in a countervailing duty investigation within 65 days after the date on which the Department initiated the investigation. However, the Department may postpone making the preliminary determination until no later than 130 days after the date on which the administering authority initiated the investigation if the petitioner makes a timely request for an extension pursuant to section 703(c)(1)(A) of the Act. In the instant investigation, the petitioner made a timely request on January 7, 2014, requesting a postponement of the preliminary determination pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(b)(2).
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 703(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).
Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651, as amended by Pub. L. 106-36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301), we invite comments on the question of whether instruments of equivalent scientific value, for the purposes for which the instruments shown below are intended to be used, are being manufactured in the United States.
Comments must comply with 15 CFR 301.5(a)(3) and (4) of the regulations and be postmarked on or before February 6, 2014. Address written comments to Statutory Import Programs Staff, Room 3720, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230. Applications may be examined between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. at the U.S. Department of Commerce in Room 3720.
Docket Number: 13-031. Applicant: Max Planck Florida Institute, One Max Planck Way, Jupiter, FL 33458. Instrument: Field Emission Gun-Scanning Electron Microscope. Manufacturer: Carl Zeiss Microscopy, Germany. Intended Use: The instrument will be used to examine neural circuits and precisely identify “synaptic contacts” between neurons and distinguish between overlapping processes or actual synaptic contacts using 3D reconstruction of each process and its surroundings. Justification for Duty-Free Entry: There are no instruments of the same general category manufactured in the United States. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: July 22, 2013.
Docket Number: 13-042. Applicant: University of Washington Medical Center, 1959 NE Pacific Street, Seattle WA 98195-6100. Instrument: Transmission Electron Microscope—system type: Tecnai G2 Spirit BioTWIN. Manufacturer: FEI Company, Czech Republic. Intended Use: The instrument will be used to reveal the details of structures within cells and the matrix in which living cells are surrounded, and their alterations in disease settings. Justification for Duty-Free Entry: There are no instruments of the same general category manufactured in the United States. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: September 19, 2013.
Docket Number: 13-044. Applicant: University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, 421 Washington Avenue SE., Minneapolis, MN 55455. Instrument: Ultrafast Transmission Electron Microscope. Manufacturer: FEI Company, The Netherlands. Intended Use: The instrument will be used to study atomic-scale dynamic, non-equilibrium phenomena in a wide range of materials including polymer/carbon composite materials, polycrystalline graphene membranes, magnetic metal alloys, polycrystalline semiconducting alloys, biotic membranes and single-crystal elemental materials. Justification for Duty-Free Entry: There are no
Docket Number: 13-045. Applicant: Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, 600 S. Clyde Morris Blvd., Daytona Beach, FL 32114. Instrument: Scanning Electron Microscope Quanta 50 with Energy-Dispersive X-Ray Spectroscopy. Manufacturer: FEI Company, Czech Republic. Intended Use: The instrument will be used to examine titanium dioxide nanomaterials for photocatalysts and lithium-ion batteries, complex oxides nanomaterials such as metal-doped-strontium titanates, lead zirconate titanate for electronic applications, cellular solids for aerospace applications, carbon nanotubes and carbon-nanotube-reinforced polymers for aerospace composite applications and air sampling for industrial hygiene research applications. Justification for Duty-Free Entry: There are no instruments of the same general category manufactured in the United States. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: October 29, 2013.
Docket Number: 13-046. Applicant: UT-Battelle, LLC for the Dept. of Energy, One Bethel Valley Road, PO Box 2008, Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6138. Instrument: JEM-2100F Field Emission Transmission Electron Microscope. Manufacturer: JEOL Ltd., Japan. Intended Use: The instrument will be used to examine the microstructures of materials in resolution down to the atomic lattice level, investigating microstructural changes resulting from radiation induced defect generation and its effects on materials behavior allowing for further development of fundamental scientific understanding of materials reactions to displacive-type radiation environments. Justification for Duty-Free Entry: There are no instruments of the same general category manufactured in the United States. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: November 7, 2013.
Docket Number: 13-047. Applicant: The Scripps Research Institute, 10550 North Torrey Pines Road, M/S BCC-206, La Jolla, CA 92037. Instrument: Transmission Electron Microscope—Talos. Manufacturer: FEI Company, The Netherlands. Intended Use: The instrument will be used to examine the architecture of biological assemblies to determine the manner in which they function and the mechanisms through which they interact with other cellular components, including viruses, cellular protein assemblies, nanoparticles, and cellular organelles. Justification for Duty-Free Entry: There are no instruments of the same general category manufactured in the United States. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: November 26, 2013.
Docket Number: 13-049. Applicant: The Regents of the University of Michigan, 210 Washtenaw Avenue, Ann Arbor, MI 48109. Instrument: Titan Krios Transmission Electron Microscope. Manufacturer: FEI Company, The Netherlands. Intended Use: The instrument will be used to study the structure of isolated cellular components, primarily proteins, to process computationally images of protein complexes and apply averaging techniques to calculate 3D models of the specimens under investigation. Justification for Duty-Free Entry: There are no instruments of the same general category manufactured in the United States. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: December 12, 2013.
Enforcement and Compliance, formerly Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) is rescinding its administrative review of the antidumping duty order on polyethylene retail carrier bags (PRCBs) from the People's Republic of China (PRC) for the period of review (POR) August 1, 2012, through July 31, 2013.
Jerrold Freeman at 202-482-0180 or Minoo Hatten at 202-482-1690, AD/CVD Operations Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
On August 1, 2013, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on PRCBs from the PRC for the POR August 1, 2012, through July 31, 2013.
On December 18, 2013, the petitioners timely withdrew their request for an administrative review of Nozawa.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review, “in whole or in part, if a party that requested a review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of the requested review.” The petitioners withdrew their request for review within the 90-day time limit. Because no other party requested a review, the Department is rescinding the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on PRCBs from the PRC in full, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).
The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of PRCBs from the PRC during the POR at rates equal to the cash deposit or bonding rate of
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
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 or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Pacific Council) ad hoc Ecosystem Workgroup (EWG) will hold a public work session in Portland, OR. The meeting is open to the public, but is not intended as a public hearing. Public comments will be taken at the discretion of the EWG chair as time allows.
The work session will begin at 1:30 p.m. on Monday, February 3, 2014 and will proceed until 5 p.m. or until business for the day is completed. The meeting will reconvene on Tuesday, February 4, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. and will proceed until 4 p.m. or until business for the day is completed.
The work session will be held at the Pacific Council office, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220-1384, telephone: (503) 820-2280 (voice) or (503) 820-2299 (fax).
Mr. Mike Burner, telephone: (503) 820-2280.
The primary purpose of the work session is to develop a range of alternative measures for the protection of unmanaged and unfished forage species. These alternatives are intended to be presented for advanced review and for consideration by the Pacific Council, its advisory bodies, and the public at the April 2014 meeting of the Pacific Council in Vancouver, WA. The EWG may also discuss and consider recommendations to the Pacific Council regarding items of interest on the Pacific Council's March 2014 and/or April 2014 meeting agendas.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in the EWG meeting agendas may come before the EWG for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal EWG action during this meeting. EWG action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and to any issues arising after publication of this document requiring emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the EWG's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This public meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt at (503) 820-2280 (voice), or (503) 820-2299 (fax) at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application.
Notice is hereby given that Darlene Ketten, Ph.D., Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, 266 Woods Hole Road, Woods Hole, MA 02543, has applied in due form for a permit to collect, receive, import, and export marine mammal parts for scientific research purposes.
Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before February 18, 2014.
The application and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the
These documents are also available upon written request or by appointment in the following offices:
Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376; and
Northeast Region, NMFS, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930; phone (978) 281-9328; fax (978) 281-9394.
Written comments on this application should be submitted to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, at the address listed above. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile to (301) 713-0376, or by email to
Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division at the address listed above. The request should set forth the specific
Amy Sloan or Jennifer Skidmore, (301) 427-8401.
The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361
Dr. Ketten is requesting a permit for the collection, receipt, and world-wide import/export of marine mammal and endangered species parts annually from up to 20 animals of each species from the orders of Cetacea (dolphins, porpoises and whales) and Pinnipedia (seals and sea lions, excluding walrus). Whole carcasses, heads, or temporal bones (ears) are requested from stranded animals in foreign countries that die prior to beaching or are euthanized upon stranding; animals that die in captivity in the U.S. and abroad; animals killed in legal subsistence hunts; and animals killed incidental to legal fisheries operations. No live animals would be taken or killed for the purpose of this research. Marine mammal ears will be studied using various methods including biomedical imaging and dissection and histology; computer modelling is used to estimate hearing abilities, calculate frequency distribution maps, determine how marine mammal ears withstand pressure changes, and understand how underwater noise affects hearing. The requested duration of the permit is five years.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application.
Notice is hereby given that Larry Wood, LDWood BioConsulting, Inc., 425 Kennedy Street, Jupiter, FL 33468, has applied in due form for a permit to take hawksbill (
Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before February 18, 2014.
The application and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the
These documents are also available upon written request or by appointment in the following offices:
Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301)427-8401; fax (301)713-0376; and
Southeast Region, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, Saint Petersburg, FL 33701; phone (727)824-5312; fax (727)824-5309.
Written comments on this application should be submitted to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division.
• By email to
• By facsimile to (301)713-0376, or
• At the address listed above.
Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division at the address listed above. The request should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this application would be appropriate.
Amy Hapeman or Kristy Beard, (301)427-8401.
The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
The applicant requests a five-year research permit to continue to describe the abundance and movements of an aggregation of hawksbill sea turtles found on the barrier reefs of southeast Florida. Up to 50 sea turtles would be approached during dives for observation and photographs annually. Up to 25 additional animals would be hand captured, measured, flipper and passive integrated transponder tagged, photographed, tissue sampled, and released annually. In addition, up to six sub-adult and six adult hawksbills would be captured for the above procedures and fitted with a satellite transmitter prior to their release.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed addition to the Procurement List.
The Committee is proposing to add a product to the Procurement List that will be furnished by the nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
2/17/2014.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 10800, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.
Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email
This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its
If the Committee approves the proposed addition, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the product listed below from the nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
The following product is proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agency listed:
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Notice.
This action adds products to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
Effective February 17, 2014.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 10800, Arlington, Virginia, 22202-4149.
Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email
On 11/15/2013 (78 FR 68823-68824) and 11/22/2013 (78 FR 70022-70023), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notices of proposed additions to the Procurement List.
After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the products and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the products listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the products to the Government.
2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the products proposed for addition to the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following products are added to the Procurement List:
Thursday, January 23, 2014, 10 a.m.-12 p.m.
Hearing Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland.
Commission Meeting—Open to the Public
Briefing Matter: Section 1101 update (6(b)) NPR
A live Webcast of the Meeting can be viewed at
For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, call (301) 504-7948.
Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, DoD.
Notice.
In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by March 18, 2014.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs (OASD), Defense Health Agency—ATTN: Ms. Laura Johnson, 16401 East Centretech Parkway, Aurora, CO 80011-9066.
The goal of this survey effort is to assess TRICARE Provider satisfaction attitudes and perceptions regarding claims processing and customer services provided by Wisconsin Physician Services (WPS) under the TRICARE Dual Eligible Fiscal Intermediary Contract. This survey is part of the WPS proposal in order to meet Section C.7.7.9. of the TRICARE contract language which states that: “The contractor shall establish an approach for measuring whether the contractor's customer services are achieving highly satisfied TRICARE providers. The methods and procedures shall include measurement, calculation and reporting provider satisfaction. The contractor shall have established methods and procedures to mitigate and identify negative trends for provider satisfaction and allow WPS the feedback needed to take action to improve their customer services and serve the provider better. The survey will be conducted monthly and reported to TRICARE Management Activity.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.
Notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996.
Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601-3740.
The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittals 13-46 with attached transmittal, and policy justification.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
The Government of the United Arab Emirates has requested a possible sale for follow on United States Marine Corps blanket order training, training support, and other related elements of program support for the United Arab Emirates Presidential Guard Command. The estimated cost is $150 million.
This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a friendly country that has been and continues to be an important force for political stability and economic progress in the Middle East. The UAE continues host-nation support of vital U.S. forces stationed at Al Dhafra Air Base and plays a vital role in supporting U.S. regional interests.
The proposed sale will provide the continuation of U.S. Marine Corps training of the UAE's Presidential Guard for counterterrorism, counter-piracy, critical infrastructure protection, and national defense. The training also provides engagement opportunities through military exercises, training, and common equipment. The Presidential Guard currently uses these skills alongside U.S. forces, particularly in Afghanistan.
The proposed sale of this training will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
There will be no principal contractors associated with this proposed sale. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the permanent assignment of any U.S. Government or contractor representatives to the UAE. Training teams will travel to the country on a temporary basis.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
Defense Logistics Agency, DoD.
Notice of Availability (NOA) of an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Demolition of Buildings 10, 11, and 67 at Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia.
The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) announces the availability of an environmental assessment (EA) for the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed action to demolish two warehouses (Buildings 10 and 11) and a former heat plant (Building 67) at Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia. The EA has been prepared as required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (1969). In addition, the EA complies with DLA Regulation 1000.22. DLA has determined that the proposed action would not have a significant impact on the human environment within the context of NEPA. Therefore, the preparation of an environmental impact statement is not required.
The public comment period will end 30 days after publication of this NOA in the
You may submit comments to one of the following:
•
•
Ann Engelberger at (703) 767-0705 during normal business hours Monday through Friday, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. (EST) or by email:
Director of Administration and Management, DoD.
Notice of advisory committee meeting; correction.
The Department of Defense (DoD) announces a correction to its notice in the December 27, 2013
Mrs. Marcia Moore, Designated Federal Officer, National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force, 1950 Defense Pentagon, Room 3A874, Washington, DC 20301-1950. Email:
The National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force was established by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Pub. L. 112-239). The Department of Defense sponsor for the Commission is the Director of Administration and Management, Office of the Secretary of Defense. The Commission is tasked to submit a report, containing a comprehensive study and recommendations, by February 1, 2014 to the President of the United States and the Congressional defense committees. The report will contain a detailed statement of the findings and conclusions of the Commission, together with its recommendations for such legislation and administrative actions it may consider appropriate in light of the results of the study. The comprehensive study of the structure of the U.S. Air Force will determine whether, and how, the structure should be modified to best fulfill current and anticipated mission requirements for the U.S. Air Force in
Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice of meeting.
The Department of Defense is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Independent Review Panel on Military Medical Construction Standards (“the Panel”) will take place.
Defense Health Headquarters (DHHQ), Pavilion Salon C, 7700 Arlington Blvd., Falls Church, Virginia 22042 (escort required; see guidance in
The Director is Ms. Christine Bader, 7700 Arlington Boulevard, Suite 5101, Falls Church, Virginia 22042, (703) 681-6653, Fax: (703) 681-9539,
This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150.
At this meeting, the Panel will address the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2011 (Pub. L. 111-383), Section 2852(b) requirement to provide the Secretary of Defense independent advice and recommendations regarding a construction standard for military medical centers to provide a single standard of care, as set forth below:
a. Reviewing the unified military medical construction standards to determine the standards consistency with industry practices and benchmarks for world class medical construction;
b. Reviewing ongoing construction programs within the DoD to ensure medical construction standards are uniformly applied across applicable military centers;
c. Assessing the DoD approach to planning and programming facility improvements with specific emphasis on facility selection criteria and proportional assessment system; and facility programming responsibilities between the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs and the Secretaries of the Military Departments;
d. Assessing whether the Comprehensive Master Plan for the National Capital Region Medical (“the Master Plan”), dated April 2010, is adequate to fulfill statutory requirements, as required by section 2714 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (division B of Pub. L. 111-84; 123 Stat. 2656), to ensure that the facilities and organizational structure described in the Master Plan result in world class military medical centers in the National Capital Region; and
e. Making recommendations regarding any adjustments of the Master Plan that are needed to ensure the provision of world class military medical centers and delivery system in the National Capital Region.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended, and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165 and subject to availability of space, the Panel meeting is open to the public from 12:30 p.m. to 5 p.m. on February 6, 2014. On February 6, 2014, the Panel will receive briefings from the Department to include an overview of the unified military medical construction standards and ongoing construction programs. Additionally, the Panel will receive a briefing on the Comprehensive Master Plan for the National Capital Region Medical.
A copy of the agenda or any updates to the agenda for the February 6-7, 2014 meeting, as well as any other materials presented in the meeting, may be obtained at the meeting.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended, and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165 and subject to availability of space, this meeting is open to the public. Seating is limited and is on a first-come basis. All members of the public who wish to attend the public meeting must contact Ms. Camille Gaviola at the number listed in the
Individuals requiring special accommodations to access the public meeting should contact Ms. Camille Gaviola at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made.
Any member of the public wishing to provide comments to the Panel may do so in accordance with 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140 and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and the procedures described in this notice.
Individuals desiring to provide comments to the Panel may do so by submitting a written statement to the Director (see the
If the written statement is not received at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting, the Director may choose to postpone consideration of the statement until the next open meeting.
The Director will review all timely submissions with the Panel Chairperson and ensure they are provided to members of the Panel before the meeting that is subject to this notice. After reviewing the written comments, the President and the Director may choose to invite the submitter to orally present
Department of Defense/Department of the Air Force/Headquarters, HQ AFPC/DPFF, Airman & Family Division.
Notice.
In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by March 18, 2014.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
• Mail: Federal Docket Management System Office, 4800 Mark Center Drive, East Tower, Suite 02G09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.
Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the HQ AFPC/DPFF, Airman & Family Division, 550 C Street West, JBSA Randolph AFB, TX 78150, ATTN: Mr. Patrick Woodworth or call 210-565-3280.
Respondents are A&FRC customers who seek services from A&FRC. A&FRC employees enter customer demographic/service delivery information into AFFIRST per Air Force Instruction 36-3009, Airman and Family Readiness Centers, paragraphs 3.13.1-3.13.3.
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice of intent.
The Department of the Army notifies interested parties of its intent to prepare a Joint Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed lease of Army land at Schofield Barracks to the Hawaiian Electric Company (“Hawaiian Electric”) for the construction and operation on that land of a 50-megawatt (MW) biofuel-capable power generation plant. This EIS is designed to meet the requirements of both the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Hawaii Environmental Policy Act (HEPA) as a matter of efficiency and cooperation with the State's decision-making process. The decision makers, the Department of the Army and the Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, will use the analysis in the EIS to determine the potential effects of implementing the proposed action and alternatives. The Army also intends to integrate this NEPA process with the consultation and public participation requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
Written comments on the scope of the EIS or a request to be added to the EIS distribution list may be submitted as follows: Email to
For more information on the Army's proposed action, please contact Mr. Doug Waters, Army Energy Initiatives Task Force. Mr. Waters can be reached by phone at 703-601-0511, Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. eastern, or by email at
The Army's proposed action, referred to as the Schofield Generating Station Project (SGSP), is a lease of 10.3 acres of land and a related 2.5 acre interconnection easement on Schofield Barracks to Hawaiian Electric, as well Hawaiian Electric's construction, ownership, operation, and maintenance of a 50 MW biofuel-capable power generation plant and 46-kilovolt subtransmission line.
The SGSP would be a source of renewable power that would provide an energy security service to Schofield Barracks, Wheeler Army Airfield, and Field Station Kunia if loss of service occurs from the normal sources of electricity supporting these installations. Any electricity produced from renewable biofuels would also help achieve the Army goals of producing renewable energy on Army-owned real property.
The SGSP would benefit Hawaiian Electric and the residents of Oahu. It would provide a quick-starting facility to help maintain grid stability; provide a facility at a higher elevation and away from coastlines; provide a physically secure facility on a military installation; and makes progress toward the Hawaii Renewable Portfolio Standard.
The SGSP would operate on a mix of biofuel and diesel, as required to meet Hawaiian Electric's Renewable Portfolio Standard and the Army's renewable energy goals, and may help sustain a local demand for biofuels. Since the SGSP would be multi-fuel capable, it would be able to run on a combination of fuels as necessary to ensure operations are economically viable and can continue under adverse operating conditions.
The EIS will assess the potential for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on the human, natural, and cultural environment and identify mitigation measures for any adverse effects.
The EIS will examine two alternative operating scenarios for the proposed action. Under the first scenario, the SGSP would run approximately six hours per day, and consume up to eight million gallons of fuel per year. Under the second scenario, the SGSP would operate seven days a week and 24 hours per day, and would consume up to 31.5 million gallons of fuel per year.
The EIS will analyze a No Action Alternative, as prescribed by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, to serve as the baseline against which the proposed action and alternatives are compared. Under this alternative, the SGSP would not be built. The EIS process will also examine whether there are additional reasonable alternatives that could meet the needs of both the Army and Hawaiian Electric.
Key resources of concern, for which potentially significant impacts could occur, include air quality, traffic, and stormwater. The Army is preparing supporting studies for those resources.
The Department of the Army encourages all interested members of the public, as well as federal, state, and local agencies to participate in the scoping process for the preparation of this EIS. Interested members may participate in scoping meetings, submit written comments, or both. Written comments will be accepted within a 45-day period following the publication of the Notice of Intent (NOI) in the
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice.
The Department of the Navy (DoN) is reopening and extending the public scoping period for the notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for EA-18G Growler Airfield Operations at Naval Air Station (NAS) Whidbey Island, Washington. This notice announces an extension of the public scoping period until January 31, 2014.
EA-18G EIS Project Manager (Code EV21/SS); Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Atlantic, 6506 Hampton Boulevard, Norfolk, Virginia 23508.
On September 5, 2013 (78 FR 54635), the DoN published a notice of intent to prepare an EIS for EA-18G Growler Airfield Operations at NAS Whidbey Island, Washington and also announced public scoping meetings. DoN provided a 120-day public scoping period which ended on January 3, 2014. The original public scoping period was intended to avoid any complications or delays that could result from government shutdowns and the end of the calendar year.
This notice announces an extension of the public scoping period until January 31, 2014. Scoping comments may be submitted in writing to the EA-18G EIS Project Manager (Code EV21/SS); Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Atlantic, 6506 Hampton Boulevard, Norfolk, Virginia 23508, or electronically via the project Web site (
Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Notice of an open meeting.
This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda of an upcoming meeting of the National Board for Education Sciences (NBES). The notice also describes the functions of the Committee. Notice of this meeting is required by Section 10(a) (2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and is intended to notify the public of their opportunity to attend the meeting.
January 31, 2014.
80 F Street NW., Large Board Room, Washington, DC 20001
Ellie Pelaez, 555 New Jersey Avenue NW., Room 600 E, Washington, DC 20208; phone: (202) 219-0644; fax: (202) 219-1402; email:
The National Board for Education Sciences is authorized by Section 116 of the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002
On January 31, 2014, starting at 8:30 a.m., the Board meeting will commence and members will approve the agenda. From 8:35 to 9 a.m., the Board will hold elections for Chair and Vice Chair. At 9 a.m., there will be remarks from the former and new chair of the Board.
From 9:15 to 10:15 a.m., John Easton and the Commissioners of IES's national centers will then give an overview of recent developments at IES. A break will take place from 10:15 to 10:30 a.m.
The Board meeting will resume from 10:30 to 11:30 a.m. when the Board will discuss the topic, “Ongoing efforts to improve IES: Debriefing on the House Committee Hearing and GAO Report.” Bridget Terry Long will provide the opening remarks and roundtable discussion will take place after. The meeting will break for lunch and annual ethics training from 11:30 to 1 p.m.
From 1 p.m. to 2:30 p.m., the Board will consider the topic, “Supporting English Language Learners.” Following opening remarks by Sean Reardon of Stanford University, Gabriela Uro of the Council of Great City Schools, and Eileen de los Reyes of Boston Public Schools, Board members will engage in roundtable discussion of the issues raised. An afternoon break will take place from 2:30 to 2:45 p.m.
From 2:45 to 4:15 p.m., the Board will discuss the What Works Clearinghouse in regards to postsecondary education topics. After opening remarks from Ruth Neild, Commissioner of the National Center for Education Evaluation (NCEE) and Jeffrey Valentine, Principal Investigator for What Works Clearinghouse—Postsecondary Topics, the Board will engage in roundtable discussion of the topic.
Closing remarks and a consideration of next steps from the IES Director and NBES Chair will take place from 4:15 to 4:30 p.m., with adjournment scheduled for 4:30 p.m.
There will not be an opportunity for public comment. However, members of the public are encouraged to submit written comments related to NBES to Ellie Pelaez (see contact information above). A final agenda is available from Ellie Pelaez (see contact information above) and is posted on the Board Web site
Records are kept of all Board proceedings and are available for public inspection at 555 New Jersey Avenue NW., Suite 602, Washington, DC 20208, from the hours of 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Eastern Standard Time Monday through Friday.
To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free at 1-866-512-1800; or in the Washington, DC are at (202) 512-0000.
The official version of this document is the document published in the
National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity, Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
The purpose of this notice is to list the members of the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI). This notice is required under Section 114(e)(1) of the Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965, as amended.
The NACIQI is established under Section 114 of the HEA, and its members are appointed—
(A) On the basis of the individuals' experience, integrity, impartiality, and good judgment;
(B) From among individuals who are representatives of, or knowledgeable concerning, education and training beyond secondary education, representing all sectors and types of institutions of higher education; and,
(C) On the basis of the individuals' technical qualifications, professional standing, and demonstrated knowledge in the fields of accreditation and administration of higher education.
The NACIQI meets at least twice a year and provides recommendations to the Secretary of Education pertaining to:
• The establishment and enforcement of the standards of accrediting agencies or associations under subpart 2 of part H of Title IV, HEA.
• The recognition of specific accrediting agencies or associations.
• The preparation and publication of the list of nationally recognized accrediting agencies and associations.
• The eligibility and certification process for institutions of higher education under Title IV of the HEA.
• The relationship between (1) accreditation of institutions of higher education and the certification and eligibility of such institutions, and (2) State licensing responsibilities with respect to such institutions.
• Any other advisory functions relating to accreditation and institutional eligibility that the Secretary may prescribe by regulation.
The current members of the NACIQI are:
• Susan D. Phillips, Ph.D., NACIQI Chair; Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, The State University of New York at Albany, Albany, New York.
• Simon J. Boehme, Student, Senior, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
• Roberta L. Derlin, Ph.D., Associate Provost, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico.
• Frank H. Wu, J.D., Chancellor and Dean, University of California, Hastings College of the Law, San Francisco, California.
• Federico Zaragoza, Ph.D., Vice Chancellor of Economic and Workforce
• The 6th Secretarial appointment is in-process.
• Arthur Keiser, Ph.D., NACIQI Vice-Chair; Chancellor, Keiser University, Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
• George T. French, Jr., Ph.D., President, Miles College, Fairfield, Alabama.
• William E. Kirwan, Ph.D., Chancellor, University System of Maryland, College Park, Maryland.
• William Pepicello, Ph.D., President, University of Phoenix, Phoenix, Arizona.
• Arthur J. Rothkopf, J.D., President Emeritus, Lafayette College, Easton, Pennsylvania. (Mr. Rothkopf resides in Washington, DC).
• Carolyn G. Williams, Ph.D., President Emeritus, Bronx Community College, City University of New York, Bronx, New York.
• William L. Armstrong, President, Colorado Christian University, Lakewood, Colorado.
• Jill Derby, Ph.D., Governance Consultant, Association of Governing Boards of Colleges and Universities, Washington, DC.
• Anne D. Neal, J.D., President, American Council of Trustees and Alumni, Washington, DC.
• Richard F. O'Donnell, Chief Revenue Officer, The Fullbridge Program, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
• Cameron C. Staples, J.D., President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO), New England Association of Schools and Colleges, Bedford, Massachusetts.
• Larry N. Vanderhoef, Ph.D., Chancellor Emeritus, University of California-Davis, Davis, California.
If you have any specific questions about the NACIQI, please contact Carol Griffiths, Executive Director, NACIQI, telephone (202) 219-7009, fax (202) 502-7874, email:
Department of Energy.
Notice of meeting.
This notice sets forth the schedule and summary agenda for a partially closed meeting of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), and describes the functions of the Council. Notice of this meeting is required under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 2.
January 31, 2014.
The meeting will be held at the National Academy of Sciences, 2101 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC in the Lecture Room.
Information regarding the meeting agenda, time, location, and how to register for the meeting is available on the PCAST Web site at:
The President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) is an advisory group of the nation's leading scientists and engineers, appointed by the President to augment the science and technology advice available to him from inside the White House, cabinet departments, and other Federal agencies. See the Executive Order at
The public comment period for this meeting will take place on January 31, 2014 at a time specified in the meeting agenda posted on the PCAST Web site at
Please note that because PCAST operates under the provisions of FACA, all public comments and/or presentations will be treated as public documents and will be made available for public inspection, including being posted on the PCAST Web site.
Notice of designation of off-limits areas.
The Department of Energy (DOE) hereby amends and adds to the previously published site descriptions of various DOE and contractor occupied buildings as off-limits areas. It is a federal crime for unauthorized persons to enter into or upon the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory located in Kane and DuPage Counties in the State of Illinois. Unauthorized entry into or upon these properties may result in a fine and/or imprisonment.
Jo Ann Williams, Office of General Counsel, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-6899, or James Durante, III, Office of Chief Counsel, Office of Science Integrated Support Center Chicago Office, 9600 South Cass Ave., Argonne, Illinois 60439, (630) 252-2034.
The Department of Energy (DOE), successor agency to the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), is authorized, pursuant to section 229 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2278a), and section 104 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5814), as implemented by 10 CFR part 860, published in the
Accordingly, DOE prohibits the unauthorized entry and the unauthorized introduction of weapons or dangerous materials, as provided in 10 CFR 860.3 and 860.4 into any building or structure and upon the Fermi National Accelerator site. Description of the site being designated at this time is as follows:
Sections 19, 20, 29, 30, and part of Section 16, 17, 18, 21, 28, 31, 32 & 33, all in Township 39 North, Range 9 East of the Third Principal Meridian, Winfield Township, DuPage County, Illinois, and part of Sections 13, 24, 25 & 36, all in Township 39 North, Range 8 East of the Third Principal Meridian, Batavia Township, Kane County, Illinois, described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the centerline of Wilson Street and a line 50 feet Easterly of the centerline of Kirk Road in Kane County; thence Southerly parallel with and 50 feet Easterly of said centerline of Kirk Road to the Northeasterly Right of Way line of the abandoned Chicago, Aurora & Elgin Railroad; thence Southeasterly along said Northeast Railroad Right of Way line to a point on the Northerly Right of Way line of F.A. Route 131 (Illinois Route 56); thence Easterly 242.46 feet along said Northerly Right of Way line of F.A. Route 131 to a point; thence South 101.67 feet parallel with and 26 rods West of the East line of Section 36, Township 39 North, Range 8 East of the Third Principal Meridian to the centerline of F.A. Route 131; thence Easterly 436.14 feet along said Highway centerline to the East line of said section 36; thence North 101.67 feet along said East line of said Section 36 to the Northerly Right of Way of F.A. Route 131; thence Northeasterly along said Right of Way to the West line of a tract of land formerly owned by Commonwealth Edison Company and deeded to the Department of Business and Economic Development of the State of Illinois, and recorded as Document No. 69-48320 in DuPage County; thence Southerly along the West line of said property to the centerline of F.A. Route 131 (Illinois Route 56); thence Easterly along the centerline of F.A. Route 131 (Illinois Route 56) to the Southeast Corner of Lot 1 in C.H. Brummel's Assessment Plat of part of the West Half of Section 33 and part of the East Half of Section 32, Township 39 North, Range 9 East of the Third Principal Meridian, recorded February 17, 1940 as Documents No. 408024 in DuPage County, Illinois; thence North 1°06′ East along the East line of said Lot 1 in C.H. Brummel's Assessment Plat 77.8 feet to the centerline of Old Big Woods Road; thence Westerly along said centerline 20.2 feet; thence North 1°16′ East along an Easterly line of said Lot 1 in C.H. Brummel's Assessment Plat to the North line of Old Big Woods Road, said line also being the North line of F.A. Route 131 (Illinois Route 56); thence Easterly along said Northerly Right of Way line of P.A. Route 131 to the Westerly Right of Way line of the Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railroad, thence Northerly along said Right of Way line to the South line of West Park, Subdivision in Section 16, Township 39 North, Range 9 East of the Third Principal Meridian; thence Westerly along the South line of said West Park Subdivision to the Southwest Corner of said Subdivision in the center of Town Line Road; thence Northerly 1178.15 feet along the centerline of Town Line Road to a point; thence South 89°04′36″ West 33 feet to the Westerly Right of Way line of Town Line Road; thence Northwesterly parallel with and 400 feet Southwesterly of the Southwesterly Right of Way line of Illinois Alternate Route 30 to the West line of Section 16, Township 39 North, Range 9 East of the Third Principal Meridian; thence North along said West line of Section 16 to the Northeast Corner of Section 17,
Notices stating the pertinent prohibitions of 10 CFR 860.3 and 860.4 and the penalties of 10 CFR 860.5 are being posted at all entrances of the above-referenced areas and at intervals along their perimeters, as provided in 10 CFR 860.6.
If unauthorized entry into or upon these properties is into an area enclosed by a fence, wall, floor, roof or other such structural barrier, conviction for such unauthorized entry may result in a fine not to exceed $100,000 or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both. If unauthorized entry into or upon the properties is into an area not enclosed by a fence, wall, floor, roof, or other such structural barrier, conviction for such unauthorized entry may result in a fine of not more than $5,000.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that on January 8, 2014, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206 and sections 206 and 306 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824(e) and 825(e), New England Power Generators Association, Inc. (Complainant) filed a formal complaint against ISO New England Inc. (Respondent) alleging that, Respondent's Transmission, Markets & Services Tariff is unjust and unreasonable. Complainant request that the Commission order the Respondent to revise its Transmission, Markets & Services Tariff to prevent price suppression that will result if capacity from resources whose Non-Price retirement Requests have been rejected by the Respondent for local reliability reasons is then counted against the Installed Capacity Requirement for purposes of the upcoming Forward Capacity Auction.
The Complainant certifies that copies of the complaint were served on the contacts for the Respondent as listed in the Commission's list of Corporate Offiicals.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Pompano Compressor Station 21.5 Project involving construction and operation of facilities by Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC (FGT) in Broward County, Florida. The Commission will use this EA in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity.
This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the project. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EA. Please note that the scoping period will close on February 8, 2014.
You may submit comments in written form. Further details on how to submit written comments are in the Public Participation section of this notice.
This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for this project. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if the Commission approves the project, that approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with state law.
FGT provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” This fact sheet addresses a number of typically-asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. It is also available for viewing on the FERC Web site (
FGT proposes to construct, own, and operate a new 22,000 horsepower electric compressor station; construct 3,100 feet of suction and discharge header piping; construct a new regulator station, and install appurtenant auxiliary facilities. According to FGT, its project would provide for increased delivery pressure of existing firm transportation volumes and increase the maximum delivery quantity for Florida Power & Light Company at FPL's Port Everglades delivery point.
The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix 1.
Construction of the proposed facilities would disturb about 38.6 acres of land for the aboveground facilities and the pipeline. Following construction, FGT would maintain about 28.3 acres for permanent operation of the project's facilities; the remaining acreage would be restored and revert to former uses.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed project under these general headings:
• Geology and soils;
• land use;
• socioeconomics;
• water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
• cultural resources;
• vegetation and wildlife;
• air quality and noise;
• endangered and threatened species; and
• public safety; and
• cumulative impacts.
We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
The EA will present our independent analysis of the issues. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public Participation section beginning on page4.
With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues of this project to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the EA.
In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on historic properties.
You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before February 8, 2014.
For your convenience, there are three methods which you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances please reference the project docket number (CP14-21-000) with your submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the
(2) You can file your comments electronically using the
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
The environmental mailing list includes: Federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the project. We will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the proposed project.
If we publish and distribute the EA, copies will be sent to the environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the attached Information Request (appendix 2).
In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want to become an “intervenor” which is an
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site at
In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Gas Gathering Pipeline Project involving construction and operation of a gathering pipeline and associated facilities by Bakken Hunter, LLC (Bakken Hunter) in Divide County, North Dakota. The Commission will use this EA in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public interest.
This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the project. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EA. Please note that the scoping period will close on February 10, 2014.
This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for this project. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern. To submit written comments, please see the public participation section of this notice.
If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a Bakken Hunter representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. Bakken Hunter would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if the Commission approves the project, that approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with state law.
A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” is available for viewing on the FERC Web site (
Bakken Hunter plans to construct, own, and operate a natural gas gathering pipeline to transport gas from a multi-well oil field in Saskatchewan, Canada to a gas processing and distribution center owned by ONEOK Rockies Midstream, LLC in Divide County, North Dakota. The natural gas is currently being flared. This pipeline would allow the gas to be processed and sold for use in the United States. The facilities would include approximately 2.76 miles of 10-inch-diameter pipeline, of which approximately 1.02 miles would be in the United States. Additionally, Bakken Hunter would construct a pig
The general location of the project facilities are shown in appendix 1.
Construction of the proposed facilities would disturb about 9.3 acres of agricultural land for the pipeline and pig receiver. Bakken Hunter would retain easement on the total acreage. Following construction, approximately .02 acre would be permanently maintained for operation of the pig receiver. The remaining land would be restored its former use.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed project under these general headings:
We will also evaluate possible alternatives to the proposed project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various environmental resources.
Our independent analysis of the issues will be presented in the EA. The EA will be available in the public record through the Commission's eLibrary. Depending on the comments received during the scoping process, we may also publish and distribute the EA to the public for an allotted comment period. We will consider all comments on the EA before we make our recommendations to the Commission. To ensure your comments are considered, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public Participation section of this notice.
With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues related to this project to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the EA.
In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation with the North Dakota State Historic Preservation Office, and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on historic properties.
You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before February 10, 2014.
For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the project docket number (CP14-24-000) with your submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the
(2) You can file your comments electronically using the
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the project. We will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the proposed project.
If we publish and distribute the EA, copies will be sent to the environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the attached Information Request (appendix 2).
In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want to become an “intervenor” which is an official party to the Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in the User's Guide under the “e-filing” link on the Commission's Web site.
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site (
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Cameron Liquefaction Project (Project), proposed by Cameron LNG, LLC and Cameron Interstate Pipeline, LLC (collectively Cameron) in the above-referenced docket. Cameron requests authorization to export 12 million tons of liquefied natural gas (LNG) per year from its terminal in Cameron and Calcasieu Parishes, Louisiana.
The draft EIS assesses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the Cameron Liquefaction Project in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FERC staff concludes that approval of the proposed Project, with the mitigation measures recommended in the EIS, would ensure that impacts in the Project area would be avoided or minimized and would not be significant. Construction and operation of the Project would result in mostly temporary and short-term environmental impacts; however, some long-term and permanent environmental impacts would occur.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), and U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) participated as cooperating agencies in the preparation of the EIS. Cooperating agencies have jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to resources potentially affected by the proposal and participate in the NEPA analysis. The COE and DOE will adopt and use the EIS in issuing their respective permits. The U.S. Coast Guard and DOT cooperated in the preparation of this EIS because of their special expertise with respect to resources potentially affected by the proposal. Although the cooperating agencies provided input to the conclusions and recommendations presented in the draft EIS, the agencies will present their own conclusions and recommendations in their respective Records of Decision for the Project.
The Project would use the facilities at the existing Cameron LNG Terminal, including the existing berthing facilities and LNG storage tanks, as well as the existing Cameron Interstate Pipeline. Operation of the Project would not increase LNG carrier traffic beyond that previously authorized for the existing Cameron LNG Terminal. The draft EIS addresses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the following Project facilities:
The FERC staff mailed copies of the draft EIS to federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; potentially affected landowners and other interested individuals and groups; newspapers and libraries in the Project area; and parties to this proceeding. Everyone on our environmental mailing list will receive a CD version of the draft EIS. In addition, the draft EIS is available for public viewing on the FERC's Web site (
Any person wishing to comment on the draft EIS may do so. To ensure consideration of your comments on the proposal in the final EIS, it is important that the Commission receive your comments before March 3, 2014.
For your convenience, there are four methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the Project docket numbers (CP13-25-000 and CP13-27-000) with your submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature on the Commission's Web site (
(2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling feature on the Commission's Web site (
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
(4) In lieu of sending written or electronic comments, the Commission invites you to attend the public comment meeting its staff will conduct in the Project area to receive comments on the draft EIS. We encourage interested groups and individuals to attend and present oral comments on the draft EIS. Transcripts of the meetings will be available for review in eLibrary under the Project docket numbers. The meeting will begin at 7:00 p.m. and is scheduled as follows:
Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR Part 385.214).
Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC (
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription that allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
Take notice that during the month of December 2013, the status of the above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators or Foreign Utility Companies became effective by operation of the Commission's regulations. 18 CFR 366.7(a).
Rule 2010 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure
The Commission staff is consulting with the Michigan State Historic Preservation Office (Michigan SHPO) and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Advisory Council) pursuant to the Advisory Council's regulations, 36 CFR Part 800, implementing section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act,
The programmatic agreement, when executed by the Commission and the Missouri SHPO, would satisfy the Commission's section 106 responsibilities for all individual undertakings carried out in accordance with the license until the license expires or is terminated (36 CFR 800.13[e]). The Commission's responsibilities pursuant to section 106 for the project would be fulfilled through the Programmatic Agreement, which the Commission staff proposes to draft in consultation with certain parties listed below. The executed Programmatic Agreement would be incorporated into any Order issuing a license.
Rock River Beach, Inc., as applicant for the Rock River Beach Hydroelectric Project, is invited to participate in consultations to develop the Programmatic Agreement. For purposes of commenting on the programmatic agreement, we propose to restrict the service list for Project No. 14345 as follows:
Any person on the official service list for the above-captioned proceeding may request inclusion on the restricted service list, or may request that a restricted service list not be established, by filing a motion to that effect within 15 days of this notice date. In a request for inclusion, please identify the reason(s) why there is an interest to be included. Also please identify any concerns about historic properties, including Traditional Cultural Properties. If historic properties are to be identified within the motion, please use a separate page, and label it NON-PUBLIC Information.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions using the Commission's eFiling system at
If no such motions are filed, the restricted service list will be effective at the end of the 15 day period. Otherwise, a further notice will be issued ruling on any motion or motions within the 15-day period.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Gasoline Volatility (EPA ICR No. 1367.10, OMB control No. 2060-0178), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before March 18, 2014.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0478, 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.
James W. Caldwell, Compliance Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Mail Code 6406J, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 343-9303; fax number: (202) 343-2802; email address:
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to: (i) 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; (ii) 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; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) 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. EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval. At that time, EPA will issue another
Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General Information (202) 564-7146 or
Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA has granted emergency exemptions under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) for use of pesticides as listed in this notice. The exemptions were granted during the period April 1, 2013 to September 30, 2013 to control unforeseen pest outbreaks.
Lois Rossi, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0069, is available at
EPA has granted emergency exemptions to the following State and Federal agencies. The emergency exemptions may take the following form: Crisis, public health, quarantine, or specific.
Under FIFRA section 18, EPA can authorize the use of a pesticide when emergency conditions exist. Authorizations (commonly called emergency exemptions) are granted to State and Federal agencies and are of four types:
1. A “specific exemption” authorizes use of a pesticide against specific pests on a limited acreage in a particular State. Most emergency exemptions are specific exemptions.
2. “Quarantine” and “public health” exemptions are emergency exemptions issued for quarantine or public health purposes. These are rarely requested.
3. A “crisis exemption” is initiated by a State or Federal agency (and is confirmed by EPA) when there is insufficient time to request and obtain EPA permission for use of a pesticide in an emergency.
EPA may deny an emergency exemption: If the State or Federal agency cannot demonstrate that an emergency exists, if the use poses unacceptable risks to the environment, or if EPA cannot reach a conclusion that the proposed pesticide use is likely to result in “a reasonable certainty of no harm” to human health, including exposure of residues of the pesticide to infants and children.
If the emergency use of the pesticide on a food or feed commodity would result in pesticide chemical residues, EPA establishes a time-limited tolerance meeting the “reasonable certainty of no harm standard” of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
In this document: EPA identifies the State or Federal agency granted the exemption, the type of exemption, the pesticide authorized and the pests, the crop or use for which authorized, and the duration of the exemption.
Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA has received several applications to register pesticide products containing active ingredients not included in any currently registered pesticide products. Pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications.
Comments must be received on or before February 18, 2014.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number and the EPA File Symbol of interest as shown in the body of this document, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
Susan Lewis, Antimicrobials Division (AD) (7510P), email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
1.
2.
i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading,
ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives.
vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
EPA has received several applications to register pesticide products containing active ingredients not included in any currently registered pesticide products. Pursuant to the provisions of FIFRA section 3(c)(4), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications. Notice of receipt of these applications does not imply a decision by the Agency on these applications. For actions being evaluated under the Agency's public participation process for registration actions, there will generally be an additional opportunity for a public comment period on the proposed decision. Please see the Agency's public participation Web site for additional information on this process (
1.
2.
Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.
Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation Board.
Notice is hereby given of the regular meeting of the Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation Board (Board).
Dale L. Aultman, Secretary to the Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation Board, (703) 883-4009, TTY (703) 883-4056.
Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102. Submit attendance requests via email to
This meeting of the Board will be open to the public (limited space available). Please send an email to
• Review of Insurance Premium Rates
• Report on Investment Portfolio
Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this Notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this Notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 32.1, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.
No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.
Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this Notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this Notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 32.1, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.
No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.
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 February 13, 2014.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
1.
The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y, (12 CFR part 225) to engage
Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than February 3, 2014.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland (Nadine Wallman, Vice President) 1455 East Sixth Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44101-2566:
9:00 a.m., January 27, 2014.
10th Floor Board Meeting Room, 77 K Street NE., Washington, DC 20002.
Parts will be open to the public and parts closed to the public.
Kimberly Weaver, Director, Office of External Affairs, (202) 942-1640.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Notice.
This notice sets forth a new policy regarding requests made under the Freedom of Information Act for information on amounts paid to individual physicians under the Medicare program in which CMS will make case-by-case determinations as to whether exemption 6 of the Freedom of Information Act applies to a given request for such information.
This notice is effective on March 18, 2014.
Grace Im (202) 260-6770.
In a previous policy on the disclosure of amounts paid to individual physicians under the Medicare program, which was set forth in the November 28, 1980
That district court vacated its permanent injunction on May 31, 2013 after determining that such a broad injunction was no longer authorized under the Privacy Act after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit's decision in
The Secretary has considered the court's decision and the wide spectrum of public comments received by CMS. In doing so, the Department has decided to replace the prior policy, as set forth in the November 28, 1980
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publishes a list of information collection requests under review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these requests, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to
Evaluation of Food Safety Programs—New—National Center for Environmental Health (NCEH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Local and state food safety programs (FSPs) are on the frontline of foodborne disease prevention in United States (U.S.). Through the Environmental Health Specialists Network (EHS-Net)(OMB No. 0920-0792, Expiration2/28/2015), CDC currently funds and works with local and state health departments in five states (California, New York, Minnesota, Rhode Island, and Tennessee) to: (1) Identify environmental antecedents (underlying factors) to illness and disease outbreaks; (2) translate findings into improved prevention efforts using a systems-based approach; (3) offer training opportunities to current and future environmental health specialists; and (4) strengthen collaboration among epidemiology, laboratory, and environmental health programs. This CDC program offers insights into the current status of FSPs among EHS-Net partners, but information is lacking on a national scale.
The current tight fiscal environment faced by U.S. health departments has led to a significant reduction in funding for public health programs, such as food safety. For example, 57 percent of local health departments reduced or eliminated at least one public health program during 2011. Therefore, the CDC is requesting for a two-year OMB approval to conduct the “Evaluation of Food Safety Programs” survey among a representative sample of local and state health departments implementing FSPs in the U.S.
The purpose of this evaluation of local and state FSPs is to collect descriptive data on their current status and activities, to describe changes in their status and activities from 2007 to 2012, and to determine if there is a relationship between funding status and activities. Data will be collected on food safety activities, workforce capacity and competency, financial resources, community health, and demographics of FSPs. Data collected will help CDC better understand the relationship between different levels of funding and FSP effectiveness in the U.S.
State and local food safety programs are primary respondents for this data collection. There are over 3,000 state and local health departments in the U.S. It is unknown how many state and local health departments will actually participate in the evaluation survey, as participation will be voluntary.
This information collection seeks approval to obtain data using a one-time data collection survey. The survey will take approximately 2 hours to complete. The survey will be completed once by respondents either manually or electronically. The CDC is asking for this data collection burden to allow local and state health departments ample time to request and obtain the information they need from their various departments and units to complete the evaluation survey.
For this project, the anticipated number of respondents is 190 health departments per year, and the total estimated annual burden hours are 380 hours. Only local and state health departments implementing food safety programs in the U.S. will be eligible to participate in the survey. There will be no cost to the respondents other than their time.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be received by March 18, 2014.
When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number (OCN). To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:
1.
2.
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' Web site address at
2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to
3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the
1.
2.
Researchers will request data from States approved for CFC via a data form and semi-structured interviews. Information obtained will be used to better understand CFC program design, the targeted patient population, and intended outcomes. At this time, we have only approved California's program. To provide comparative information to the Secretary, researchers will also collect data from States that have decided not to pursue the CFC option. Data will be analyzed and developed into a report to Congress which will evaluate the effectiveness of the CFC option, the program's impact on participants' physical and emotional health, and a comparative analysis of the costs of community-based services and those provided in institutional settings.
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments on the collection(s) of information must be received by the OMB desk officer by February 18, 2014:
When commenting on the proposed information collections, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be received by the OMB desk officer via one of the following transmissions: OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: CMS Desk Officer, Fax Number: (202) 395-5806
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' Web site address at
2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to
3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal agencies to publish a 30-day notice in the
1.
2.
3.
Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 275.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing
FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850,
On September 13, 2012, the Agency submitted a proposed collection of information entitled “Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff on Dear Health Care Provider Letters: Improving Communication of Important Safety Information” to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. 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. OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0754. The approval expires on December 31, 2016. A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is available on the Internet at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled “Premarket Approval of Medical Devices—21 CFR Part 814” has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850,
On November 22, 2013, the Agency submitted a proposed collection of information entitled “Premarket Approval of Medical Devices—21 CFR Part 814” to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. 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. OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0231. The approval expires on January 31, 2017. A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is available on the Internet at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled “Premarket Notification Submission 510(k), Subpart E” has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850,
On November 12, 2013, the Agency submitted a proposed collection of information entitled “Premarket Notification Submission 510(k), Subpart E” to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. 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. OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0120. The approval expires on January, 31 2017. A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is available on the Internet at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled “Reporting and Recordkeeping for Electronic Products—General Requirements” has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850,
On November 20, 2013, the Agency submitted a proposed collection of information entitled “Reporting and Recordkeeping for Electronic Products—General Requirements” to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. 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. OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0025. The approval expires on January 31, 2017. A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is available on
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of the draft guidance entitled “Reporting of Computational Modeling Studies in Medical Device Submissions.” Computational modeling and simulation (CM&S) studies are often used by sponsors as a tool to support medical device applications. The purpose of this draft guidance document is to provide recommendations to industry on the formatting, organization, and content of reports of CM&S studies that are used as valid scientific evidence to support medical device submissions, and to assist FDA staff in the review of computational modeling and simulation studies by improving the consistency and predictability of the review and facilitating full interpretation and complete review of those studies. This draft guidance is not final nor is it in effect at this time.
Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by April 17, 2014.
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance document entitled “Reporting of Computational Modeling Studies in Medical Device Submissions” to the Division of Small Manufacturers, International, and Consumer Assistance, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 4613, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your request, or fax your request to 301-847-8149. See the
Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance to
Tina Morrison, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 1272, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-6310.
There has been an increased interest in the use of CM&S studies as a tool to support medical device applications, as evidenced by the increase in the number of computer modeling test reports submitted in medical device applications. The Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) recognizes that use of CM&S studies are an innovative means to design, develop, and evaluate medical devices, and has held five public meetings on the topic in recent years. Information regarding the most recent meeting, “FDA/NIH/NSF Workshop on Computer Models and Validation for Medical Devices,” June 11-12, 2013, is available at:
CM&S studies have traditionally been used in the areas of fluid dynamics (e.g., shear stress and stagnation calculations in ventricular assist devices), solid mechanics (e.g., maximum stress locations in a hip implant), electromagnetics and optics (e.g., radiofrequency dosimetry in magnetic resonance imaging, fluence for fiber optic spectroscopy devices), ultrasound propagation (e.g., absorbed energy distribution for therapeutic ultrasound), and thermal propagation (e.g., radiofrequency and laser ablation devices). The purpose of this draft guidance document is to provide recommendations to industry on the formatting, organization, and content of reports of CM&S studies that are used as valid scientific evidence to support medical device submissions. Moreover, this draft guidance is intended to help improve the consistency and predictability of the review of computational modeling and simulation studies and to better facilitate full interpretation and complete review of those studies.
The draft guidance provides a general outline of information that should be included in a CM&S report, written in general terms to capture reporting for any modality. The guidance also includes five subject matter appendices that provide more background, structure, and specific terminology for modeling and simulation modalities that are widely used in regulatory submissions, including fluid dynamics and mass transport; solid mechanics; electromagnetics and optics; ultrasound; and heat transfer.
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 “Reporting of Computational Modeling Studies in Medical Device Submissions.” It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statute and regulations.
Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the draft guidance may do so by using the Internet. A search capability for all CDRH guidance documents is available at
This draft 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 part 812 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0078; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 807 subpart E have been approved
Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of meetings of the National Advisory Council for Human Genome Research.
The meetings will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Office of the Secretary, DHS.
Notice.
Under Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regulations, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may approve petitions for H-2A and H-2B nonimmigrant status only for nationals of countries that the Secretary of Homeland Security, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, has designated by notice published in the
Francis Cissna, Office of Policy, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528, (202) 447-3835.
In designating countries to include on the list, the Secretary of Homeland Security, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, will take into account factors including, but not limited to: (1) The country's cooperation with respect to issuance of travel documents for citizens, subjects, nationals, and residents of that country who are subject to a final order of removal; (2) the number of final and unexecuted orders
In December 2008, DHS published in the
The Secretary of Homeland Security has determined, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, that 59 countries previously designated in the January 18, 2013 notice continue to meet the standards identified in that notice for eligible countries and therefore should remain designated as countries whose nationals are eligible to participate in the H-2A and H-2B programs. Further, the Secretary of Homeland Security, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, has determined that it is now appropriate to add 4 countries whose nationals are eligible to participate in the H-2A and H-2B programs. This determination is made taking into account the four factors identified above. The Secretary of Homeland Security also considered other pertinent factors including, but not limited to, evidence of past usage of the H-2A and H-2B programs by nationals of the country to be added, as well as evidence relating to the economic impact on particular U.S. industries or regions resulting from the addition or continued non-inclusion of specific countries. In consideration of all of the above, this notice designates for the first time Austria, Italy, Panama, and Thailand as countries whose nationals are eligible to participate in the H-2A and H-2B programs.
Pursuant to the authority provided to the Secretary of Homeland Security under sections 214(a)(1), 215(a)(1), and 241 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(a)(1), 1185(a)(1), and 1231), I am designating, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, nationals from the following countries to be eligible to participate in the H-2A and H-2B nonimmigrant worker programs:
This notice does not affect the status of aliens who currently hold valid H-2A or H-2B nonimmigrant status. Persons holding such status, however, will be affected by this notice at the time they seek an extension of stay in H-2 classification, or a change of status from one H-2 status to another. Similarly, persons holding nonimmigrant status other than H-2 status are not affected by this notice unless they seek a change of status to H-2 status.
Nothing in this notice limits the authority of the Secretary of Homeland Security or his or her designee or any other federal agency to invoke against any foreign country or its nationals any other remedy, penalty, or enforcement action available by law.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Sixty-day notice requesting comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request (ICRs) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval of a revision to the following collection of information: 1625-0008, Regattas and Marine Parades. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Before submitting this ICR to OIRA, the Coast Guard is inviting comments as described below.
Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before March 18, 2014.
You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
The DMF maintains the public docket for this Notice. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in this Notice as being available in the docket, will become part of the docket and will be available for inspection or copying at room W12-140 on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find the docket on the Internet at
Copies of the ICRs are available through the docket on the Internet at
Contact Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of Information Management, telephone 202-475-3532, or fax 202-372-8405, for questions on these documents. Contact Ms. Barbara Hairston, Program Manager, Docket Operations, 202-366-9826, for questions on the docket.
This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and other important information describing the Collections. There is one ICR for each Collection.
The Coast Guard invites comments on whether these ICRs should be granted based on the Collections being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collections; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collections; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collections; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collections on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. In response to your comments, we may revise these ICRs or decide not to seek approval of revisions of the Collections. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.
We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2013-0951], and must be received by March 18, 2014. We will post all comments received, without change, to
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number [USCG-2013-0951], indicate the specific section of the document to which each comment applies, providing a reason for each comment. You may submit your comments and material online (
You may submit your comments and material by electronic means, mail, fax, or delivery to the DMF at the address under
Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received in 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 statement regarding Coast Guard public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
1.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice; withdrawal.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is withdrawing its notice concerning proposed flood hazard determinations, which may include the addition or modification of any Base Flood Elevation, base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps, and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study reports for Kandiyohi County, Minnesota, and Incorporated Areas.
As of January 17, 2014, the notice published August 9, 2013, at 78 FR 48701, is withdrawn.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1340, to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (email)
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (email)
On August 9, 2013, FEMA published a notice at 78 FR 48701, proposing flood hazard determinations in Kandiyohi County, Minnesota. FEMA is withdrawing the notice.
42 U.S.C. 4104; 44 CFR 67.4.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, PIH, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Arlette Mussington, Office of Policy, Programs and Legislative Initiatives, PIH, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., (L'Enfant Plaza, Room 2206), Washington, DC 20410; telephone 202-402-4109, (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Information Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Mussington.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, PIH, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Arlette Mussington, Office of Policy, Programs and Legislative Initiatives, PIH, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., (L'Enfant Plaza, Room 2206), Washington, DC 20410; telephone 202-402-4109, (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Information Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Mussington.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice.
This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible use to assist the homeless.
Juanita Perry, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 7262, Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 402-3970; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708-2565, (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 800-927-7588.
In accordance with the December 12, 1988 court order in
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development invites the public to submit nominations for appointment by the Secretary to the Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee (MHCC), a Federal Advisory Committee established by the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974, as amended by the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000.
The Department will accept nominations on a continuing basis and may make appointments from nominations on file or from nominations submitted in response to this Notice. Nominations not selected for appointment to a current vacancy will be retained for three (3) years and may be considered for vacancies as they arise. New members are appointed for a term of three (3) years, usually beginning in January of each year.
Henry S. Czauski, Acting Deputy Administrator, Office of Manufactured Housing Programs, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 9168, Washington, DC 20410-8000; telephone number 202-708-6423 (this is not a toll-free number). For hearing and speech-impaired persons, this number may be accessed via TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339.
Section 604 of the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-569) amended the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5401-5426) (Act) to require the establishment of the MHCC, a Federal Advisory Committee, to: (1) Provide periodic recommendations to the Secretary to adopt, revise, and interpret the Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards; and (2) to provide periodic recommendations to the Secretary to adopt, revise, and interpret the procedural and enforcement manufactured housing regulations, including regulations specifying the permissible scope and conduct of monitoring. The Act authorizes the Secretary to appoint a total of twenty-two members to the MHCC. Twenty-one members have voting rights; the twenty-second member represents the Secretary and is a non-voting position. Service on the MHCC is voluntary. Travel and per diem for meetings is provided in
HUD seeks highly qualified and motivated individuals who meet the requirements set forth in the Act to serve as voting members of the MHCC at the pleasure of the Secretary for a term of three (3) years; not to exceed two consecutive terms. The MHCC anticipates four annual meetings. Meetings may take place by conference call or in person. Members of the MHCC undertake additional work commitments on subcommittees and task forces regarding issues under deliberation; members are expected to fulfill the obligation of active participation and failure to do so may result in termination of membership.
Members of the Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee (MHCC) are appointed to serve in one of the following three member categories:
1. Producers/Retailers—Seven producers or retailers of manufactured housing.
2. Users/Consumers—Seven persons representing consumer interests, such as consumer organizations, recognized consumer leaders, and owners who are residents of manufactured homes.
3. General Interest and Public Officials—Seven general interest and public official members.
The Act provides that the Secretary shall ensure that all interests directly and materially affected by the work of the MHCC have the opportunity for fair and equitable participation without dominance by any single interest; and may reject the appointment of any one or more individuals in order to ensure that there is not dominance by any single interest. For purposes of this determination, dominance is defined as a position or exercise of dominant authority, leadership, or influence by reason of superior leverage, strength, or representation.
Additional requirements governing appointment and member service include:
(1) No individual appointed to the Users category, and three of the individuals appointed to the General Interest and Public Official category shall have a significant financial interest in any segment of the manufactured housing industry; or a significant relationship to any person engaged in the manufactured housing industry.
(2) Each member serving in the Users category or General Interest/Public Officials category shall be subject to a ban disallowing compensation from the manufactured housing industry during the period of, and during the 1-year following, the membership of the individual on the MHCC.
(3) Nominees selected for appointment to the MHCC shall be required to provide disclosures and certifications regarding conflict-of-interest and eligibility for membership prior to final appointment.
The role of the MHCC is solely advisory to the Secretary on the subject matter described above.
The MHCC is subject to the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix), and to the Presidential Memorandum, dated June 18, 2010, directing all heads of executive departments and agencies not to make any new appointments or reappointments of federally registered lobbyists to advisory committees and other boards and commissions.
MHCC members are appointed at the discretion of the Secretary for a three-year term, not to exceed two (2) consecutive terms.
Individuals seeking nomination to the MHCC should submit detailed information documenting their qualifications for the category selected. Individuals may nominate themselves. A sample application form that contains information for consideration is available on the HUD Web site
Appointments will be made at the Secretary's discretion.
Interior.
Notice of availability; extension of public comment period.
We are extending the public comment period on our Draft Programmatic and Phase III Early Restoration Plan and Draft Early Restoration Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (Draft Phase III ERP/PEIS) regarding the DEEPWATER HORIZON Oil Spill. We opened the comment period via a December 6, 2013, notice of availability.
Comments must be submitted electronically or postmarked by 11:59 p.m. Mountain Time on February 19, 2014.
We request that you send comments by only one of the methods described above.
Nanciann Regalado, at
In accordance with the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA; 33 U.S.C. 2701
The Draft Phase III ERP/PEIS considers programmatic alternatives to restore natural resources, ecological services, and recreational use services injured or lost as a result of the DEEPWATER HORIZON oil spill. The restoration alternatives are comprised of early restoration project types; the Trustees additionally propose 44 specific early restoration projects that are consistent with the proposed early restoration program alternatives. The Trustees have developed restoration
Criteria and evaluation standards under the OPA natural resource damage assessment regulations and the Framework Agreement guided the Trustees' consideration of programmatic restoration alternatives. The Draft Phase III ERP/PEIS evaluates these restoration alternatives and projects under criteria set forth in the OPA natural resource damage assessment regulations and the Framework Agreement. The Draft Phase III ERP/PEIS also evaluates the environmental consequences of the restoration alternatives and projects under NEPA.
For additional background information, see our original
If you submit a comment via,
The authority of this action is the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, make available the final environmental impact statement (FEIS), draft record of decision (ROD), and final Comal County regional habitat conservation plan (RHCP) under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Our decision is to issue a 30-year incidental take permit to Comal County, Texas, for implementation of the Preferred Alternative (described below), which authorizes incidental take of the endangered golden-cheeked warbler and black-capped vireo, both of which are listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA). Comal County has agreed to implement avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures to offset impacts to these species, as described in their RHCP.
We will issue a ROD and make a final permit decision no sooner than 30 days after publication of this notice. Comments on the final EIS, draft ROD, and RHCP will be accepted until February 18, 2014.
For where to review documents and submit comments, see Reviewing Documents and Submitting Comments in
Mr. Adam Zerrenner, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200, Austin, TX 78758 or (512) 490-0057.
We announce the availability of the Comal County final Environmental Impact Statement, final regional habitat conservation plan, and draft record of decision, which we developed in compliance with the agency decision-making requirements of the NEPA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). All alternatives have been described in detail, evaluated, and analyzed in our August 2013 final EIS and Comal County's RHCP.
Based on our review of the alternatives and their environmental consequences as described in our final EIS, we have selected Alternative B, the proposed RHCP. The proposed action is the issuance to Comal County of a section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permit (ITP) (under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)), which authorizes incidental take of the endangered golden-cheeked warbler (
Comal County will implement avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures to offset impacts to Covered Species according to their RHCP. Impacts will be mitigated through the purchase of preserves by Comal County, which would generate credits; purchasing credits from a Service-approved conservation bank; or working with willing landowners or private entities to create preserves, which would generate credits. Each preserve acquisition will be subject to Service approval and will generate mitigation credits based on number of acres, and quality of potential occupied habitat for covered species. All preserves and credits will be approved by the Service and will generate mitigation credits based on, and commensurate with, Service policy and guidelines regarding mitigation (such as, but not limited to, the guidance found in
Comal County applied to the Service for an ITP. As part of the permit application, Comal County developed the RHCP to meet the requirements of an ITP. Our issuance of an ITP and implementation of the RHCP would allow Comal County to take the covered species incidentally, during construction, use, or maintenance of public or private land development projects; construction, maintenance, or improvement of transportation infrastructure; installation or maintenance of utility infrastructure; construction, use, or maintenance of institutional projects or public infrastructure; and management activities (covered activities) within Comal County, Texas (plan area), during the 30-year term of the ITP.
The Secretary of the Interior has delegated to the Service the authority to approve or deny an ITP in accordance with the ESA. To act on Comal County's permit application, we must determine that the RHCP meets the issuance
On June 3, 2010, we issued a draft EIS and requested public comment on our evaluation of the potential impacts associated with issuance of an ITP for implementation of the RHCP and to evaluate alternatives, along with the draft RHCP (75 FR 31463). We included public comments and responses associated with the draft EIS and draft HCP in an appendix to the final EIS.
The purpose of the section 10(a)(l)(B) permit is to authorize incidental take associated with the covered activities described above. We identified key issues and relevant factors through public scoping, working with other agencies and groups, and comments from the public. We received a response from one Federal agency, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, who had “no objections” to implementation of the Preferred Alternative. Most of the comments received from the public focused on: (1) The process of the RHCP and how it may expedite certain projects (e.g., roads and quarry operations) that impact GCWA habitat, (2) the difficulties and decisions involved with modeling and quantifying GCWA habitat, (3) the potential occurrence of listed invertebrates in the plan area, and (4) the alleged lack of documentation ensuring impacts to the Covered Species will be minimized and mitigated to the maximum extent practicable. One comment letter supported the RHCP as proposed. We believe these comments are addressed and reasonably accommodated in the final documents. No new significant issues arose following publication of the draft documents.
We intend to issue an ITP allowing Comal County to implement the preferred alternative (Alternative B), as it is described in the final EIS. Our decision is based on a thorough review of the alternatives and their environmental consequences. Implementation of this decision entails the issuance of the ITP, including all terms and conditions governing the permit. Implementation of this decision requires adherence to all of the minimization and mitigation measures specified in the RHCP, as well as monitoring and adaptive management measures.
We have selected the preferred alternative (Alternative B) for implementation based on multiple environmental and social factors, including potential impacts and benefits to covered species and their habitat, the extent and effectiveness of minimization and mitigation measures, and social and economic considerations. We did not choose the No Action Alternative, because a project-by-project approach for complying with the Act would be more time-consuming and less efficient, and would result in piecemeal mitigation for covered species, incapable of providing comprehensive or comparable net benefits with respect to the preferred alternative. We did not choose the Reduced Take Alternative, because we do not believe that the amount of take requested is sufficient for the permit duration.
In order for us to issue an ITP, we must ascertain that the RHCP meets the issuance criteria set forth in 16 U.S.C. 1539(a)(2)(A) and (B). We have made that determination based on the criteria summarized below:
1.
2.
3.
The Service's no surprises assurances, changed circumstances, and unforeseen circumstances are discussed in Chapter 8 of the RHCP. Unforeseen circumstances would be addressed through the Service's close coordination with Comal County in the implementation of the RHCP, and the County has committed to a coordination process to address such circumstances. Adaptive management, Chapter 6 of the RHCP, will be used to direct changes to conservation, mitigation, or management measures and monitoring when needed. We have, therefore, determined that Comal County's financial commitment and plan, along with their willingness to address changed and unforeseen circumstances in a cooperative fashion, is sufficient to meet this criterion.
4.
5.
We have determined that the preferred alternative best balances the protection and management of habitat for covered species, while allowing and providing a streamlined process for compliance with the Act for the covered activities. Considerations used in this decision include whether: (1) Mitigation will benefit the covered species, (2) mitigation lands will be managed for the species in perpetuity, (3) other conservation measures will protect and enhance habitat, (4) mitigation measures for the covered species will fully offset anticipated impacts to the species and provide recovery opportunities, and (5) the RHCP is consistent with the covered species' recovery plans.
Section 9 of the Act and its implementing regulations prohibit the “taking” of threatened or endangered species. However, under limited circumstances, we may issue permits to take listed wildlife species incidental to, and not the purpose of, otherwise lawful activities.
Please refer to TE-223267-0 when requesting documents or submitting comments. You may obtain copies of the final EIS and final HCP by going to
Public comments submitted are available for public review at the Austin address listed above. This generally means that any personal information you provide us will be available to anyone reviewing public comments (see the Public Availability of Comments section below for more information).
A limited number of printed copies of the final EIS and final HCP are also available for public inspection and review at the following locations by appointment only:
• Department of the Interior, Natural Resources Library, 1849 C St. NW., Washington, DC 20240, (202) 208-5814.
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 500 Gold Avenue SW., Room 6034, Albuquerque, NM 87102, (505) 248-6920.
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200, Austin, TX 78758, (512) 490-00574.
Written comments we receive become part of the public record associated with this action. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can request in your comment that we withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will not consider anonymous comments. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public disclosure in their entirety.
We provide this notice under section 10(c) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability
Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is advising the public of the availability of the final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) associated with an application received from Fowler Ridge Wind Farm LLC, Fowler Ridge II Wind Farm LLC, Fowler Ridge III Wind Farm LLC, and Fowler Ridge IV Wind Farm LLC, collectively referred to as Fowler Ridge (applicant), for an incidental take permit (permit) pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA). We also announce the availability of the final Fowler Ridge Wind Farm (FRWF; project) Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), prepared in accordance with the ESA, and the availability of a final Programmatic Agreement (PA) to address the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and its implementing regulations, “Protection of Historic Properties.” Fowler Ridge submitted the HCP, as well as a proposed Implementing Agreement (IA), as part of its incidental take permit application. If issued, the permit would authorize incidental take of the federally endangered Indiana bat (
The Service is furnishing this notice to allow other agencies and the public an opportunity to review these documents. For locations to review the documents, please see the Availability of Documents section below.
The Service's decision on issuance of the permit will occur no sooner than 30 days after the publication of the Environmental Protection Agency notice of the FEIS in the
•
•
•
Scott Pruitt, Field Supervisor, Bloomington, Indiana, Ecological Services Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 620 South Walker Street, Bloomington, IN 47403; telephone: (812) 334-4261, extension 214; or Rick Amidon, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Ecological Services, Midwest Regional Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 5600 American Blvd. West, Suite 990, Bloomington, MN 55437-1458; telephone: (612) 713-5164.
We have received an application from Fowler Ridge Wind Farm LLC, Fowler Ridge II Wind Farm LLC, Fowler Ridge III Wind Farm LLC, and Fowler Ridge IV Wind Farm LLC, collectively referred to as Fowler Ridge, for an incidental take permit (TE95012A) under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531
The applicant has prepared an HCP that covers the operation of Phases I-IV of the project. The project consists of a wind-powered electric generation facility located in an approximately 72,947-acre area (the project area including a one-half-mile buffer around the outside turbines) in Benton County, Indiana. The HCP describes the following: (1) Biological goals and objectives of the HCP; (2) covered activities; (3) permit duration; (4) project area; (5) alternatives to the taking that were considered; (5) public participation; (6) life history of the Indiana bat; (6) quantification of the take for which authorization is requested; (7) assessment of direct and indirect effects of the taking on the Indiana bat within the Midwest Recovery Unit (as delineated in the 2007 Indiana Bat Draft Recovery Plan, Service) and range-wide; (8) a conservation program consisting of avoidance and minimization measures, mitigation, monitoring, and adaptive management; (9) funding for implementation of the HCP; (10) procedures to deal with changed and unforeseen circumstances; and (11) methods for permit amendments.
In addition to the HCP, the applicant has prepared an IA to document the responsibilities of the parties. Pursuant to the NHPA (16 U.S.C. 470, 470f), the Service has initiated Section 106 consultation with the Indiana State Historic Preservation Office regarding the construction of turbines under Phase IV of the FRWF project and the implementation of mitigation projects in accordance with the terms of the HCP. Sites have not been selected for the Phase IV turbines or for any required mitigation. Therefore, future efforts will be required to identify archaeological sites that may be adversely affected by the construction of Phase IV turbines and implementation of mitigation. Following siting of the Phase IV turbines and location of mitigation sites, archaeological surveys will be conducted, with plans and reports submitted to the Indiana State Historic Preservation Office for review. The PA between the Service, Fowler Ridge, and the Indiana State Historic Preservation Office describes the process for conducting the surveys, evaluating the results of the surveys, and determining if resources can be avoided or if additional surveys or mitigation are necessary before the Section 106 process is completed. The final PA will be signed prior to issuance of the EIS Record of Decision. The Section 106 process will be completed and a memorandum of agreement signed prior to construction or mitigation beginning.
The Service formally initiated public scoping and an environmental review of the project through publication of a Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement in the
We provide this notice under section 10(c) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531, 1539(c)) and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 17.22), NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321
Bureau of Indians Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
The regulations implementing the Indian Child Welfare Act provide that Indian tribes may designate an agent other than the tribal chairman for service of notice of proceedings under the Act. This notice includes the current list of designated tribal agents for service of notice.
Chief, Division of Human Services, 1849 C Street NW., Mail Stop 4513-MIB, Washington, DC 20240; Telephone: (202) 513-7622.
The regulations implementing the Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 U.S.C. 1901
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of Tribal-State Class III Gaming Compact taking effect.
This notice publishes the Class III Gaming Compact between the Ramona Band of Cahuilla and the State of California taking effect.
Effective January 17, 2014.
Paula L. Hart, Director, Office of Indian Gaming, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary—Policy and Economic Development, Washington, DC 20240, (202) 219-4066.
Under section 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), Public Law 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2701
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of Tribal-State Class III Gaming Compact taking effect.
This notice publishes the Class III Tribal-State Gaming Compact between the Fort Independence Indian Community of Paiute Indians and the State of California.
Paula L. Hart, Director, Office of Indian Gaming, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary—Policy and Economic Development, Washington, DC 20240, (202) 219-4066.
Under section 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (IGRA), Public Law 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2701
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of Extension to Tribal-State Class III Gaming Compact.
This publishes notice of the Extension of the Class III gaming compact between the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe and the State of South Dakota.
Paula L. Hart, Director, Office of Indian Gaming, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary—Policy and Economic Development, Washington, DC 20240, (202) 219-4066.
Pursuant to 25 CFR 293.5, an extension to an existing tribal-state Class III gaming compact does not require approval by the Secretary if the extension does not include any amendment to the terms of the compact. The Crow Creek Sioux Tribe and the State of South Dakota have reached an agreement to extend the expiration of their existing Tribal-State Class III gaming compact to May 30, 2014. This publishes notice of the new expiration date of the compact.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
30-Day notice and request for comments.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has submitted an information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to continue the collection of information from those who wish to adopt and obtain title to wild horses and burros. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has assigned control number 1004-0042 to this information collection.
The OMB is required to respond to this information collection request within 60 days but may respond after 30 days. For maximum consideration, written comments should be received on or before February 18, 2014.
Please submit comments directly to the Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior (OMB #1004-0042), Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, fax 202-395-5806, or by electronic mail at
Please indicate “Attn: 1004-0042” regardless of the form of your comments.
Sally Spencer at 202-912-7265. Persons who use a telecommunication device for the deaf may call the Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339, to leave a message for Ms. Spencer. You may also review the information collection request online at
The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) and OMB regulations at 5 CFR part 1320 provide that an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Until OMB approves a collection of information, you are not obligated to respond. In order to obtain and renew an OMB control number, Federal agencies are required to seek public comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities (see 5 CFR 1320.8(d) and 1320.12(a)).
As required at 5 CFR 1320.8(d), the BLM published a 60-day notice in the
The BLM now requests comments on the following subjects:
1. Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper functioning of the BLM, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. The accuracy of the BLM's estimate of the burden of collecting the information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. The quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. How to minimize the information collection burden on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other forms of information technology.
Please send comments as directed under
The following information is provided for the information collection:
The estimated annual burdens are itemized in the following table:
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of intent and notice of public meeting.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Colorado, Grand Junction Field Office, announces its intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to analyze the Book Cliffs lease by application (LBA) for approximately 14,160 acres of Federal coal reserves in Garfield County, Colorado. The Book Cliffs application tract has been assigned case number COC-70538.
This notice initiates the public scoping process for the Book Cliffs LBA EIS. Comments may be submitted in writing until February 18, 2014. The date(s) and location(s) of any scoping meetings will be announced at least 15 days in advance through local media, newspapers and the BLM Web site at:
You may submit written comments on the Book Cliffs LBA EIS by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include “Books Cliffs LBA EIS” in the subject line. Documents pertinent to this application may be examined at the Grand Junction Field Office at the address above during its business hours (7:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m.), Monday through Friday, except holidays.
For further information, or to have your name added to our mailing list, contact Christina Stark, Project Manager, at (970) 244-3022; see address above; or by email at
An application to lease Federal coal near the Town of Fruita, Colorado was filed with the BLM on September 12, 2006, by CAM-Colorado, LLC. This application was previously analyzed in a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS) that was released for public comment in January 2009. Based on the public comments, the BLM determined that additional environmental review was needed. This notice serves to announce the beginning of that additional review and analysis.
TheBook Cliffs LBA Tract includes approximately 78 million tons of in-place Federal coal underlying the following lands in Garfield County, Colorado.
Containing approximately 14,160 acres.
If the BLM decides to approve the Book Cliffs LBA, the successful bidder would be responsible for securing and maintaining any local, state or Federal permits and approvals as applicable and required by law for future mining operations of the lease tract. Mining activities may subsequently be permitted by the Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety or the Western Region of the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM).
At present, the BLM has identified the following preliminary issues: Air quality; water quality, supply and rights; wildlife and wildlife habitat; soils; recreation and visual resources; socio-economics; oil and gas development; paleontology; cultural resources; riparian habitat; livestock grazing; and transportation.
The BLM will use NEPA to satisfy the public involvement requirements under Sec 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (16 U.S.C. 470(f)) pursuant to 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3). The information about historic and cultural resources within the area potentially affected by the Book Cliffs LBA will assist the BLM in identifying and evaluating impacts to such resources in the context of both NEPA and Sec. 106 of the NHPA.
The BLM will consult with Indian tribes on a government-to-government basis in accordance with Executive Order 13175 and other policies. Tribal concerns, including impacts on Indian trust assets and potential impacts to cultural resources, will be given due consideration. Federal, state, and local agencies, along with tribes and other stakeholders that may be interested in or affected by the Book Cliffs LBA may also request to participate in the development of the EIS as a cooperating agency. Currently, OSM, the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, and Garfield County are cooperating agencies. Other cooperating agencies may be identified during the scoping process.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
43 CFR 3425.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
This notice serves to extend the segregation of the identified lands for an additional 6 months from appropriation under the public land laws, including location under the Mining Law, but not the Mineral Leasing Act or the Materials Act, subject to valid existing rights. This segregation extension is warranted to allow for the orderly administration of the public lands to facilitate the development of valuable renewable resources and to avoid conflicts between renewable energy generation and mining claims.
This segregation extension for the lands identified in this notice is effective on January 17, 2014.
Gregory Helseth, Renewable Energy Project Manager, 702-515-5173; 4701 North Torrey Pines Drive, Las Vegas, NV 89130-2301; email:
Searchlight Wind Energy, LLC (SWE), a wholly owned subsidiary of Duke Energy, applied to the BLM for a right-of-way (ROW) grant on public lands to develop a 200-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility. The ROW application area encompasses approximately 18,789.71 acres of BLM-administered public lands adjacent to Searchlight, located approximately 60 miles southeast of Las Vegas, in Clark County, Nevada. The project is in conformance with the 1998 Las Vegas Resource Management Plan.
The initial 2-year segregation would expire on January 20, 2014. The segregation is necessary to prevent the filing of mining claims in the project area that would hinder the development of the project and increase costs to the development of the project. This temporary segregation extension does not affect valid existing rights in mining claims located before this segregation notice. Licenses, permits, cooperative agreements, or discretionary land use authorizations of a temporary nature which would not impact lands identified in this notice may be allowed with the approval of an authorized officer of the BLM during the segregative period. The lands segregated under this notice are legally described as follows:
The area described contains 18,789.71 acres, more or less, in Clark County, Nevada. The segregation extension of lands identified in this notice will not exceed 6 months from the date of publication. Termination of the segregation, as provided in the Final Rule, is the date that is the earliest of the following: Upon issuance of a decision by the authorized officer granting, granting with modifications, or denying the application for a ROW; automatically at the end of the six month segregation; or upon publication of a
Upon termination of segregation of these lands, all lands subject to this segregation will automatically reopen to appropriation under the public land laws.
43 CFR 2800 and 2090).
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of the final phase of antidumping and countervailing duty investigation Nos. 701-TA-498 and 731-TA-1213-1214 (Final) under sections 705(b) and 731(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b) and 1673d(b)) (the Act) to determine whether an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports from India and Thailand of certain steel threaded rod, provided for primarily in subheading 7318.15.50 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States,
Included in the scope of these investigations are steel threaded rod, bar, or studs, in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; (2) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and (3) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:
• 1.80 percent of manganese, or
• 1.50 percent of silicon, or
• 1.00 percent of copper, or
• 0.50 percent of aluminum, or
• 1.25 percent of chromium, or
• 0.30 percent of cobalt, or
• 0.40 percent of lead, or
• 1.25 percent of nickel, or
• 0.30 percent of tungsten, or
• 0.012 percent of boron, or
• 0.10 percent of molybdenum, or
• 0.10 percent of niobium, or
• 0.41 percent of titanium, or
• 0.15 percent of vanadium, or
• 0.15 percent of zirconium.
Steel threaded rod is currently classifiable under subheadings 7318.15.5051, 7318.15.5056, 7318.15.5090 and 7318.15.2095 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive.
Excluded from the scope of these investigations are: (a) Threaded rod, bar, or studs which are threaded only on one or both ends and the threading covers 25 percent or less of the total length; and (b) threaded rod, bar, or studs made to American Society for Testing and Materials (“ASTM”) A193 Grade B7, ASTM A193 Grade B7M, ASTM A193 Grade B16, and ASTM A320 Grade L7.”
For further information concerning the conduct of this phase of the investigations, hearing procedures, and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207).
Effective December 31, 2013.
Nathanael Comly (202-205-3174) or Michelle Breaux (202-205-2781), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to section 201.12 of the Commission's rules, shall not be accepted unless good cause is shown for accepting such submissions, or unless the submission is pursuant to a specific request by a Commissioner or Commission staff.
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
These investigations are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.21 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given of a clarification in agency practice regarding appearances by former Commission employees in multiple five-year reviews stemming from the same underlying Title VII investigation. Former employees of the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission”) may now represent a
Carol McCue Verratti, Esq., Deputy Agency Ethics Official, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3088. Hearing-impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal at (202) 205-1810. General information concerning the Commission can also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (
The Commission's authority to issue this notice is based on 19 U.S.C. 1335 and 5 CFR part 2638.
Under Title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1671
In 1994, Congress passed the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, which added the requirement to Title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 that five years after the date of publication of a countervailing duty order, an antidumping order, or a notice of suspension of an investigation, Commerce and the Commission shall conduct a review to determine, in accordance with 19 U.S.C. 1675(c), whether revocation of the countervailing or antidumping duty order or termination of the investigation suspended under 19 U.S.C. 1671c or 1673c would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping or a countervailable subsidy and material injury. The statute also requires that reviews be conducted every five years unless the determination to revoke the duty order or terminate a suspended investigation has already been made. The statute, 19 U.S.C. 1675a, mandates that certain information and factors be considered by Commerce and the Commission respectively in reaching their review determinations. 19 U.S.C. 1675a(a)(1)(A) requires the Commission to take into account, among other factors, “its prior injury determinations, including the volume, price effect, and impact of imports of the subject merchandise on the industry before the order was issued or the suspension agreement was accepted.” In compliance with this provision, the Commission adds to the record of the review the Commission's published opinion and the Commission's staff report from the final phase of each original investigation.
Beginning in 1996, when questions were first raised about the effect of post employment laws and regulations on former employees seeking to represent parties in five-year reviews, the Commission's Designated Agency Ethics Official (“DAEO”) advised former employees, after consideration of the relevant post employment and title VII statutes and regulations and consultation with the U.S. Office of Government Ethics (“OGE”), that the five-year review would be considered the “same particular matter” as the underlying original investigation for the application of the post-employment law, 18 U.S.C. 207, and Commission rule 201.15(b) (19 CFR 201.15(b)). This view that a five-year review and its original underlying investigation are the same particular matter was primarily based on the expectation that the records of the review and underlying original investigation would involve the same basic facts and the same confidential information, two of the factors listed in OGE's regulations to be considered when determining if two matters are the same. 5 CFR 2641.201(h)(5). Thus, a former employee who had worked personally and substantially on an underlying original investigation while a Commission employee could not represent a party in the corresponding five-year review after leaving the Commission. In addition, because the underlying investigation and the review were considered to be the same matter under 19 CFR 201.15(b), former employees who worked at the Commission while the underlying investigation was pending, even if they did not work on that investigation, were required to seek Commission approval to appear in such review.
As a result of the Commission's experience in administering the five-year review provisions of the law, and more specifically the experience in the second set of five-year reviews, which commenced in 2004, the Commission's DAEO reassessed the previous advice given to former employees and determined that an underlying original investigation should no longer be considered to be the same particular matter as any five-year review of the corresponding order. This conclusion was reached after consultation with the OGE which, on March 27, 2008, issued an informal advisory letter (“2008 Opinion”) concluding that “first, second and subsequent reviews are not the same particular matter involving specific parties as the underlying original investigation leading to the original order.” Subsequently, the Commission issued a
After the question of whether five-year reviews were the same particular matters as the underlying original investigation was resolved in 2008, former Commission employees have raised the additional question as to whether sequential five-year reviews of the same underlying original investigation are the same particular matters as each other. For example, if a former employee, before leaving the Commission, participated in the first five-year review, would that former employee be able to participate in the second or third five-year review after leaving the Commission in light of the post-employment restrictions in 18 U.S.C. 207.
The original view that a five-year review and its original underlying investigation are the same particular
In five-year reviews, the Commission must take into account the volume, price effect, and impact of the subject imports on the industry before the order was in place. However, the Commission's experience has been that most of the key information for making the required forward-looking determination is the most current information developed on the record as part of the five-year review process.
When making his determination that five-year reviews of the same underlying original investigation are all different particular matters, the DAEO considered issues such as whether expedited and full reviews should be distinguished or whether the five-year reviews should all be considered the same particular matter. The DAEO's conclusion that neither five-year reviews nor the underlying original investigation are the same particular matter was based on a number of factors. First, those factors listed in OGE's regulations defining “same particular matter” support the finding. OGE's regulations provide that “all relevant factors should be considered, including the extent to which the matters involve the same basic facts, the same or related parties, related issues, the same confidential information, and the amount of time elapsed.” 5 CFR 2641.201(h)(5). The analysis used by the Commission in reviews relies primarily on the newly developed record to determine not what has happened in the past but rather what is likely to happen if the order under review is revoked. The focus in the reviews is generally not the information from the record of the original investigation or previous reviews, but rather new information developed for the record of the current five-year review. Five years elapse between each review, during which economic and marketplace developments can change the basic facts and confidential information considered by the Commission. In the five years between reviews, the identity of the relevant parties, such as domestic and foreign manufacturers and purchasers, could also change. The DAEO also considered the fact that each review of an underlying original investigation is treated as a different case upon judicial review.
In accordance with the DAEO's interpretation of both the statute and the Commission's experience in five-year reviews, appearances of former employees in Commission five-year reviews will be treated under 18 U.S.C. 207 as appearances that are not in the same particular matter as either the underlying investigation or any other five-year review stemming from the same underlying original investigation. In addition, the Commission has traditionally applied 19 U.S.C. 201.15(b) consistently with the application of 18 U.S.C. 207, and therefore, for that provision, will not consider a review to be the same matter as the underlying original investigation or any other review based on that underlying investigation. Consequently, former employees no longer need to seek approval from the Commission to appear in a review even if the underlying original investigation or an earlier review of the underlying investigation had been pending while they were employees.
By order of the Commission.
30-Day Notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), National Security Division (NSD), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days for public comment until February 18, 2014. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice, especially the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to The Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503. Additionally, comments may be submitted to OMB via facsimile to (202) 395-7285.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Policy and Planning Staff, Justice Management Division, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 1407B, Washington, DC 20530.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), National Security Division (NSD), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days for public comment until February 18, 2014. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice, especially the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to The Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503. Additionally, comments may be submitted to OMB via facsimile to (202) 395-7285.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Policy and Planning Staff, Justice Management Division, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 1407B, Washington, DC 20530.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), National Security Division (NSD) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days for public comment until February 18, 2014. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice, especially the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to The Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503. Additionally, comments may be submitted to OMB via facsimile to (202) 395-7285.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Policy and Planning Staff, Justice Management Division, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 1407B, Washington, DC 20530.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), National Security Division (NSD), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days for public comment until February 18, 2014. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice, especially the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to The Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503. Additionally, comments may be submitted to OMB via facsimile to (202) 395-7285.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Policy and Planning Staff, Justice Management Division, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 3W-1407B Washington, DC 20530.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), National Security Division (NSD) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days for public comment until February 18, 2014. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice, especially the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to The Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503. Additionally, comments may be submitted to OMB via facsimile to (202) 395-7285.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
—Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
—Evaluate the accuracy of the 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.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Policy and Planning Staff, Justice Management Division, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 1407B, Washington, DC 20530.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), National Security Division (NSD), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days for public comment until February 18, 2014. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice, especially the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to The Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503. Additionally, comments may be submitted to OMB via facsimile to (202) 395-7285.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Policy and Planning Staff, Justice Management Division, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street, NE., Room 3W-1407B, Washington, DC 20530.
Notice is hereby given that, on December 9, 2013, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993,
Also, Cisco Systems, Inc., Herndon, VA; and TUBITAK UEKAE, Gebze, Kocaeli, TURKEY, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and NCOIC intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On November 19, 2004, NCOIC filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on June 12, 2013. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on December 5, 2013, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, ROHVA is including its members, Artic Cat Inc., Thief River Falls, MN; BRP, Inc., Valcourt, Quebec, CANADA; American Honda Motor Corp., Torrance, CA; Deere & Company, Moline, IL; Kawasaki Motors Corp., Irvine, CA; Polaris Industries, Inc., Medina, MN; Textron Inc., Providence, RI; Yamaha Motor Corporation, Cypress, CA, in this notice.
On July 23, 2008, ROHVA filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on May 4, 2010. A notice was published in the
30-Day notice of information collection under review.
The Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division (CJIS) will be submitting the following Information Collection Request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with established review procedures of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days for public comment until February 18, 2014. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice, especially the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to Gregory E. Scarbro, Unit Chief, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division (CJIS), Module E-3, 1000 Custer Hollow Road, Clarksburg, West Virginia 26306, or facsimile to (304) 625-3566.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques of other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office for Victims of Crime (OVC), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for “sixty days” until March 18, 2014. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
If you have comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Toni Thomas, OVC, 810 7th Street NW., Washington, DC 20531.
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)
(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., Room 3W-1407B, Washington, DC 20530.
Bureau of International Labor Affairs, U.S. Department of Labor.
Notice of Open Meeting, February 5, 2014.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, the Office of Trade and Labor Affairs (OTLA) gives notice of a meeting of the National Advisory Committee for Labor Provisions of U.S. Free Trade Agreements (“Committee” or “NAC”), which was established by the Secretary of Labor.
The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the implementation of the labor provisions of free trade agreements and to identify the Committee's priority countries and issues for 2014.
The Committee will meet on Wednesday, February 5, 2014, from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
The Committee will meet at the U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Deputy Undersecretary's Conference Room, Washington, DC 20210. Mail comments, views, or statements in response to this notice to Paula Church Albertson, Office of Trade and Labor Affairs, ILAB, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room S-5004, Washington, DC 20210; fax (202) 693-4784 (not a toll free number).
Paula Church Albertson, Designated Federal Official, Office of Trade and Labor Affairs, Bureau of International Labor Affairs, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room S-5004, Washington, DC 20210; phone (202) 693-4789 (not a toll free number).
Individuals with disabilities wishing to attend the meeting should contact
NAC meetings are open to the public on a first-come, first-served basis, as seating is limited. Attendees must present valid identification and will be subject to security screening to access the Department of Labor for the meeting.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
(14-001).
Notice of information collection.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 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 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).
All comments should be submitted within 60 calendar days from the date of this publication.
All comments should be addressed to Fran Teel, Mail Code JF000, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC 20546-0001.
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Fran Teel, NASA PRA Officer, NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street SW., Mail Code JF000, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-2225 or
NASA intends to continue an information collection associated with the Women in STEM Aerospace Scholars (WISH) and NASA High School Aerospace Scholars (NHAS) projects. These projects are aligned with NASA's Strategic Goal 6, which is to share NASA with the public, educators, and students to provide opportunities to participate in our mission, foster innovation and contribute to a strong National economy. The Women in STEM High School Aerospace Scholars (WISH) project was piloted in FY2011 and expanded to include NASA High School Aerospace Scholars (NHAS) in FY2012. The NHAS/WISH will continue to provide opportunities for high school juniors to participate in STEM education engagement activities that use NASA unique assets and content. NHAS/WISH provides an interactive, online learning experience for high school juniors across the United States. Students apply voluntarily to be considered for this opportunity. This information collection consists of an online application form for completion by high school student applicants. The application process is intended to identify interested, qualified applicants for participation in a multiple-month, on-line curriculum delivery and, for those who successfully complete the on-line curriculum, in a one-week experience at a specific NASA site.
Electronic.
Estimated Total Annual Cost: $46,400.
Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of NASA, including whether the information collected has practical utility; (2) the accuracy of NASA's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of meeting.
This is an amended version of NASA's earlier
Thursday, January 23, 2014, 1 p.m. to 2 p.m., local time.
NASA Johnson Space Center, Room 966, NASA Parkway, Building 1, Houston, TX 77058.
Ms. Marian Norris, Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel Administrative Officer, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-4452, or email at
The Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) will hold its First Quarterly Meeting for 2014. This discussion is pursuant to carrying out its statutory duties for which the Panel reviews, identifies, evaluates, and advises on
• Updates on the Exploration Systems Development
• Updates on the Commercial Crew Program
• Updates on the International Space Station Program
The meeting will be open to the public up to the seating capacity of the room. Seating will be on a first-come basis. This meeting is also available telephonically. Any interested person may call the USA toll free conference call number (800) 857-7040; pass code 7214777. Attendees will be required to sign a visitor's register and to comply with NASA security requirements, including the presentation of a valid picture ID, before receiving an access badge. Any member of the public desiring to attend the ASAP 2014 First Quarterly Meeting at the Johnson Space Center must provide their full name and company affiliation (if applicable) to Ms. Marian Norris at
At the beginning of the meeting, members of the public may make a verbal presentation to the Panel on the subject of safety in NASA, not to exceed 5-minutes in length. To do so, members of the public must contact Ms. Marian Norris at
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice of application for an order under sections 17(d) and 57(i) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) and rule 17d-1 under the Act to permit certain joint transactions otherwise prohibited by sections 17(d) and 57(a)(4) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act.
Prospect Capital Corporation (“PSEC”), Priority Senior Secured Income Fund, Inc. (“PRIS”), Pathway Energy Infrastructure Fund, Inc. (“PWAY”), Prospect Capital Funding LLC (“PSEC SPV Sub”), Prospect Capital Management LLC (“PCM”) on behalf of itself and its successors,
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on February 7, 2014, and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F St. NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants: 10 East 40th St., 44th Floor, New York, NY 10016.
David J. Marcinkus, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-6882 or David P. Bartels, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6821 (Chief Counsel's Office, Division of Investment Management).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or for an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. PSEC is a Maryland corporation organized as a closed-end management investment company that has elected to be regulated as a BDC under Section 54(a) of the Act.
2. PRIS and PWAY are Maryland corporations organized as closed-end investment companies registered under the Act. PRIS's Objectives and Strategies are to generate current income and, as a secondary objective, long-term capital appreciation. Applicants state that PRIS expects to seek to achieve its Objectives and Strategies by investing, under normal circumstances, at least 80% of its total assets, or net assets plus borrowings, in senior secured loans made to companies whose debt is rated below investment grade or, in limited circumstances, unrated, with an emphasis on current income. PWAY's Objectives and Strategies are to generate current income and, as a secondary objective, long-term capital appreciation through debt and equity investments. Applicants state that PWAY expects to achieve its Objectives and Strategies by investing, under normal circumstances, at least 80% of its total assets, or net assets plus borrowings, in securities of companies that operate primarily in the energy and related infrastructure and industrial sectors. The Board of PRIS consists of five directors, three of whom are Non-Interested Directors of PRIS. The Board of PWAY consists of five directors, three of whom are Non-Interested Directors of PWAY.
3. PCM and PRISM are Delaware limited liability companies registered as investment advisers under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Advisers Act”) and serve as investment adviser to PSEC and PRIS, respectively. PEIM is a Delaware limited liability company that will be registered with the Commission as an investment adviser under Advisers Act and serve as investment adviser to PWAY.
4. Applicants seek an order (“Order”) to permit one or more Regulated Funds
5. Applicants state that a Regulated Fund may, from time to time, form one or more Wholly-Owned Investment Subs.
6. When considering Potential Co-Investment Transactions for any Regulated Fund, the applicable Adviser will consider only the Objectives and Strategies, investment policies, investment positions, capital available for investment, and other pertinent factors applicable to that Regulated Fund. The Regulated Fund Advisers expect that any portfolio company that is an appropriate investment for a Regulated Fund should also be an appropriate investment for one or more other Regulated Funds and/or one or more Future Affiliated Funds, with certain exceptions based on available capital or diversification.
7. Other than pro rata dispositions and Follow-On Investments as provided in conditions 7 and 8, and after making the determinations required in conditions 1 and 2(a), the Adviser will present each Potential Co-Investment Transaction and the proposed allocation to the directors of the Board eligible to vote under section 57(o) of the Act (“Eligible Directors”), and the “required majority,” as defined in section 57(o) of the Act (“Required Majority”)
8. With respect to the pro rata dispositions and Follow-On Investments provided in conditions 7 and 8, a Regulated Fund may participate in a pro rata disposition or Follow-On Investment without obtaining prior approval of the Required Majority if, among other things: (i) The proposed participation of each Regulated Fund and Future Affiliated Fund in such disposition is proportionate to its outstanding investments in the issuer immediately preceding the disposition or Follow-On Investment, as the case may be; and (ii) the Board of the Regulated Fund has approved that Regulated Fund's participation in pro rata dispositions and Follow-On Investments as being in the best interests of the Regulated Fund. If the Board does not so approve, any such disposition or Follow-On Investment will be submitted to the Regulated Fund's Eligible Directors. The Board of any Regulated Fund may at any time rescind, suspend or qualify its approval of pro rata dispositions and Follow-On Investments with the result that all dispositions and/or Follow-On Investments must be submitted to the Eligible Directors.
9. No Non-Interested Director of a Regulated Fund will have a financial interest in any Co-Investment Transaction, other than through share ownership in one of the Regulated Funds.
1. Section 57(a)(4) of the Act prohibits certain affiliated persons of a BDC from participating in joint transactions with the BDC or a company controlled by a BDC in contravention of rules as prescribed by the Commission. Under section 57(b)(2) of the Act, any person who is directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common control with a BDC is subject to section 57(a)(4). Applicants submit that each of the Regulated Funds and Future Affiliated Funds could be deemed to be a person related to each Regulated Fund in a manner described by section 57(b) by virtue of being under common control. Section 57(i) of the Act provides that, until the Commission prescribes rules under section 57(a)(4), the Commission's rules under section 17(d) of the Act applicable to registered closed-end investment companies will be deemed to apply to transactions subject to section 57(a)(4). Because the Commission has not adopted any rules under section 57(a)(4), rule 17d-1 also applies to joint transactions with Regulated Funds that are BDCs. Section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act are applicable to Regulated Funds that are registered closed-end investment companies.
2. Section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act prohibit affiliated persons of a registered investment company from participating in joint transactions with the company unless the Commission has granted an order permitting such transactions. In passing upon applications under rule 17d-1, the Commission considers whether the company's participation in the joint transaction is consistent with the provisions, policies, and purposes of the Act and the extent to which such participation is on a basis different from or less advantageous than that of other participants.
3. Applicants state that in the absence of the requested relief, the Regulated Funds would be, in some circumstances, limited in their ability to participate in attractive and appropriate investment opportunities. Applicants believe that the proposed terms and conditions will ensure that the Co-Investment Transactions are consistent with the protection of each Regulated Fund's shareholders and with the purposes intended by the policies and provisions of the Act. Applicants state that the Regulated Funds' participation in the Co-Investment Transactions will be consistent with the provisions, policies, and purposes of the Act and on a basis that is not different from or less advantageous than that of other participants.
Applicants agree that the Order will be subject to the following conditions:
1. Each time an Adviser considers a Potential Co-Investment Transaction for a Future Affiliated Fund or another Regulated Fund that falls within a Regulated Fund's then-current Objectives and Strategies, the Regulated Fund's Adviser will make an independent determination of the appropriateness of the investment for such Regulated Fund in light of the Regulated Fund's then-current circumstances.
2. (a) If the Adviser deems a Regulated Fund's participation in any Potential Co-Investment Transaction to be appropriate for the Regulated Fund, it will then determine an appropriate level of investment for the Regulated Fund.
(b) If the aggregate amount recommended by the applicable Adviser to be invested by the applicable Regulated Fund in the Potential Co-Investment Transaction, together with the amount proposed to be invested by the other participating Regulated Funds and Future Affiliated Funds, collectively, in the same transaction, exceeds the amount of the investment opportunity, the investment opportunity will be allocated among them pro rata based on each participant's capital available for investment in the asset class being allocated, up to the amount proposed to be invested by each. The applicable Adviser will provide the Eligible Directors of each participating Regulated Fund with information concerning each participating party's available capital to assist the Eligible Directors with their review of the Regulated Fund's investments for compliance with these allocation procedures.
(c) After making the determinations required in conditions 1 and 2(a), the applicable Adviser will distribute written information concerning the Potential Co-Investment Transaction (including the amount proposed to be invested by each participating Regulated Fund and Future Affiliated Fund) to the Eligible Directors of each participating Regulated Fund for their consideration. A Regulated Fund will co-invest with one or more other Regulated Funds and/or one or more Future Affiliated Funds only if, prior to the Regulated Fund's participation in the Potential Co-Investment Transaction, a Required Majority concludes that:
(i) The terms of the Potential Co-Investment Transaction, including the consideration to be paid, are reasonable and fair to the Regulated Fund and its shareholders and do not involve overreaching in respect of the Regulated Fund or its shareholders on the part of any person concerned;
(ii) the Potential Co-Investment Transaction is consistent with:
(A) The interests of the shareholders of the Regulated Fund; and
(B) the Regulated Fund's then-current Objectives and Strategies;
(iii) the investment by any other Regulated Funds or Future Affiliated Funds would not disadvantage the Regulated Fund, and participation by the Regulated Fund would not be on a basis different from or less advantageous than that of other Regulated Funds or Future Affiliated Funds; provided that, if any other Regulated Fund or Future Affiliated Fund, but not the Regulated Fund itself, gains the right to nominate a director for election to a portfolio company's board of directors or the right to have a board observer or any similar right to participate in the governance or management of the portfolio company, such event shall not be interpreted to prohibit the Required Majority from reaching the conclusions required by this condition (2)(c)(iii), if:
(A) The Eligible Directors will have the right to ratify the selection of such director or board observer, if any;
(B) the applicable Adviser agrees to, and does, provide periodic reports to the Regulated Fund's Board with respect to the actions of such director or the information received by such board observer or obtained through the exercise of any similar right to participate in the governance or management of the portfolio company; and
(C) any fees or other compensation that any Future Affiliated Fund or any Regulated Fund or any affiliated person of any Future Affiliated Fund or any Regulated Fund receives in connection with the right of an Future Affiliated Fund or a Regulated Fund to nominate a director or appoint a board observer or otherwise to participate in the governance or management of the portfolio company will be shared proportionately among the participating Future Affiliated Funds (who each may, in turn, share its portion with its affiliated persons) and the participating Regulated Funds in accordance with the amount of each party's investment; and
(iv) the proposed investment by the Regulated Fund will not benefit the Advisers, the Future Affiliated Funds or the other Regulated Funds or any affiliated person of any of them (other than the parties to the Co-Investment Transaction), except (A) to the extent permitted by condition 13, (B) to the extent permitted by Section 17(e) or 57(k) of the Act, as applicable, (C) indirectly, as a result of an interest in the securities issued by one of the parties to the Co-Investment Transaction, or (D) in the case of fees or other compensation described in condition 2(c)(iii)(C).
3. Each Regulated Fund has the right to decline to participate in any Potential Co-Investment Transaction or to invest less than the amount proposed.
4. The applicable Adviser will present to the Board of each Regulated Fund, on a quarterly basis, a record of all investments in Potential Co-Investment Transactions made by any of the other Regulated Funds or Future Affiliated Funds during the preceding quarter that fell within the Regulated Fund's then-current Objectives and Strategies that were not made available to the Regulated Fund, and an explanation of why the investment opportunities were not offered to the Regulated Fund. All information presented to the Board pursuant to this condition will be kept for the life of the Regulated Fund and at least two years thereafter, and will be subject to examination by the Commission and its staff.
5. Except for Follow-On Investments made in accordance with condition 8, a Regulated Fund will not invest in reliance on the Order in any issuer in which another Regulated Fund, Future Affiliated Fund, or any affiliated person of another Regulated Fund or Future Affiliated Fund is an existing investor.
6. A Regulated Fund will not participate in any Potential Co-Investment Transaction unless the terms, conditions, price, class of securities to be purchased, settlement date, and registration rights will be the same for each participating Regulated Fund and Future Affiliated Fund. The grant to a Future Affiliated Fund or another Regulated Fund, but not the Regulated Fund, of the right to nominate a director for election to a portfolio company's board of directors, the right to have an observer on the board of directors or similar rights to participate in the governance or management of the portfolio company will not be interpreted so as to violate this condition 6, if conditions 2(c)(iii)(A), (B) and (C) are met.
7. (a) If any Future Affiliated Fund or any Regulated Fund elects to sell, exchange or otherwise dispose of an interest in a security that was acquired in a Co-Investment Transaction, the applicable Advisers will:
(i) Notify each Regulated Fund that participated in the Co-Investment Transaction of the proposed disposition at the earliest practical time; and
(ii) formulate a recommendation as to participation by each Regulated Fund in the disposition.
(b) Each Regulated Fund will have the right to participate in such disposition on a proportionate basis, at the same price and on the same terms and conditions as those applicable to the participating Future Affiliated Funds and Regulated Funds.
(c) A Regulated Fund may participate in such disposition without obtaining prior approval of the Required Majority if: (i) The proposed participation of each Regulated Fund and each Future Affiliated Fund in such disposition is proportionate to its outstanding investments in the issuer immediately preceding the disposition; (ii) the Board of the Regulated Fund has approved as being in the best interests of the Regulated Fund the ability to participate in such dispositions on a pro rata basis (as described in greater detail in the application); and (iii) the Board of the Regulated Fund is provided on a quarterly basis with a list of all dispositions made in accordance with this condition. In all other cases, the Adviser will provide its written recommendation as to the Regulated Fund's participation to the Eligible Directors, and the Regulated Fund will participate in such disposition solely to the extent that a Required Majority determines that it is in the Regulated Fund's best interests.
(d) Each Future Affiliated Fund and each Regulated Fund will bear its own expenses in connection with any such disposition.
8. (a) If any Future Affiliated Fund or any Regulated Fund desires to make a Follow-On Investment in a portfolio company whose securities were acquired in a Co-Investment Transaction, the applicable Advisers will:
(i) Notify each Regulated Fund that participated in the Co-Investment Transaction of the proposed transaction at the earliest practical time; and
(ii) formulate a recommendation as to the proposed participation, including the amount of the proposed Follow-On Investment, by each Regulated Fund.
(b) A Regulated Fund may participate in such Follow-On Investment without obtaining prior approval of the Required Majority if: (i) The proposed participation of each Regulated Fund and each Future Affiliated Fund in such investment is proportionate to its outstanding investments in the issuer immediately preceding the Follow-On Investment; and (ii) the Board of the Regulated Fund has approved as being in the best interests of the Regulated Fund the ability to participate in Follow-On Investments on a pro rata basis (as described in greater detail in the application). In all other cases, the Adviser will provide its written recommendation as to the Regulated Fund's participation to the Eligible Directors, and the Regulated Fund will participate in such Follow-On Investment solely to the extent that a Required Majority determines that it is in the Regulated Fund's best interests.
(c) If, with respect to any Follow-On Investment:
(i) The amount of the opportunity is not based on the Regulated Funds' and the Future Affiliated Funds' outstanding investments immediately preceding the Follow-On Investment; and
(ii) the aggregate amount recommended by the Adviser to be invested by each Regulated Fund in the Follow-On Investment, together with the amount proposed to be invested by the participating Future Affiliated Funds in the same transaction, exceeds the amount of the opportunity; then the amount invested by each such party will be allocated among them pro rata based on each participant's capital available for investment in the asset class being
(d) The acquisition of Follow-On Investments as permitted by this condition will be considered a Co-Investment Transaction for all purposes and subject to the other conditions set forth in this application.
9. The Non-Interested Directors of each Regulated Fund will be provided quarterly for review all information concerning Potential Co-Investment Transactions and Co-Investment Transactions, including investments made by other Regulated Funds or Future Affiliated Funds that the Regulated Fund considered but declined to participate in, so that the Non-Interested Directors may determine whether all investments made during the preceding quarter, including those investments that the Regulated Fund considered but declined to participate in, comply with the conditions of the Order. In addition, the Non-Interested Directors will consider at least annually the continued appropriateness for the Regulated Fund of participating in new and existing Co-Investment Transactions.
10. Each Regulated Fund will maintain the records required by Section 57(f)(3) of the Act as if each of the Regulated Funds were a BDC and each of the investments permitted under these conditions were approved by the Required Majority under Section 57(f) of the Act.
11. No Non-Interested Director of a Regulated Fund will also be a director, general partner, managing member or principal, or otherwise an “affiliated person” (as defined in the Act) of a Future Affiliated Fund.
12. The expenses, if any, associated with acquiring, holding or disposing of any securities acquired in a Co-Investment Transaction (including, without limitation, the expenses of the distribution of any such securities registered for sale under the Securities Act) will, to the extent not payable by the Advisers under their respective investment advisory agreements with Future Affiliated Funds and the Regulated Funds, be shared by the Regulated Funds and the Future Affiliated Funds in proportion to the relative amounts of the securities held or to be acquired or disposed of, as the case may be.
13. Any transaction fee (including break-up or commitment fees but excluding broker's fees contemplated Section 17(e) or 57(k) of the Act, as applicable), received in connection with a Co-Investment Transaction will be distributed to the participating Regulated Funds and Future Affiliated Funds on a pro rata basis based on the amounts they invested or committed, as the case may be, in such Co-Investment Transaction. If any transaction fee is to be held by an Adviser pending consummation of the transaction, the fee will be deposited into an account maintained by such Adviser at a bank or banks having the qualifications prescribed in Section 26(a)(1) of the Act, and the account will earn a competitive rate of interest that will also be divided pro rata among the participating Regulated Funds and Future Affiliated Funds based on the amounts they invest in such Co-Investment Transaction. None of the Future Affiliated Funds, the Advisers, the other Regulated Funds or any affiliated person of the Regulated Funds or Future Affiliated Funds will receive additional compensation or remuneration of any kind as a result of or in connection with a Co-Investment Transaction (other than (a) in the case of the Regulated Funds and the Future Affiliated Funds, the pro rata transaction fees described above and fees or other compensation described in condition 2(c)(iii)(C); and (b) in the case of an Adviser, investment advisory fees paid in accordance with the agreement between the Adviser and the Regulated Fund or Future Affiliated Fund.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Notice of meeting of Securities and Exchange Commission Dodd-Frank Investor Advisory Committee.
The Securities and Exchange Commission Investor Advisory Committee, established pursuant to Section 911 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, is providing notice that it will hold a public meeting on Friday, January 31, 2014, in Multi-Purpose Room LL-006 at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549. The meeting will begin at 10:00 a.m. (EDT) and end at 4:30 p.m. and will be open to the public, except during portions of the meeting reserved for meetings of the Committee's subcommittees. The meeting will be webcast on the Commission's Web site at
Written statements should be received on or before January 31, 2014.
Written statements may be submitted by any of the following methods:
Use the Commission's Internet submission form (
Send an email message to
Send paper statements in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Statements also will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Room 1580, Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. All statements received will be posted without change; we do not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.
M. Owen Donley III, Chief Counsel, at (202) 551-6322, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549.
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, January 22, 2014 at 10 a.m., in the Auditorium, Room L-002.
The subject matter of the Open Meeting will be:
The Commission will consider whether to approve the 2014 budget of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board and will consider the related annual accounting support fee for the Board under Section 109 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
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.
On November 15, 2013, Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. (“CME”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change (SR-CME-2013-24) pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
CME is proposing to activate its New York Data Center (“1NE Data Center”) as its primary backup data center. The 1NE Data Center currently operates in part as a tertiary data center for CME. CME has proposed that the 1NE Data Center will be redesigned and will become the primary backup data center in place of CME's current backup data center, the Remote Data Center (“RDC”). In addition to housing CME's New York trading floor and office staff systems, the 1NE Data Center will house CME's primary back-up for electronic trading, clearing, and regulatory infrastructures. CME has stated that because the 1NE Data Center will be located in a distinct geographic area from CME's primary facility, the proposal to relocate the primary backup data facility will mitigate risks associated with a large scale disruption associated with only one geographical area (for example, a weather event). Because the 1NE Data Center will feature single IP connectivity, CME's customers will not have to change their configurations or take any additional steps to connect to the 1NE Data Center and the risk of disruptions in connectivity will be decreased.
CME has stated that the proposal will help to ensure that CME has sufficient physical, technological and personnel resources to enable the timely recovery and resumption of operations following disruptions, resulting in an increase in reliability and security of its backup data facilities. The proposed change does not involve any changes to CME's rulebook.
Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and in particular with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Wescorp Energy, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended September 30, 2011.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of World Ventures, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended October 31, 2009.
The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above-listed companies. Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the above-listed companies is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EST on January 15, 2014, through 11:59 p.m. EST on January 29, 2014.
By the Commission.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Lumonall, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended December 31, 2009.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Smart Comm International Ltd. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended December 31, 2008.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Tissera, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended October 31, 2008.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Ungava Mines, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended November 30, 2007.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Unity Wireless Corporation because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended March 31, 2008.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Zupintra Corporation, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended June 30, 2007.
The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above-listed companies. Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the above-listed companies is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EST on January 15, 2014, through 11:59 p.m. EST on January 29, 2014.
By the Commission.
Department of State.
Notice of Receipt of an Application by NuStar Logistics, L.P., for Issuance of a Presidential Permit To Connect, Operate and Maintain Existing Pipeline Facilities on the Border of the United States and Mexico.
Notice is hereby given that the Department of State (Department) has received from NuStar Logistics, L.P. (“NuStar”) an application to amend the 2003 Presidential Permit issued to Valero Logistics Operations L.P. to construct, connect, operate, and maintain pipeline facilities (the “Dos Laredos Pipeline”) crossing the international border between the United States and Mexico at a location on the Rio Grande river knows as “la Bota”, approximately six miles northwest of downtown Laredo, Texas. The application indicates that Valero Logistics Operations, L.P. has changed its name to NuStar Logistics, L.P., and requests that the amended permit reflect the partnership's current name. While the 2003 Presidential Permit only authorized the transportation of liquefied petroleum gas (“LPG”), NuStar seeks an amendment now to authorize the transport of LPG and petroleum products, including diesel.
NuStar Logistics, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, is a subsidiary of NuStar Energy L.P., a publicly traded, limited partnership based in San Antonio, Texas.
The Dos Laredos Pipeline is an 8
The 2003 Presidential Permit permits the transportation of LPG. NuStar now requests authorization to transport LPG and petroleum products, including diesel.
NuStar stated that no significant physical changes to the pipeline would be required to transport petroleum products, and it is not proposing any new construction in the United States (aside from maintaining existing pipeline facilities). The Department of State will determine what kind of environmental documentation, if any, is appropriate for this proposed project.
Under E.O. 13337 the Secretary of State is designated and empowered to receive all applications for Presidential Permits for the construction, connection, operation, or maintenance at the borders of the United States, of facilities for the exportation or importation of liquid petroleum, petroleum products, or other fuels (except natural gas) to or from a foreign country. The Department of State will circulate this application to concerned federal agencies for comment. The Department of State has the responsibility to determine whether issuance of a new or amended Presidential Permit based upon NuStar's application would serve the U.S. national interest. The Department will issue a
Office of Energy Diplomacy, Energy Resources Bureau (ENR/EDP/EWA) Department of State 2201 C St. NW., Ste 4843 Washington, DC 20520 Attn: Michael Brennan Tel: 202-647-7553. The application is available at
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The FHWA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval for a new information collection, which is summarized below under
Please submit comments by March 18, 2014.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket ID Number 2015-0005 by any of the following methods:
Kevin Douglas, 202-366-2601, Office of Human Environment, Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
The number of stakeholders with an interest in environment and planning research includes three groups:
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.48.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of request for extension of currently approved information collection.
The FHWA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval for renewal of an existing information collection that is summarized below under
Please submit comments by March 18, 2014.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket ID Number 2014-0004 by any of the following methods:
Gloria Williams, 202-366-5032, Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Highway Policy Information, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
The estimated annual reporting burden is 102 hours; the estimated recordkeeping burden is 510 hours for a total of 612 hours. The 50 States and the District of Columbia share this burden. Preparing and processing the annual certification is estimated to require 2 hours per State. Recordkeeping is estimated to require an average of 10 hours per State.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.48.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of request for extension of currently approved information collection.
The FHWA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval for renewal of an existing information collection that is summarized below under
Please submit comments by March 18, 2014.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket ID Number 2014-0002 by any of the following methods:
Mr. Kenneth Petty, (202) 366-6654, Office of Planning, Environment, and Realty, Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.48.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of request for extension of currently approved information collection.
The FHWA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval for renewal of an existing information collection that is summarized below under
Please submit comments by March 18, 2014.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket ID Number 2014-0001 by any of the following methods:
Erin Robertson, (202) 366-4814, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
a. Transfer of funds from a State to the FHWA pursuant to U.S.C. Title 23, § 104(k)(3);
b. Transfer of funds from a State to a Federal Agency other than FHWA;
c. Transfer of funds from a State to another State;
d. Transfer of funds from Federal Transit Administration to FHWA;
e. Transfer of funds between programs; and,
f. Transfer of funds between projects.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.48.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of request for extension of currently approved information collection.
The FHWA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval for renewal of an existing information collection that is summarized below under
Please submit comments by March 18, 2014.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket ID Number 2014-0003 by any of the following methods:
Aquilla Carter, (202) 493-2906, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.48.
The Department of the Treasury is planning to submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13.
Comments should be received on or before March 18, 2014 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestion for reducing the burden, to Robert Dahl, Departmental Clearance Officer, U.S. Department of the Treasury, Suite 8111, 1750 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20006. (202) 622-3119.
Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 622-3119, email at
Feedback collected under this generic clearance will provide useful information, but it will not yield data that can be generalized to the overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such data uses require more rigorous designs that address: the target population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame, the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing potential non-response bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior fielding the study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for other generic
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection requests to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, on or after the date of publication of this notice.
Comments should be received on or before February 18, 2014 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Treasury, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or email at
Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 622-1295, emailing
Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Fiscal Service, Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
This is Supplement No. 1 to the Treasury Department Circular 570, 2013 Revision, published July 1, 2013, at 78 FR 39440.
Surety Bond Branch at (202) 874-6850.
A Certificate of Authority as an acceptable surety on Federal bonds is hereby issued under 31 U.S.C. 9305 to the following company:
IRONSHORE INDEMNITY INC. (NAIC # 23647). BUSINESS ADDRESS: P.O. Box 3407, New York, NY 10008. PHONE: (646) 826-6600. UNDERWRITING LIMITATION b/: $12,371,000. SURETY LICENSES c/: AL, AK, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, DC, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE., NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, PR, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY. INCORPORATED IN: Minnesota.
Federal bond-approving officers should annotate their reference copies of the Treasury Circular 570 (“Circular”), 2013 Revision, to reflect this addition.
Certificates of Authority expire on June 30th each year, unless revoked prior to that date. The Certificates are subject to subsequent annual renewal as long as the companies remain qualified (see 31 CFR part 223). A list of qualified companies is published annually as of July 1st in the Circular, which outlines details as to the underwriting limitations, areas in which companies are licensed to transact surety business, and other information.
The Circular may be viewed and downloaded through the Internet at
Questions concerning this Notice may be directed to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Financial Accounting and Services Branch, Surety Bond Branch, 3700 East-West Highway, Room 6F01, Hyattsville, MD 20782.
Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Fiscal Service, Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
This is Supplement No. 2 to the Treasury Department Circular 570, 2013 Revision, published July 1, 2013, at 78 FR 39440.
Surety Bond Branch at (202) 874-6850.
A Certificate of Authority as an acceptable surety on Federal bonds is hereby issued under 31 U.S.C. 9305 to the following company:
IRONSHORE SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY (NAIC # 25445).
BUSINESS ADDRESS: P.O. Box 3407, New York, NY 10008.
PHONE: (646) 826-6600. UNDERWRITING LIMITATION b/: $30,971,000.
SURETY LICENSES c/: AZ. INCORPORATED IN: Arizona.
Federal bond-approving officers should annotate their reference copies of the Treasury Circular 570 (“Circular”), 2013 Revision, to reflect this addition.
Certificates of Authority expire on June 30th each year, unless revoked prior to that date. The Certificates are subject to subsequent annual renewal as long as the companies remain qualified (see 31 CFR part 223). A list of qualified companies is published annually as of July 1st in the Circular, which outlines details as to the underwriting limitations, areas in which companies are licensed to transact surety business, and other information.
The Circular may be viewed and downloaded through the Internet at
Questions concerning this Notice may be directed to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Financial Accounting and Services Branch, Surety Bond Branch, 3700 East-West Highway, Room 6F01, Hyattsville, MD 20782.
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 nuclear decommissioning costs.
Written comments should be received on or before March 18, 2014 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Yvette Lawrence, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the regulations should be directed to Kerry Dennis 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.
Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before March 18, 2014.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Audrey Revere at (202) 461-5694.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from OMB for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VHA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VHA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VHA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
1. Cooperative Studies Program (CSP) Site Survey, VA Form 10-0511.
2. Cooperative Studies Program (CSP) Meeting Evaluation, VA Form 10-0511a.
a. The data collected on VA Form 10-0511 will be used to assist in evaluating the level of customer service within the CSP Coordinating Centers.
b. VA Form 10-0511a will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the CSP in-person meetings and to identify ways to improve future meetings.
a. Cooperative Studies Program (CSP) Site Survey, VA Form 10-0511—83 hours.
b. Cooperative Studies Program (CSP) Meeting Evaluation, VA Form 10-0511a—83 hours.
a. Cooperative Studies Program (CSP) Site Survey, VA Form 10-0511—10 minutes.
b. Cooperative Studies Program (CSP) Meeting Evaluation, VA Form 10-0511a -10 minutes.
a. Cooperative Studies Program (CSP) Site Survey, VA Form 10-0511—500.
b. Cooperative Studies Program (CSP) Meeting Evaluation, VA Form 10-0511a -500.
By direction of the Secretary.
Office of Management, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Office Management (OM), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before March 18, 2014.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Waleska Pierantoni-Monge at (202) 632-5400, Fax 202-343-1434.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, OM invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary
a. VAAR section 809.504(d) and Clause 852.209-70 requires VA to determine whether or not to award a contract to a firm that might involve or result in a conflict of interest. VA uses the information to determine whether additional contract terms and conditions are necessary to mitigate the conflict.
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before March 18, 2014.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Audrey Revere at (202) 461-5694.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from OMB for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VHA invites comments on: (1) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VHA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VHA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before March 18, 2014.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Nancy J. Kessinger at (202) 632-8924 or FAX (202) 632-8925.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.
Office of Management, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Office of Management (OM), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before March 18, 2014.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Waleska Pierantoni-Monge at (202) 632-5400, Fax (202) 343-1434.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-21), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, (OM) invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of (OM)'s functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of (OM)'s estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
a. Department of Veterans Affairs Acquisition Regulation (VAAR) Clause 852.236-72, Performance of Work by the Contractor.
b. Department of Veterans Affairs Acquisition Regulation (VAAR) Alternate I to Clause 852.236-80, Subcontracts and Work Coordination.
c. Department of Veterans Affairs Acquisition Regulation (VAAR) Clause 852.236-82, Payments Under Fixed-Price Construction Contracts (without NAS), including Alternate 1.
d. Department of Veterans Affairs Acquisition Regulation (VAAR) Clause 852.236-83, Payments Under Fixed-Price Construction Contracts (with NAS), including Alternate 1.
e. Department of Veterans Affairs Acquisition Regulation (VAAR) Clause 852.236-84, Schedule of Work Progress.
f. Department of Veterans Affairs Acquisition Regulation (VAAR) Clause 852.236-88, Contract Changes, Supplements FAR Clause 52.243-4, Changes.
a. VAAR Clause 852.236-72, Performance of Work by the Contractor, requires contractors awarded a construction contract containing Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause 52.236-1, to submit a statement designating the branch or branches of contract work to be performed by the
b. Alternate I to Clause 852.236-80, Work Coordination, require construction contractors, on contracts involving complex mechanical-electrical work, to furnish coordination drawings showing the manner in which utility lines will fit into available spaces and relate to each other and to the existing building elements. The information is used by the contracting officer and VA engineer assigned to the project to resolve any problems relating to the installation of utilities on construction contract.
c. VAAR Clause 852.236-82, Payments Under Fixed-Price Construction Contracts (without NAS), requires construction contractors to submit a schedule of costs for work to be performed under the contract. If the contract includes guarantee period services, Alternate I requires contractor to submit information on the total and itemized costs of the guarantee period services and to submit a performance plan/program. The information is needed to allow the contracting officer to determine the correct amount to pay the contractor as work progresses and to properly proportion the amount paid for guarantee period services.
d. VAAR Clause 852.236-83, Payments Under Fixed-Price Construction Contracts (with NAS), requires construction contractors to submit a schedule of costs for work to be performed under the contract. If the contract includes guarantee period services, Alternate I requires contractor to submit information on the total and itemized costs of the guarantee period services and to submit a performance plan/program. The information is needed to allow the contracting officer to determine the correct amount to pay the contractor as work progresses and to properly proportion the amount paid for guarantee period services. The difference between this clause and the one above 852.236-82 is that this clause requires the contractor to use a computerized Network Analysis System (NAS) to prepare the cost estimate.
e. VAAR Clause 852.236-84, Schedule of Work Progress, requires construction contractors, on contracts that do not require the use of a NAS, to submit a progress schedule. The information is used by the contracting officer to track the contractor's progress under the contract and to determine whether or not the contractor is making satisfactory progress.
f. VAAR Clause 852.236-88, Contract Changes, Supplements FAR Clause 52.243-4, Changes. FAR Clause 52.243-4 authorizes the contracting officer to order changes to a construction contract but does not specifically require the contractor to submit cost proposals for those changes. VAAR Clause 852.236-88 requires contractors to submit cost proposal for changes ordered by the contracting officer or for changes proposed by the contractor. This information is needed to allow the contracting officer and the contractor to reach a mutually acceptable agreement on how much to pay the contractor for the proposed changes to the contract. It is also used by the contracting officer to determine whether or not to authorize the proposed changes or whether or not additional or alternate cost proposals for changes are needed.
a. VAAR Clause 852.236-72, Performance of Work by the Contractor—60 hours.
b. VAAR Alternate I to Clause 852.236-80, Subcontracts and Work Coordination—920 hours.
c. VAAR Clause 852.236-82, Payments Under Fixed-Price Construction Contracts (without NAS), including Alternate 1—1,219 hours.
d. VAAR Clause 852.236-83, Payments Under Fixed-Price Construction Contracts (with NAS), including Alternate 1—46 hours.
e. VAAR Clause 852.236-84, Schedule of Work Progress—1828.5 hours.
f. VAAR Clause 852.236-88, Contract Changes, Supplements FAR Clause 52.243-4, Changes—729 hours.
a. VAAR Clause 852.236-72, Performance of Work by the Contractor—1 hour.
b. VAAR Alternate I to Clause 852.236-80, Subcontracts and Work Coordination—10 hours.
c. VAAR Clause 852.236-82, Payments Under Fixed-Price Construction Contracts (without NAS), including Alternate 1—1 hour.
d. VAAR Clause 852.236-83, Payments Under Fixed-Price Construction Contracts (with NAS), including Alternate 1—30 minutes.
e. VAAR Clause 852.236-84, Schedule of Work Progress—1 hour.
f. VAAR Clause 852.236-88, Contract Changes, Supplements FAR Clause 52.243-4, Changes—3 hours.
a. VAAR Clause 852.236-72, Performance of Work by the Contractor—60.
b. VAAR Alternate I to Clause 852.236-80, Subcontracts and Work Coordination—92.
c. Department of Veterans Affairs Acquisition Regulation (VAAR) Clause 852.236-82, Payments Under Fixed-Price Construction Contracts (without NAS), including Alternate 1—1,219.
d. VAAR Clause 852.236-83, Payments Under Fixed-Price Construction Contracts (with NAS), including Alternate 1—92
e. VAAR Clause 852.236-84, Schedule of Work Progress—1,219.
f. VAAR Clause 852.236-88, Contract Changes, Supplements FAR Clause 52.243-4, Changes—243.
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed
Submit written comments on the collection of information through the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Audrey Revere at (202) 461-5694.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from OMB for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VHA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VHA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VHA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), this notice announces that the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden and includes the actual data collection instrument.
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before February 18, 2014.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Crystal Rennie, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632-7492 or email
Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501—3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VHA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VHA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VHA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.
Board of Veterans' Appeals, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), this notice announces that the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden and includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before February 18, 2014.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Crystal Rennie, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632-7492 or email
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.
Board of Veterans' Appeals, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), this notice announces that the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden and includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before February 18, 2014.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Crystal Rennie, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632-7492 or email
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before March 18, 2014.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Audrey Revere at (202) 461-5694.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from OMB for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VHA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VHA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VHA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before March 18, 2014.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Nancy J. Kessinger at (202) 632-8924 or FAX (202) 632-8925.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;
a. Arteries and Veins Conditions (Vascular Diseases including Varicose Veins) Disability Benefits Questionnaire, VA Form 21-0960A-2.
b. Hypertension Disability Benefits Questionnaire, VA Form 21-0960A-3.
c. Non-ischemic Heart Disease (including Arrhythmias and Surgery, Disability Benefits Questionnaire, VA Form 21-0960A-4.
d. Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy (Diabetic Sensory-Motor Peripheral Neuropathy), Disability Benefits Questionnaire, VA Form 21-0960C-4.
e. Diabetes Mellitus Disability Benefits Questionnaire, VA Form 21-0960E-1.
f. Scar/Disfigurement Disability Benefits Questionnaire, VA Form 21-0960F-1.
g. Skin Diseases Disability Benefits Questionnaire, VA Form 21-0960F-2.
h. Amputations Disability Benefits Questionnaire, VA Form 21-0960M-1.
i. Ankle Conditions Disability Benefits Questionnaire, VA Form 21-0960M-2.
j. Elbow and Forearm Conditions Disability Benefits Questionnaire, VA Form 21-0960M-4.
k. Flatfoot (PES PLANUS) Disability Benefits Questionnaire, VA Form 21-0960M-5.
l. Foot Miscellaneous (other than flatfoot/PES PLANUS), Disability Benefits Questionnaire, VA Form 21-0960M-6.
m. Hand and Finger Conditions Disability Benefits Questionnaire, VA Form 21-0960M-7.
n. Hip and Thigh Conditions Disability Benefits Questionnaire, VA Form 21-0960M-8.
o. Knee and Lower Leg Conditions Disability Benefits Questionnaire, VA Form 21-0960M-9.
p. Muscle Injuries Disability Benefits Questionnaire, VA Form 21-0960M-10.
q. Shoulder and Arm Conditions Disability Benefits Questionnaire, VA Form 21-0960M-12.
r. Temporomandibular Joint (TMJ) Conditions Disability Benefits Questionnaire, VA Form 21-0960M-15.
s. Wrist Conditions Disability Benefits Questionnaire, VA Form 21-0960M-16.
t. Eye Conditions Disability Benefits Questionnaire, VA Form 21-0960N-2.
a. VA Form 21-0960A-2—10,000.
b. VA Form 21-0960A-3—12,500.
c. VA Form 21-0960A-4—10,000.
d. VA Form 21-0960C-4—37,500.
e. VA Form 21-0960E-1—18,750.
f. VA Form 21-0960F-1—6,250.
g. VA Form 21-0960F-2—6,250.
h. VA Form 21-0960M-1—12,500.
i. VA Form 21-0960M-2—15,000.
j. VA Form 21-0960M-4—10,000.
k. VA Form 21-0960M-5—12,500.
l. VA Form 21-0960M-6—7,500.
m. VA Form 21-0960M-7—15,000.
n. VA Form 21-0960M-8—25,000.
o. VA Form 21-0960M-9—25,000.
p. VA Form 21-0960M-10—15,000.
q. VA Form 21-0960M-12—25,000.
r. VA Form 21-0960M-15—3,750.
s. VA Form 21-0960M-16—20,000.
t. VA Form 21-0960N-2—30,000.
a. VA Form 21-0960A-2—30 minutes.
b. VA Form 21-0960A-3—15 minutes.
c. VA Form 21-0960A-4—30 minutes.
d. VA Form 21-0960C-4—30 minutes.
e. VA Form 21-0960E-1—15 minutes.
f. VA Form 21-0960F-1—15 minutes.
g. VA Form 21-0960F-2—15 minutes.
h. VA Form 21-0960M-1—30 minutes.
i. VA Form 21-0960M-2—30 minutes.
j. VA Form 21-0960M-4—30 minutes.
k. VA Form 21-0960M-5—15 minutes.
l. VA Form 21-0960M-6—15 minutes.
m. VA Form 21-0960M-7—30 minutes.
n. VA Form 21-0960M-8—30 minutes.
o. VA Form 21-0960M-9—30 minutes.
p. VA Form 21-0960M-10—30 minutes.
q. VA Form 21-0960M-12—30 minutes.
r. VA Form 21-0960M-15—15 minutes.
s. VA Form 21-0960M-16—30 minutes.
t. VA Form 21-0960N-2—45 minutes.
a. VA Form 21-0960A-2—20,000.
b. VA Form 21-0960A-3—50,000.
c. VA Form 21-0960A-4—20,000.
d. VA Form 21-0960C-4—75,000.
e. VA Form 21-0960E-1—75,000.
f. VA Form 21-0960F-1—25,000.
g. VA Form 21-0960F-2—25,000.
h. VA Form 21-0960M-1—25,000.
i. VA Form 21-0960M-2—30,000.
j. VA Form 21-0960M-4—20,000.
k. VA Form 21-0960M-5—50,000.
l. VA Form 21-0960M-6—30,000.
m. VA Form 21-0960M-7—30,000.
n. VA Form 21-0960M-8—50,000.
o. VA Form 21-0960M-9—50,000.
p. VA Form 21-0960M-10—30,000.
q. VA Form 21-0960M-12—50,000.
r. VA Form 21-0960M-15—15,000.
s. VA Form 21-0960M-16—40,000.
t. VA Form 21-0960N-2—40,000.
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), this notice announces that the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden and includes the actual data collection instrument.
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before February 18, 2014.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Crystal Rennie, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632-7492 or email
Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VHA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VHA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VHA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, that the Advisory Committee on Disability Compensation will meet on March 3-4, 2014, at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. On March 3, 2014, the Committee will meet in Room 730, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, and on March 4, 2014, the Committee will meet in Room 630 at the same address. The sessions will begin at 8:30 a.m. and end at 4:30 p.m. on both days. The meeting is open to the public.
The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on the maintenance and periodic readjustment of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities. The Committee is to assemble and review relevant information relating to the nature and character of disabilities arising during service in the Armed Forces, provide an ongoing assessment of the effectiveness of the rating schedule, and give advice on the most appropriate means of responding to the needs of Veterans relating to disability compensation.
The Committee will receive briefings on issues related to compensation for Veterans with service-connected disabilities and other VA benefits programs. Time will be allocated for receiving public comments in the morning or afternoon. Public comments will be limited to three minutes each. Individuals wishing to make oral statements before the Committee will be accommodated on a first-come, first-served basis. Individuals who speak are invited to submit 1-2 page summaries of their comments at the time of the meeting for inclusion in the official meeting record.
The public may submit written statements for the Committee's review to Nancy Copeland, Designated Federal Officer, Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Benefits Administration, Compensation Service, Regulation Staff (211D), 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, or email at
Corporate Senior Executive Management Office, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
Under the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4) agencies are required to publish a notice in the
Corporate Senior Executive Management Office, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420.
Contact William Atkinson, Deputy Director, Corporate Senior Executive Management Office (052), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-5928.
The membership of the Department of Veterans Affairs Performance Review Board is as follows:
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs approved this document on December 17, 2013, and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4).
United States Sentencing Commission.
Notice of proposed amendments to sentencing guidelines, policy statements, and commentary. Request for public comment, including public comment regarding retroactive application of any of the proposed amendments. Notice of public hearing.
Pursuant to section 994(a), (o), and (p) of title 28, United States Code, the United States Sentencing Commission is considering promulgating certain amendments to the sentencing guidelines, policy statements, and commentary. This notice sets forth the proposed amendments and, for each proposed amendment, a synopsis of the issues addressed by that amendment. This notice also sets forth a number of issues for comment, some of which are set forth together with the proposed amendments; some of which are set forth independent of any proposed amendment; and one of which (regarding retroactive application of proposed amendments) is set forth in the Supplementary Information portion of this notice.
The proposed amendments and issues for comment in this notice are as follows:
(1) a proposed amendment to § 1B1.10 (Reduction in Term of Imprisonment as a Result of Amended Guideline Range (Policy Statement)) to respond to two circuit conflicts involving the effect of a mandatory minimum sentence on the guideline range in resentencing proceedings under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2);
(2) a proposed amendment to respond to the new and expanded criminal offenses and increased statutory penalties provided by the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013, Public Law 113-B4 (March 7, 2013), including (A) options to amend §§ 2A2.2 (Aggravated Assault), 2A2.3 (Minor Assault), and 2A6.2 (Stalking or Domestic Violence) to address statutory changes to 18 U.S.C. §§ 113, 2261, 2261A, and 2262, and (B) options to amend Appendix A (Statutory Index) to address certain offenses established or affected by that Act, including 18 U.S.C. § 113, 1153, 1597, and 2423; 8 U.S.C. § 1375a; and 47 U.S.C. § 223, and related issues for comment;
(3) a proposed amendment to the guidelines applicable to drug offenses, including (A) a detailed request for comment on whether any changes should be made to the Drug Quantity Table in § 2D1.1 (Unlawful Manufacturing, Importing, Exporting, or Trafficking (Including Possession with Intent to Commit These Offenses); Attempt or Conspiracy) across drug types; (B) a proposed amendment that illustrates one possible set of changes to the Drug Quantity Table in § 2D1.1, together with conforming changes to the chemical quantity tables in § 2D1.11 (Unlawfully Distributing, Importing, Exporting or Possessing a Listed Chemical; Attempt or Conspiracy); and (C) an issue for comment on whether the guidelines adequately address the environmental and other harms of drug production operations (including, in particular, the cultivation of marihuana) on public lands or while trespassing on private property;
(4) a proposed amendment to § 2K2.1 (Unlawful Receipt, Possession, or Transportation of Firearms or Ammunition; Prohibited Transactions Involving Firearms or Ammunition) to clarify how principles of relevant conduct apply in cases in which the defendant is convicted of a firearms offense (
(5) a proposed amendment to § 2L1.1 (Smuggling, Transporting, or Harboring an Unlawful Alien) to address cases in which aliens are transported through dangerous terrain,
(6) a proposed amendment to address differences among the circuits in the calculation of the guideline range of supervised release under § 5D1.2 (Term of Supervised Release) in two situations: first, when there is a statutory minimum term of supervised release; and second, when the instant offense of conviction is failure to register as a sex offender under 18 U.S.C. § 2250, and related issues for comment; and
(7) a proposed amendment to § 5G1.3 (Imposition of a Sentence on a Defendant Subject to an Undischarged Term of Imprisonment) to address certain types of cases in which the defendant is subject to an undischarged term of imprisonment, including (A) a proposed change requiring the court to account for an undischarged term of imprisonment that is relevant conduct to the instant federal offense of conviction but does not result in a Chapter Two or Chapter Three increase; (B) a proposed change allowing the court to account for an undischarged state term of imprisonment that is anticipated but not yet imposed; and (C) a proposed change allowing the court to adjust the sentence if the defendant is a deportable alien who is likely to be deported after imprisonment and is serving an undischarged term of imprisonment that resulted from an unrelated offense, and related issues for comment.
(1) Written Public Comment.—Written public comment regarding the proposed amendments and issues for comment set forth in this notice, including public comment regarding retroactive application of any of the proposed amendments, should be received by the Commission not later than March 18, 2014.
(2) Public Hearings.—The Commission plans to hold public hearings regarding the proposed amendments and issues for comment set forth in this notice. Specifically, a public hearing on Proposed Amendment 2 of this notice (relating to the Violence Against Women Act of 2013) and other issues related to the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act of 2013 will be held on February 13, 2014, and a public hearing on other proposed amendments will be held on March 13, 2014. Further information regarding the public hearings, including requirements for testifying and providing written testimony, as well as the location, time, and scope of the hearings, will be provided by the Commission on its Web site at
Public comment should be sent to the Commission by electronic mail or regular mail. The email address for public comment is
Jeanne Doherty, Public Affairs Officer, (202) 502-4502,
The United States Sentencing Commission is an independent agency in the judicial branch of the United States Government. The Commission promulgates sentencing guidelines and policy statements for federal courts
The proposed amendments in this notice are presented in one of two formats. First, some of the amendments are proposed as specific revisions to a guideline or commentary. Bracketed text within a proposed amendment indicates a heightened interest on the Commission's part in comment and suggestions regarding alternative policy choices; for example, a proposed enhancement of [2][4][6] levels indicates that the Commission is considering, and invites comment on, alternative policy choices regarding the appropriate level of enhancement. Similarly, bracketed text within a specific offense characteristic or application note means that the Commission specifically invites comment on whether the proposed provision is appropriate. Second, the Commission has highlighted certain issues for comment and invites suggestions on how the Commission should respond to those issues.
The Commission requests public comment regarding whether, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 994(u), any proposed amendment published in this notice should be included in subsection (c) of § 1B1.10 (Reduction in Term of Imprisonment as a Result of Amended Guideline Range (Policy Statement)) as an amendment that may be applied retroactively to previously sentenced defendants. The Commission lists in § 1B1.10(c) the specific guideline amendments that the court may apply retroactively under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The background commentary to § 1B1.10 lists the purpose of the amendment, the magnitude of the change in the guideline range made by the amendment, and the difficulty of applying the amendment retroactively to determine an amended guideline range under § 1B1.10(b) as among the factors the Commission considers in selecting the amendments included in § 1B1.10(c). To the extent practicable, public comment should address each of these factors.
Additional information pertaining to the proposed amendments described in this notice may be accessed through the Commission's Web site at
28 U.S.C. § 994(a), (o), (p), (x); USSC Rules of Practice and Procedure, Rule 4.4.
Section 3582(c)(2) authorizes the court to reduce a defendant's term of imprisonment if the defendant's sentence was based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission and the reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Commission. The applicable policy statement is § 1B1.10, which provides guidance and limitations for a court in such a proceeding. Effective November 1, 2011, the Commission promulgated Amendment 750, which made a series of changes to the drug guidelines to implement the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, and Amendment 759, which made two parts of Amendment 750 available for retroactive application. Amendment 759 also revised § 1B1.10 to provide that the new sentence may not be lower than the amended guideline range unless the original sentence was below the original guideline range because of a government motion for substantial assistance. In such a case, “a reduction comparably less than the amended guideline range” may be appropriate.
First, there are cases in which the defendant's original guideline range was above the mandatory minimum but the defendant received a sentence below the mandatory minimum pursuant to a government motion for substantial assistance. For example, consider a case in which the mandatory minimum was 240 months, the original guideline range was 262 to 327 months, and the defendant's original sentence was 160 months, representing a 39 percent reduction for substantial assistance below the bottom of the guideline range. On resentencing pursuant to Amendment 750, the amended guideline range as determined on the Sentencing Table is 168 to 210 months, but after application of the “trumping” mechanism in § 5G1.1 (Sentencing on a Single Count of Conviction), the mandatory minimum sentence of 240 months is the guideline sentence.
The Eighth Circuit has taken the view that the bottom of the amended guideline range in such a case would be 240 months,
Second, there are cases in which the defendant's original guideline range as determined by the Sentencing Table was, at least in part, below the mandatory minimum, and the defendant received a sentence below the mandatory minimum pursuant to a government motion for substantial assistance. In these cases, the “trumping” mechanism in § 5G1.1 operated at the original sentence to restrict the guideline range to be no less than the mandatory minimum.
For example, consider a case in which the original Sentencing Table guideline range was 140 to 175 months but the mandatory minimum was 240 months, resulting (after operation of § 5G1.1) in a guideline sentence of 240 months. The defendant's original sentence was 96 months, representing a 60 percent reduction for substantial assistance below the statutory and guideline minimum. On resentencing, the amended Sentencing Table guideline range is 110 to 137 months, resulting (after operation of § 5G1.1) in a guideline sentence of 240 months. Section 1B1.10(b)(2)(B) provides that such a defendant may receive a reduction from the bottom of the amended guideline range, but circuits
The Eleventh Circuit, the Sixth Circuit, and the Second Circuit have taken the view that the bottom of the amended range in such a case would remain 240 months,
In contrast, the Third Circuit and the District of Columbia Circuit have taken the view that the bottom of the amended range in such a case would be 110 months,
The proposed amendment presents two options for responding to these conflicts:
Each option also adds commentary with examples.
Section 1B1.10 is amended in each of subsections (a)(1), (a)(2)(A), (a)(2)(B), and (b)(1) by striking “subsection (c)” each place such term appears and inserting “subsection (d)”; by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d); and by inserting after subsection (b) the following new subsection (c) (within which two options are provided):
“(c)
the amended guideline range shall be determined without regard to the operation of § 5G1.1 (Sentencing on a Single Count of Conviction) and § 5G1.2 (Sentencing on Multiple Counts of Conviction).
the amended guideline range shall be determined after operation of § 5G1.1 (Sentencing on a Single Count of Conviction) or § 5G1.2 (Sentencing on Multiple Counts of Conviction), as appropriate.
The Commentary to § 1B1.10 captioned “Application Notes” is amended in Notes 1(A), 2, and 4 by striking “subsection (c)” each place such term appears and inserting “subsection (d)”; by redesignating Notes 4 through 6 as Notes 5 through 7, respectively; and by inserting after Note 3 the following new Note 4 (within which, two options are provided, corresponding to the two options provided above):
“4.
the amended guideline range shall be determined without regard to the operation of § 5G1.1 (Sentencing on a Single Count of Conviction) and § 5G1.2 (Sentencing on Multiple Counts of Conviction). For example:
(A) Defendant A is subject to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of 120 months. The original guideline range at the time of sentencing was 135 to 168 months, which is entirely above the mandatory minimum, and the court imposed a sentence of 101 months pursuant to a government motion to reflect the defendant's substantial assistance to authorities. The court determines that the amended guideline range as calculated on the Sentencing Table is 108 to 135 months. Ordinarily, § 5G1.1 would operate to restrict the amended guideline range to 120 to 135 months, to reflect the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment. For purposes of this policy statement, however, the amended guideline range remains 108 to 135 months.
To the extent the court considers it appropriate to provide a reduction comparably less than the amended guideline range pursuant to subsection (b)(2)(B), Defendant A's original sentence of 101 months amounted to a reduction of approximately 25 percent below the minimum of the original guideline range of 135 months. Therefore, an amended sentence of 81 months (representing a reduction of approximately 25 percent below the minimum of the amended guideline range of 108 months) would amount to a comparable reduction and may be appropriate.
(B) Defendant B is subject to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of 120 months. The original guideline range at the time of sentencing (as calculated on the Sentencing Table) was 108 to 135 months, which was restricted by operation of § 5G1.1 to a range of 120 to 135 months.
To the extent the court considers it appropriate to provide a reduction comparably less than the amended guideline range pursuant to subsection (b)(2)(B), Defendant B's original sentence of 90 months amounted to a
the amended guideline range shall be determined after operation of § 5G1.1 (Sentencing on a Single Count of Conviction) or § 5G1.2 (Sentencing on Multiple Counts of Conviction), as appropriate. For example:
(A) Defendant A is subject to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of 120 months. The original guideline range at the time of sentencing was 135 to 168 months, which is entirely above the mandatory minimum, and the court imposed a sentence of 101 months pursuant to a government motion to reflect the defendant's substantial assistance to authorities. The court determines that the amended guideline range as calculated on the Sentencing Table is 108 to 135 months. For purposes of this policy statement, the amended guideline range is considered to be 120 to 135 months (
To the extent the court considers it appropriate to provide a reduction comparably less than the amended guideline range pursuant to subsection (b)(2)(B), Defendant A's original sentence of 101 months amounted to a reduction of approximately 25 percent below the minimum of the original guideline range of 135 months. Therefore, an amended sentence of 90 months (representing a reduction of 25 percent below the minimum of the amended guideline range of 120 months) would amount to a comparable reduction and may be appropriate.
(B) Defendant B is subject to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of 120 months. The original guideline range at the time of sentencing (as calculated on the Sentencing Table) was 108 to 135 months, which was restricted by operation of § 5G1.1 to a range of 120 to 135 months.
To the extent the court considers it appropriate to provide a reduction comparably less than the amended guideline range pursuant to subsection (b)(2)(B), Defendant B's original sentence of 90 months amounted to a reduction of 25 percent below the minimum of the original guideline range of 120 months. However, subsection (b)(2)(B) precludes this defendant from receiving any further reduction, because the point from which any comparable reduction would be determined has not changed; the minimum of the original guideline range (120 months) and the minimum of the amended guideline range (120 months) are the same, so any comparable reduction that may be appropriate under subsection (b)(2)(B) would be equivalent to the reduction Defendant B already received in the original sentence of 90 months.
The Commentary to § 1B1.10 captioned “Background” is amended by striking “subsection (c)” both places such term appears and inserting “subsection (d)”.
This proposed amendment and issues for comment address the issues raised by the statutory changes made by the Act in the following manner:
Before enactment of the Act, section 113(a) contained seven paragraphs, (1) through (7). Each of these paragraphs applies to certain types of assault and provides a statutory maximum term of imprisonment. Most of these paragraphs are referenced in Appendix A (Statutory Index) to specific offense guidelines in Chapter Two, Part A. The Act revised certain paragraphs and added a new paragraph (8).
Before enactment of the Act, section 113(a)(1) applied to assault with intent to commit murder and provided a statutory maximum term of imprisonment of 20 years. Section 113(a)(1) is referenced in Appendix A to § 2A2.1 (Assault with Intent to Commit Murder; Attempted Murder).
The Act expanded section 113(a)(1) so that it applies not only to assault with intent to commit murder, but also to assault with intent to commit a violation of section 2241 (Aggravated sexual abuse) or 2242 (Sexual abuse). The proposed amendment amends Appendix A so that section 113(a)(1) is also referenced to § 2A3.1 (Criminal Sexual Abuse; Attempt to Commit Criminal Sexual Abuse), which is the guideline to which offenses under sections 2241 and 2242 are referenced.
Before enactment of the Act, section 113(a)(2) applied to assault with intent to commit any felony, except murder or a felony under chapter 109A, and provided a statutory maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years. Felonies under chapter 109A include violations of sections 2241, 2242, 2243 (Sexual abuse of a minor or ward), and 2244 (Abusive sexual contact). Section 113(a)(2) is referenced in Appendix A to § 2A2.2 (Aggravated Assault).
The Act expanded the scope of section 113(a)(2) by narrowing the chapter 109A exception. Section 113(a)(2) now applies to assault with intent to commit any felony, except murder or a violation of section 2241 or 2242. The effect of this change is that an assault with intent to commit a felony
Section 113(a)(4) applies to assault by striking, beating, or wounding. Before the Act it provided a statutory maximum term of imprisonment of 6 months. Section 113(a)(4) is not referenced in Appendix A.
The Act increased the statutory maximum term of imprisonment to 1 year. The proposed amendment amends Appendix A to reference section 113(a)(4) to § 2A2.3 (Minor Assault).
Before enactment of the Act, section 113(a)(7) applied to assault resulting in substantial bodily injury to an individual who has not attained the age of 16 years, and provided a statutory maximum term of imprisonment of 5 years. Section 113(a)(7) is referenced in Appendix A (Statutory Index) to § 2A2.3. Among other things, § 2A2.3 has a 4-level enhancement if the offense resulted in substantial bodily injury to an individual who has not attained the age of 16 years.
The Act expanded section 113(a)(7) so that it also applies to assault resulting in substantial bodily injury to a spouse or intimate partner or dating partner. The proposed amendment amends § 2A2.3 to broaden the scope of the 4-level enhancement. Two options are presented:
In addition, the proposed amendment brackets the possibility of amending Appendix A to provide that offenses under section 113(a)(7) would also be referenced to § 2A6.2 (Stalking or Domestic Violence).
Section 113(a)(8) is a new provision established by the Act. It applies to assault of a spouse, intimate partner, or dating partner by strangling, suffocating, or attempting to strangle or suffocate, and provides a statutory maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years.
The proposed amendment makes three changes to address section 113(a)(8). First, it amends Appendix A to reference section 113(a)(8) to § 2A2.2.
Second, as a conforming change, it amends the Commentary to § 2A2.2 to provide that the term “aggravated assault” includes an assault involving strangulation, suffocation, or an attempt to strangle or suffocate.
Third, the proposed amendment adds a new specific offense characteristic to § 2A2.2. Two options are presented:
In addition, the proposed amendment brackets the possibility of amending Appendix A to provide offenses under section 113(a)(8) with a reference to § 2A6.2 (Stalking or Domestic Violence). Section 2A6.2 has a 2-level enhancement that applies if the offense involved an aggravating factor such as bodily injury, and a 4-level enhancement that applies if the offense involved more than one such aggravating factor. The proposed amendment amends § 2A6.2 to provide that the enhancement also applies if the offense involved strangling, suffocating, or attempting to strangle or suffocate. Two options are presented:
Following the proposed amendment are issues for comment on whether certain other changes to the guidelines are appropriate to respond to these and other changes to section 113.
Section 2A2.2(b) is amended by redesignating paragraphs (4) through (6) as paragraphs (5) through (7), respectively; and by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new paragraph (4) (two options are provided):
“(4) If (A) subdivision (3) does not apply; and (B) the offense involved assault by strangling, suffocating, or attempting to strangle or suffocate, increase by
“(4) If the offense involved assault by strangling, suffocating, or attempting to strangle or suffocate, increase by
The Commentary to § 2A2.2 captioned “Application Notes” is amended in Note 1 by striking “or” before “(C)”; by inserting after “(C)” the following: “strangling, suffocating, or attempting to strangle or suffocate; or (D)”; and by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
“ ‘Strangling’ and ‘suffocating’ have the meaning given those terms in 18 U.S.C. § 113.”;
The Commentary to § 2A2.2 captioned “Background” is amended in the first paragraph by striking the comma after “serious bodily injury” and inserting a semicolon, and by striking the comma after “cause bodily injury” and inserting “; strangling, suffocating, or attempting to strangle or suffocate;”;
Section 2A2.3 is amended as follows (two options are provided):
Section 2A2.3(b)(1) is amended by inserting after “substantial bodily injury to” the following: “a spouse or intimate partner, a dating partner, or”.
The Commentary to § 2A2.3 captioned “Application Notes” is amended in Note 1 by inserting after the paragraph that begins “ ‘Minor assault’ means” the following new paragraph:
Section 2A2.3(b)(1) is amended by striking “to an individual under the age of sixteen years”.
Section 2A6.2 is amended as follows (two options are provided):
Section 2A6.2(b)(1) is amended by striking “(D)” and inserting “(E)”; by inserting after “(C)” the following: “strangling, suffocating, or attempting to strangle or suffocate; (D)”; and by striking “these aggravating factors” and inserting “subdivisions (A), (B), (C), (D), or (E)”.
The Commentary to § 2A6.2 captioned “Application Notes” is amended in Note 1 by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
Section 2A6.2(b)(1)(B) is amended by inserting after “bodily injury” the following: “or strangling, suffocating, or attempting to strangle or suffocate”; and by striking “these aggravating factors” and inserting “subdivisions (A), (B), (C), or (D)”.
The Commentary to § 2A6.2 captioned “Application Notes” is amended in Note 1 by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
Appendix A (Statutory Index) is amended in the line referenced to 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(1) by adding “, 2A3.1” at the end;
1.
The Commission seeks comment on how, if at all, the guidelines should be amended to address cases involving strangling, suffocating, or attempting to strangle or suffocate. Are the existing provisions in the guidelines, such as the enhancements for bodily injury, adequate to address these cases? If not, how should the Commission amend the guidelines to address this factor?
In particular, should the Commission provide a new enhancement of [3]-[7] levels that applies if the offense involves strangling, suffocating, or attempting to strangle or suffocate? If so, how should such an enhancement interact with the existing enhancements, such as the weapon enhancement and the bodily injury enhancement? For example, should the new enhancement be cumulative with those enhancements, or should it interact with those enhancements in some other way,
In addition, should such a new enhancement apply only to cases described in the statute (
Finally, should the new offense be referenced in Appendix A (Statutory Index) to the aggravated assault guideline, to the domestic violence guideline, or to both guidelines? To the extent the offense is referenced to the domestic violence guideline, how, if it all, should that guideline be amended to address cases involving strangling, suffocating, or attempting to strangle or suffocate?
2.
3.
The Commission invites comment on offenses involving an assault with intent to commit a sex offense (as described in section 113(a)(1) and (2)) and how the guidelines should address such offenses. In particular:
(A) To what extent should an assault with intent to commit a sex offense be treated by the guidelines as a type of assault, and to what extent as a type of attempted sex offense? For example, the proposed amendment would amend Appendix A (Statutory Index) to provide references to one or more sex offense guidelines. Should the Commission instead, or in addition, provide references to one or more assault guidelines?
To the extent offenses under section 113(a)(1) and (2) are referenced to one or more sex offense guidelines, what changes, if any, to those guidelines would be appropriate to account for offenses under section 113(a)(1) and (2)?
Likewise, to the extent offenses under section 113(a)(1) and (2) are referenced to one or more assault guidelines, what changes, if any, to those guidelines would be appropriate to account for offenses under section 113(a)(1) and (2)? For example, should the Commission provide a new enhancement of [2][4][6] levels to account for an assault with an intent to commit a sex offense, or should the Commission provide a cross reference to one or more sex offense guidelines, or both?
(B) There are a variety of provisions in the guidelines that apply when the conduct involves a sex offense or
(1) Under § 2A3.2 (Criminal Sexual Abuse of a Minor Under the Age of Sixteen Years (Statutory Rape) or Attempt to Commit Such Acts), if the offense involved criminal sexual abuse or attempt to commit criminal sexual abuse (as defined in section 2241 or 2242), a cross reference to § 2A3.1 applies.
Similar issues arise with the cross references in §§ 2A3.2(c)(2), 2A3.4(c)(1), 2G1.1(c)(1), and 2G1.3(c)(3). How, if at all, should they be revised?
(2) Under §§ 2A3.1 and 2A3.4 (Abusive Sexual Contact or Attempt to Commit Abusive Sexual Contact), if the offense involved “conduct described in” section 2241(a) or (b) or 2242, an enhancement or a higher base offense level applies.
Similar issues arise with the enhancements in § 2G2.1(b)(2)(A) and (B) and the accompanying commentary. How, if at all, should they be revised?
(3) Under § 2A4.1 (Kidnapping, Abduction, Unlawful Restraint), if the victim was “sexually exploited,” an enhancement of 6 levels applies.
Similar issues arise with the enhancements at §§ 2G2.2(b)(1), (3), and (5) and 2G2.6(b)(3), and the accompanying commentary. How, if at all, should they be revised?
(4) Under § 2J1.2(b)(1)(A), an enhancement applies if (among other things) the defendant was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 and the statutory maximum term of eight years' imprisonment applies because “the matter relates to” a sex offense under chapter 109A. If the matter relates to an assault with intent to commit such a sex offense, should this enhancement apply?
(5) Under § 4B1.5, certain provisions apply if the instant offense of conviction is a “covered sex crime.” That term is defined in Application Note 2 to include (among other things) an offense, perpetrated against a minor, under chapter 109A. If the offense involved an assault with intent to commit such an offense, should the definition of “covered sex crime” apply?
(6) Under § 5D1.2(b), certain provisions apply if the offense is a “sex offense.” That term is defined in Application Note 1 to include (among other things) an offense, perpetrated against a minor, under chapter 109A. If the offense involved an assault with intent to commit such an offense, should the definition of “sex offense” apply?
Similar issues are presented in §§ 5H1.6, 5K2.0(a)(1)(B) and (b), 5K2.13, 5K2.20(a), and 5K2.22. How, if at all, should these provisions be revised?
Before enactment of the Act, the list of offenses in section 1153 included only four categories of assault: assault with intent to commit murder, assault with a dangerous weapon, assault resulting in serious bodily injury, and assault against an individual who has not attained the age of 16 years. The Act expanded the list of assault offenses to include any felony assault under section 113.
Offenses under section 1153 are referenced in Appendix A to 17 guidelines to account for the various listed offenses. These 17 guidelines include references to the three different guidelines (§§ 2A2.1, 2A2.2, and 2A2.3) to which felony assaults under section 113 are currently referenced.
Part A, above, would provide certain additional Appendix A references for offenses under section 113, including one possible reference not currently included among the 17 references for section 1153 C a reference to § 2A6.2. This part of the proposed amendment would similarly revise the Appendix A references for offenses under section 1153 by including the bracketed possibility of a reference to § 2A6.2.
An issue for comment is also included on 18 U.S.C. § 1152, commonly known as the General Crimes Act, and whether the Appendix A reference to § 2B1.5 is appropriate.
Appendix A (Statutory Index) is amended in the line referenced to 18 U.S.C. § 1153 by inserting after § 2A4.1,” the following: “[2A6.2,]”.
1. The Commission seeks comment on offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 1152, commonly known as the General Crimes Act. Section 1152 generally provides that the general laws of the United States as to the punishment of offenses committed in any place within the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States shall extend to the Indian country.
Section 1152 is referenced in Appendix A (Statutory Index) to a single guideline, § 2B1.5 (Theft of, Damage to, or Destruction of, Cultural Heritage Resources or Paleontological Resources; Unlawful Sale, Purchase, Exchange, Transportation, or Receipt of Cultural Heritage Resources or Paleontological Resources).
The Commission seeks comment on what, if any, Appendix A references are appropriate for offenses under section 1152. Is the reference to § 2B1.5 appropriate? Should the Commission provide additional Appendix A references for section 1152 and, if so, to which guidelines? In the alternative, are Appendix A references unnecessary for section 1152 and, if so, should the Commission delete section 1152 from Appendix A?
Before these statutory changes, these offenses generally required as a jurisdictional element of the offense that the defendant travel in interstate or foreign commerce or into or out of Indian country or within the special
These statutory changes have also expanded and restated the elements of stalking offenses under section 2261A to cover a broader range of conduct. As a result of these statutory changes, section 2261A has been extended to cover placing a person under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate; and conduct that causes, attempts to cause, or would be reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress. The proposed amendment expands the definition of “stalking” in the Commentary to § 2A6.2 to reflect the expanded conduct covered by these statutory changes to section 2261A.
The Commentary to § 2A6.2 captioned “Application Notes” is amended in Note 1 by striking the paragraph that begins “ ‘Stalking’ means” and inserting the following new paragraph:
The Act revised and strengthened the regulation of international marriage brokers. Among other things, such marriage brokers are required to collect certain information about the United States client and are restricted from disclosing certain information about children and foreign national clients. A broker who knowingly violates or attempts to violate these provisions is subject to a maximum term of imprisonment of five years.
The Act also contains two other criminal provisions. First, a person who misuses information obtained by an international marriage broker is subject to a maximum term of imprisonment of one year.
Before enactment of the Act, criminal provisions in section 1375a were set forth in subsection (d)(3)(C) and in subsection (d)(5)(B). These criminal provisions are referenced in Appendix A (Statutory Index) to § 2H3.1 (Interception of Communications; Eavesdropping; Disclosure of Certain Private or Protected Information). The Act revised and reorganized these criminal provisions such that all criminal provisions are set forth in subsection (d)(5)(B), as described above.
The proposed amendment responds to these changes by revising the Appendix A references for offenses under section 1375a(d). The reference for subsection (d)(3)(C) is deleted as obsolete. Offenses under subsection (d)(5)(B)(i) and (ii) continue to be referenced to § 2H3.1. Offenses under subsection (d)(5)(B)(iii) are referenced to § 2B1.1 (Theft, Property Destruction, and Fraud).
Appendix A (Statutory Index) is amended by striking the line referenced to 8 U.S.C. § 1375a(d)(3)(C), (d)(5)(B) and inserting the following new line references:
Section 223(a) sets forth a range of prohibited acts involving communication that is obscene or that is made with intent to harass, or both. A person who commits any of these acts is subject to a maximum term of imprisonment of two years. Among other things, the Act clarified that communication with the intent to annoy is not prohibited by section 223(a). Three of the prohibited acts in section 223(a) are referenced in Appendix A (Statutory Index) to § 2A6.1 (Threatening or Harassing Communications; Hoaxes; False Liens).
Other prohibited acts in section 223(a) are not referenced in Appendix A. The proposed amendment provides Appendix A references for these offenses.
Subsection (a)(1)(A) prohibits a communication that is obscene or child pornography, with intent to abuse, threaten, or harass another person. The proposed amendment references this offense to any one or more of three bracketed options:
§ 2A6.1 (Threatening or Harassing Communications; Hoaxes; False Liens);
§ 2G2.2 (Trafficking in Material Involving the Sexual Exploitation of a Minor; Receiving, Transporting, Shipping, Soliciting, or Advertising Material Involving the Sexual Exploitation of a Minor; Possessing Material Involving the Sexual Exploitation of a Minor with Intent to Traffic; Possessing Material Involving the Sexual Exploitation of a Minor); and
§ 2G3.1 (Importing, Mailing, or Transporting Obscene Matter; Transferring Obscene Matter to a Minor; Misleading Domain Names).
Subsection (a)(1)(B) prohibits a communication that is obscene or child pornography, knowing that the recipient of the communication is under 18 years of age. The proposed amendment references this offense to either or both of two bracketed options: §§ 2G2.2 and 2G3.1.
Subsection (a)(2) prohibits a person from knowingly permitting a telecommunications facility under his control to be used for any activity covered by subsection (a)(1). The proposed amendment references this offense to any one or more of three bracketed options: §§ 2A6.1, 2G2.2, and 2G3.1.
Appendix A (Statutory Index) is amended by inserting before the line referenced to 47 U.S.C. § 223(a)(1)(C) the following new line references:
Section 2423 contains four offenses, each of which prohibit sexual conduct with minors.
Subsection (a) prohibits transporting a minor with intent that the minor engage in prostitution or criminal sexual activity. It provides a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of 10 years and maximum of life. It is referenced in Appendix A (Statutory Index) to § 2G1.3 (Promoting a Commercial Sex Act or Prohibited Sexual Conduct with a Minor; Transportation of Minors to Engage in a Commercial Sex Act or Prohibited Sexual Conduct; Travel to Engage in Commercial Sex Act or Prohibited Sexual Conduct with a Minor; Sex Trafficking of Children; Use of Interstate Facilities to Transport Information about a Minor).
Subsection (b) prohibits traveling in interstate or foreign commerce for the purpose of “illicit sexual conduct,” which is defined in subsection (f) to mean a criminal sexual act with a minor. It provides a statutory maximum term of imprisonment of 30 years. It is referenced in Appendix A to § 2G1.3.
Subsection (c) prohibits traveling in foreign commerce and engaging in “illicit sexual conduct”. The Act expanded this provision to also cover residing in a foreign country and engaging in “illicit sexual conduct”. It provides a statutory maximum term of imprisonment of 30 years. It is not referenced in Appendix A. The proposed amendment would amend Appendix A to reference section 2423(c) to § 2G1.3.
Subsection (d) prohibits any person from, for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain, arranging, inducing, procuring, or facilitating the travel of a person for “illicit sexual conduct”. It provides a statutory maximum term of imprisonment of 30 years. It is not referenced in Appendix A. The proposed amendment would amend Appendix A to reference section 2423(d) to § 2G1.3.
Appendix A (Statutory Index) is amended by inserting after the line referenced to 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b) the following new line references:
(1) in the course of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1351 (Fraud in foreign labor contracting) or 8 U.S.C. § 1324 (Bringing in and harboring certain aliens);
(2) with intent to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1351 or 8 U.S.C. § 1324; or
(3) in order to, without lawful authority, maintain, prevent, or restrict the labor or services of the individual.
In addition, section 1597(c) prohibits knowingly obstructing, attempting to obstruct, or in any way interfering with or preventing the enforcement of this section. Section 1597 provides a statutory maximum term of imprisonment of one year.
The proposed amendment references this offense to any one or more of four bracketed options:
§ 2B1.1 (Theft, Property Destruction, and Fraud);
§ 2H4.1 (Peonage, Involuntary Servitude, Slave Trade, and Child Soldiers);
§ 2L1.1 (Smuggling, Transporting, or Harboring an Unlawful Alien); and
§ 2L2.2 (Fraudulently Acquiring Documents Relating to Naturalization, Citizenship, or Legal Resident Status for Own Use; False Personation or Fraudulent Marriage by Alien to Evade Immigration Law; Fraudulently Acquiring or Improperly Using a United States Passport).
An issue for comment is also included.
Appendix A (Statutory Index) is amended by inserting after the line referenced to 18 U.S.C. § 1593A the following new line reference:
1. The Commission seeks comment on offenses under section 1597. What guideline or guidelines are appropriate for these offenses? Which, if any, of the bracketed options in the proposed amendment should the Commission provide? Should the Commission instead provide for such offenses to be sentenced under § 2X5.2 (Class A Misdemeanors (Not Covered by Another Specific Offense Guideline))?
To the extent the Commission does provide a reference to one or more guidelines, what changes, if any, to those guidelines would be appropriate to account for offenses under section 1597? For example, to the extent such offenses are referenced to § 2H4.1, should the Commission provide a new alternative base offense level for offenses under section 1597 to account for the fact that such offenses are Class A misdemeanors? What alternative base offense level would be appropriate?
The proposed amendment contains three parts. Part A contains a detailed request for comment on whether any changes should be made to the Drug Quantity Table across drug types, including whether any other changes may be appropriate. Part B contains a proposed amendment that illustrates one possible set of changes to the Drug Quantity Table (together with conforming changes to the chemical quantity tables and certain clerical changes). Part C contains an issue for comment on whether the guidelines adequately address the environmental and other harms of drug production operations (including, in particular, the cultivation of marihuana) on public lands or while trespassing on private property.
1. The Commission is requesting comment on whether any changes should be made to the Drug Quantity Table across drug types.
Generally, for smaller quantities of drugs, the statutory maximum term of imprisonment is 20 years.
If the amount of the controlled substance reaches a statutorily specified quantity, the statutory maximum term increases to 40 years, and a statutory minimum term of 5 years applies.
In addition, the Commission's organic statute contains a variety of directives to the Commission in promulgating the sentencing guidelines. Among other things, the Commission must ensure that the sentencing guidelines are “formulated to minimize the likelihood that the Federal prison population will exceed the capacity of the Federal prisons.”
The drug quantity thresholds in the Drug Quantity Table have generally been set so that the drug quantity that triggers a statutory mandatory minimum penalty also triggers a base offense level that corresponds (at Criminal History Category I) to a guideline range slightly above the statutory mandatory minimum penalty. Thus, the quantity that triggers a statutory 5-year mandatory minimum term of imprisonment also triggers a base offense level of 26 (corresponding to a guideline range of 63 to 78 months), and the quantity that triggers a statutory 10-year mandatory minimum term of imprisonment also triggers a base offense level of 32 (corresponding to a guideline range of 121 to 151 months).
A minimum offense level of 6 and a maximum offense level of 38 are incorporated into the Drug Quantity Table across all drug types. In addition, certain higher minimum offense levels are incorporated into the Drug Quantity Table for particular drug types,
Because the “safety valve” was established after the initial selection of levels 26 and 32, its effect on plea rates and cooperation could not have been foreseen at that time. Commission data indicate that defendants charged with a mandatory minimum penalty are more likely to plead guilty if they qualify for the “safety valve” than if they do not. Specifically, in fiscal year 2012, drug trafficking defendants charged with a mandatory minimum penalty had a plea rate of 99.6 percent if they qualified for the “safety valve” and a plea rate of 93.9 percent if they did not.
During the period when crack cocaine offenses had a guideline penalty structure based on levels 24 and 30, the overall rates at which crack cocaine defendants pled guilty remained stable. Specifically, in the fiscal year before the 2007 amendment took effect, the plea rate for crack cocaine defendants was 93.1 percent. In the two fiscal years after the 2007 amendment took effect, the plea rates for such defendants were 95.2 percent and 94.0 percent, respectively.
For those same fiscal years, the overall rates at which crack cocaine defendants received substantial assistance departures under § 5K1.1 (Substantial Assistance to Authorities) were 27.8 percent in the fiscal year before the 2007 amendment took effect and 25.3 percent and 25.6 percent in the two fiscal years after the 2007 amendment took effect.
In light of this information, the Commission seeks comment on whether the Commission should consider changing how the base offense levels in the Drug Quantity Table incorporate the statutory mandatory minimum penalties and, if so, how? For example, should the Commission amend the Drug Quantity Table across drug types so that the quantities that trigger the statutory mandatory minimum penalties trigger base offense levels 24 and 30, rather than 26 and 32?
If the Commission were to amend the Drug Quantity Table across drug types, are there any circumstances that should be wholly or partially excluded from such an amendment? If so, what circumstances? For example, if the Commission were to determine that a guideline penalty structure based on levels 24 and 30, rather than based on levels 26 and 32, is appropriate, should any existing specific offense characteristics be increased, or any new specific offense characteristics be promulgated, to offset any such change for certain offenders?
If the Commission were to make changes to the guidelines applicable to drug trafficking cases, what conforming changes, if any, should the Commission make to other provisions of the
Under the proposed amendment, § 2D1.1 would continue to reflect the minimum offense level of 6 and the maximum offense level of 38 that are incorporated into the Drug Quantity Table across all drug types. It also would continue to reflect the minimum offense levels that are incorporated into the Drug Quantity Table for particular drug types,
In the proposed amendment the various minimum and maximum offense levels and drug quantity “caps” are associated with new drug quantities, determined by extrapolating upward or downward as appropriate.
The proposed amendment makes parallel changes to the quantity tables in § 2D1.11, which apply to offenses involving the chemical precursors of controlled substances. Section 2D1.11 is generally structured to provide base offense levels that are tied to, but less severe than, the base offense levels in § 2D1.1 for offenses involving the final product.
Finally, the proposed amendment makes certain clerical and conforming changes to reflect the changes to the quantity tables.
Section 2D1.1(c) is amended by striking paragraph (17); by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (16) as paragraphs (2) through (17), respectively; and by inserting before paragraph (2) (as so redesignated) the following new paragraph (1):
“(1) • [90] KG or more of Heroin;
• [450] KG or more of Cocaine;
• [25.2] KG or more of Cocaine Base;
• [90] KG or more of PCP, or [9] KG or more of PCP (actual);
• [45] KG or more of Methamphetamine, or
[4.5] KG or more of Methamphetamine (actual), or
[4.5] KG or more of `Ice';
• [45] KG or more of Amphetamine, or
[4.5] KG or more of Amphetamine (actual);
• [900] G or more of LSD;
• [36] KG or more of Fentanyl;
• [9] KG or more of a Fentanyl Analogue;
• [90,000] KG or more of Marihuana;
• [18,000] KG or more of Hashish;
• [1,800] KG or more of Hashish Oil;
• [90,000,000] units or more of Ketamine;
• [90,000,000] units or more of Schedule I or II Depressants;
• [5,625,000] units or more of Flunitrazepam.”.
Section 2D1.1(c)(2) (as so redesignated) is amended to read as follows:
“(2) • At least 30 KG but less than [90] KG of Heroin;
• At least 150 KG but less than [450] KG of Cocaine;
• At least 8.4 KG but less than [25.2] KG of Cocaine Base;
• At least 30 KG but less than [90] KG of PCP, or at least 3 KG but less than [9] KG of PCP (actual);
• At least 15 KG but less than [45] KG of Methamphetamine, or
at least 1.5 KG but less than [4.5] KG of Methamphetamine (actual), or
at least 1.5 KG but less than [4.5] KG of `Ice';
• At least 15 KG but less than [45] KG of Amphetamine, or
at least 1.5 KG but less than [4.5] KG of Amphetamine (actual);
• At least 300 G but less than [900] G of LSD;
• At least 12 KG but less than [36] KG of Fentanyl;
• At least 3 KG but less than [9] KG of a Fentanyl Analogue;
• At least 30,000 KG but less than [90,000] KG of Marihuana;
• At least 6,000 KG but less than [18,000] KG of Hashish;
• At least 600 KG but less than [1,800] KG of Hashish Oil;
• At least 30,000,000 units but less than [90,000,000] units of Ketamine;
• At least 30,000,000 units but less than [90,000,000] units of Schedule I or II Depressants;
• At least 1,875,000 units but less than [5,625,000 units] of Flunitrazepam.”.
Section 2D1.1(c)(3) (as so redesignated) is amended by striking “Level 36” and inserting “Level 34”.
Section 2D1.1(c)(4) (as so redesignated) is amended by striking “Level 34” and inserting “Level 32”.
Section 2D1.1(c)(5) (as so redesignated) is amended by striking “Level 32” and inserting “Level 30”; and by inserting before the line referenced to Flunitrazepam the following:
“• 1,000,000 units or more of Schedule III Hydrocodone;”.
Section 2D1.1(c)(6) (as so redesignated) is amended by striking “Level 30” and inserting “Level 28”; and in the line referenced to Schedule III Hydrocode by striking “700,000 or more” and inserting “At least 700,000 but less than 1,000,000”.
Section 2D1.1(c)(7) (as so redesignated) is amended by striking “Level 28” and inserting “Level 26”.
Section 2D1.1(c)(8) (as so redesignated) is amended by striking “Level 26” and inserting “Level 24”.
Section 2D1.1(c)(9) (as so redesignated) is amended by striking “Level 24” and inserting “Level 22”.
Section 2D1.1(c)(10) (as so redesignated) is amended by striking “Level 22” and inserting “Level 20”; and by inserting before the line referenced to Flunitrazepam the following:
“• 60,000 units or more of Schedule III substances (except Ketamine or Hydrocodone);”.
Section 2D1.1(c)(11) (as so redesignated) is amended by striking “Level 20” and inserting “Level 18”; and in the line referenced to Schedule III substances (except Ketamine or Hydrocodone) by striking “40,000 or more” and inserting “At least 40,000 but less than 60,000”.
Section 2D1.1(c)(12) (as so redesignated) is amended by striking “Level 18” and inserting “Level 16”.
Section 2D1.1(c)(13) (as so redesignated) is amended by striking “Level 16” and inserting “Level 14”.
Section 2D1.1(c)(14) (as so redesignated) is amended by striking “Level 14” and inserting “Level 12”; by striking the line referenced to Heroin and all that follows through the line referenced to Fentanyl Analogue and inserting the following:
“• Less than 10 G of Heroin;
• Less than 50 G of Cocaine;
• Less than 2.8 G of Cocaine Base;
• Less than 10 G of PCP, or
less than 1 G of PCP (actual);
• Less than 5 G of Methamphetamine, or
less than 500 MG of Methamphetamine (actual),
or less than 500 MG of `Ice';
• Less than 5 G of Amphetamine, or
less than 500 MG of Amphetamine (actual);
• Less than 100 MG of LSD;
• Less than 4 G of Fentanyl;
• Less than 1 G of a Fentanyl Analogue;”;
“• 80,000 units or more of Schedule IV substances (except Flunitrazepam).”.
Section 2D1.1(c)(15) (as so redesignated) is amended by striking “Level 12” and inserting “Level 10”; by striking the line referenced to Heroin and all that follows through the line referenced to Fentanyl Analogue; and in the line referenced to Schedule IV substances (except Flunitrazepam) by striking “40,000 or more” and inserting “At least 40,000 but less than 80,000”.
Section 2D1.1(c)(16) (as so redesignated) is amended by striking “Level 10” and inserting “Level 8”; by striking “At least 62 but less” and inserting “Less”; by striking the period at the end and inserting a semicolon; and by adding at the end the following:
“• 160,000 units or more of Schedule V substances.”.
Section 2D1.1(c)(17) (as so redesignated) is amended to read as follows:
“(17) • Less than 1 KG of Marihuana;
• Less than 200 G of Hashish;
• Less than 20 G of Hashish Oil;
• Less than 1,000 units of Ketamine;
• Less than 1,000 units of Schedule I or II Depressants;
• Less than 1,000 units of Schedule III Hydrocodone;
• Less than 1,000 units of Schedule III substances (except Ketamine or Hydrocodone);
• Less than 16,000 units of Schedule IV substances (except Flunitrazepam);
• Less than 160,000 units of Schedule V substances.”.
The Commentary to § 2D1.1 captioned “Application Notes” is amended in Note 8(A) by striking “28” and inserting “26”;
The Commentary to § 2D1.1 captioned “Background” is amended in the paragraph that begins “The base offense levels in § 2D1.1” by striking “32 and 26” and inserting “30 and 24”; and by striking the paragraph that begins “The base offense levels at levels 26 and 32” and inserting the following new paragraph:
“The base offense levels at levels 24 and 30 establish guideline ranges such that the statutory minimum falls within the range;
The Commentary to § 2D1.2 captioned “Application Note” is amended in Note 1 by striking “16” and inserting “14”, and by striking “17” and inserting “15”.
Section 2D1.11(d) is amended by striking paragraph (14); by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (13) as paragraphs (2) through (14), respectively; and by inserting before paragraph (2) (as so redesignated) the following new paragraph (1):
“(1) [9] KG or more of Ephedrine;
[9] KG or more of Phenylpropanolamine;
[9] KG or more of Pseudoephedrine.”
Section 2D1.11(d)(2) (as so redesignated) is amended by striking “Level 38” and inserting “Level 36”; and by striking “3 KG or more” each place such term appears and inserting “At least 3 KG but less than 9 KG”.
Section 2D1.11(d)(3) (as so redesignated) is amended by striking “Level 36” and inserting “Level 34”.
Section 2D1.11(d)(4) (as so redesignated) is amended by striking “Level 34” and inserting “Level 32”.
Section 2D1.11(d)(5) (as so redesignated) is amended by striking “Level 32” and inserting “Level 30”.
Section 2D1.11(d)(6) (as so redesignated) is amended by striking “Level 30” and inserting “Level 28”.
Section 2D1.11(d)(7) (as so redesignated) is amended by striking “Level 28” and inserting “Level 26”.
Section 2D1.11(d)(8) (as so redesignated) is amended by striking “Level 26” and inserting “Level 24”.
Section 2D1.11(d)(9) (as so redesignated) is amended by striking “Level 24” and inserting “Level 22”.
Section 2D1.11(d)(10) (as so redesignated) is amended by striking “Level 22” and inserting “Level 20”.
Section 2D1.11(d)(11) (as so redesignated) is amended by striking “Level 20” and inserting “Level 18”.
Section 2D1.11(d)(12) (as so redesignated) is amended by striking “Level 18” and inserting “Level 16”.
Section 2D1.11(d)(13) (as so redesignated) is amended by striking “Level 16” and inserting “Level 14”.
Section 2D1.11(d)(14) (as so redesignated) is amended by striking “Level 14” and inserting “Level 12”; and by striking “At least 500 MG but less” each place such term appears and inserting “Less”.
Section 2D1.11(e) is amended by striking paragraph (10); by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (9) as paragraphs (2) through (10), respectively; and by inserting before paragraph (2) (as so redesignated) the following new paragraph (1):
“(1)
[2.7 KG] or more of Benzaldehyde;
[60] KG or more of Benzyl Cyanide;
[600] G or more of Ergonovine;
[1.2 KG] or more of Ergotamine;
[60] KG or more of Ethylamine;
[6.6] KG or more of Hydriodic Acid;
[3.9] KG or more of Iodine;
[960] KG or more of Isosafrole;
[600] G or more of Methylamine;
[1500] KG or more of N-Methylephedrine;
[1500] KG or more of N-Methylpseudoephedrine;
[1.9 KG] or more of Nitroethane;
[30] KG or more of Norpseudoephedrine;
[60] KG or more of Phenylacetic Acid;
[30] KG or more of Piperidine;
[960] KG or more of Piperonal;
[4.8] KG or more of Propionic Anhydride;
[960] KG or more of Safrole;
[1200] KG or more of 3, 4-Methylenedioxyphenyl-2-propanone;
[3406.5] L or more of Gamma-butyrolactone;
[2.1 KG] or more of Red Phosphorus, White Phosphorus, or Hypophosphorous Acid.”.
Section 2D1.11(e)(2) (as so redesignated) is amended to read as follows:
“(1)
At least 890 G but less than 2.7 KG of Benzaldehyde;
At least 20 KG but less than 60 KG of Benzyl Cyanide;
At least 200 G but less than 600 G of Ergonovine;
At least 400 G but less than 1.2 KG of Ergotamine;
At least 20 KG but less than 60 KG of Ethylamine;
At least 2.2 KG but less than 6.6 KG of Hydriodic Acid;
At least 1.3 KG but less than 3.9 KG of Iodine;
At least 320 KG but less than 960 KG of Isosafrole;
At least 200 G but less than 600 G of Methylamine;
At least 500 KG but less than 1500 KG of N-Methylephedrine;
At least 500 KG but less than 1500 KG of N-Methylpseudoephedrine;
At least 625 G but less than 1.9 KG of Nitroethane;
At least 10 KG but less than 30 KG of Norpseudoephedrine;
At least 20 KG but less than 60 KG of Phenylacetic Acid;
At least 10 KG but less than 30 KG of Piperidine;
At least 320 KG but less than 960 KG of Piperonal;
At least 1.6 KG but less than 4.8 KG of Propionic Anhydride;
At least 320 KG but less than 960 KG of Safrole;
At least 400 KG but less than 1200 KG of 3, 4-Methylenedioxyphenyl-2-propanone;
At least 1135.5 L but less than 3406.5 L of Gamma-butyrolactone;
At least 714 G but less than 2.1 KG of Red Phosphorus, White Phosphorus, or Hypophosphorous Acid.
33 KG or more of Acetic Anhydride;
3525 KG or more of Acetone;
60 KG or more of Benzyl Chloride;
3225 KG or more of Ethyl Ether;
3600 KG or more of Methyl Ethyl Ketone;
30 KG or more of Potassium Permanganate;
3900 KG or more of Toluene.”.
Section 2D1.11(e)(3) (as so redesignated) is amended by striking “Level 28” and inserting “Level 26”; and by striking the line referenced to
“At least 11 KG but less than 33 KG of Acetic Anhydride;
At least 1175 KG but less than 3525 KG of Acetone;
At least 20 KG but less than 60 KG of Benzyl Chloride;
At least 1075 KG but less than 3225 KG of Ethyl Ether;
At least 1200 KG but less than 3600 KG of Methyl Ethyl Ketone;
At least 10 KG but less than 30 KG of Potassium Permanganate;
At least 1300 KG but less than 3900 KG of Toluene.”.
Section 2D1.11(e)(4) (as so redesignated) is amended by striking “Level 26” and inserting “Level 24”.
Section 2D1.11(e)(5) (as so redesignated) is amended by striking “Level 24” and inserting “Level 22”.
Section 2D1.11(e)(6) (as so redesignated) is amended by striking “Level 22” and inserting “Level 20”.
Section 2D1.11(e)(7) (as so redesignated) is amended by striking “Level 20” and inserting “Level 18”.
Section 2D1.11(e)(8) (as so redesignated) is amended by striking “Level 18” and inserting “Level 16”.
Section 2D1.11(e)(9) (as so redesignated) is amended by striking “Level 16” and inserting “Level 14”.
Section 2D1.11(e)(10) (as so redesignated) is amended by striking “Level 14” and inserting “Level 22”; and in each line by striking “At least” and all that follows through “but less” and inserting “Less”.
The Commentary to § 2D1.11 captioned “Application Notes” is amended in Note 1(A) by striking “38” both places such term appears and inserting “36”; and by striking “26” and inserting “24”;
1. The Commission requests comment on the environmental and other harms caused by offenses involving drug production operations (including, in particular, the cultivation of marihuana). Specifically, the Commission requests comment on whether the guidelines provide penalties for these offenses that appropriately account for the environmental and other harms caused by these offenses and, if not, what changes to the guidelines would be appropriate.
A person who cultivates or manufactures a controlled substance on Federal property may be prosecuted under 21 U.S.C. § 841 and subject to the same statutory penalty structure that applies to most other drug offenses.
(1) § 2D1.1(b)(12) provides a 2-level enhancement if the defendant maintained a premises for the purpose of manufacturing or distributing a controlled substance; and
(2) § 2D1.1(b)(13) provides a tiered enhancement that includes, among other things, a 2-level enhancement if the offense involved an unlawful discharge, emission, or release into the environment of a hazardous or toxic substance,
An offense involving the cultivation or production of a controlled substance may also be prosecuted under certain other statutes that take into account environmental or other harms. For example:
(A) Section 841(b)(6) makes it unlawful to manufacture a controlled substance (or attempt to do so) and knowingly or intentionally use a poison, chemical, or other hazardous substance on Federal land, and by such use (A) create a serious hazard to humans, wildlife, or domestic animals; (B) degrade or harm the environment or natural resources; or (C) pollute an aquifer, spring, stream, river, or body of water. A person who violates section 841(b)(6) is subject to a statutory maximum term of imprisonment of five years. Section 841(b)(6) is not referenced in Appendix A (Statutory Index) to any offense guideline.
(B) Section 841(d) makes it unlawful to assemble, maintain, place, or cause to be placed a boobytrap on Federal property where a controlled substance is being manufactured. A person who violates section 841(d) is subject to a statutory maximum term of imprisonment of ten years. Section 841(d) is referenced in Appendix A (Statutory Index) to § 2D1.9 (Placing or Maintaining Dangerous Devices on Federal Property to Protect the Unlawful Production of Controlled Substances; Attempt or Conspiracy). Section 2D1.9 provides a base offense level of level 23 and contains no other provisions.
The Commission seeks comment on offenses involving drug production operations, including, in particular, offenses involving the cultivation of marihuana. What conduct is involved in such offenses, and what is the nature and seriousness of the environmental and other harms posed by such offenses? What aggravating and mitigating circumstances may be present in such offenses? For example, if the offense was committed on federal property or caused environmental or other harm to federal property, should that circumstance be an aggravating factor? If the offense was committed while trespassing on private property or caused environmental or other harm while trespassing on private property, should that circumstance be an aggravating factor?
Do the provisions of § 2D1.1 and § 2D1.9, as applicable, adequately account for the conduct, the environmental and other harms, and the aggravating and mitigating circumstances? If not, how should the Commission amend the guidelines to account for the conduct, the environmental and other harms, and the aggravating and mitigating circumstances? Should the Commission provide a new specific offense characteristic, cross reference, or departure provision? If so, what should the new provision provide? Alternatively, should the Commission increase the amount, or the scope, of the existing specific offense characteristics, such as those in subsections (b)(12) and (b)(13)? If so, what should the new amount or scope of such provisions be?
Circuits appear to be following a range of approaches in determining how the relevant conduct guideline, § 1B1.3 (Relevant Conduct (Factors that Determine the Guideline Range)),
Consider, for example, a case in which the defendant, a convicted felon, possesses a shotgun (a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)) on one occasion and possesses a handgun (another violation of section 922(g)) on another occasion. The defendant is convicted of a single count, for the unlawful possession of the shotgun. The court determines that the defendant also used the handgun in connection with a robbery.
In such a case, the court must determine, among other things, whether to apply the specific offense characteristic at subsection (b)(6)(B) or the cross reference at subsection (c)(1), or both. Under subsection (b)(6)(B), if a defendant possesses any firearm in connection with another offense, the defendant may receive a 4-level enhancement and a minimum offense level of 18. Similarly, under subsection (c)(1), if the defendant possesses any firearm in connection with another offense, the defendant may be cross referenced to another offense guideline applicable to the defendant's other offense conduct.
As with other specific offense characteristics and cross references in the
(a)(1) acts and omissions “that occurred during the commission of the offense of conviction, in preparation for that offense, or in the course of attempting to avoid detection or responsibility for that offense”,
(a)(2) “solely with respect to offenses of a character for which § 3D1.2(d) would require grouping of multiple counts, all acts and omissions . . . that were part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan as the offense of conviction”,
(a)(3) “all harm that resulted from the acts and omissions . . . , and all harm that was the object of such acts and omissions”,
(a)(4) “any other information specified in the applicable guideline”,
One application issue arises when the defendant unlawfully possessed a firearm and used the firearm in connection with another offense, and the court must determine whether the “in connection with” offense under subsections (b)(6)(B) and (c)(1) satisfies the requirements of the relevant conduct guideline.
In several circuits, when a felon in possession defendant possessed a firearm in connection with another offense, the courts apply a subsection (a)(2) relevant conduct analysis and consider whether the other offense is a “groupable” offense under § 3D1.2(d); if the other offense is not a “groupable” offense, the increase under subsection (b)(6)(B) and the cross reference under subsection (c)(1) do not apply.
A second application issue arises when the defendant unlawfully possessed one firearm on one occasion and a different firearm on another occasion, and the court must determine whether both firearms fall within the scope of “any firearm” under subsections (b)(6)(B) and (c)(1).
The circuits appear to agree that the use of the term “any firearm or ammunition” in subsections (b)(6)(B) and (c)(1) indicates that they apply to any firearm “and not merely to a particular firearm upon which the defendant's felon-in-possession conviction is based.”
The proposed amendment provides two options for clarifying the operation of the firearms guideline in these situations.
Defendant A is convicted of being a felon in possession of a shotgun. The court determines that Defendant A used the shotgun in connection with a robbery. Under these circumstances, subsection (b)(6)(B) applies, and the cross reference in subsection (c)(1) also applies if it results in a greater offense level. The use of the shotgun in connection with the robbery is a factor specified in subsections (b)(6)(B) and (c)(1) and therefore is relevant conduct under § 1B1.3(a)(4) (“any other information specified in the applicable guideline”).
Defendant B is convicted of being a felon in possession of a shotgun. The court determines that Defendant B also unlawfully possessed a handgun and that Defendant B used the handgun in connection with a robbery. Under these circumstances, the threshold question for the court is whether the two unlawful possession offenses (for the shotgun and for the handgun) were part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan.
Several issues for comment are also provided.
Section 2K2.1 is amended as follows (two options are provided):
Section 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) is amended by inserting after “firearm or ammunition” both places such term appears the following: “identified in the offense of conviction”.
Section 2K2.1(c)(1) is amended by inserting after “firearm or ammunition” both places such term appears the following: “identified in the offense of conviction”.
The Commentary to § 2K2.1 captioned “Application Notes” is amended in Note 14 by striking “
“ (E)
Defendant A is convicted of being a felon in possession of a shotgun. The court determines that Defendant A used the shotgun in connection with a robbery. Under these circumstances, subsection (b)(6)(B) applies, and the cross reference in subsection (c)(1) also applies if it results in a greater offense level. The use of the shotgun in connection with the robbery is a factor specified in subsections (b)(6)(B) and (c)(1) and therefore is relevant conduct under § 1B1.3(a)(4) (`any other information specified in the applicable guideline').
The Commentary to § 2K2.1 captioned “Application Notes” is amended in Note 14 by striking “
“ (E)
(i) Defendant A is convicted of being a felon in possession of a shotgun. The court determines that Defendant A used the shotgun in connection with a robbery. Under these circumstances, subsection (b)(6)(B) applies, and the cross reference in subsection (c)(1) also applies if it results in a greater offense level. The use of the shotgun in connection with the robbery is a factor specified in subsections (b)(6)(B) and (c)(1) and therefore is relevant conduct under § 1B1.3(a)(4) (‘any other information specified in the applicable guideline’).
(ii) Defendant B is convicted of being a felon in possession of a shotgun. The court determines that Defendant B also unlawfully possessed a handgun and that Defendant B used the handgun in connection with a robbery. Under these circumstances, the threshold question for the court is whether the two unlawful possession offenses (for the shotgun and for the handgun) were part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan.
1. The Commission invites comment on cases in which the defendant is convicted of a firearms offense (
Does the proposed amendment adequately clarify the operation of subsections (b)(6)(B) and (c)(1) in these cases? If not, how should the Commission revise the proposed amendment to better clarify the operation of subsections (b)(6)(B) and (c)(1) in these cases?
2. In addition, the Commission seeks comment on the operation and scope of subsections (b)(6)(B) and (c)(1). Are there inconsistencies in how these provisions are applied? Should the Commission consider narrowing or clarifying the scope of these provisions, particularly in cases in which the defendant was convicted of possessing one firearm but also used another firearm in connection with another offense? Should the cross reference in subsection (c)(1) be deleted?
Section 2L1.1 (Smuggling, Transporting, or Harboring an Unlawful Alien) currently has an enhancement at subsection (b)(6) for reckless endangerment, which provides for a 2-level increase and a minimum offense level of 18 if the offense involved intentionally or recklessly creating a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to another person. The application note for subsection (b)(6) explains that reckless conduct to which subsection (b)(6) applies includes a wide variety of conduct, and provides as
One case that illustrates these concerns is
The proposed amendment adds to the existing parenthetical that currently provides examples of the “wide variety of conduct” to which this specific offense characteristic could apply, “or guiding persons through, or abandoning persons in, dangerous terrain without adequate food, water, clothing, or protection from the elements”.
An issue for comment is also included.
The Commentary to § 2L1.1 captioned “Application Notes” is amended in Note 5 by striking “or” before “harboring”, and by inserting after “inhumane condition” the following: “, or guiding persons through, or abandoning persons in, dangerous terrain without adequate food, water, clothing, or protection from the elements”.
1. The Commission seeks comment on cases in which individuals guide persons through, or abandon persons in, dangerous terrain (
(A) The Commission has heard concern that § 2L1.1 may not be adequate in cases in which aliens are transported through desert-like terrain. Such transport, it has been argued, is inherently dangerous in that aliens may lack adequate food, water, and clothing for the climate and length of the journey, and guides may become lost or abandon the aliens whom they lead. Similar risks may be associated with transporting aliens through mountainous regions.
(B) Concern has also been raised that, in cases in which individuals guide aliens through private lands, ranch property may be damaged or destroyed. Should this guideline account for such damage? If so, how should the Commission amend the guidelines to take this into account?
(C) The Commission has also heard that some alien transportation cases involve the rescue of aliens by special border patrol search and rescue teams. Should this guideline account for the added resources required for these search and rescue missions? If so, how should the Commission amend the guidelines to take this into account?
Section 5D1.2(a) sets forth general rules for determining the guideline range of supervised release. The guideline range is
Section 5D1.2(b) operates for certain offenses to replace the top end of the guideline range calculated under subsection (a) with a life term of supervised release. Those offenses are (1) any offense listed in 18 U.S.C. § 2332b(g)(5)(B), the commission of which resulted in, or created a foreseeable risk of, death or serious bodily injury to another person; and (2) a sex offense (as defined in the Commentary to '5D1.2).
Section 5D1.2(c) states: “The term of supervised release imposed shall be not less than any statutorily required term of supervised release.”
First, there appear to be differences among the circuits in how to calculate the guideline range of supervised release when there is a statutory minimum term of supervised release. These cases involve the meaning of subsection (c) and its interaction with subsection (a).
The Seventh Circuit held that when there is a statutory minimum term of supervised release, the statutory minimum term becomes the bottom of the guideline range (replacing the bottom of the range provided by (a)) or, if it equals or exceeds the top of the guideline range provided by subsection (a), becomes a guidelines “range” of a single point at the statutory minimum.
These cases are in tension with the approach of the Eighth Circuit in
Part A provides two options for resolving these differences. Option 1 adopts the approach of the Seventh Circuit in
Second, there appear to be differences among the circuits in how to calculate the guideline range of supervised release when the defendant is convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 2250 (
There appears to be an application issue about when, if at all, such an offense is a “sex offense” for purposes of subsection (b) of § 5D1.2. If a failure to register is a sex offense, then subsection (b) specifically provides for a term of supervised release of anywhere from the minimum provided by subsection (a) to the maximum provided by statute (
Application Note 1 defines “sex offense” to mean, among other things, “an offense, perpetrated against a minor, under” chapter 109B of title 18 (the only section of which is section 2250). Circuits have reached different conclusions about the effect of this definition.
The Seventh Circuit has held that a failure to register can never be a “sex offense” within the meaning of Note 1.
There are unpublished decisions in other circuits that have reached different results, without discussion. In those cases, the defendant had a prior sex offense against a minor, and the circuit court determined that the failure to register was a “sex offense”.
Part B responds to the application issue by amending the commentary to '5D1.2 to clarify that offenses under section 2250 are not “sex offenses”. An issue for comment seeks comment on supervised release for offenses under section 2250, including what term should be provided by the supervised release guidelines and whether there are distinctions among section 2250 offenses that should be accounted for in the supervised release guidelines (
The Commentary to § 5D1.2 captioned “Application Notes” is amended by adding at the end the following new Note 6 (two options are provided):
“6.
The following example illustrates the interaction of subsections (a) and (c) when subsection (b) is also involved. In this example, subsection (a) provides a range of two years to five years; the relevant statute requires a minimum term of supervised release of five years and a maximum term of life; and the offense is a sex offense under subsection (b). The effect of subsection (b) is to raise the maximum term of supervised release from five years (as provided by subsection (a)) to life, yielding a range of two years to life. The term of supervised release provided by the guidelines is then restricted by subsection (c) to five years to life. In this example, a term of supervised release of more than five years would be a guideline sentence. In addition, subsection (b) contains a policy statement recommending that the maximum—a life term of supervised release—be imposed.”
“6.
The Commentary to § 5D1.2 captioned “Application Notes” is amended in Note 1, in the paragraph that begins “'Sex offense' means”, in subparagraph (A), by striking clause (ii) and redesignating clauses (iii) through (vi) as clauses (ii) through (v), respectively; and in subparagraph (B) by striking “(vi)” and inserting “(v)”.
1. The Commission seeks comment on supervised release for defendants convicted under section 2250. Under section 2250(a), a defendant who fails to register as a sex offender shall be imprisoned for not more than 10 years. Under section 2250(c), an individual who fails to register under section 2250(a) and commits a crime of violence shall be imprisoned for not less than 5 years and not more than 30 years, in
First, the Commission seeks comment on what length term of supervised release the guidelines should provide for offenses under section 2250. When a defendant is convicted of such an offense, the court is required by statute to impose a term of supervised release of at least five years and up to life.
(A) not less than five years and up to life;
(B) not less than five years and up to life, with a life term recommended;
(C) precisely five years; or
(D) some other option?
Second, the Commission seeks comment on whether there are distinctions among section 2250 offenses that should be accounted for in the supervised release guidelines (
(i) Should a defendant convicted under section 2250(c) be treated differently from a defendant convicted under section 2250(a)? For example, should the guidelines provide a longer term of supervised release for an offense under section 2250(c) than for an offense under section 2250(a)? If so, how much longer? Should the guidelines provide more conditions of supervised release for an offense under section 2250(c) than for an offense under section 2250(a)? If so, what conditions?
(ii) Should a defendant who was convicted of a sex offense against a minor, and was then convicted of failing to register that conviction, be treated differently from a defendant who was convicted of a sex offense against an adult? For example, should the guidelines provide a longer term of supervised release for a defendant whose underlying sex offense was against a minor than for a defendant whose underlying sex offense was against an adult? If so, how much longer? Should the guidelines provide more conditions of supervised release for a defendant whose underlying sex offense was against a minor than for a defendant whose underlying sex offense was against an adult? If so, what conditions?
(iii) Specifically for defendants convicted under section 2250(c), should a defendant whose “crime of violence” under section 2250(c) was committed against a minor be treated differently from a defendant whose “crime of violence” was committed against an adult? For example, should the guidelines provide a longer term of supervised release for a defendant whose “crime of violence” was against a minor than for a defendant whose “crime of violence” was against an adult? If so, how much longer? Should the guidelines provide more conditions of supervised release for a defendant whose “crime of violence” was against a minor than for a defendant whose “crime of violence” was against an adult? If so, what conditions?
(a) If the instant offense was committed while the defendant was serving a term of imprisonment (including work release, furlough, or escape status) or after sentencing for, but before commencing service of, such term of imprisonment, the sentence for the instant offense shall be imposed to run consecutively to the undischarged term of imprisonment.
(b) If subsection (a) does not apply, and a term of imprisonment resulted from another offense that is relevant conduct to the instant offense of conviction under the provisions of subsections (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(3) of § 1B1.3 (Relevant Conduct) and that was the basis for an increase in the offense level for the instant offense under Chapter Two (Offense Conduct) or Chapter Three (Adjustments), the sentence for the instant offense shall be imposed as follows:
(1) The court shall adjust the sentence for any period of imprisonment already served on the undischarged term of imprisonment if the court determines that such period of imprisonment will not be credited to the federal sentence by the Bureau of Prisons; and
(2) the sentence for the instant offense shall be imposed to run concurrently to the remainder of the undischarged term of imprisonment.
(c) (Policy Statement) In any other case involving an undischarged term of imprisonment, the sentence for the instant offense may be imposed to run concurrently, partially concurrently, or consecutively to the prior undischarged term of imprisonment to achieve a reasonable punishment for the instant offense.
The proposed amendment is in three parts, each of which amend § 5G1.3. The first part addresses cases in which a defendant is subject to an undischarged term of imprisonment that is relevant conduct but does not result in a Chapter Two or Three increase. The second part addresses the adjustment of sentences for defendants subject to anticipated state terms of imprisonment. The third part addresses cases in which certain deportable aliens are subject to undischarged terms of imprisonment. Although these three parts revise the same guideline in overlapping ways, the Commission seeks comment on each of them independently. They are presented not as alternatives to each other but rather as independent proposals that could, if appropriate, be adopted in combination.
An issue for comment is also included.
Section 5G1.3(b) is amended by striking “and that was the basis for an increase in the offense level for the instant offense under Chapter Two (Offense Conduct) or Chapter Three (Adjustments)”.
The Commentary to § 5G1.3 captioned “Application Notes” is amended in Note 2(A) by striking “(i)” and by striking “; and (ii)” and all that follows through “offense.” and inserting a period;
1. The Commission seeks comment on the application of § 5G1.3(b) as it relates to the relevant conduct rules in § 1B1.3 and any Chapter Two or Three offense level increases that may apply at sentencing. Specifically, the proposed amendment would amend § 5G1.3(b) to delete the requirement that the prior
Section 5G1.3 is amended in the heading by adding at the end “
Section 5G1.3 is amended by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d); and by inserting after subsection (b) the following new subsection (c):
“(c) If subsection (a) does not apply, and a state term of imprisonment is anticipated to result from another offense that is relevant conduct to the instant offense of conviction under the provisions of subsections (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(3) of § 1B1.3 (Relevant Conduct)
The Commentary to § 5G1.3 captioned “Application Notes” is amended by redesignating Notes 3 and 4 as Notes 4 and 5, respectively; by inserting after Note 2 the following new Note 3:
“3.
1. The Commission seeks comment on whether there are cases in which a federal court anticipates that a period of time spent by the defendant in pretrial custody in connection with the anticipated state sentence will not be credited to the federal sentence by the Bureau of Prisons. How, if at all, should the guidelines account for such cases? Should the guidelines allow the federal court to adjust the sentence for that period of time? Should the guidelines provide a departure provision to account for such cases?
The proposed amendment further amends § 5K2.23 to provide that if a defendant who is a deportable alien who is likely to be deported after imprisonment has completed serving a term of imprisonment and the proposed subsection (c) of § 5G1.3 would have provided an adjustment had that completed term of imprisonment been undischarged at the time of sentencing for the instant offense, a departure is warranted. The commentary to § 5G1.3 is also amended in Note 4 (related to downward departures) to reflect the change to § 5K2.23.
An issue for comment is also included requesting comment on whether the proposed amendment should instead amend § 2L1.2 (Unlawfully Entering or Remaining in the United States) to provide for a downward departure.
Section 5G1.3 is amended by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d), and by inserting after subsection (b) the following new subsection (c):
“(c) Notwithstanding subsection
The Commentary to § 5G1.3 captioned “Application Notes” is amended in Note 2(A) by striking “subsection (c)” and inserting “subsections (c) and (d)”;
“3.
(A)
(B)
The defendant is convicted of a federal offense for illegal reentry after conviction for an aggravated felony. The defendant received a ten-month sentence of imprisonment for an unrelated state offense and has served four months on that sentence at the time of sentencing on the instant federal offense. The guideline range applicable to the defendant is 18-24 months (Chapter Two offense level of 16 based on base offense level of 8 and 8-level increase for aggravated felony; 3-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility; final offense level of 13; Criminal History Category III). The court determines that the defendant is a deportable alien who likely will be deported after imprisonment and a sentence of 18 months provides the appropriate total punishment. Because the defendant has already served four months on the unrelated state charge as of the date of sentencing on the instant federal offense, a sentence of 14 months achieves this result.”;
Section 5K2.23 is amended by inserting after “subsection (b)” the following: “or (c)”.
1. The Commission seeks comment on whether the guidelines should instead address this issue by adding a downward departure provision. For instance, several courts have fashioned a downward departure for those defendants still subject to undischarged state sentences to account for the delay between when an illegal reentry defendant is “found” by immigration authorities and when such a defendant is brought into federal custody.
Should the Commission include a downward departure in '2L1.2 (Unlawfully Entering or Remaining in the United States) similar to those approved by the circuit courts above? Examples of such a downward departure are the following:
Example 1:
Example 2: