Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Antitrust Division
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Patent and Trademark Office
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Wage and Hour Division
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Presidential Documents
Trade Representative, Office of United States
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Children and Families Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight Office
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
Antitrust Division
Drug Enforcement Administration
Parole Commission
Employment and Training Administration
Veterans Employment and Training Service
Wage and Hour Division
Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight Office
Trade Representative, Office of United States
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
Foreign Assets Control Office
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this page for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Federal Housing Finance Agency; Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, HUD.
Final rule.
The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) is issuing a final rule that sets forth requirements and processes with respect to compensation provided to executive officers by the Federal National Mortgage Association, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, the Federal Home Loan Banks, and the Federal Home Loan Bank System's Office of Finance, consistent with the safety and soundness responsibilities of FHFA under the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, as amended by the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008. This final rule affirms the establishment of 12 CFR part 1230 and removal of 12 CFR part 1770 by the interim final rule that is already in effect.
The final rule is effective February 27, 2014. For additional information see
Alfred M. Pollard, General Counsel, (202) 649-3050,
FHFA published an interim final rule with request for comments on Executive Compensation on May 14, 2013 (74 FR 28442). The public notice and comment period closed on July 15, 2013. The interim final rule superseded the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) Executive Compensation rule, 12 CFR part 1770.
This final rule implements section 1113 of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA), Public Law 110-289, 122 Stat. 2654. Section 1113, which amended section 1318 of the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act (Safety and Soundness Act) (12 U.S.C. 4518), requires the Director to prohibit and withhold compensation of executive officers of the Federal National Mortgage Association, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (collectively, the Enterprises), and the Federal Home Loan Banks (Banks) (collectively, the regulated entities).
FHFA issues this final rule also to continue the requirement under the charter acts of the Enterprises that the Director approve any agreements or contracts of executive officers that provide compensation in connection with termination of employment.
This final rule, like the interim final rule, reflects the enactment of the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act (the “STOCK Act”), which followed FHFA's issuance of the proposed rule.
Additionally, FHFA is adopting this final rule to ensure that the regulated
FHFA had adopted the interim final rule to provide an opportunity for additional comment in view of certain revisions to the proposed rule. Further details about comments received and FHFA's responses can be found below.
FHFA has conducted a separate rulemaking regarding golden parachute payments. Section 1114 of HERA further amended section 1318 of the Safety and Soundness Act (12 U.S.C. 4518) to authorize the Director to prohibit or limit golden parachute payments and indemnification payments by the Enterprises and the Banks to entity-affiliated parties. Pursuant to this authority, FHFA adopted a final rule on golden parachute payments in 2009,
FHFA recently adopted a rule setting forth definitions of terms commonly used in its regulations, and has removed duplicative definitions in this final rule.
FHFA received comments from one member of the public, and from the twelve Federal Home Loan Banks and the Office of Finance. FHFA considered all of the comments submitted, and explains its responses below.
The Banks made two comments regarding FHFA's review of compensation that are similar to or continue comments they had made previously in response to the proposed rule. The first is the Banks' allegation that the rule in effect prescribes a level or range of executive compensation. The second is that FHFA's review “in whole or in part” should instead be review “taken as a whole.”
Congress provided in 12 U.S.C. 4518(d) that FHFA is not to prescribe or set specific levels or ranges of compensation. Congress required, however, that FHFA determine whether compensation is reasonable and comparable with compensation for employment in other similar businesses involving similar duties and responsibilities. Accordingly, FHFA has defined the terms “reasonable” and “comparable” and has implemented the Congressional mandate in § 1230.3(a) as follows: “No regulated entity or the Office of Finance shall pay compensation to an executive officer that is not reasonable and comparable with compensation paid by such similar businesses involving similar duties and responsibilities.”
The Banks argued that, despite changes FHFA made in the interim final rule in response to comments the Banks made on the proposed rule, the interim final rule allows FHFA to prescribe or set a specific level or range of compensation, contrary to the statute. The Banks argue that three provisions in combination create this result. First, as stated above, FHFA implemented the Congressional mandate in § 1230.3(a) of the rule to state that regulated entities and the OF may not pay compensation that is not reasonable and comparable according to the statute. Second, the interim final rule defines “comparable” as “compensation that, taking in whole or in part, does not materially exceed compensation paid at institutions of similar size and function for similar duties and responsibilities.” Finally, in its discussion of the proposed rule and of the interim final rule, FHFA identified the Farm Credit Banks and Federal Reserve Banks as examples that may appropriately be included as points of reference in assessing reasonableness and comparability of compensation at the Federal Home Loan Banks. The Banks assert that these provisions in effect (i) prohibit the Banks from paying compensation that is not “reasonable” and “comparable” in a manner that prescribes or sets a specific level of range of compensation, (ii) impose a presumptive cap of “not materially exceed[ing]” compensation at similar institutions, and (iii) designate particular comparator institutions that will determine compliance with the rule.
FHFA has responded to the Banks' stated concerns on this subject in this rulemaking, including making changes to the rule in response to the Banks' previous comments, and must now reject this final comment as being no more persuasive than the previous comments, to which FHFA has already adequately responded.
FHFA defined the term “comparable” in the way it deems to be closest to Congressional intent, true to the meaning of the word in plain English, and supported by market usage of the term. Comparison with similar positions at similar institutions is a common practice for setting compensation. It appears clear that a statutory requirement of comparability would need to operate as a check on compensation that materially exceeds compensation for comparable duties and responsibilities at comparable institutions. Even so, FHFA avoided translating this requirement into specific mandates to create a certain peer group of a certain size, or even use of a certain process to create the group of comparators, which could have limited the flexibility of the Banks in implementing the mandate. FHFA reviews comparability while also respecting the Banks' processes for setting compensation. This review results in no specific level of compensation, nor a range, communicated from FHFA to the regulated entities or OF, in practice or in effect.
FHFA continues to believe that the Farm Credit Banks and the Federal Reserve Banks are relevant points of reference in assessing the reasonableness and comparability of Bank compensation, because they have certain points in common with the Federal Home Loan Banks: they are government-sponsored financial institutions; they have some measure of government backing and therefore a potentially different risk profile than non-government-sponsored institutions; and they do not issue publicly traded stock that can be used as an element of long-term compensation and therefore
FHFA had included these points in its previous response
The unique member-controlled cooperative structure of the Federal Home Loan Bank system was in place as of the time that Congress created the statute that mandates FHFA's review for reasonableness and comparability of compensation, and therefore cannot be adduced as a basis for FHFA to abandon its role to review as the statute intended, including for comparability with similar institutions, despite the unique structure in place at the Banks.
FHFA received an additional comment from the Banks, noting that FHFA had rejected the Banks' previous comment that FHFA's review of executive compensation should be based on compensation that is “taken as a whole” rather than “in whole or in part.” The Banks had stated their belief that if an executive's compensation package taken as a whole is reasonable and comparable to compensation at similar institutions for similar duties, FHFA should not be permitted to reject a discrete element of an executive's compensation as excessive. They have further requested in response to the interim final rule that FHFA recognize that the Banks are more restricted than other large financial institutions in methods that they can use to compensate their executives. For example, the Banks are unable to offer stock-related executive compensation because they do not have publicly traded stock. The Banks requested that FHFA take these distinguishing factors into consideration.
FHFA responded to that earlier comment that in its ongoing oversight of an executive's overall compensation, FHFA reviews all components that compose the broadly defined term “compensation.”
FHFA recognizes that executive compensation oversight mandated by HERA has resulted in a new area of regulatory compliance for the Banks. For that reason, in addition to guidance, FHFA staff will continue to work directly with the relevant staff, committees, and boards of the Banks to ensure that FHFA's review process is well understood. FHFA guidance and dialogue between staffs will, among other things, address concerns raised by the Banks regarding how the provisions of the rule will operate under specific circumstances.
The Banks requested that the term “executive officer” apply only to those individuals who qualify as executive officers as of the time of a required notice regarding such individual's compensation. The
In order to address the Banks' request, FHFA has determined to narrow its interpretation described above in the Supplementary Information to the interim final rule. FHFA will apply the definition more narrowly, in a manner which is intended to address the concern expressed by the Banks, and which is reflective of the plain meaning of the regulatory text. With respect to the Banks, the definition of “executive officer” adopts the language of the SEC's Regulation S-K, 17 CFR 229.402(a)(3), and therefore covers a Bank's most highly compensated officers (generally referred to as the “top 5”) who are designated under SEC disclosure requirements as “Named Executive Officers” (NEOs).
It is FHFA's intent to provide clarity and avoid undue burden on the Banks by following the definition and practice of the SEC for identifying NEOs in its definition for “executive officer.” However, this final rule includes requirements that apply to “executive officers” throughout the year, and not just at the time of securities filings. Therefore, for purposes of clarification, and in response to the request of the Banks, FHFA is now narrowing its interpretation that was previously provided in the
The definition of “executive officer” applies to a person who qualifies as an “executive officer” as of the time of a required notice under § 1230.3(d)(1)-(4). In effect, this means that the “top 5” determined for purposes of securities filings
In the case that one of the “top 5” vacates his or her position, this regulation is intended to apply in the following manner. If the position of president or chief financial officer is vacated, the new president or chief financial officer will become one of the “top 5” immediately when the change is
The interim final rule requires prior notification before payment to an executive officer of annual compensation, pay for performance or incentive pay, “or any other element of compensation.” The Banks requested clarification of what “any other element of compensation” is intended to include, and particularly, whether it includes reimbursements for travel expenses, employee benefit plans such as health benefit plans, and other general plans that executive officers participate in along with other Bank employees.
Compensation is defined broadly to include any item of current or potential value provided in connection with employment, including benefits received under a broad-based benefit plan. This is because FHFA reviews the value of benefits provided under such plans, programs, and arrangements on an ongoing basis in exercising its review authority. FHFA must be aware of the value of benefits provided under such plans, programs, and arrangements in addition to all other payments of money or any other thing of current or potential value to determine whether an officer's overall “compensation” is reasonable and comparable. With regard to the notice requirement, however, approval of a broad-based benefit plan or policy (such as a travel reimbursement policy) can serve to satisfy the notice requirement for individual payments made under those plans. For purposes of clarity, such blanket approval can apply to the periodic payments of base salary, but is not intended to apply to any payments under incentive plans, any pay for performance, any plans that apply principally to the executive officers as defined in this final rule, or to any payments under individually negotiated agreements.
Moreover, FHFA is responding to the Banks' comment by replacing the phrase “any other element of compensation” with a more specific list of the elements of compensation to which the notice requirement applies. The revised regulatory text in § 1230.3(d)(3) provides that “[a] regulated entity or the Office of Finance shall not, without providing the Director at least 30 days' advance written notice, pay, disburse, or transfer to any executive officer, annual compensation (where the annual amount has changed); pay for performance or other incentive pay; any amounts under a severance plan, change-in-control agreement, or other separation agreement; any compensation that would qualify as direct compensation for purposes of securities filings; or any other element of compensation identified by the Director prior to the notice period.” Payments made under broad-based health benefit plans, for example, are not subject to the notice requirement. This change serves to narrow the scope of the notice requirement as compared to the interim final rule and is therefore within the scope of the interim final rule's request for comment.
The Banks requested that the rule be amended to include additional procedures. For example, the Banks requested that the rule include procedures for notifying the Bank of any compensation review, provision to the Banks of official explanation of any action FHFA is considering, and procedures for FHFA to receive input from the Banks on such actions. The Banks also reiterated comments they had made on the proposed rule, to which FHFA responded in the
FHFA believes the input of the Banks is important in its decision-making, and also appreciates that any directive it would issue to a regulated entity to prohibit or withhold compensation of an executive officer impacts the executive financially. For that reason, any such decision is made only after thorough review and full understanding of the facts on a case-by-case basis, and the application to the facts of its authorities mandated by Congress. Such thorough review and full understanding of relevant facts occurs with a regulated entity's full cooperation and input. FHFA believes incorporating additional procedures in this final rule is unnecessary in light of the extent of communication that will occur with a regulated entity before making a decision such as a determination that executive compensation is excessive or that there had been employee misconduct, and would unduly delay corrective action.
The Banks requested grandfathering for compensation agreements in place as of the effective date of the final rule (as opposed to the date of the interim final rule, which was May 14, 2013.) The proposed rule, which was issued prior to the interim final rule and provided opportunity for notice and comment on FHFA's executive compensation rulemaking, was issued June 5, 2009. FHFA believes the period of time from the publication of the proposed rule to the interim final rule, in addition to opportunity for notice and comment, has provided satisfactory notice to the regulated entities of the provisions of the executive compensation rulemaking.
As described in the
The final rule does not contain any information collection requirement that requires the approval of OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Administrative practice and procedure, Compensation, Confidential business information, Government-sponsored enterprises, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the
12 U.S.C. 1427, 1431(l)(5), 1452(h), 4502(6), 4502(12), 4513, 4514, 4517, 4518, 4518a, 4526, 4631, 4632, 4636, and 1723a(d).
The purpose of this part is to implement requirements relating to the supervisory authority of FHFA under the Safety and Soundness Act with respect to compensation provided by the regulated entities and the Office of Finance to their executive officers. This part also establishes a structured process for submission of relevant information by the regulated entities and the Office of Finance, in order to facilitate and enhance the efficiency of FHFA's oversight of executive compensation.
The following definitions apply to the terms used in this part:
(1) With respect to an Enterprise:
(i) The chairman of the board of directors, chief executive officer, chief financial officer, chief operating officer, president, vice chairman, any executive vice president, any senior vice president, any individual in charge of a principal business unit, division, or function, and any individual who performs functions similar to such positions whether or not the individual has an official title; and
(ii) Any other officer as identified by the Director;
(2) With respect to a Bank:
(i) The president, the chief financial officer, and the three other most highly compensated officers; and
(ii) Any other officer as identified by the Director.
(3) With respect to the Office of Finance:
(i) The chief executive officer, chief financial officer, and chief operating officer; and
(ii) Any other officer identified by the Director.
(1)
(i) The duties and responsibilities of the position;
(ii) Compensation factors that indicate added or diminished risks, constraints, or aids in carrying out the responsibilities of the position; and
(iii) Performance of the regulated entity, the specific employee, or one of the entity's significant components with respect to achievement of goals, consistency with supervisory guidance and internal rules of the entity, and compliance with applicable law and regulation.
(2)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(2) A regulated entity or the Office of Finance shall not, without providing the Director at least 30 days' advance written notice, enter into any written arrangement that:
(i) Provides an executive officer a term of employment for a term of six months or more; or
(ii) In the case of a Bank or the Office of Finance, provides compensation to any executive officer in connection with the termination of employment, or establishes a policy of compensation in connection with the termination of employment.
(3) A regulated entity or the Office of Finance shall not, without providing the Director at least 30 days' advance written notice, pay, disburse, or transfer to any executive officer, annual compensation (where the annual amount has changed); pay for performance or other incentive pay; any amounts under a severance plan, change-in-control agreement, or other separation agreement; any compensation that would qualify as direct compensation for purposes of securities filings; or any other element of compensation identified by the Director prior to the notice period.
(4) Notwithstanding the foregoing review periods, a regulated entity or the Office of Finance shall provide five business days' advance written notice to the Director before committing to pay compensation of any amount or type to an executive officer who is being newly hired.
(5) The Director reserves the right to extend any of the foregoing review periods, and may do so in the Director's discretion, upon notice to the regulated entity or the Office of Finance. Any such notice shall set forth the number of business or calendar days by which the review period is being extended.
(e)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) Whether the benefits provided under the agreement or contract are comparable to benefits provided under such agreements or contracts for officers of other public or private entities involved in financial services and housing interests who have comparable duties and responsibilities;
(2) The factors set forth in § 1230.3(b); and
(3) Such other information as deemed appropriate by the Director.
(d)
(e)
(f)
In support of the reviews and decisions provided for in this part, the Director may issue guidance, orders, or notices on the subject of information submissions by the regulated entities and the Office of Finance.
Federal Housing Finance Agency.
Final rule.
The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) is issuing a final regulation amending the Golden Parachute Payments regulation that was published in the
Alfred M. Pollard, General Counsel, (202) 649-3050,
Section 1114 of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA) amended section 1318(e) of the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 (Safety and Soundness Act) (12 U.S.C. 4518(e)) to provide explicit authorities to FHFA in addressing golden parachute payments and indemnification payments.
In the
FHFA issued the Re-proposal on May 14, 2013, in order to narrow its approach to grandfathering, address comments regarding retirement plans, clarify its intent through both the
FHFA recently adopted a rule setting forth definitions of terms commonly used in its regulations, and has removed a duplicative definition in this final rule.
FHFA received comments on the golden parachute provisions of the Re-proposal from the 12 Federal Home Loan Banks (Banks), the Office of Finance (OF), and the public during the comment period for the Re-proposal, which closed on July 15, 2013. Comments received in response to the Re-proposal addressed grandfathering of plans, the double approval process, the golden parachute payment definition's exception for severance plans, mitigating factors in the FHFA Director's review, and requests for clarification, among other topics.
In response to the comments, FHFA notes generally that this final rule implements amendments to the 2009 final rule which were proposed in response to prior requests from nine of the Federal Home Loan Banks and Fannie Mae to follow the FDIC rule's precedent. The nine Federal Home Loan Banks requested that FHFA consider changes to conform FHFA's regulation of golden parachute payments to that of the FDIC rule, as the legislative provisions on which they are based are similar to those of HERA and represent industry practice. Fannie Mae also commented that the FDIC rule implements legislation similar to HERA, so conformance with regulations would foster uniformity in regulation, public perception of fairness, and competition on a level regulatory playing field for executive talent. Fannie Mae stated that such conformance would reduce administrative burden because of existing guidance and precedent. Much of the substance of this final rule, and the comments relating to it, originate from FHFA's response to those requests to more closely align its golden parachute regulation with the FDIC rule.
To provide further clarity, FHFA is addressing in this Supplementary Information the intended meaning of the regulation text. Specifically, the regulated entities and OF may find the below format useful when determining whether approval of the Director is required to enter into an agreement to make a golden parachute payment, or make a payment under such an agreement. Below is a summary of when approval of the Director is required.
A regulated entity or OF need not obtain approval of the Director to enter into a termination agreement with, or to pay under such agreement, an entity-affiliated party under the following circumstances:
• A regulated entity or OF is not subject to any of the triggering events listed in paragraph 1(ii) of the definition of “golden parachute payment” (“triggering events”);
• A regulated entity or OF is no longer subject to a triggering event (
• An entity-affiliated party begins to receive payments under an agreement prior to the occurrence of a triggering event that continue after the triggering event, if the entity-affiliated party's employment was not terminated in contemplation of the triggering event.
A regulated entity or OF, when subject to a triggering event, must obtain the approval of the Director if it:
• Enters into an agreement with an entity-affiliated party providing a golden parachute payment;
• Amends an employment contract containing golden parachute provisions with an entity-affiliated party;
• Renews an employment agreement (including automatic renewal) with an entity-affiliated party that contains severance provisions;
• Makes a payment related to a change in control (not resulting from conservatorship or receivership); or
• Otherwise makes a payment to an entity-affiliated party under a golden parachute agreement.
In the Re-proposal, FHFA stated its intention to grandfather a subset of the golden parachute agreements that may currently be in place. Specifically, FHFA grandfathered all retirement plans and deferred compensation plans in place as of the Re-proposal's publication on May 14, 2013. FHFA clarified at that time that it would not grandfather severance plans, change-in-control agreements, and arrangements to make ad hoc payments, as had originally been contemplated in the Supplementary Information to the Proposal.
The Banks commented that FHFA did not provide a reason for reducing the scope of the grandfathering, and requested that all plans that could result in a golden parachute payment (including severance, change in control, and ad hoc payments) be grandfathered as of the Re-proposal, not just retirement and deferred compensation plans.
FHFA has considered the Banks' comments, but is not changing its approach to grandfathering. FHFA returns to the language of the authorizing statute, the Safety and Soundness Act as amended by HERA, which gives FHFA the authority to prohibit or limit any golden parachute payment and has no provision for grandfathering. FHFA has determined that it is appropriate to grandfather certain plans that it has reviewed, after concluding that they do not pose a risk of the kind of corporate waste and abuse that the statute was intended to prevent. These are the retirement and deferred compensation plans. FHFA has considered the remaining types of golden parachute agreements—severance agreements, change in control agreements, and arrangements to make ad hoc payments—and is unable to make the same determination with respect to them or to satisfy itself that it is aware of all of them. Therefore, those agreements must remain subject to review by FHFA in order for FHFA to carry out its authority under HERA.
For further clarification, FHFA confirms that it has grandfathered all retirement plans and deferred compensation plans in place as of the date of the Re-proposal, with other plans subject to review by FHFA, as appropriate. The grandfathered plans include defined-contribution, defined-benefit, and deferred compensation plans in place as of the publication of the Re-proposal on May 14, 2013, without regard to whether they meet the requirements to be treated as a bona fide deferred compensation plan or arrangement under § 1231.1.
With respect to severance plans, FHFA will allow the entities three months from the effective date of the final rule within which they may submit for FHFA review and approval existing severance plans that were adopted, or modified to increase the amount or scope of severance benefits, at a time when the entity was subject to a triggering event specified in paragraph (1)(ii) of the definition of the term “golden parachute payment” but which otherwise fall under the severance exception from the definition of “golden parachute payment.” Pursuant to paragraph (2)(v)(A) of the “golden parachute payment” definition, such plans may qualify for the exception only if they receive approval from FHFA.
Below is a summary of how the definition of “golden parachute payment” applies to different plans:
The Banks expressed concerns with the “double approval” process for golden parachute payments. According to the final rule, in any circumstance in which an agreement that provides for a golden parachute payment has been approved by the Director, an additional approval by the Director is required in order to make such a payment under the agreement if the entity is subject to a triggering event. This requirement appeared in the Proposal and in the Re-proposal, follows the structure in the statute implemented by this regulation (the Safety and Soundness Act as amended by HERA), and mirrors the practice of the FDIC for institutions subject to its golden parachute payments regulation.
The Banks state that the double approval process may create an adverse impact on a Bank's ability to attract and retain qualified executives if an executive's right to payment in the event of a future separation from employment is subject to the approval of the Director. The Banks expressed concern particularly in the case of change-in-control payments and when hiring new employees if an entity is currently subject to, or seeking to avoid, a triggering event.
The double approval process is supported by the following considerations: First, an agreement containing provisions that the regulator considers unreasonable for an entity subject to a triggering event should be disapproved without waiting for payments to be made under it, so that the regulated entity can develop an alternative acceptable arrangement and so that executives will not be relying on an agreement under which they will not, in the event, be able to receive payments. Further, subsequent to the approval of a golden parachute agreement, the regulated entity or OF may deteriorate further, and a golden parachute payment may negatively affect its safety and soundness, or the executive may be found to have contributed to the deterioration. To address that concern, FHFA believes that a review of both the golden parachute agreement, and the circumstances of the regulated entity or OF during the period in which the payment is actually being made, is necessary.
For these reasons, FHFA has declined to remove the double approval process, in order to uphold its responsibility to ensure the safety and soundness of the regulated entities. FHFA recognizes the
FHFA emphasizes that a regulated entity or OF always may apply for approval from the Director if a golden parachute payment is not otherwise permissible. The Director's review will take into account factors set forth in § 1231.6, including the cost of the payment and the effect that the payment will have on the capital and earnings of the regulated entity. The Director may consider the degree to which the proposed payment represents a reasonable payment for services rendered over the period of employment, and other case-specific facts and circumstances surrounding the golden parachute payment as set forth in § 1231.3(b)(2)(i) through (iii). For example, the Director may consider mitigating factors such as the individual's history of beneficial contribution to the regulated entity, and cooperation with FHFA's relevant remediation efforts. The presence of any of the negative factors enumerated in proposed § 1231.3(b)(2) is not an absolute bar to the approval of a golden parachute payment. Absent mitigating factors, there would be a presumption, if any of those factors were present, that the golden parachute application should be denied. That presumption can be overcome, however, and the Director has discretion to approve payment in such circumstances.
The Banks requested that FHFA provide an express definition of “compensation” in the final rule. The definition of “golden parachute payment” in § 12131.2 is “[a]ny payment (or any agreement to make any payment)
The Safety and Soundness Act provision on golden parachute payments, the Federal Deposit Insurance Act provision on which it is based, and the FDIC rule on which this regulation is based all define a golden parachute payment as being “in the nature of compensation,” but none defines the term “compensation.” The FDIC included the qualifying phrase “in the nature of compensation” in its final regulation to make clear that the FDIC did not intend to restrict institutions, even those that are troubled, from paying terminating employees accrued but unused benefits, such as vacation. The FDIC also noted that the qualifying phrase is used to show that a certain payment should be treated as a golden parachute payment because the regulators have historically treated it as compensation,
Against the statutory background, and the treatment of the concept by the FDIC in its regulation, FHFA understands “compensation” to be payment for employment or services rendered by individuals. So understood, the concept does not include the various types of payments that commenters previously expressed concern about: payments of advance proceeds, dividends, deposit account withdrawals, and AHP funds; nor does it include debt service payments from Banks to OF, or payout of accrued but unused benefits, such as vacation.
For purposes of clarity, FHFA reiterates that members of the regulated entities' boards of directors fall within the definition of “entity-affiliated party” as stated in the statute and the rule, though directors may not have an employee relationship to the regulated entity. Directors are responsible for the governance and oversight of management of the regulated entity, and FHFA believes there is no reason to exclude them from the rule.
The Banks submitted a comment on the definition of “bona fide deferred compensation plan or arrangement,” regarding GAAP accounting treatment. FHFA notes that the reference to GAAP is identical to that of the FDIC rule, and is intended to require that compensation expense is recognized and a liability accrued on a reasonable schedule and in all other ways in accordance with GAAP. No further clarification is needed to specify the timing of GAAP treatment.
The definition of “golden parachute payment” includes an exception for payments pursuant to a nondiscriminatory severance pay plan or arrangement. The Banks requested that FHFA alter the definition of “nondiscriminatory,” and also remove the $300,000 salary cap, which was a new addition in the Re-proposal.
The Banks requested that FHFA expressly clarify that the objective criteria that may be used in a nondiscriminatory severance pay plan can include service at other Banks. The definition of “nondiscriminatory” is modeled on the FDIC rule's definition, and both require that under a nondiscriminatory plan, provision of different benefits can be based only on objective criteria. FHFA included the following examples of objective criteria: salary, total compensation, length of service, and job grade or classification. Other objective criteria may be used. It is not necessary for FHFA to list additional objective criteria that may be included, particularly a criterion that is specific to only some of the regulated entities.
Regarding the $300,000 salary cap, while the Banks objected to the use of any salary cap, FHFA continues to believe that payment of a full year's severance may be inappropriate to certain top executives with high salaries, when their institution is in a troubled condition. However, FHFA has modified the salary cap so that it applies only to employees who are both a) executive officers, as that term is defined in FHFA's rule on executive compensation, and b) have base salaries exceeding $300,000. This modification more narrowly tailors the regulation to allow an exception for severance, limiting its availability to certain executives for whom it may not be appropriate. As always, the Director continues to have discretion under § 1231.3(b)(1)(i) to approve golden parachute payments that are not otherwise permissible.
This $300,000 salary cap for executive officers is now effective in this final rule. FHFA has determined that additional notice and comment is not required for this modification because its effect is to reduce the number of individuals to whom the salary cap applies to a subset of those to whom it applied under the Re-proposal. The public, the regulated entities, and OF have had an opportunity to provide comment regarding the salary cap when it applied to a larger group that included all of those to whom it currently applies.
FHFA also transferred the regulation's reference to regulated entities with low examination ratings from the list of triggering events in the definition of “golden parachute payment” to the definition of “troubled condition.” Since a troubled condition is itself a triggering event to coverage under the rule, this transfer makes no difference to whether an institution is subject to the restrictions of the rule, and it is more intuitive to consider the low examination rating as part of the definition of “troubled condition” than outside of it. The resulting structure is consistent with that of the FDIC's rule, which includes a low examination rating in its definition of “troubled condition.” 12 CFR 303.101(c). The transfer also makes explicit that a regulated entity must take the low examination rating into account under § 1231.3(b)(1)(iv)(B) when making its request for permission to make a golden parachute payment. The involvement of an entity-affiliated party in a regulated entity's poor condition, including as reflected in its examination rating, is a factor that the Director may in any event consider when deciding on such a request under § 1231.3(b)(2) as proposed and now final.
The Final Rule does not contain any information collection requirement that requires the approval of OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Golden parachutes, Government-sponsored enterprises, Indemnification.
Accordingly, for reasons stated in the Supplementary Information, under the authority of 12 U.S.C. 4518(e) and 4526, FHFA amends part 1231 of subchapter B of title 12 CFR Chapter XII as follows:
12 U.S.C. 4518(e), 4518a, 4526.
The purpose of this part is to implement section 1318(e) of the Safety and Soundness Act (12 U.S.C. 4518(e)) by setting forth the standards that the Director will take into consideration in determining whether to limit or prohibit golden parachute payments and by setting forth prohibited and permissible indemnification payments that regulated entities and the Office of Finance may make to entity-affiliated parties.
The following definitions apply to the terms used in this part:
(1) An entity-affiliated party voluntarily elects to defer all or a portion of the reasonable compensation, wages, or fees paid for services rendered which otherwise would have been paid to such party at the time the services were rendered (including a plan that provides for the crediting of a reasonable investment return on such elective deferrals) and the regulated entity or the Office of Finance either:
(i) Recognizes compensation expense and accrues a liability for the benefit payments according to generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP); or
(ii) Segregates or otherwise sets aside assets in a trust which may only be used to pay plan and other benefits and related expenses, except that the assets of such trust may be available to satisfy claims of creditors of the regulated entities or the Office of Finance in the case of insolvency; or
(2) A regulated entity or the Office of Finance establishes a nonqualified deferred compensation or supplemental retirement plan, other than an elective deferral plan described in paragraph (1) of this definition:
(i) Primarily for the purpose of providing benefits for certain entity-affiliated parties in excess of the limitations on contributions and benefits imposed by sections 401(a)(17), 402(g), 415, or any other applicable provision of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 401(a)(17), 402(g), 415); or
(ii) Primarily for the purpose of providing supplemental retirement benefits or other deferred compensation for a select group of directors, management, or highly compensated employees (excluding severance payments described in paragraph (2)(v) of the term
(3) In the case of any nonqualified deferred compensation or supplemental retirement plans as described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this definition, the following requirements shall apply:
(i) The plan was in effect at least one year prior to any of the events described in paragraph (1)(ii) of the term
(ii) Any payment made pursuant to such plan is made in accordance with the terms of the plan as in effect no later than one year prior to any of the events described in paragraph (1)(ii) of the term
(iii) The entity-affiliated party has a vested right, as defined under the applicable plan document, at the time of termination of employment to payments under such plan;
(iv) Benefits under such plan are accrued each period only for current or prior service rendered to the employer (except that an allowance may be made for service with a predecessor employer);
(v) Any payment made pursuant to such plan is not based on any discretionary acceleration of vesting or accrual of benefits which occurs at any time later than one year prior to any of the events described in paragraph (1)(ii) of the term
(vi) The regulated entity or the Office of Finance has previously recognized compensation expense and accrued a liability for the benefit payments according to GAAP, or segregated or otherwise set aside assets in a trust which may only be used to pay plan benefits and related expenses, except that the assets of such trust may be available to satisfy claims of the regulated entity's creditors or the Office of Finance's creditors in the case of insolvency; and
(vii) Payments pursuant to such plans shall not be in excess of the accrued liability computed in accordance with GAAP.
(1) With respect to the Office of Finance, any director, officer, or manager of the Office of Finance; and
(2) With respect to a regulated entity:
(i) Any director, officer, employee, or controlling stockholder of, or agent for, a regulated entity;
(ii) Any shareholder, affiliate, consultant, or joint venture partner of a regulated entity, and any other person as determined by the Director (by regulation or on a case-by-case basis) that participates in the conduct of the affairs of a regulated entity, provided that a member of a Federal Home Loan Bank shall not be deemed to have participated in the affairs of that Federal Home Loan Bank solely by virtue of being a shareholder of, and obtaining advances from, that Federal Home Loan Bank;
(iii) Any independent contractor for a regulated entity (including any attorney, appraiser, or accountant) if:
(A) The independent contractor knowingly or recklessly participates in any violation of any law or regulation, any breach of fiduciary duty, or any unsafe or unsound practice; and
(B) Such violation, breach, or practice caused, or is likely to cause, more than a minimal financial loss to, or a significant adverse effect on, the regulated entity;
(iv) Any not-for-profit corporation that receives its principal funding, on an ongoing basis, from any regulated entity.
(1) Any payment (or any agreement to make any payment) in the nature of compensation by any regulated entity or the Office of Finance for the benefit of any current or former entity-affiliated party pursuant to an obligation of such regulated entity or the Office of Finance that:
(i) Is contingent on, or by its terms is payable on or after, the termination of such party's primary employment or affiliation with the regulated entity or the Office of Finance; and
(ii) Is received on or after, or is made in contemplation of, any of the following events:
(A) The insolvency (or similar event) of the regulated entity which is making the payment;
(B) The appointment of any conservator or receiver for such regulated entity; or
(C) The regulated entity is in a troubled condition.
(2)
(i) Any payment made pursuant to a pension or retirement plan that is qualified (or is intended within a reasonable period of time to be qualified) under section 401 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 401) or pursuant to a pension or other retirement plan that is governed by the laws of any foreign country;
(ii) Any payment made pursuant to a “benefit plan” as that term is defined in this section;
(iii) Any payment made pursuant to a “bona fide deferred compensation plan or arrangement” as that term is defined in this section;
(iv) Any payment made by reason of death or by reason of termination caused by the disability of an entity-affiliated party; or
(v) Any payment made pursuant to a nondiscriminatory severance pay plan or arrangement that provides for payment of severance benefits to all eligible employees upon involuntary termination other than for cause, voluntary resignation, or early retirement; provided that:
(A) No employee shall receive any such payment that exceeds the base compensation paid to such employee during the 12 months (or such longer period or greater benefit as the Director shall consent to) immediately preceding termination of employment, resignation, or early retirement, and such severance pay plan or arrangement shall not have been adopted, or modified to increase the amount or scope of severance benefits, at a time when the regulated entity or the Office of Finance is in a condition specified in paragraph (1)(ii) of the term
(B) If an employee is an executive officer, as “executive officer” is defined under 12 CFR 1230.2, and such employee's base salary exceeds $300,000, then the exception provided under this paragraph (2)(v) shall not apply to that employee; or
(vi) Any severance or similar payment that is required to be made pursuant to a state statute or foreign law that is applicable to all employers within the appropriate jurisdiction (with the exception of employers that may be exempt due to their small number of employees or other similar criteria).
(1) Any direct or indirect transfer of any funds or any asset;
(2) Any forgiveness of any debt or other obligation;
(3) The conferring of any benefit, including but not limited to stock options and stock appreciation rights; and
(4) Any segregation of any funds or assets, the establishment or funding of any trust or the purchase of or arrangement for any letter of credit or other instrument, for the purpose of making, or pursuant to any agreement to make, any payment on or after the date on which such funds or assets are segregated, or at the time of or after such trust is established or letter of credit or other instrument is made available, without regard to whether the obligation to make such payment is contingent on:
(i) The determination, after such date, of the liability for the payment of such amount; or
(ii) The liquidation, after such date, of the amount of such payment.
(1) Is subject to a cease-and-desist order or written agreement issued by FHFA that requires action to improve the financial condition of the regulated entity or is subject to a proceeding
(2) Is assigned a composite rating of 4 or 5 by FHFA under its CAMELSO examination rating system as it may be revised from time to time; or
(3) Is informed in writing by the Director that it is in a troubled condition for purposes of the requirements of this part on the basis of the most recent report of examination or other information available to FHFA, on account of its financial condition, risk profile, or management deficiencies.
(a)
(b)
(i) The Director determines that such a payment or agreement is permissible; or
(ii) Such an agreement is made in order to hire a person to become an entity-affiliated party either at a time when the regulated entity or the Office of Finance satisfies, or in an effort to prevent it from imminently satisfying, any of the criteria set forth in paragraph (1)(ii) of the term
(iii) Such a payment is made pursuant to an agreement which provides for a reasonable severance payment, not to exceed 12 months salary, to an entity-affiliated party in the event of a change in control of the regulated entity or the Office of Finance; provided, however, that a regulated entity or the Office of Finance shall obtain the consent of the Director prior to making such a payment, and this paragraph (b)(1)(iii) shall not apply to any change in control of a regulated entity that results from the regulated entity being placed into conservatorship or receivership; and
(iv) A regulated entity or the Office of Finance making a request pursuant to paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section shall demonstrate that it does not possess and is not aware of any information, evidence, documents, or other materials that would indicate that there is a reasonable basis to believe, at the time such payment is proposed to be made, that:
(A) The entity-affiliated party has committed any fraudulent act or omission, breach of trust or fiduciary duty, or insider abuse with regard to the regulated entity or the Office of Finance that is likely to have a material adverse effect on the regulated entity or the Office of Finance;
(B) The entity-affiliated party is substantially responsible for the insolvency of, the appointment of a conservator or receiver for, or the troubled condition of the regulated entity or the Office of Finance;
(C) The entity-affiliated party has materially violated any applicable Federal or State law or regulation that has had or is likely to have a material effect on the regulated entity or the Office of Finance; and
(D) The entity-affiliated party has violated or conspired to violate sections 215, 657, 1006, 1014, or 1344 of title 18 of the United States Code, or section 1341 or 1343 of such title affecting a “financial institution” as the term is defined in title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. 20).
(2) In making a determination under paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section, the Director may consider:
(i) Whether, and to what degree, the entity-affiliated party was in a position of managerial or fiduciary responsibility;
(ii) The length of time the entity-affiliated party was affiliated with the regulated entity or the Office of Finance, and the degree to which the proposed payment represents a reasonable payment for services rendered over the period of employment; and
(iii) Any other factor the Director determines relevant to the facts and circumstances surrounding the golden parachute payment, including any fraudulent act or omission, breach of fiduciary duty, violation of law, rule, regulation, order, or written agreement, and the level of willful misconduct, breach of fiduciary duty, and malfeasance on the part of the entity-affiliated party.
The provisions of this part, or any consent or approval granted under the provisions of this part by FHFA, shall not in any way bind any receiver of a regulated entity in receivership. Any consent or approval granted under the provisions of this part by FHFA shall not in any way obligate FHFA or receiver to pay any claim or obligation pursuant to any golden parachute, severance, indemnification, or other agreement. Nothing in this part may be construed to permit the payment of salary or any liability or legal expense of an entity-affiliated party contrary to section 1318(e)(3) of the Safety and Soundness Act (12 U.S.C. 4518(e)(3)).
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) The reasons why the regulated entity or the Office of Finance seeks to make the payment;
(2) An identification of the entity-affiliated party who will receive the payment;
(3) A copy of any contract or agreement regarding the subject matter of the filing;
(4) The cost of the proposed payment and its impact on the capital and earnings of the regulated entity;
(5) The reasons why the consent to the payment should be granted; and
(6) Certification and documentation as to each of the factors listed in § 1231.3(b)(1)(iv).
(d)
(e)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone within the Lake Moolvalya region of the navigable waters of the Colorado River in Parker, Arizona in support of the Blue Water Resort and Casino (BWRC) and Arizona Drag Boat Association Southwest Showdown Three high speed boat race. This safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of the participants, crew, spectators, participating vessels, and other vessels and users of the waterway. Persons and vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within this safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative.
This rule is effective from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on February 21, 2014, through February 23, 2014.
Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket [USCG-2013-1034]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Petty Officer Giacomo Terrizzi, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego, Coast Guard; telephone 619-278-7656, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because an NPRM would be impracticable. Logistical details did not present the Coast Guard enough time to draft, publish, and receive public comment on an NPRM. As such, the event would occur before the rulemaking process was complete. Immediate action is needed to help protect the safety of the participants, crew, spectators, and participating vessels from other vessels during this three day event.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), for the same reasons mentioned above, the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The legal basis and authorities for this rule 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 propose, establish, and define regulatory safety zones. The Arizona Drag Boat Association is sponsoring the BWRC Southwest Showdown Three, which will involve 100 drag boats, 8 to 20 feet in length. These drag boats will be transiting a portion of Moovalya Lake on the Colorado River in Parker, AZ. This temporary safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of the participants, crew, spectators, sponsor vessels, other vessels, and users of the waterway.
The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone that will be enforced from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on February 21, 2014 through February 23, 2014. The limits of the safety zone will include all the navigable waters of the Colorado River between Headgate Dam and 0.5 miles north of the Blue Water Marina in Parker, Arizona. The safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of the crew, spectators, participants, and other vessels and users of the waterway. Persons and vessels will be prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring with this safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative. The three day event will include practice races on Friday, and event official racing on Saturday and Sunday. Before the effective period, the Coast Guard will publish a local notice to mariners (LNM).
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. We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. This determination is based on the size, location, and the limited duration of the safety zone. Additionally, to the maximum extent practicable, the event sponsor will assist with boaters wishing to transit the racing area during non-racing times throughout the three days.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in the impacted portion of the Colorado River from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on February 21, 2014 through February 23, 2014.
This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. Although the safety zone would apply to the entire width of the river, traffic would be allowed to pass through the zone with the permission of the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative. The event sponsor will also, to their maximum extent, assist boaters wishing to transit the racing area during non-racing times throughout the three days. Before the effective period, the Coast Guard will publish a Local Notice to Mariners.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and 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 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves establishment of a safety zone on the navigable waters of Moovalya Lake. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 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) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or his designated representative.
(3) Upon being hailed by U.S. Coast Guard or designated patrol personnel by siren, radio, flashing light or other means, the operator of a vessel shall proceed as directed.
(4) The Coast Guard may be assisted by other federal, state, or local agencies.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Interim final rule with request for comments.
This regulatory update revises agency policies and procedures for certain pre-award and post-award assistance agreement disputes at the United States Environmental Protection Agency. This section provides a uniform process, including appropriate timelines, for the efficient, effective and timely resolution of assistance agreement disputes. This rule is exempt from the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because it is a matter relating to agency management concerning grants.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OARM-2013-0705, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Elizabeth January, National Policy Training and Compliance Division in the Office of Grants and Debarment (3903R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 617-918-8655; fax number: 617-918-8555; email address:
Entities affected by this action are those that apply for and/or receive Federal financial assistance (grants, cooperative agreements or fellowships) from EPA including but not limited to:
On September 21, 2011, the EPA Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a final audit report entitled “EPA Should Improve Timeliness for Resolving Audits under Appeal” (Report No. 11-P-0687, “Report”). The Report cited examples where appeals of Agency decisions to sustain some or all of the questioned costs in OIG audits of awards had been in resolution for 10 to 21 years. The Report recommended, among other things, reforms to EPA's dispute resolution process for audit appeals, including establishing timelines and milestones for each step of the resolution process, limits on time extensions and the submission of additional documentation, and limits on the number of opportunities to request reconsideration of decisions by an Assistant Administrator or Regional Administrator. In response to the Inspector General dated December 19, 2011, EPA agreed to implement these reforms.
While the OIG's recommended reforms specifically addressed the resolution of audit appeals, EPA believes there is merit to applying the reforms more broadly to ensure timely resolution of other types of disputes between the Agency and recipients of, or applicants for, an assistance agreement. Accordingly, EPA is revising its assistance agreement dispute procedures in 40 CFR parts 30 and 31 subpart F to generally apply the OIG's recommendations to all monetary and non-monetary pre-award and post-award disputes. The only exception is for disputes involving applicants for competitive assistance agreements, which are governed by the procedures set forth at 70 FR 3629 et seq that can be found at
In addition, this rule does not apply to any appeal process regarding an award official's determination that an entity is not qualified for an award that may be developed under guidance implementing Section 872 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Pub. L. 110-417, as amended).
Consistent with the Report recommendations, this revision will streamline the resolution process for covered disputes by establishing submission and decision-making timelines for each stage of the process (with provisions for extensions in the interest of fairness and equity), specifying the contents of submissions and the administrative record, and, for Regional decisions, eliminating petitions for discretionary review to EPA Assistant Administrators. Viewed as a whole, EPA believes these reforms will make the dispute process more timely and efficient for applicants and recipients while providing them a full and fair opportunity to present their case.
Besides incorporating the OIG's recommendations, this revision updates the list of determinations made pursuant to other Agency decision-making processes that may affect assistance agreements but that are not subject to review under this section or the Agency's procedures for resolving assistance agreement competition-related disputes or disagreements.
7 U.S.C. 135
This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). This action will provide a uniform process, including appropriate timelines for the efficient, effective and timely resolution of assistance agreement disputes.
This action does not impose any new information collection burden. However, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved the information collection requirements contained in the existing regulations 40 CFR parts 30.63 and 31.70 under the provisions of the
Today's interim final rule is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), which generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule that will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only to rules subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) or any other statute. This rule is not subject to notice and comment requirements under the APA or any other statute because this rule pertains to grants, which the APA expressly exempts from notice and comment rulemaking requirements. 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2).
This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this action is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA.
This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action affects all applicants and recipients of EPA financial federal assistance and therefore no one entity type will be impacted disproportionally or significantly.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. This action affects all applicants and recipients of EPA financial federal assistance and therefore no one entity type will be impacted disproportionally. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action affects all applicants and recipients of EPA financial federal assistance and therefore no one entity type will be impacted disproportionally. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
This action is not subject to EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it is not economically significant as defined in EO 12866.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.
Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.
EPA has concluded that it is not practicable to determine whether there would be disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and/or low income populations from this final rule.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. Section 808 allows the issuing agency to make a rule effective sooner than otherwise provided by the CRA if the agency makes a good cause finding that notice and public procedure is impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest. This determination must be supported by a brief statement. 5 U.S.C. 808(2). EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the
Environmental protection, Accounting, Grant programs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Environmental protection, Accounting, Administrative practice and procedure, Grant programs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency amends 40 CFR parts 30 and 31 as follows:
7 U.S.C. 135
Pre-award and post-award dispute procedures for EPA assistance agreements are outlined at 40 CFR part 31, subpart F.
33 U.S.C. 1251
(a) This section provides the process for the resolution of pre-award and post-award assistance agreement disputes as described in § 31.71, except for:
(1) Assistance agreement competition-related disputes; and
(2) Any appeal process relating to an award official's determination that an entity is not qualified for award that may be developed pursuant to guidance implementing Section 872 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Pub. L. 110-417, as amended).
(b) Pre-award and post-award disagreements between affected entities
(c) Determinations affecting assistance agreements made under other Agency decision-making processes are not subject to review under the procedures in this Subpart or the Agency's procedures for resolving assistance agreement competition-related disputes. These determinations include, but are not limited to:
(1) Decisions on requests for exceptions under § 31.6;
(2) Bid protest decisions under § 31.36(b)(12);
(3) National Environmental Policy Act decisions under part 6;
(4) Policy decisions of the EPA Internal Audit Dispute Resolution Process (formerly known as Audit Resolution Board); and
(5) Suspension and Debarment Decisions under 2 CFR parts 180 and 1532.
As used in this part:
(1) The DDO for a Headquarters Assistance Agreement Appeal is the Director of the Grants and Interagency Agreement Management Division in the Office of Grants and Debarment or designee. To help provide for a fair and impartial review, the AO for the challenged Agency Decision may not serve as the Headquarters DDO and the DDO cannot serve as the Review Official for the Appeal decision.
(2) The DDO for a Regional Assistance Agreement Appeal is the official designated by the Regional Administrator to issue the written decision resolving the Appeal. To help provide for a fair and impartial review, the AO for the challenged Agency Decision may not serve as the Regional DDO and the DDO cannot serve as the Review Official for the Appeal decision.
(1) For a Headquarters DDO Appeal decision, the Review Official is the Director of the Office of Grants and Debarment or designee.
(2) For a Regional DDO Appeal decision, the Review Official is the Regional Administrator or designee.
An Affected Entity or its authorized representative may dispute an Agency Decision by electronically submitting an Appeal to the DDO identified in the Agency Decision. In order for the DDO to consider the Appeal, it must satisfy the following requirements:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) A copy of the disputed Agency Decision;
(2) A detailed statement of the specific legal and factual grounds for the Appeal, including copies of any supporting documents;
(3) The specific remedy or relief the Affected Entity seeks under the Appeal; and
(4) The name and contact information, including email address, of the Affected Entity's designated point of contact for the Appeal.
Within 15 calendar days of receiving the Appeal, the DDO will provide the Affected Entity a written notice, sent electronically, acknowledging receipt of the Appeal.
(a)
(b)
(a)
(b)
An Affected Entity may file an electronic written request for review of the DDO's Appeal decision to the appropriate Review Official within 15 calendar days from the date the Appeal decision is electronically sent to the Affected Entity. The request for review must comply with the following requirements:
(a)
(1) If a Headquarters DDO issued the Appeal decision, the request must be electronically submitted to the Director of the Office of Grants and Debarment, or designee, at the email address identified in the Appeal decision, with a copy to the DDO.
(2) If the Appeal decision was issued by a DDO located in an agency Regional Office, the request for review must be electronically submitted to the Regional Administrator, or designee, at the email address identified in the Appeal decision, with a copy to the DDO.
(b)
(c)
(i) The Affected Entity provides new information in the request for review that was not available to the DDO for the Appeal decision; and
(ii) The Review Official determines that the new information is relevant and should be considered in the interests of fairness and equity.
(a) If the request was submitted in accordance with section § 31.75, the notice of acknowledgment will also advise the Affected Entity that the Review Official expects to issue a decision within 45 calendar days from the date they received the request.
(b) If the request for review was not submitted within the required 15 calendar day period, or does not allege reviewable grounds consistent with § 31.75, the Review Official will notify the Affected Entity that the request is denied as untimely and/or for failing to state a valid basis for review. In limited circumstances, the Review Official may, as a matter of discretion, consider an untimely review if doing so would be in the interest of fairness and equity.
(a) Within 15 calendar days of receiving a copy of the notice acknowledging the receipt of a timely and reviewable Request for Review, the DDO will submit the Appeal record to the Review Official.
(b) The Review Official will issue a final written decision within 45 calendar days of the submission of the request for review unless a longer period is necessary based on the complexity of the legal, technical and factual issues presented.
(1) The Review Official will notify the Affected Entity if the expected decision will not be issued within the 45-day period and if feasible will indicate when the decision is expected to be issued.
(2) The Review Official's decision constitutes the final agency action and is not subject to further review within the agency.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision, submitted by the State of Alabama through the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM), to EPA on November 9, 2012, for the purpose of providing for attainment of the 2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in the Troy 2008 Lead nonattainment area (hereafter referred to as the “Troy Area” or “Area”). The Troy Area is comprised of a portion of Pike County in Alabama surrounding the Sanders Lead Company (hereafter referred to as “Sanders Lead”). EPA is taking final action to approve Alabama's November 9, 2012 SIP submittal regarding the attainment plan based on Alabama's attainment demonstration for the Troy Area. The attainment plan includes the base year emissions inventory requirements, an analysis of the reasonably available control technology (RACT) and reasonably available control measures (RACM) requirements, reasonable further progress (RFP) plan, modeling demonstration of lead attainment and contingency measures for the Troy Area. This action is being taken in accordance with Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).
This rule is effective February 27, 2014.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0173. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Zuri Farngalo, 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. Zuri Farngalo may be reached by phone at (404) 562-9152 or via electronic mail at
On November 12, 2008 (73 FR 66964), EPA revised the Lead NAAQS, lowering the level from 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m
Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required by the CAA to designate areas throughout the United States as attaining or not attaining the NAAQS; this designation process is described in section 107(d)(1) of the CAA. On November 22, 2010 (75 FR 71033), EPA promulgated initial air quality designations for the 2008 Lead NAAQS, which became effective on December 31, 2010, based on air quality monitoring data for calendar years 2007-2009, where there was sufficient data to support a nonattainment designation. Designations for all remaining areas were completed on November 22, 2011 (76 FR 72097), which became effective on December 31, 2011, based on air quality monitoring data for calendar years 2008-2010. Effective December 31, 2010, the Troy Area was designated as nonattainment for the 2008 Lead NAAQS. This designation triggered a requirement for Alabama to submit a SIP revision with a plan for how the Area would attain the 2008 Lead NAAQS, as expeditiously as practicable but no later than December 31, 2015.
EPA provided some guidance on attainment planning requirements for the Lead NAAQS in the November 2008 final rule promulgating the NAAQS.
ADEM submitted its 2008 Lead NAAQS attainment SIP for the Troy Area on November 9, 2012, which included the base year emissions inventory and the attainment demonstration. EPA proposed to approve the Troy Area attainment SIP for the 2008 Lead NAAQS on September 6, 2013. EPA's analysis of the submitted attainment demonstration included a review of the pollutant addressed, emissions inventory requirements, modeling, RACT and RACM requirements, RFP plan, and contingency measures for the Troy Area. Refer to EPA's September 6, 2013, proposed rulemaking for detailed rationale on EPA's analysis of the Troy area attainment demonstration.
EPA is taking final action to approve Alabama's SIP submittal for the Troy Area, as submitted through ADEM to EPA on November 9, 2012, for the purpose of demonstrating attainment of the 2008 Lead NAAQS. Alabama's lead attainment plan for the Troy Area includes a base year emissions inventory, a modeling demonstration of lead attainment, an analysis of RACM/RACT, a RFP plan, and contingency measures.
EPA has determined that Alabama's attainment plan for the 2008 Lead NAAQS for the Troy Area meets the applicable requirements of the CAA. Thus, EPA is taking final action to approve Alabama's attainment plan for the Troy Area. EPA's analysis for this final action is discussed in Section IV of EPA's September 6, 2013, proposed rulemaking.
EPA has determined that all the criteria for Alabama's lead attainment plan for the Troy Area have been met. EPA has determined that Alabama's November 9, 2012 SIP submission meets the applicable requirements of the CAA. Specifically, EPA is taking final action to approve Alabama's November 9, 2012 SIP submission, which includes the attainment demonstration, base year emissions inventory, RACM/RACT analysis, contingency measures and RFP plan.
As mentioned above, the proposed rule to approve the attainment demonstration for the Troy Area was published on September 6, 2013.
The aforementioned multiple CAA statutory provisions evidence Congressional intent to achieve the health benefits of NAAQS attainment as expeditiously as practicable, and to approve and enforce State strategies that will achieve that goal. Therefore, EPA believes it is entirely appropriate and consistent with the Act to approve the portion of Alabama's SIP submittal which requires certain measures to be undertaken by Sanders Lead in the event an exceedance of the Lead NAAQS occurs after July 2013. Even assuming it is true that Alabama was not required to submit this provision as part of its attainment SIP, Alabama certainly was authorized to elect to submit the requirement, and EPA has no basis under the CAA to disapprove it.
EPA is taking final action to approve Alabama's lead attainment plan for the Troy Area. EPA has determined that the SIP meets the applicable requirements of the CAA. Specifically, EPA is taking final action to approve Alabama's November 9, 2012, SIP submission, which includes the attainment demonstration, base year emissions inventory, RACM/RACT analysis, contingency measures and RFP plan.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submittal 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 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, October 7, 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.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
42 U.S.C. 7401
40 CFR Part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Proposed rule.
We are proposing to amend the regulations concerning the importation of fruits and vegetables to allow the importation of fresh bananas from the Philippines into Guam, Hawaii, and the Northern Mariana Islands. As a condition of entry, the bananas would have to be produced in accordance with a systems approach that would include requirements for importation of commercial consignments, monitoring of fruit flies to establish low-prevalence places of production, harvesting only of hard green bananas, and inspection for quarantine pests by the national plant protection organization of the Philippines. The bananas would also have to be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate with an additional declaration stating that they were grown, packed, inspected, and found to be free of quarantine pests in accordance with the proposed requirements. This action would allow the importation of bananas from the Philippines while continuing to protect against the introduction of plant pests into Guam, Hawaii, and the Northern Mariana Islands.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before March 31, 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
Ms. Meredith Jones, Senior Regulatory Coordination Specialist, RPM, RCC, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 851-2289.
The regulations in “Subpart-Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56-1 through 319.56-64, referred to below as the regulations) prohibit or restrict the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world to prevent the introduction and dissemination of plant pests that are new to or not widely distributed within the United States.
The national plant protection organization (NPPO) of the Philippines has requested that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) amend the regulations to allow bananas from the Philippines to be imported into Guam, Hawaii, and the Northern Mariana Islands. Currently, bananas may be imported from the Philippines into the continental United States as a result of a rule published in the
As part of our evaluation of the Philippines' request, we prepared a pest risk assessment (PRA), titled “Importation of Banana,
The PRA identified 62 pests of quarantine significance present in the Philippines that could be introduced into Guam, Hawaii and the Northern Mariana Islands through the importation of green bananas: 2 mites (
Based on the information contained in the PRA, APHIS has determined that measures beyond standard port-of-entry inspection are required to mitigate the risks posed by the quarantine pests with bananas from the Philippines. To recommend specific measures to mitigate those risks, we prepared a risk management document (RMD). Copies of the PRA and RMD may be obtained from the person listed under
Based on the recommendations of the RMD, we are proposing to allow the importation of bananas from the Philippines into Guam, Hawaii, and the Northern Mariana Islands only if they are produced in accordance with a systems approach. The systems approach we are proposing would require:
• Registration, monitoring, and oversight of places of production;
• Trapping for
• Covering bananas with pesticide bags during the growing season;
• Harvesting only of hard green bananas;
• Requirements for culling, safeguarding, and identifying the fruit; and
• Inspection by the NPPO of the Philippines for quarantine pests.
Bananas from the Philippines would also be required to be accompanied by
The proposed systems approach to pest mitigation for the importation of bananas from the Philippines into Guam, Hawaii, and the Northern Mariana Islands has been used successfully to mitigate the risks associated with the importation of bananas from the Philippines into the continental United States (§ 319.56-58). The RMD for bananas from the Philippines evaluated the effectiveness of these measures against quarantine pests identified in the PRA and concluded that the provisions in § 319.56-58, along with the general requirements for the importation of fruits and vegetables in the regulations, will be sufficient to prevent the introduction of those pests into Guam, Hawaii, and the Northern Mariana Islands. Therefore, we are proposing to amend § 319.56-58 to allow the importation of bananas from the Philippines into the United States that would include the continental United States, Guam, Hawaii, and the Northern Mariana Islands. The mitigation measures in the systems approach are outlined in greater detail below.
The introductory text of § 319.56-58 currently lists the 12 quarantine pests of concern associated with the importation of bananas from the Philippines into the continental United States. As noted above, the number of quarantine pests of concern associated with the importation of those bananas into Guam, Hawaii, and the Northern Mariana Islands is 62. Given that large number, we are proposing to no longer list the pests of concern in the introductory text of the section and would instead list the pests in the operational workplan described below.
The importation of bananas from the Philippines into Guam, Hawaii, and the Northern Mariana Islands would be allowed under an operational workplan. A operational workplan is an agreement between APHIS' Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) program, officials of the NPPO of a foreign government, and, when necessary, foreign commercial entities that specifies in detail the phytosanitary measures that will comply with our regulations governing the import or export of a specific commodity. Operational workplans apply only to the signatory parties and establish detailed procedures and guidance for the day-to-day operations of specific export programs. Operational workplans also establish how specific phytosanitary issues are dealt within the exporting country and make clear who is responsible for dealing with those issues.
Paragraph (a)(1) of § 319.56-58 requires the NPPO of the Philippines to provide an operational workplan to APHIS that details activities that the NPPO of the Philippines will, subject to APHIS' approval of the workplan, carry out to meet the requirements of the regulations. The bananas would have to be grown at places of production that are registered with the NPPO of the Philippines and that meet the requirements for places of production. Paragraph (a)(2) requires bananas to be grown at places of production that are registered with the NPPO of the Philippines and that meet the proposed requirements for places of production that are discussed later in this document. It also requires that each registered place of production renew its registration annually.
Paragraph (a)(3) requires the bananas to be packed for export to the United States in packinghouses that meet the packinghouse requirements that are described later in this document.
The bananas must be imported in commercial consignments only. Commercial consignments, as defined in § 319.56-2, are consignments that an inspector identifies as having been imported for sale and distribution. Such identification is based on a variety of indicators, including, but not limited to: Quantity of produce, type of packaging, identification of grower or packinghouse on the packaging, and documents consigning the fruits or vegetables to a wholesaler or retailer. Produce grown commercially is less likely to be infested with plant pests than noncommercial consignments. Noncommercial consignments are more prone to infestations because the commodity is often ripe to overripe and is often grown with little or no pest control.
As such, paragraph (a)(4) requires the bananas to be imported in commercial consignments only. That provision would apply to bananas from the Philippines to be imported into Guam, Hawaii, and the Northern Mariana Islands as well as the continental United States.
The systems approach includes monitoring and oversight requirements, located in paragraph (b) of § 319.56-58, to ensure that the required phytosanitary measures are properly implemented through the process of growing and packing of bananas for export to the United States.
Paragraph (b)(1) requires the NPPO of the Philippines to visit and inspect registered places of production monthly, starting at least 3 months before harvest and continuing until the end of the shipping season, to verify that the growers are complying with the requirements and follow pest control guidelines, when necessary, to reduce quarantine pest populations. The NPPO of the Philippines must verify that the growers are complying with the fruit fly trapping requirements and would have to certify that each place of production has effective fruit fly trapping programs. Any personnel conducting trapping would have to be trained and supervised by the NPPO of the Philippines. APHIS would monitor the places of production by conducting random and scheduled inspections.
Under paragraph (b)(2), if the NPPO of the Philippines finds that a place of production or packinghouse is not complying with the regulations, no fruit from the place of production or packinghouse is eligible for export to the United States until APHIS and the NPPO of the Philippines conduct an investigation and appropriate remedial actions have been implemented.
Paragraph (b)(3) requires the NPPO of the Philippines to retain all forms and documents related to export program activities in groves and packinghouses for at least 1 year and, as requested, provide them to APHIS for review. Such forms and documents include, but are not limited to, fruit fly trapping and inspection records.
Paragraph (c) of § 319.56-58 provides for the use of trapping to demonstrate that registered places of production have a low prevalence of the
Beginning at least 3 months before harvest begins and continuing through the end of the harvest, trapping would have to be conducted in registered places of production with at least 1 trap per 0.2 square kilometers to demonstrate that the places of production have a low prevalence of the
During the trapping, when traps are serviced, if the
Although the
The date on which trapping would no longer be required would be included in the regulations. If no fruit fly larvae are found, we would publish a notice in the
Each place of production must follow a pest management program specified by the NPPO of the Philippines to reduce populations of quarantine pests. This includes applying pesticides to reduce pest populations and bagging bananas after flower drop with plastic bags impregnated with pesticides.
As such, paragraph (d) provides that plastic bags impregnated with pesticides must cover the bananas during the growing period. If a pesticide bag falls off or is torn so that fruit flies can enter, that fruit would no longer be eligible for export to the United States. This growing requirement would prevent quarantine pests from attacking the bananas.
Paragraph (e) of § 319.56-58 sets out requirements for harvesting bananas. Under paragraph (e)(1), bananas would have to be harvested at a hard green stage.
Harvesting bananas at a hard green stage (i.e., bananas with no yellow or green color break) is a standard industry practice for banana production in Central and South America, the Philippines, Hawaii, and most of the world because ripe bananas are more likely to be infested by fruit flies. Inspectors at the port of entry would need to determine that:
• Bananas shipped by air are still green upon arrival in the United States;
• Bananas shipped by sea are either green upon arrival in the United States or yellow but firm.
Under paragraph (e)(2), harvested bananas are required to be placed in field cartons or containers that are marked with the official registration number of the place of production. The fruit would have to be safeguarded from exposure to fruit flies from harvest to export, including being packaged so as to prevent access by fruit flies and other injurious insect pests. These requirements ensure that APHIS and the NPPO of the Philippines can identify the place of production where the bananas were produced if inspectors find quarantine pests in the fruit either before export or at the port of entry. Places of production with quarantine pests would be removed from the program.
As such, paragraph (f) of § 319.56-58 provides that all damaged fruit would have to be culled at the packinghouse. Fruit with broken or bruised skin is more susceptible to infestation by pests than undamaged fruit. In addition, the fruit would have to be washed with a high pressure water spray and with soap and water. This requirement would remove mites, mealy bugs, scale insects, and other surface-feeding quarantine pests from the fruit prior to export.
The RMD suggests that the packinghouses prevent the entry of pests with double-door entry and other measures designed to exclude fruit flies and other pests of quarantine concern. The packinghouse operations for export of bananas must be monitored by the NPPO of the Philippines. No other fruit is allowed in a packinghouse during the time export fruit is being packed.
Such requirements are contained in paragraph (g) of § 319.56-58. Specifically, paragraph (g)(1) provides that the packinghouse would have to have double doors at the entrance to the facility and at the interior entrance to the area where the bananas are packed to exclude fruit flies and other pests of quarantine concern. Paragraph (g)(2) requires that bananas for export be packed into new, clean boxes, crates, or other packing material. Paragraph (g)(2) also requires that bananas intended for export to the United States be labeled with the name and location of the packinghouse marked on the boxes, and segregated from bananas intended for other markets. These requirements would ensure that APHIS and the NPPO of the Philippines could identify the packinghouse at which the fruit was packed if inspectors find quarantine pests in the fruit either before export or at the port of entry.
Paragraph (g)(3) requires that shipping documents accompanying consignments of bananas from the Philippines that are exported to the United States include the official registration number of the place of production at which the bananas were grown and must identify the packinghouse in which the fruit was processed and packed. This identification must be maintained until the fruit is released for entry into the United States.
Paragraph (g)(4) requires that the packinghouse operations for export of bananas be monitored by the NPPO of the Philippines. This requirement would ensure that the packinghouses remain compliant with the regulations.
To ensure that the mitigations required in the systems approach are effective at producing fruit free of the targeted quarantine pests, we would require the NPPO of the Philippines to inspect the fruit after harvest. Paragraph (h)(1) of § 319.56-58 requires inspectors from the NPPO of the Philippines to certify that bananas were harvested at the hard green stage.
Under paragraph (h)(2), the NPPO of the Philippines is required to inspect a biometric sample of the fruit from each place of production at a rate to be determined by APHIS. The inspectors must visually inspect fruit from each place of production for all the quarantine pests. (The paragraph currently states that the inspectors must
If any
To certify that the bananas from the Philippines have been grown and packed in accordance with the requirements of § 319.56-58, paragraph (i) requires each consignment of bananas imported from the Philippines into the United States to be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the NPPO of the Philippines with an additional declaration stating that the bananas in the consignment were grown, packed, and inspected in accordance with the systems approach in § 319.56-58.
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. The proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 603, we have performed an initial regulatory flexibility analysis, which is summarized below, regarding the economic effects of this proposed rule on small entities. Copies of the full analysis are available by contacting the person listed under
Based on the information we have, there is no reason to conclude that adoption of this proposed rule would result in any significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. However, we do not currently have all of the data necessary for a comprehensive analysis of the effects of this proposed rule on small entities. Therefore, we are inviting comments on potential effects. In particular, we are interested in determining the number and kind of small entities that may incur benefits or costs from the implementation of this proposed rule.
Currently, about 4.1 million metric tons (MT) of bananas are imported into the United States every year. In 2011, Hawaii's banana harvest totaled about 7,900 MT compared to U.S. imports of about 4.1 million MT. We do not have information at this point on the quantity of bananas that the Philippines expects to ship to the State of Hawaii or to U.S. territories, or the quantity of bananas already imported into these destinations. We note that for a recent rulemaking to allow banana imports from the Philippines into the continental United States, that the quantity was expected to be relatively insignificant, equivalent to about 0.05 percent of U.S. imports from other countries, 4.1 million MT. Consumers in Hawaii and U.S. territories would benefit from the additional source of fresh bananas. APHIS does not expect the proposed rule to have a significant economic impact on small entities.
This proposed rule would allow bananas to be imported into Guam, Hawaii, and the Northern Mariana Islands from the Philippines. If this proposed rule is adopted, State and local laws and regulations regarding bananas imported under this rule would be preempted while the fruit is in foreign commerce. Fresh fruits are generally imported for immediate distribution and sale to the consuming public and would remain in foreign commerce until sold to the ultimate consumer. The question of when foreign commerce ceases in other cases must be addressed on a case-by-case basis. If this proposed rule is adopted, no retroactive effect will be given to this rule, and this rule will not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.
We made an environmental assessment that reviewed and analyzed the potential impacts of importation of bananas from the Philippines into the continental United States available with our proposal to allow that importation, which was published in the
We have reviewed the potential environmental impacts of allowing the importation of bananas from the Philippines into Guam, Hawaii, and the Northern Mariana Islands and found that they are the same as those described in the earlier environmental assessment; therefore, we are extending our finding of no significant impact to include this action as well.
In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Allowing the importation of fresh bananas from the Philippines into Guam, Hawaii, and the Northern Mariana Islands will require the completion of the following information: A bilateral workplan, registration of production sites, monitoring and oversight of production sites, maintenance of records, forms, and documents, marking of production sites with registration numbers, identification of packinghouses name location, and a phytosanitary certificate.
We are soliciting comments from the public (as well as affected agencies)
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper performance of our agency s functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, 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 information collection on those who are to respond (such as 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).
Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2908.
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to compliance with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. For information pertinent to E-Government Act compliance related to this proposed rule, please contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2908.
Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Imports, Logs, Nursery stock, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rice, Vegetables.
Accordingly, we propose to amend 7 CFR part 319 as follows:
7 U.S.C. 450, 7701-7772, and 7781-7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
The revision reads as follows:
Bananas (
Federal Housing Finance Board; Federal Housing Finance Agency; Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight.
Proposed rule; with request for comments.
The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) is proposing to amend its regulations by relocating and consolidating certain Federal Housing Finance Board (Finance Board) and Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) regulations that pertain to the responsibilities of boards of directors, corporate practices, and corporate governance matters. The OFHEO regulations address corporate governance matters at the Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Enterprises), while the Finance Board regulations address the powers and responsibilities of the boards of directors and management of the Federal Home Loan Banks (Banks). The proposed rule would consolidate most of those existing regulations into a new FHFA regulation, parts of which would apply to both the Banks and the Enterprises (together, regulated entities), and parts of which would apply only to the Banks or only to the Enterprises. Most of the content of the new regulation has been derived from the existing regulations, with such modifications as are necessary to apply certain provisions to all regulated entities. The proposal also would include a new provision on risk management and a new definition of “credit risk,” which is a term that is used only within the proposed risk management provision. Those provisions would apply to both the Banks and the Enterprises. FHFA also is proposing to amend a definition within
Written comments on the proposed rule must be received on or before March 31, 2014. For additional information, see
You may submit your comments on the proposed rule, identified by regulatory information number “RIN 2590-AA59,” by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Amy Bogdon,
FHFA invites comments on all aspects of the proposed rule in addition to requesting comments in response to specific questions that appear throughout this document. FHFA will take all comments into consideration before issuing a final regulation. All comments received will be posted without change on the FHFA Web site at
This proposed rule is the next phase in FHFA's effort to repeal or relocate all remaining OFHEO and Finance Board regulations. Both of the predecessor agencies had adopted regulations addressing director responsibilities, corporate practices, and corporate governance matters. Pursuant to the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA), Public Law 110-289, 122 Stat. 2654, those regulations remain in effect until they are superseded by regulations issued by FHFA.
The regulations of the predecessor agencies that would be relocated by this rulemaking are located at parts 914, 917, and 1710 of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The Finance Board regulations at part 914 address regulatory reporting for the Banks. FHFA is proposing to relocate that provision without substantive change and apply it to all of the regulated entities. All of the relocated regulations would be adopted as a new part, 12 CFR 1239 (part 1239), in the FHFA section of title 12 of the CFR. Any regulations of the predecessor agencies that are not being adopted as FHFA regulations would be repealed.
As part of this rulemaking, FHFA is also proposing to amend one of the definitions within its Prudential Standards regulations, as well as one aspect of the Prudential Standards themselves. Together, those amendments would explicitly provide that the introductory language within the Prudential Standards, which appears immediately before the enumerated 10 standards, is considered a part of the standards and is to be treated in the same manner as the 10 enumerated standards. The introductory section of the Prudential Standards recites general concepts of corporate governance and responsibilities, as they relate to the subject matter of the individual standards, that are a part of the typical responsibilities of the board of directors and senior management of any financial institution. FHFA believes that it would be more appropriate to include those paragraphs as explicitly part of the standards, and having the same substantive effect under the Prudential Standards regime. Lastly, FHFA is proposing to repeal in its entirety part 1720 of the OFHEO regulations, which established certain safety and soundness standards for the Enterprises. Because many of the matters addressed by part 1720 are also addressed by the Prudential Standards and by parts of this proposed rule, FHFA has determined that the repeal of part 1720 will not change the standards applicable to the Enterprises. The following sections briefly describe each of the provisions in proposed part 1239 and its origin.
Also with respect to the Prudential Standards, FHFA acknowledges that there is substantial overlap between some of these proposed regulations and the Prudential Standards, and requests comment on appropriate modifications to the regulations to harmonize them with the Prudential Standards to create a unified set of corporate governance requirements with appropriate levels of specificity and appropriate enforcement mechanisms.
Part 1239 of the proposed rule would be structured into a subpart (A) for definitions and four substantive subparts (B through E). Subpart B would consist of regulations relating to core corporate governance principles, which would apply to both the Banks and the Enterprises. Subpart C would include regulations addressing codes of conduct, risk management, compliance programs, and regulatory reports, which also would apply to all regulated entities. Subparts D and E would consist of regulations that address matters specific to the Banks (such as those relating to a Bank's member product policy) and to the Enterprises (such as those relating to the Enterprise boards), respectively.
Much of the content of part 1239, with the exception of the provision on risk management, has been derived from the current Finance Board and OFHEO regulations, with modifications as necessary to apply certain of the provisions to all regulated entities and to clarify, update, or supplement the existing regulations, as appropriate. FHFA believes that the current Finance Board risk management regulation would benefit from updates. Accordingly, FHFA has rewritten this provision in its entirety and is proposing to apply the revised provision to the Enterprises as well as to the Banks. FHFA believes that the Finance Board regulations dealing with audit committees and internal controls could be similarly updated and extended to the Enterprises, but is soliciting comment on how best to do that, rather than proposing revised language for those provisions, as discussed in more detail in part III.E. (Bank Specific Requirements).
When promulgating regulations or taking other actions that relate to the Banks, section 1313(f) of the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 (Safety and Soundness Act), as amended by section 1201 of HERA, requires the Director to consider the differences between the Banks and the Enterprises with respect to the Banks' cooperative ownership structure; mission of providing liquidity to members; affordable housing and community development mission; capital structure; and joint and several liability. 12 U.S.C. 4513(f). In preparing the proposed rule, the Director has considered the differences between the Banks and the Enterprises as they relate to the above factors and has determined that none of the statutory factors would be adversely affected by the proposed rule. The Director is requesting comments from the public about whether differences related to these factors should result in a revision of the proposed rule as it relates to the Banks.
The definitions section of the proposed rule consists of definitions from parts 914, 917, and 1710, most of which are being relocated without any substantive change, apart from conforming changes that are necessary to make certain of the defined terms applicable to both the Banks and the Enterprises. The proposed rule would substantively amend certain of the existing definitions, as described below. First, the proposed rule would replace the term “reportable conditions” (which currently appears only in the Finance Board regulation on audit committees) with the term “significant deficiency.” That revision would better align the concept with current accounting and financial reporting standards. Second, the proposed rule would amend the definition of “credit risk,” which currently appears only in the Finance Board provision pertaining to risk management. The proposed definition would define credit risk as the potential that a borrower or counterparty will fail to meet its financial obligations in accordance with the agreed terms. FHFA believes that is a better definition than the current provision, which focuses on the decline in value of an obligation as a result of a deterioration in creditworthiness. Third, the proposal would revise the definition of “operational risk” to follow the definition used by the other federal banking regulators in their risk-based capital regulations, which also is consistent with the definition of the term from the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision.
Subpart B includes three provisions that address certain core principles of corporate practices or governance that FHFA believes should be applied to both the Enterprises and the Banks. The topics addressed by this part of the proposed rule are choice of law, duties of directors, and committees of the boards of directors, and nearly all of those provisions are derived from the Finance Board or OFHEO regulations.
Section 1239.3 of the proposed rule would require each regulated entity to designate a body of law to follow with respect to its corporate governance and indemnification practices. This requirement already applies to the Enterprises and the Office of Finance, pursuant to 12 CFR 1710.10 of the OFHEO regulations and 12 CFR 1273.7(i)(2) of the FHFA regulations, respectively, but would be new for the Banks. Under this provision, a regulated entity would be required to designate in its bylaws one of the following for its corporate governance practices and procedures: (1) The law of the jurisdiction in which the entity maintains its principal office; (2) the Delaware General Corporation Law; or (3) the Revised Model Business Corporation Act. Technically, those laws would not apply to, nor be binding on, the Banks or Enterprises, because they are not state-chartered corporations. Rather, FHFA intends that the entities would look to their chosen body of law to address any governance or indemnification issues that may arise and for which no federal laws control.
The proposed regulation also includes a provision dealing with indemnification, which is derived from FHFA's regulations governing the Office of Finance, 12 CFR 1273.7(i)(3), and from the OFHEO indemnification provisions at 12 CFR 1710.20. The proposed provision would state that a regulated entity shall indemnify its directors, officers, and employees under terms and conditions to be determined by the board, subject to any limitations in federal law or the law of the jurisdiction designated for an entity's corporate governance practices. The proposal further requires each entity to have policies and procedures regarding the indemnification of its directors, officers, and employees, which must address how the board of directors is to decide on requests for indemnification, and must include standards relating to indemnification, investigations by the board of directors, and review by independent counsel. The proposal also authorizes FHFA to review an entity's indemnification policies, procedures, and practices, and carries over a provision of the OFHEO regulation that authorized it to limit or prohibit indemnification payments for reasons of safety and soundness. Under that latter provision, FHFA could limit or prohibit indemnification payments to any person found to have violated any law or regulation, breached any material elements of the entity's bylaws or code of conduct, or engaged in grossly negligent actions.
FHFA is proposing to make these provisions applicable to the Banks because there are benefits to having all regulated entities follow the same regulatory standard with respect to their corporate governance and indemnification practices, and because there currently is no definitive guidance for the Banks on this matter. The indemnification provision explicitly states that it is subject to the other provisions of the regulation, one of which provides that the corporate governance and indemnification practices must comply with the authorizing statutes and any other applicable federal statutes or regulations. That means that a regulated entity's ability to indemnify its directors, officers, and employees will be subject to any limitations that FHFA imposes through its separate indemnification regulations or through this provision, regardless of what the chosen state law may provide.
Section 1293.4 of the proposed rule would set forth certain basic duties and responsibilities of directors of a regulated entity. This provision states that the ultimate responsibility for managing a regulated entity lies with the board of directors. It also requires directors to, among other things: (1) Act in good faith and with due care, in the best interest of the regulated entity, and in a fair and impartial manner; (2) direct the affairs of an entity in a manner consistent with applicable statutes and regulations; (3) have a working familiarity with basic finance and accounting practices; and (4) adopt bylaws governing the manner in which the regulated entity administers its affairs. Directors must also put in place policies relating to the board's oversight of risk management, compensation, financial reporting, and responsiveness to FHFA supervisory concerns.
The text of the proposed regulation consists mostly of provisions carried over from Finance Board regulation (§ 917.2) and, to a lesser extent, OFHEO regulation (§ 1710.15). The proposed rule would carry over nearly all of the provisions of (§ 917.2) of the Finance Board regulations, and the substance of the existing OFHEO regulations located at 12 CFR 1710.15(b)(3), (5), and (7). Those OFHEO provisions require the boards of directors to have policies in place to assure their oversight of compensation programs, disclosures to shareholders and investors, and responsiveness to regulatory inquiries. The proposed rule would add a provision requiring the boards to have policies in place to assure their oversight of risk management, in light of the importance of risk management policies and controls to the safe and sound operation of the entities. FHFA is proposing not to carry over certain other OFHEO regulations that require the boards to have in place policies to assure their oversight of corporate strategy, hiring and retention of qualified senior executive officers, integrity of financial reporting, and extensions of credit to board members.
The last section in subpart B deals with committees of the board of directors, and is derived principally from § 1710.12 of the OFHEO regulations. The proposed regulation would require each regulated entity to have certain specified committees of the board of directors and would authorize the entities to establish any other committees they deem appropriate. Each entity would be required to have committees of the board of directors that are responsible for each of the following matters: (1) Risk management; (2) audit; (3) compensation; and (4) corporate governance. The rule would not require the entities to establish committees with those specific names, only that they establish committees that are responsible for overseeing those matters. The proposed rule also would provide that the risk management committee and the audit committee cannot be combined with any of the other committees. The proposal would further require that each committee have a formal written charter and that it meet with sufficient frequency to carry out its responsibilities. The regulation retains, for the Enterprises only, an OFHEO provision requiring Enterprise audit committees to comply with certain provisions of section 301 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOA), which relates to audit committees of public companies, and that the audit committee and other Enterprise committees also comply with applicable provisions of the rules of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). That is the only provision in this proposed regulation that would not apply to the Banks. Because the Federal Home Loan Bank Act (Bank Act) mandates that a majority of a Bank's board of directors be officers or directors of the Bank's members, these directors may not meet the independence criteria in both of the relevant SOA and NYSE provisions for audit committee members. Indeed, nine of the Banks have disclosed in their federal securities law filings that the member directors who serve on the Banks' audit committees did not meet the NYSE independence requirement because the member had a “material relationship” with the Bank or failed the NYSE's revenue test.
Under SOA section 301, an audit committee director is not considered independent if the director is an “affiliated person” of the Bank. The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 defines “affiliated person” as a person who owns, directly or indirectly, or controls 5% of the voting securities of the Bank. A member director does not directly own voting securities of a Bank but may be deemed to indirectly own or control the securities under certain scenarios (
The substance of the proposed rule differs slightly from OFHEO regulation § 1710.12 in that it requires each board to have a committee dealing with risk management. The OFHEO rule mandates that the Enterprises have the other three committees mentioned above. There is no equivalent Finance Board regulation. FHFA believes that, consistent with current best practices, it is appropriate to add the risk management committee to the list of required committees and to make this regulation applicable to the Banks as these four areas are crucial to the safe and sound operation of all regulated entities.
FHFA also has considered whether the proposed rule should require the board of directors of each regulated entity to have an executive committee, in addition to the other four committees that would be required by the proposed rule. FHFA requests comments on whether it would be appropriate for the regulations to require the establishment of executive committees as a matter of course and, if so, what powers should be delegated to those committees. An executive committee that is authorized to exercise the powers of the full board of directors could enhance the efficiency of the board's operations, particularly at Banks that have large boards of directors. FHFA also requests comment on whether the need for an executive committee, or the benefits from having such a committee, would be any greater in the case of a Bank that results from the merger of two other Banks. In such cases, statutory provisions that cause the resulting Bank to have a very large board of directors also may make board operations more cumbersome and thus less efficient. To the extent that an executive committee may address matters that otherwise would have been addressed by the full board, FHFA requests comments on what limitations might be appropriate to ensure that the ability of those directors who are not on the executive committee to exercise their own fiduciary duties is not compromised.
Subpart C includes four provisions that relate to certain other matters that FHFA believes should apply to all of the regulated entities, but are not the type of governance provisions that are included in Subpart B. These provisions address: (1) Code of conduct; (2) risk management; (3) compliance programs; and (4) regulatory reports. The substance of these provisions is derived from parts 914, 917, and 1710 of the Finance Board and OFHEO regulations, respectively, except for the risk management provision, which has been rewritten in its entirety to better align it with supervisory expectations for sound risk management.
The first regulation in Subpart C requires each regulated entity to establish a written code of conduct for directors, executive officers, and employees that is designed to ensure that they discharge their duties in an objective and impartial manner. The code of conduct must include standards set forth in section 406 of the SOA, which address promoting: (1) Honest and ethical conduct, including the handling of conflicts of interest between personal and professional relationships; (2) full, fair, accurate, timely, and understandable disclosures in periodic reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC); and (3) compliance with applicable rules and regulations. In addition, each regulated entity must review the code at least once every three years and make any necessary revisions. The requirements of proposed § 1239.10 are being relocated from OFHEO regulation § 1710.14 without any substantive changes, and are being made applicable to the Banks as well as the Enterprises. FHFA believes that a code of conduct is an important tool to ensure the safe and sound operation of a regulated entity and therefore is proposing to extend the requirements of this provision to the Banks.
Both the Finance Board and OFHEO regulations include provisions dealing with the issue of risk management responsibilities of the boards of directors.
The proposed rule would require each regulated entity to have a risk committee and that it be established pursuant to a written charter approved by the full board of directors. The risk committee also would have to be chaired by a director that does not serve in a management capacity. That provision would effectively apply only to the Enterprises because the boards of the Banks do not have any management representatives. The committee must have at least one member with risk management expertise and all members must have an understanding of risk management principles and experience developing and applying risk management practices, identifying risks, and monitoring risk controls for financial services organizations. The proposal would require the committee to meet regularly and report directly to the board of directors, and would provide that the committee is responsible for documenting and overseeing the risk management policies and practices, reviewing and approving the risk management program, and reviewing regular reports from the chief risk officer (CRO).
The proposed rule would require each regulated entity to appoint a CRO, who would be responsible for the risk management function. The proposed
This provision of the proposed rule would require the regulated entities to establish a compliance program headed by a compliance officer and would set forth criteria for the program. These provisions would be carried over, with modest conforming changes, from OFHEO regulation § 1710.19, and thus would be new only for the Banks. The compliance program to be established under this provision must be reasonably designed to ensure that the regulated entity complies with applicable laws, rules, regulations, and internal controls. In addition to reporting directly to the chief executive officer, the compliance officer must report regularly to the entity's board of directors (or a committee thereof) on the adequacy of the entity's compliance policies and procedures, and must recommend any appropriate adjustments to those policies or procedures. Other provisions of the OFHEO regulation, at § 1710.19(b) and (c), which deal with risk management and registration of Enterprise stock under the federal securities laws, would be repealed as either being addressed elsewhere or no longer being relevant.
The last section of Subpart C would require each regulated entity to provide FHFA with such regulatory reports as are necessary for it to evaluate the condition of a regulated entity, or compliance with applicable law, and to do so in accordance with the forms and instructions issued by FHFA from time to time. This provision would be relocated, with only minor non-substantive changes, from the Finance Board regulations at 12 CFR 914.1 and 914.2. FHFA has the statutory authority to compel all regulated entities to submit the reports described in § 1239.13. 12 U.S.C. 4514. Therefore, applying this provision to all regulated entities would not impose any new burdens on the Enterprises, but would serve to highlight the importance of timely and accurate data reporting.
Subpart D of the proposed rule would carry over two OFHEO regulations relating to: (1) Eligibility requirements for the board of directors of the Enterprises and conduct of their board meetings; and (2) compensation for Enterprise directors. The first provision is substantively identical to the current OFHEO regulation § 1710.11, while the second provision is based on § 1710.13, with minor changes that eliminate portions relating to compensation of executive officers and employees, which are no longer necessary. Neither of these two provisions would be applied to the Banks because section 7 of the Bank Act, 12 U.S.C. 1427, already establishes eligibility requirements and mandates a specific composition of Bank boards between member directors and independent directors, and because section 7 and 12 CFR part 1261 of the FHFA regulations already include provisions governing compensation for directors of the Banks.
The first provision of Subpart D addresses age and term limits for individual Enterprise board members and requires that a majority of the directors be independent, as defined under the rules of the NYSE. It also addresses the frequency of Enterprise board meetings, quorum requirements, and voting by directors. These provisions are being carried over from § 1710.11 without substantive change and would apply only to the Enterprises. In addition, proposed § 1239.20 includes a new provision that would prohibit the chief executive officer (CEO) of an Enterprise from also serving as the chairman of the board of directors. FHFA is proposing to add this requirement in order to promote the board of directors' oversight of senior management. By separating the two positions, FHFA intends to preclude the possibility that a CEO would have an opportunity to unduly influence the full board of directors by virtue of holding the chairman's position.
The second provision of Subpart D states that Enterprise director compensation must be reasonable and appropriate for the time required for the performance of their duties. This provision is based on § 1710.13 of the OFHEO regulations, which addresses compensation of Enterprise board members, as well as Enterprise officers and employees. The proposed rule would differ from the OFHEO rule in that it would apply only to compensation paid to the directors of an Enterprise. Because FHFA has recently adopted an interim rule addressing executive compensation matters for the Banks and the Enterprises, there is no longer any need to address the matter of executive compensation in these provisions. As for non-executive employees, FHFA believes that a separate regulation is not necessary as those salaries will be set by an entity's executives, whose compensation is subject to FHFA review.
Subpart E of the proposed rule would carry over from the Finance Board regulations five provisions that address a Bank's: (1) Member products policy; (2) strategic business plan; (3) internal control system; (4) audit committee; and (5) dividends. The proposed provisions derive from current Finance Board regulations on these topics, which will be relocated to subpart E with only minor and conforming changes. As discussed in more detail below, FHFA believes that three of these provisions—regarding the member products policy, business plan, and dividends—are unique to the Banks and thus should not be applied to the Enterprises. Although FHFA is proposing to include the Finance Board provisions on internal controls and audit committees in the “Bank specific” portion of the rule, it also is requesting comment on whether it would be appropriate to revise those provisions so that they could be applied to both the Banks and the Enterprises.
Finance Board regulations require each Bank to have a member products policy that addresses the Bank's management of products offered to members and housing associates.
Finance Board regulations also require each Bank's board of directors to adopt a strategic business plan that describes how each Bank will achieve its housing finance mission, and how each Bank establishes goals and objectives for each of its business activities.
The proposed rule would carry over, without substantive change, the Finance Board regulation dealing with internal control systems at the Banks.
Nonetheless, the topic of internal controls is one that is relevant to both the Banks and the Enterprises, and FHFA is considering whether it should adopt a regulation on internal controls that would apply to all of the regulated entities. Accordingly, FHFA specifically requests public comment on the following questions:
1. In what manner should FHFA revise the content of § 917.6 so that it could be applied to all regulated entities, and what specific revisions to the regulatory text would be needed to accomplish that objective?
2. What regulatory approach would be best suited for addressing the topic of internal controls at the Banks and Enterprises, one based on general principles, or one that includes detailed requirements that prescribe particular steps that an entity should take in creating and operating a system of internal controls?
3. If FHFA were to adopt a more prescriptive approach to a regulation on internal controls, is the current approach, which separately addresses the requirements of an internal control system, the responsibilities of the board, and the responsibilities of management, appropriate?
4. If FHFA were to adopt a more principles-based approach to internal controls, what principles would be necessary to assure that regulated entities would establish and maintain an effective system of internal controls?
5. What amendments to the regulation or the Prudential Standards would be most appropriate to ensure that they complement each other with respect to the entities' internal control systems?
6. Should the proposed § 1239.32(a)(iv) retain the requirement that the internal control system must ensure that the entity complies with all applicable laws and regulations if the proposed rule will separately require that the entities establish a compliance program to address that same topic?
7. Are there any types of internal control requirements that would be unique to either the Banks or the Enterprises and could not readily be applied to the other entities?
The proposed rule also would carry over without substantive change the provisions of the Finance Board regulations dealing with Bank audit committees.
The Finance Board regulation on Bank audit committees reflects the unique structure of the Banks as member-owned cooperatives whose boards of directors include a majority of member directors that also serve as officers or directors of their member institutions. Because the board structure of the Banks is unique and differs so much from that of the Enterprises, FHFA believes that it is appropriate to retain the Bank-specific regulations for the Banks' audit committees. FHFA is not proposing to impose these requirements on the Enterprises because of those differences and because the Enterprises are separately required (by the OFHEO regulations and by this proposed rule) to comply with the audit committee requirements of section 301 of the SOA and the rules of the NYSE.
Nonetheless, the topic of audit committees is one that is relevant to both the Banks and the Enterprises, and FHFA requests comments on the following questions:
1. By carrying over the existing Finance Board and OFHEO regulations, the proposed rule would effectively retain the two distinct regulatory approaches embodied in the current rules,
2. If FHFA were to retain the substance of the current Finance Board rule for Bank audit committees (either for the Banks or for the Banks and the Enterprises), FHFA requests comments
3. With respect to the independence requirement of the current Finance Board regulation, FHFA requests comments on whether it should add a new provision that would deem a member director to not be “independent” for audit committee purposes if the member institution at which that director is employed were to have more than a specified percentage of the Bank's outstanding capital stock or the Bank's total advances. FHFA also requests comments regarding the level at which a member's Bank stock or advances could be considered to be too high for that member's representative to be deemed sufficiently independent to serve on the Bank's audit committee.
4. With respect to the composition of Bank audit committees, which must include a balance of representatives from community financial institutions and other members, and of independent and member directors, FHFA requests comment on whether that provision remains optimal or whether the regulation should require any other requirements relating to audit committee composition, such as requiring a majority of the committee members to be independent directors.
5. With respect to the relationship between the audit committee regulations and the Prudential Standards, FHFA requests comment on how best to coordinate the audit committee regulations with the provisions of Standard 2, which also addresses audit committees, whether FHFA should address audit committee requirements entirely within either the regulations or the standards, and what matters would be more appropriately addressed in a regulation or in the Prudential Standards.
The last regulation in Subpart E would carry over with only modest revisions a Finance Board regulation addressing Bank dividends.
As noted above, there are several portions of 12 CFR part 917 and 12 CFR part 1710 that have become obsolete or are no longer necessary, and FHFA is proposing to repeal them as part of this rulemaking. The repealed provisions consist of: (1) Several OFHEO regulations that impose requirements substantively identical to those found in the SOA; (2) an OFHEO regulation that reserves the right of FHFA to amend its regulations; (3) an OFHEO regulation that states that FHFA has the authority under the Safety and Soundness Act to prohibit or restrict indemnification of board members and executives of the Enterprises; (4) portions of the OFHEO regulation relating to the responsibilities of boards of directors that address matters that are covered by the Prudential Standards; and (5) a Finance Board regulation that requires Banks to prepare annual budgets.
OFHEO regulations at § 1710.13(b), § 1710.16, § 1710.17, § 1710.18, and § 1710.19(c) are substantively identical to requirements found in the SOA, which apply to the Banks and Enterprises as registered issuers under the federal securities laws.
As noted previously, § 1710.15 of the OFHEO regulations addresses the conduct and responsibilities of Enterprise directors, and FHFA is proposing to carry over certain of those provisions into § 1239.4 of the proposed rule. FHFA also is proposing to repeal the remaining portions of § 1710.15, which include the introductory language, language requiring directors to refer to state law and OFHEO pronouncements for additional guidance, several provisions requiring the board to have policies for overseeing corporate strategy, hiring of qualified senior executives, financial reporting, and extensions of credit to board members. FHFA believes that these matters are adequately addressed in other provisions of the proposed rule or in the Prudential Standards, and need not be adopted as FHFA regulations.
Finance Board regulation § 917.8 requires Banks to adopt an operating and a capital expenditures budget annually. FHFA believes that the adoption of a budget is a basic duty already encompassed in a director's duty to act in good faith and with care in overseeing the affairs of a Bank. Therefore, FHFA is not proposing to carry this Finance Board provision over into the FHFA regulations.
As noted previously, FHFA is proposing to repeal 12 CFR part 1720 of the OFHEO regulations, which established certain safety and soundness standards for the Enterprises, because those matters are addressed by the Prudential Standards and by certain parts of this proposed rule.
The introductory section of the Prudential Standards, which appears immediately before the enumerated 10 standards, recites general responsibilities of the boards of directors and senior management of the regulated entities, as they relate to the matters addressed by the individual standards. FHFA is proposing to explicitly state that this introductory
The Prudential Standards address certain topics that also are covered by the existing regulations and would continue to be covered by the proposed regulations, which results in a degree of regulatory overlap. Despite that overlap, there are meaningful differences between the two provisions, some of which may be appropriate to preserve. One key difference is that because the Prudential Standards have been adopted as guidance, they do not have the force and effect of law, as do the regulations addressing the same topics. For that reason, the Prudential Standards may be enforced only by the remedial authorities in the Prudential Standards statute, and not through the agency's administrative enforcement powers, which can be used to enforce regulations, unless a regulated entity's failure to meet a prudential standard rises to the level of an unsafe or unsound practice. FHFA is not proposing to address in this regulation all of the potential areas of overlap between the Prudential Standards and the regulations, but does intend to initiate a separate project to identify any regulations that address topics that are also covered by the Prudential Standards, or would more appropriately be covered by a Prudential Standard. To aid it in that undertaking, FHFA is requesting comments on how it may best integrate and harmonize its regulations and the Prudential Standards, particularly with respect to the seven topics described below.
With respect to each of those topics described above, FHFA requests comments on whether there are any direct conflicts between the regulations and the standards,
The proposed regulation does not contain any information collection requirement that requires the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Federal Home Loan Banks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Federal Home Loan Banks.
Administrative practice and procedure, Federal Home Loan Banks, Government-Sponsored Enterprises, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Federal Home Loan Banks, Government-Sponsored Enterprises, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Mortgages.
Administrative practice and procedure, Mortgages.
Accordingly, for reasons stated in the Supplementary Information and under the authority of 12 U.S.C. 1426, 1427, 1432(a), 1436(a), 1440, 4511(b), 4513(a), 4513(b), and 4526, FHFA hereby proposes to amend subchapter C of chapter IX, subchapter B of chapter XII, and subchapter C of chapter XVII of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
12 U.S.C. 4511, 4513(a) and (f), 4513b, and 4526.
12 U.S.C. 1426, 1427, 1432(a), 1436(a), 1440, 4511(b), 4513(a), 4513(b), and 4526.
FHFA is responsible for supervising and ensuring the safety and soundness of the regulated entities. In furtherance of those responsibilities, this part sets forth minimum standards with respect to responsibilities of boards of directors, corporate practices, and corporate governance matters of the regulated entities.
As used in this part (or, as otherwise noted):
(a)
(b)
(i) The law of the jurisdiction in which the principal office of the regulated entity is located;
(ii) The Delaware General Corporation Law (Del. Code Ann. Title 8); or
(iii) The Revised Model Business Corporation Act.
(2) Each regulated entity shall designate in its bylaws the body of law elected for its corporate governance and indemnification practices and procedures pursuant to this paragraph.
(c)
(2) Each regulated entity shall have in place policies and procedures consistent with this section for indemnification of its directors, officers, and employees. Such policies and procedures shall address how the board of directors is to approve or deny requests for indemnification from current and former directors, officers, and employees, and shall include standards relating to indemnification, investigations by the board of directors, and review by independent counsel.
(3) Nothing in this paragraph shall affect any rights to indemnification (including the advancement of expenses) that a director or any other officer or employee had with respect to any actions, omissions, transactions, or facts occurring prior to the effective date of this paragraph.
(4) FHFA has the authority under the Safety and Soundness Act to review a regulated entity's indemnification policies, procedures, and practices, and may limit or prohibit indemnification payments in furtherance of the safe and sound operations of the regulated entity.
(a)
(b)
(1) Carry out his or her duties as director in good faith, in a manner such director believes to be in the best interests of the regulated entity, and with such care, including reasonable inquiry, as an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would use under similar circumstances;
(2) Administer the affairs of the regulated entity fairly and impartially and, for Bank directors, without discrimination in favor of or against any member institution;
(3) At the time of election, or within a reasonable time thereafter, have a working familiarity with basic finance and accounting practices, including the ability to read and understand the regulated entity's balance sheet and income statement and to ask substantive questions of management and the internal and external auditors;
(4) Direct the operations of the regulated entity in conformity with the requirements set forth in the authorizing statutes, Safety and Soundness Act, and this chapter; and
(5) Adopt and maintain in effect at all times bylaws governing the manner in which the regulated entity administers its affairs. Such bylaws shall be consistent with applicable laws and regulations administered by FHFA, and with the body of law designated for the entity's corporate governance practices and procedures.
(c)
(1) The risk management and compensation programs of the regulated entity;
(2) The processes for providing accurate financial reporting and other disclosures, and communications with stockholders; and
(3) The responsiveness of executive officers in providing accurate and timely reports to FHFA and in addressing all supervisory concerns of
(d)
(2) The board of directors and its committees may require that staff of the regulated entity that provides services to the board or any committee under paragraph (d)(1) of this section report directly to the board or such committee, as appropriate.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)
(a)
(2)
(b)
(c)
(i) Risk limitations appropriate to each business line of the regulated entity;
(ii) Appropriate policies and procedures relating to risk management governance, risk management practices, and risk control infrastructure, and processes and systems for identifying and reporting risks, including emerging risks;
(iii) Provisions for monitoring compliance with the regulated entity's risk limit structure and policies and procedures relating to risk management governance, practices, risk controls, and effective and timely implementation of corrective actions; and
(iv) Provisions specifying management's authority and independence to carry out risk management responsibilities, and the integration of risk management and control objectives in management goals and compensation structure.
(2) The risk committee shall:
(i) Be chaired by a director not serving in a management capacity of the regulated entity;
(ii) Have at least one member with risk management expertise that is commensurate with the regulated entity's capital structure, risk profile, complexity, activities, size, and other appropriate risk-related factors;
(iii) Have committee members with an understanding of risk management principles and practices relevant to the regulated entity;
(iv) Have members with experience developing and applying risk management practices and procedures, measuring and identifying risks, and monitoring the testing risk controls with respect to financial services organizations;
(v) Fully document and maintain records of its meetings, including its risk management decisions and recommendations; and
(vi) Report directly to the board and not as part of, or combined with, another committee.
(d)
(1) Be responsible for documenting and overseeing the enterprise-wide risk management policies and practices of the regulated entity;
(2) Review and approve an appropriate risk management program that is commensurate with the regulated entity's capital structure, risk profile, complexity, activities, size, and other appropriate risk-related factors; and
(3) Receive and review regular reports from the regulated entity's chief risk officer.
(e)
(2)
(3)
(i) Allocating delegated risk limits and monitoring compliance with such limits;
(ii) Establishing appropriate policies and procedures relating to risk management governance, practices, and risk controls, and developing appropriate processes and systems for identifying and reporting risks, including emerging risks;
(iii) Monitoring risk exposures and risk controls, including testing risk controls and verifying risk measures; and
(iv) Reporting risk management issues and emerging risks, and ensuring that risk management issues are effectively resolved in a timely manner.
(4) The CRO shall execute the responsibilities enumerated in paragraph (e)(3) of this section on an enterprise-wide basis.
(5) The CRO should have risk management expertise that is commensurate with the regulated entity's capital structure, risk profile, complexity, activities, size, and other appropriate risk related factors.
(6) The CRO shall report regularly to the risk committee and to the chief executive officer on the entity's compliance with, and the adequacy of, its current risk management policies and procedures, and shall recommend any adjustments to such policies and procedures that he or she considers necessary or appropriate.
(7) The compensation of a regulated entity's CRO shall be appropriately structured to provide for an objective and independent assessment of the risks taken by the regulated entity.
A regulated entity shall establish and maintain a compliance program that is reasonably designed to assure that the regulated entity complies with applicable laws, rules, regulations, and internal controls. The compliance program shall be headed by a compliance officer, however styled, who reports directly to the chief executive officer. The compliance officer also shall report regularly to the board of directors, or an appropriate committee thereof, on the adequacy of the entity's compliance policies and procedures, including the entity's compliance with them, and shall recommend any revisions to such policies and procedures that he or she considers necessary or appropriate.
(a)
(b)
(1) Provision in the Bank Act, Safety and Soundness Act, or other law, order, rule, or regulation;
(2) Condition imposed in writing by FHFA in connection with the granting of any application or other request by a regulated entity; or
(3) Written agreement entered into between FHFA and a regulated entity.
(a)
(ii)
(2)
(3)
(b)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Each Enterprise may pay its directors reasonable and appropriate compensation for the time required of them, and their necessary and reasonable expenses, in the performance of their duties.
(a)
(2)
(i) Review the Bank's member products policy annually;
(ii) Amend the member products policy as appropriate; and
(iii) Re-adopt the member products policy, including interim amendments, not less often than every three years.
(b)
(1) Address credit underwriting criteria to be applied in evaluating applications for advances, standby letters of credit, and renewals;
(2) Address appropriate levels of collateralization, valuation of collateral and discounts applied to collateral values for advances, and standby letters of credit;
(3) Address advances-related fees to be charged by each Bank, including any schedules or formulas pertaining to such fees;
(4) Address standards and criteria for pricing member products, including differential pricing of advances pursuant to § 1266.5(b)(2) of this chapter, and criteria regarding the pricing of standby letters of credit, including any special pricing provisions for standby letters of credit that facilitate the financing of projects that are eligible for any of the Banks' CICA programs under part 1292 of this chapter;
(5) Provide that, for any draw made by a beneficiary under a standby letter of credit, the member will be charged a processing fee calculated in accordance with the requirements of § 1271.6(b) of this chapter;
(6) Address the maintenance of appropriate systems, procedures and internal controls; and
(7) Address the maintenance of appropriate operational and personnel capacity.
(a)
(1) Enumerate operating goals and objectives for each major business activity and for all new business activities, which must include plans for maximizing activities that further the Bank's housing finance and community lending mission, consistent with part 1265 of this chapter;
(2) Discuss how the Bank will address credit needs and market opportunities identified through ongoing market research and consultations with members, associates, and public and private organizations;
(3) Establish quantitative performance goals for Bank products related to multi-family housing, small business, small farm and small agri-business lending;
(4) Describe any proposed new business activities or enhancements of existing activities; and
(5) Be supported by appropriate and timely research and analysis of relevant market developments and member and associate demand for Bank products and services.
(b)
(1) Review the Bank's strategic business plan at least annually;
(2) Re-adopt the Bank's strategic business plan, including interim amendments, not less often than every three years; and
(3) Establish management reporting requirements and monitor implementation of the strategic business plan and the operating goals and objectives contained therein.
(c)
(a)
(i) The efficiency and effectiveness of Bank activities;
(ii) The safeguarding of Bank assets;
(iii) The reliability, completeness, and timely reporting of financial and management information, and transparency of such information to the Bank's board of directors and to FHFA; and
(iv) Compliance with applicable laws, regulations, policies, supervisory determinations, and directives of the Bank's board of directors and senior management.
(2) Ongoing internal control activities necessary to maintain the internal control system required under paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall include, but are not limited to:
(i) Top level reviews by the Bank's board of directors and senior management, including review of financial presentations and performance reports;
(ii) Activity controls, including review of standard performance and exception reports by department-level management on an appropriate periodic basis;
(iii) Physical and procedural controls to safeguard, and prevent the unauthorized use of, assets;
(iv) Monitoring for compliance with the risk tolerance limits set forth in the Bank's risk management policy;
(v) Any required approvals and authorizations for specific activities; and
(vi) Any required verifications and reconciliations for specific activities.
(b)
(1) Conducting periodic discussions with senior management regarding the effectiveness of the internal control system;
(2) Ensuring that an internal audit of the internal control system is performed annually and that such annual audit is reasonably designed to be effective and comprehensive;
(3) Requiring that internal control deficiencies be reported to the Bank's board of directors in a timely manner and that such deficiencies are addressed promptly;
(4) Conducting a timely review of evaluations of the effectiveness of the internal control system made by internal auditors, external auditors, and FHFA examiners;
(5) Directing senior management to address promptly and effectively recommendations and concerns expressed by internal auditors, external auditors, and FHFA examiners regarding weaknesses in the internal control system;
(6) Reporting any internal control deficiencies found, and the corrective action taken, to FHFA in a timely manner;
(7) Establishing, documenting, and communicating an organizational structure that clearly shows lines of authority within the Bank, provides for effective communication throughout the Bank, and ensures that there are no gaps in the lines of authority;
(8) Reviewing all delegations of authority to specific personnel or committees and requiring that such delegations state the extent of the authority and responsibilities delegated; and
(9) Establishing reporting requirements, including specifying the nature and frequency of reports it receives.
(c)
(1) Establishing, implementing, and effectively communicating to Bank personnel policies and procedures that are adequate to ensure that internal control activities necessary to maintain an effective internal control system, including the activities enumerated in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, are an integral part of the daily functions of all Bank personnel;
(2) Ensuring that all Bank personnel fully understand and comply with all policies, procedures, and legal requirements applicable to their positions and responsibilities;
(3) Ensuring that there is appropriate segregation of duties among Bank personnel and that personnel are not assigned conflicting responsibilities;
(4) Establishing effective paths of communication upward, downward, and across the organization in order to ensure that Bank personnel receive necessary and appropriate information, including:
(i) Information relating to the operational policies and procedures of the Bank;
(ii) Information relating to the actual operational performance of the Bank;
(iii) Adequate and comprehensive internal financial, operational, and compliance data; and
(iv) External market information about events and conditions that are relevant to decision making;
(5) Developing and implementing procedures that translate the major business strategies and policies established by the Bank's board of directors into operating standards;
(6) Ensuring adherence to the lines of authority and responsibility established by the Bank's board of directors;
(7) Overseeing the implementation and maintenance of management information and other systems;
(8) Establishing and implementing an effective system to track internal control weaknesses and the actions taken to correct them; and
(9) Monitoring and reporting to the Bank's board of directors the effectiveness of the internal control system on an ongoing basis.
(a)
(b)
(2) The audit committee shall include a balance of representatives of:
(i) Community financial institutions and other members; and
(ii) Independent and member directors of the Bank.
(3) The terms of audit committee members shall be appropriately staggered so as to provide for continuity of service.
(4) At least one member of the audit committee shall have extensive accounting or related financial management experience.
(c)
(1) Being employed by the Bank in the current year or any of the past five years;
(2) Accepting any compensation from the Bank other than compensation for service as a board director;
(3) Serving or having served in any of the past five years as a consultant, advisor, promoter, underwriter, or legal counsel of or to the Bank; or
(4) Being an immediate family member of an individual who is, or has been in any of the past five years, employed by the Bank as an executive officer.
(d)
(i) Review, and assess the adequacy of, the Bank's audit committee charter on an annual basis;
(ii) Amend the audit committee charter as appropriate; and
(iii) Re-adopt and re-approve, respectively, the Bank's audit committee charter not less often than every three years.
(2) Each Bank's audit committee charter shall:
(i) Provide that the audit committee has the responsibility to select, evaluate and, where appropriate, replace the internal auditor and that the internal auditor may be removed only with the approval of the audit committee;
(ii) Provide that the internal auditor shall report directly to the audit committee on substantive matters and that the internal auditor is ultimately accountable to the audit committee and board of directors; and
(iii) Provide that both the internal auditor and the external auditor shall have unrestricted access to the audit committee without the need for any prior management knowledge or approval.
(e)
(1) Direct senior management to maintain the reliability and integrity of the accounting policies and financial reporting and disclosure practices of the Bank;
(2) Review the basis for the Bank's financial statements and the external auditor's opinion rendered with respect to such financial statements (including the nature and extent of any significant changes in accounting principles or the application therein) and ensure that policies are in place that are reasonably designed to achieve disclosure and transparency regarding the Bank's true financial performance and governance practices;
(3) Oversee the internal audit function by:
(i) Reviewing the scope of audit services required, significant accounting policies, significant risks and exposures, audit activities, and audit findings;
(ii) Assessing the performance and determining the compensation of the internal auditor; and
(iii) Reviewing and approving the internal auditor's work plan.
(4) Oversee the external audit function by:
(i) Approving the external auditor's annual engagement letter;
(ii) Reviewing the performance of the external auditor; and
(iii) Making recommendations to the Bank's board of directors regarding the appointment, renewal, or termination of the external auditor;
(5) Provide an independent, direct channel of communication between the Bank's board of directors and the internal and external auditors;
(6) Conduct or authorize investigations into any matters within the audit committee's scope of responsibilities;
(7) Ensure that senior management has established and is maintaining an adequate internal control system within the Bank by:
(i) Reviewing the Bank's internal control system and the resolution of identified material weaknesses and significant deficiencies in the internal control system, including the prevention or detection of management override or compromise of the internal control system; and
(ii) Reviewing the programs and policies of the Bank designed to ensure compliance with applicable laws, regulations and policies, and monitoring the results of these compliance efforts;
(8) Review the policies and procedures established by senior management to assess and monitor implementation of the Bank's strategic business plan and the operating goals and objectives contained therein; and
(9) Report periodically its findings to the Bank's board of directors.
(f)
A Bank's board of directors may not declare or pay a dividend based on projected or anticipated earnings and may not declare or pay a dividend if the par value of the Bank's stock is impaired or is projected to become impaired after paying such dividend.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
Notice of Intent.
The Deputy Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is issuing this notice of intent to temporarily schedule 10 synthetic cathinones into schedule I pursuant to the temporary scheduling provisions of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The 10 substances are: (1) 4-methyl-
January 28, 2014.
Ruth A. Carter, Acting Chief, Policy Evaluation and Analysis Section, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration; Mailing Address: 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152, Telephone (202) 598-6812.
Section 201 of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811, provides the Attorney General with the authority to temporarily place a substance into schedule I of the CSA for two years without regard to the requirements of 21 U.S.C. 811(b) if he finds that such action is necessary to avoid imminent hazard to the public safety. 21 U.S.C. 811(h). In addition, if proceedings to control a substance are initiated under 21 U.S.C. 811(a)(1), the Attorney General may extend the temporary scheduling for up to one year. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(2).
Where the necessary findings are made, a substance may be temporarily scheduled if it is not listed in any other schedule under section 202 of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 812, or if there is no exemption or approval in effect for the substance under section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), 21 U.S.C. 355. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1); 21 CFR part 1308. The Attorney General has delegated his authority under 21 U.S.C. 811 to the Administrator of the DEA, who in turn has delegated her authority to the Deputy Administrator of the DEA. 28 CFR 0.100, 0.104, Appendix to Subpart R of Part 0, Sec. 12.
Section 201(h)(4) of the CSA (21 U.S.C. 811(h)(4)) requires the Deputy Administrator to notify the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) of his intention to temporarily place a substance into schedule I of the CSA.
To make a finding that placing a substance temporarily into schedule I of the CSA is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety, the Deputy Administrator is required to consider three of the eight factors set forth in section 201(c) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(c): the substance's history and current pattern of abuse; the scope, duration, and significance of abuse; and what, if any, risk there is to the public health. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(3). Consideration of these factors includes actual abuse, diversion from legitimate channels, and clandestine importation, manufacture, or distribution. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(3).
A substance meeting the statutory requirements for temporary scheduling may only be placed in schedule I. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1). Substances in schedule I are those that have a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. 21 U.S.C. 812(b)(1). Available data and information for 4-MEC, 4-MePPP, α-PVP, butylone, pentedrone, pentylone, 4-FMC, 3-FMC, naphyrone, and α-PBP indicate that these 10 synthetic
Synthetic cathinones are β-keto-phenethylamine derivatives of the larger phenethylamine structural class (amphetamines, cathinones, 2C compounds, aminoindanes, etc.). Synthetic cathinones share a core phenethylamine structure with substitutions at the β-position, α-position, phenyl ring, or nitrogen atom. The addition of a beta-keto (β-keto) substituent (i.e., carbonyl (C=O)) to the phenethylamine core structure along with substitutions on the alpha (α) carbon (C) atom or the nitrogen (N) atom produce a variety of substances called cathinones or synthetic cathinones. Many synthetic cathinones produce pharmacological effects substantially similar to the schedule I substances cathinone, methcathinone, and 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) and schedule II stimulants amphetamine, methamphetamine, and cocaine. 4-MEC, 4-MePPP, α-PVP, butylone, pentedrone, pentylone, 4-FMC, 3-FMC, naphyrone, and α-PBP are synthetic cathinones and are structurally and pharmacologically similar to amphetamine, MDMA, cathinone, and other related substances. Accordingly, these synthetic cathinone substances share substantial similarities with schedule I and schedule II substances, including similarities with respect to desired and adverse effects. In general, desired effects reported by abusers of synthetic cathinone substances include euphoria, sense of well-being, increased sociability, energy, empathy, increased alertness, and improved concentration and focus. Abusers also report experiencing unwanted effects such as tremor, vomiting, agitation, sweating, fever, and chest pain. Other adverse or toxic effects that have been reported with the abuse of synthetic cathinones include tachycardia, hypertension, hyperthermia, mydriasis, rhabdomyolysis, hyponatremia, seizures, altered mental status (paranoia, hallucinations, delusions), and even death. These synthetic cathinone substances have no known medical use in the United States but evidence demonstrates that these substances are being abused by individuals. There have been documented reports of emergency room admissions and deaths associated with the abuse of synthetic cathinone substances.
Products that contain synthetic cathinones have been falsely marketed as “research chemicals,” “plant fertilizer,” “jewelry cleaner,” “stain remover,” “plant food or fertilizer,” “insect repellants,” or “bath salts.” These products are sold at smoke shops, head shops, convenience stores, adult book stores, and gas stations and can also be purchased on the Internet. These substances are commonly encountered in the form of powders, crystals, resins, tablets, and capsules.
From January 2010 through November 2013, according to the System to Retrieve Information from Drug Evidence
4-MEC, 4-MePPP, α-PVP, butylone, pentedrone, pentylone, 4-FMC, 3-FMC, naphyrone, and α-PBP are synthetic cathinones that emerged on the United States' illicit drug market around the time of the temporary scheduling of mephedrone, MDPV, and methylone on October 21, 2011. 76 FR 65371. Mephedrone and MDPV were permanently placed in schedule I on July 9, 2012 by the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (Pub. L. 112-144), and methylone was permanently placed in schedule I by the DEA on April 12, 2013 (78 FR 21818). These synthetic cathinone substances, like the schedule I synthetic cathinones (mephedrone, methylone, and MDPV), are promoted as being a “legal” alternative to cocaine, methamphetamine, and MDMA. Products that contain 4-MEC, 4-MePPP, α-PVP, butylone, pentedrone, pentylone, 4-FMC, 3-FMC, naphyrone, and α-PBP are falsely marketed as “research chemicals,” “plant fertilizer,” “jewelry cleaner,” “stain remover,” “plant food or fertilizer,” “insect repellants,” or “bath salts” and are sold at smoke shops, head shops, convenience stores, adult book stores, and gas stations, and can also be purchased on the Internet under a variety of product names (e.g., “White Dove,” “Explosion,” “Tranquility”). They are commonly encountered in the form of powders, crystals, resins, tablets, and capsules. The packages of these commercial products usually contain the warning “not for human consumption.”
Information from published scientific studies indicates that the most common routes of administration for synthetic cathinone substances is ingestion by swallowing capsules or tablets or nasal insufflation by snorting the powder. Other methods of intake include intravenous or intramuscular injection, rectal administration, and swallowing via ingestion by “bombing” (wrapping a dose of powder in paper).
There is evidence that these synthetic cathinone substances are abused alone or ingested with other substances including other synthetic cathinones, pharmaceutical agents, or other recreational substances. Substances found in combination with 4-MEC, 4-MePPP, α-PVP, butylone, pentedrone, pentylone, 4-FMC, or naphyrone are: other synthetic cathinones (e.g., methylone and MDPV), common cutting agents (e.g., lidocaine, caffeine, lignocaine, ephedrine, etc.), or other recreational substances.
Evidence from poison centers and published reports suggest that the primary users of synthetic cathinones are youths and young adults. The Texas Poison Center Network reported adolescents (12 to 19-years-old) and young adults (mean age was 30-years-old) in 2010 and 2011 as the main callers of synthetic cathinone exposures. A survey of college students reported that the lifetime use (used at least once) of synthetic cathinones among college students (at a large Southeastern U.S. university) is 25 out of 2,349 students surveyed. A national survey on drug use by the Monitoring the Future (MTF)
4-MEC, 4-MePPP, α-PVP, butylone, pentedrone, pentylone, 4-FMC, 3-FMC, naphyrone, and α-PBP, like mephedrone, methylone, and MDPV, are popular recreational drugs. Evidence that these synthetic cathinone substances are being abused is indicated by law enforcement encounters of these substances. Forensic laboratories have analyzed drug exhibits received from state, local, and Federal law enforcement agencies and confirmed the presence of 4-MEC, 4-MePPP, α-PVP, butylone, pentedrone, pentylone, 4-FMC, 3-FMC, naphyrone, or α-PBP in these exhibits.
STRIDE registered 1,732 drug exhibits pertaining to the trafficking, distribution and abuse of 4-MEC, 4-MePPP, α-PVP, butylone, pentedrone, pentylone, 4-FMC, 3-FMC, naphyrone, and α-PBP from January 2010 to November 2013.
NFLIS registered over 8,000 reports from state and local forensic laboratories identifying these substances in drug-related exhibits for the period from January 2010 to November 2013 across 42 states. Specifically, in 2010, NFLIS registered 13 reports from 5 states containing many of these synthetic cathinone substances.
Additionally, large seizures of these substances have occurred by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). At selected United States ports of entry, CBP encountered several shipments of products from April 2010 to November 2013 containing these synthetic cathinone substances (4-MEC—78 encounters; 4-MePPP—8 encounters; α-PVP—40 encounters; butylone—21 encounters; pentedrone—18 encounters; pentylone—10 encounters; FMC
Concerns over the abuse of these synthetic cathinone substances have prompted many states to regulate them. More than half of the states in the United States have emergency scheduled or enacted legislation placing regulatory controls on some or many of the 10 synthetic cathinones that are the subject of this notice of intent. In addition, due to the use of synthetic cathinones by service members, the U.S. Armed Forces has prohibited the use of synthetic cathinones for intoxication purposes.
Available evidence on the overall public health risks associated with the use of synthetic cathinones indicates that 4-MEC, 4-MePPP, α-PVP, butylone, pentedrone, pentylone, 4-FMC, 3-FMC, naphyrone, and α-PBP can cause acute health problems leading to emergency department admissions, violent behaviors causing harm to self or others, or death. For example, individuals have presented at emergency departments following exposure to some of these synthetic cathinone substances or products containing them. In addition, products containing these synthetic cathinone substances often do not bear labeling information regarding their ingredients and, if they do, they may not list the active synthetic ingredients or identify the health risks and potential hazards associated with these products. Acute effects of these substances are those typical of sympathomimetic agents (e.g., cocaine, methamphetamine, and amphetamine) and include, among other effects, tachycardia, headache, bruxism (teeth grinding), palpitations, agitation, anxiety, insomnia, mydriasis, tremor, fever or sweating, and hypertension. Other effects, with public health risk implications, that have been reported from the use of synthetic cathinone substances include vomiting, palpitations, chest pain, hyperthermia, rhabdomyolysis, hyponatremia, seizures, and altered mental status (paranoia, hallucinations, and delusions). Finally, the possibility of death for individuals abusing 4-MEC, 4-MePPP, α-PVP, butylone, pentedrone, pentylone, 4-FMC, 3-FMC, naphyrone, and α-PBP indicates that these substances are serious public health threats. Some of these synthetic cathinone substances have been directly or indirectly implicated in the death of individuals. For example, a 24-year-old female died after ingesting two capsules of what she believed to be “Ecstasy” but was subsequently confirmed to be a mixture of methylone and butylone. The cause of death determined by the medical examiner was serotonin syndrome secondary to methylone and butylone ingestion. A 21-year-old male who ingested butylone for suicidal intentions died after he developed seizures and suffered a cardiac and respiratory arrest. The cause of death was reported as multi-organ failure resulting from malignant serotonin syndrome.
Based on the above summarized data and information, the continued uncontrolled manufacture, distribution, importation, exportation, and abuse of 4-MEC, 4-MePPP, α-PVP, butylone, pentedrone, pentylone, 4-FMC, 3-FMC, naphyrone, and α-PBP pose an imminent hazard to the public safety. The DEA is not aware of any currently accepted medical uses for these synthetic cathinones in the United States. A substance meeting the statutory requirements for temporary scheduling, 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1), may only be placed in schedule I. Substances in schedule I are those that have a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. Available data and information for 4-MEC, 4-MePPP, α-PVP, butylone, pentedrone, pentylone, 4-FMC, 3-FMC, naphyrone, and α-PBP indicate that these 10 synthetic cathinones have a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. As required by section 201(h)(4) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(h), the Deputy Administrator through a letter dated November 7, 2013, notified the Assistant Secretary of
This notice of intent initiates an expedited temporary scheduling action and provides the 30-day notice pursuant to section 201(h) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(h). In accordance with the provisions of section 201(h) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(h), the Deputy Administrator considered available data and information, herein set forth the grounds for his determination that it is necessary to temporarily schedule 10 synthetic cathinones, 4-methyl-
Because the Deputy Administrator hereby finds that it is necessary to temporarily place these synthetic cathinones into schedule I to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety, any subsequent final order temporarily scheduling these substances will be effective on the date of publication in the
The CSA sets forth specific criteria for scheduling a drug or other substance. Regular scheduling actions in accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(a) are subject to formal rulemaking procedures done “on the record after opportunity for a hearing” conducted pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 556 and 557. 21 U.S.C. 811. The regular scheduling process of formal rulemaking affords interested parties with appropriate process and the government with any additional relevant information needed to make a determination. Final decisions that conclude the regular scheduling process of formal rulemaking are subject to judicial review. 21 U.S.C. 877. Temporary scheduling orders are not subject to judicial review. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(6).
Section 201(h) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(h), provides for an expedited temporary scheduling action where such action is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. As provided in this subsection, the Attorney General may, by order, schedule a substance in schedule I on a temporary basis. Such an order may not be issued before the expiration of 30 days from (1) the publication of a notice in the
Inasmuch as section 201(h) of the CSA directs that temporary scheduling actions be issued by order and sets forth the procedures by which such orders are to be issued, the DEA believes that the notice and comment requirements of section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553, do not apply to this notice of intent. In the alternative, even assuming that this notice of intent might be subject to section 553 of the APA, the Deputy Administrator finds that there is good cause to forgo the notice and comment requirements of section 553, as any further delays in the process for issuance of temporary scheduling orders would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest in view of the manifest urgency to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety.
Although the DEA believes this notice of intent to issue a temporary scheduling order is not subject to the notice and comment requirements of section 553 of the APA, the DEA notes that in accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(4), the Deputy Administrator will take into consideration any comments submitted by the Assistant Secretary with regard to the proposed temporary scheduling order.
Further, the DEA believes that this temporary scheduling action is not a “rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 601(2), and, accordingly, is not subject to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The requirements for the preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis in 5 U.S.C. 603(a) are not applicable where, as here, the DEA is not required by section 553 of the APA or any other law to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking. Additionally, this action is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), section 3(f), and, accordingly, this action has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This action will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) it is determined that this action does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Administrative practice and procedure, Drug traffic control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Under the authority vested in the Attorney General by section 201(h) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(h), and delegated to the Deputy Administrator of the DEA by Department of Justice regulations, the Deputy Administrator hereby intends to order that 21 CFR Part 1308 be amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 811, 812, 871(b), unless otherwise noted.
(h) * * *
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC) and the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation (SLSMC) of Canada, under international agreement, jointly publish and presently administer the St. Lawrence Seaway Regulations and Rules (Practices and Procedures in Canada) in their respective jurisdictions. Under agreement with the SLSMC, the SLSDC is amending the joint regulations by updating the Seaway Regulations and Rules in various categories. The changes will update the following sections of the Regulations and Rules: Condition of Vessels; Preclearance and Security for Tolls; Tolls Assessment and Payment; Seaway Navigation; Dangerous Cargo; Toll Assessment and Payment; and, Information and Reports. These amendments are necessary to take account of updated procedures and will enhance the safety of transits through the Seaway. Many of the amendments are merely editorial or for clarification of existing requirements.
Comments are due February 27, 2014.
Submit comments to
Carrie Mann Lavigne, Chief Counsel, Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, 180 Andrews Street, Massena, New York 13662; 315/764-3200.
The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC) and the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation (SLSMC) of Canada, under international agreement, jointly publish and presently administer the St. Lawrence Seaway Regulations and Rules (Practices and Procedures in Canada) in their respective jurisdictions. Under agreement with the SLSMC, the SLSDC is amending the joint regulations by updating the Regulations and Rules in various categories. The changes will update the following sections of the Regulations and Rules: Condition of Vessels; Preclearance and Security for Tolls; Tolls Assessment and Payment; Seaway Navigation; Dangerous Cargo; Toll Assessment and Payment; and, Information and Reports. These updates are necessary to take account of updated procedures which will enhance the safety of transits through the Seaway. Many of these changes are to clarify existing requirements in the regulations. Where new requirements or regulations are made, an explanation for such a change is provided below.
The SLSDC is amending several sections of the Condition of Vessels portion of the joint Seaway regulations. In section 401.9, “Radio Telephone Equipment”, the two Corporations are proposing to limit the degree of error for gyro and magnetic compasses. Under section 401.10, “Mooring lines”, the SLSDC is proposing to mandate the use of synthetic lines when using tie-up services at tie-up walls and docks. Currently the use of synthetic lines is optional. For safety purposes in section 401.14, “Anchor marking buoys”, the SLSDC is proposing to amend the rules to require vessels to ensure that the anchor buoy is secured by a suitable line and ready to be released prior to entering the Seaway.
In the Preclearance and Security for Tolls section, the Seaway Corporations are proposing to amend their joint rules in section 401.22, “Preclearance of vessels”, to require that past due invoices must be paid prior to transiting the Seaway. In addition, provisions are being proposed that would provide
Several proposed revisions are being made in the Seaway Navigation portion of the regulations. In section 401.29, “Maximum Draft,” the SLSDC is proposing to require vessels to meet a minimum draft requirement. In addition, the two Corporations are proposing to require vessels to be equipped with an operational anchor. A proposal to require mooring lines on deck to be individually attended unless the vessel is equipped with side control is being made in section 401.46, “Attending lines.”
In the Information and Reports section, a change to section 401.79, “Advance notice of arrival, vessels requiring inspection” is being proposed that would require tall ships or vessels of an unusual design to undergo a Seaway yearly inspection.
The other changes to the joint regulations are merely editorial or to clarify existing requirements.
This regulation involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and therefore Executive Order 12866 does not apply and evaluation under the Department of Transportation's Regulatory Policies and Procedures is not required.
I certify that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The St. Lawrence Seaway Regulations and Rules primarily relate to commercial users of the Seaway, the vast majority of whom are foreign vessel operators. Therefore, any resulting costs will be borne mostly by foreign vessels.
This regulation does not require an environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act (49 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.) because it is not a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
The Corporation has analyzed this rule under the principles and criteria in Executive Order 13132, dated August 4, 1999, and has determined that this proposal does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant a Federalism Assessment.
The Corporation has analyzed this rule under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48) and determined that it does not impose unfunded mandates on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector requiring a written statement of economic and regulatory alternatives.
This regulation has been analyzed under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and does not contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Office of Management and Budget review.
Hazardous materials transportation, Navigation (water), Penalties, Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Vessels, Waterways.
Accordingly, the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation proposes to amend 33 CFR Part 401, Regulations and Rules, as follows:
33 U.S.C. 983(a) and 984(a) (4), as amended; 49 CFR 1.52, unless otherwise noted.
(e) E-business means Web applications on the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation Web site which provides direct electronic transmission of data to complete and submit application forms and transit data;
(c) Gyro compass error greater than 2 degrees must be serviced prior to transiting the Seaway, and if noted during a Seaway transit, it must be reported to the nearest Seaway station and the gyro compass must be serviced at the first opportunity.
(d) When magnetic compass error is greater than 5 degrees, the vessel is required to have the compass swung and a new deviation card produced, unless the “record of deviations” has been properly maintained and verified.
(c) Synthetic lines must be used for mooring at approach walls when using tie-up services at tie-up walls and docks within the Seaway.
(b) Be of uniform thickness and have a diameter of not less than 12 mm and not more than 17 mm and a minimum length of 30 m. The ends of the lines shall be back spliced or tapered; and
(a) Every vessel shall have its anchors cleared and have the anchor marking buoys free to deploy (weak link to hold buoy line on board) with the buoy lines firmly secured to each anchor and ready to be released prior to entering the Seaway.
(b) Every vessel shall deploy the anchor marking buoy when dropping an anchor in Seaway waters.
(a) Every vessel not equipped with containers for ordure shall be equipped with a sewage disposal system enabling compliance with the Vessel Pollution and Dangerous Chemicals regulations (Canada), the U.S. Clean Water Act and the U.S. River and Harbor Act, and amendments thereto.
(b) * * *
(2) Retained on board in covered, leak-proof containers, until such time as it can be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the Vessel Pollution and Dangerous Chemicals regulations (Canada), the U.S. Clean Water Act and the U.S. River and Harbor Act, and amendments thereto.
(b) * * *
(2) A change of representative of the vessel,
(3) A material alteration in the physical characteristics of the vessel,
(4) Past due invoices by the representative as set out in § 401.75.
(a) The representative of a vessel may, on a preclearance form obtained from the Manager, St. Lambert, Quebec or downloaded from the St. Lawrence Seaway Web site (
(b) For representatives benefitting from the exemption of security tolls as set out in § 401.26(c) and § 401.26(d), a continuous preclearance status may be assigned to all vessels under their responsibility. Validation of the continuous preclearance status will be required every 5 years.
(c) For representatives with a valid security for tolls and a good payment history as set out in § 401.26(c) and § 401.26(d), a continuous preclearance status may be assigned to all vessels under their responsibility. Validation of the continuous preclearance status will be required every year.
(d) In the event that a vessel under the representative's responsibility is modified or upgraded, an application for preclearance will be required to update the vessel's information and reset the vessel's preclearance status.
(a) * * *
(2) A letter of guarantee to the Manager given by a financial institution approved by the Manager; or
(3) A letter of guarantee given to the Manager by an acceptable Bonding Company. Bonding Companies may be accepted if they:
(c)(1) Where a number of vessels:
(i) For each of which a preclearance has been given;
(ii) Are owned or controlled by the same individual or company; and
(iii) Have the same representative,
(2) The security for the tolls may not be required if the individual, company or representative has paid every toll invoice received in the preceding five years within the period set out in § 401.75(a).
(d) Notwithstanding paragraph (c) of this section, where a number of vessels, for each of which a preclearance has been given, are owned or controlled by the same individual or company and have the same representative, the security for the tolls may be reduced or eliminated provided the representative has paid every toll invoice received in the preceding five (5) years within the period set out in § 401.75(a). Upon request from the Manager, the representative must provide the Manager with a financial statement that meets the requirements established by the Manager.
(b) The draft of a vessel shall meet a minimum draft requirement as defined at inspection on the ESI form and not, in any case, exceed 79.2 dm or the maximum permissible draft designated in a Seaway Notice by the Manager and the Corporation for the part of the Seaway in which a vessel is passing.
(a) No vessel that is not self-propelled (including but not limited to tug/tows and/or dead ship/tows) shall be underway in any Seaway waters unless it is securely tied to an adequate tug or tugs, in accordance with special instructions given by the Manager or the Corporation pursuant to § 401.33 and must be equipped with an operational anchor.
(b) Every vessel in tow has to be inspected prior to every transit unless it has a valid Seaway Inspection Certificate. The owner/master shall give a 24 hour notice of arrival when an inspection is required.
(c) Mooring lines on deck must be individually attended unless the vessel is equipped with side control and visual contact must be maintained for signal from lock employees taking or letting go of mooring lines.
(b) No vessel shall pass the limit of approach sign at the twin railway bridges on the South Shore Canal at Kahnawake, until both bridges are in a fully open position and both signal lights show green.
(c) A written application for a Seaway Explosives Permission Letter certifying that the cargo is packed, marked and stowed in accordance with the
(a) A Seaway Transit Declaration Form (Cargo and Passenger) shall be forwarded to the Manager by the representative of a vessel, for each vessel that has an approved preclearance except non-cargo vessels, within fourteen (14) days after the vessel enters the Seaway on any up bound or down bound transit. The form may be obtained from the St. Lawrence Management Corporation, 151 Ecluse Street, St. Lambert, Quebec, J4R 2V6 or downloaded from the St. Lawrence Seaway Web site at
(f) Seaway Transit Declaration Forms shall be used in assessing toll charges in accordance with the
(b) Tolls established by agreement between Canada and the United States, and known as the
(d) Vessel representatives with past due toll accounts, unpaid after 45 days, may be subject to the suspension of preclearance for each vessel of which a preclearance has been given and/or the immediate removal of the waved security for the toll charges set in § 401.26(c) and § 401.26(d.)
(b) * * *
(5) A tall ship or vessel of an unusual design is subject to Seaway yearly inspection.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing to approve a portion of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal from the State of Louisiana to address Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) requirements that prohibit air emissions which will contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in any other state for the 2006 fine particulate matter (PM
Written comments must be received on or before February 27, 2014.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2011-0500, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Carl Young, (214) 665-6645,
Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.
In 2006, we established a revised 24-hour NAAQS for PM
EPA has addressed the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in past
On May 16, 2011, Louisiana submitted a SIP revision to address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 PM
To determine whether the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirement is satisfied, EPA must determine whether a state's emissions contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in any other state. If this factual finding is in the negative, then section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) does not require any changes to a state's SIP. EPA is proposing to determine that the existing SIP for Louisiana is adequate to satisfy the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA to address interstate transport requirements with regard to the 2006 PM
In the Transport Rule rulemaking, we used air quality modeling to: (1) identify locations projected to be nonattainment or have maintenance problems in 2012 for the 2006 24-hour PM
EPA's evaluation confirms Louisiana's analysis provided in the SIP submittal for the State of Louisiana submitted on May 16, 2011, and the technical supplement submitted on May 21, 2013. The air quality modeling performed for the Transport Rule found that the impact from Louisiana emissions on both downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors was less than the 1 percent threshold for the 2006 PM
Below is a summary of the air quality modeling results for Louisiana from Table IV-9 of EPA's Air Quality Modeling TSD regarding Louisiana's largest contribution to both downwind PM
Based on this analysis, we propose to approve the portion of the May 16, 2011 Louisiana SIP submittal, and the technical supplement submitted on May 21, 2013, determining that the existing SIP for Louisiana contains adequate provisions to prohibit air pollutant emissions from contributing significantly to nonattainment or interfering with maintenance of the 2006 PM
We continue to believe it is appropriate to rely on the modeling conducted during the rulemaking for the Transport Rule even though the rule itself was vacated by the D.C. Circuit.
Section 110(l) of the Act prohibits EPA from approving any SIP revision that would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirement of the Act. The SIP submittal from the State of Louisiana contains no new regulatory provisions and does not affect any requirement in Louisiana's applicable implementation plan. Therefore, the submission does not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirement of the Act. EPA has concluded, based on Louisiana's and EPA's technical analysis, that the existing Louisiana SIP is sufficient to meet the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2006 PM
We are proposing to approve a portion of a SIP submittal for the State of Louisiana submitted on May 16, 2011, and the technical supplement submitted on May 21, 2013, to address interstate transport for the 2006 PM
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve 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 Clean Air Act; and
• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed 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.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
In proposed rule document 2014-01065 appearing on pages 3357-3358 in the issue of Wednesday, January 22, 2014, make the following corrections:
1. On page 3357, in the third column, in the document heading, “
2. On page 3358, in the second column, in the seventh line from the bottom, “
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), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), are sponsoring a public meeting scheduled to take place on February 6, 2014. The objective of the public meeting is to present information and receive public comments on agenda items and draft United States positions to be discussed at the 33rd Session of the Codex Committee on Fish and Fishery Products (CCFFP) of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), which will take place in Bergen, Norway, from February 17-21, 2014. The Acting Under Secretary for Food Safety, NOAA, and FDA recognize the importance of providing interested parties the opportunity to obtain background information on the 33rd Session of CCFFP and to address items on the agenda.
The public meeting is scheduled for February 6, 2014, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
The public meeting will take place at FDA, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN), Wiley Building, Room 1A-001, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740.
Documents related to the 33rd session of CCFFP will be accessible via the World Wide Web at the following address:
Timothy Hansen and Dr. William Jones, U.S. Delegates to the 33rd session of CCFFP, invite 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 33rd session of CCFFP by conference call, please use the call-in number and participant code listed below:
Dr. William Jones, Director, Division of Seafood Safety, Office of Food Safety, (HFS-325), U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD, 20740; Phone: (240) 402-2300, Fax: (301) 436-2601, Email:
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 CCFFP is responsible for elaborating worldwide standards for fresh, frozen (including quick frozen) or otherwise processed fish, crustaceans and mollusc. The Committee is hosted by Norway.
The following items on the Agenda for the 33rd session of CCFFP will be discussed during the public meeting:
• Matters referred to the Committee by the Codex Alimentarius Commission and other Codex Committees
• Matters arising from the work of the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO)
• Matters arising from the work of the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE)
• Draft Performance Criteria for Reference and Confirmatory Methods for Marine Biotoxins (Section I-8.6 Determination of Biotoxins) in the Standard for Live and Raw Bivalve Molluscs
• Standard for Smoked Fish, Smoke-Flavoured Fish, and Smoke-Dried Fish (Section 4 Food Additives)
• Draft Standard for Raw, Fresh, and Quick Frozen Scallop Products
• Proposed Draft Code of Practice on the Processing of Scallop Meat
• Proposed Draft Code of Practice for Fish and Fishery Products (section on Sturgeon caviar)
• Proposed Draft Code of Practice for Processing of Fish Sauce
• Proposed Food Additive Provisions in Standards for Fish and Fishery Products (food additive provisions in adopted standards)
• Discussion Paper on Histamine
• Discussion Paper on Nitrogen Factors
• Code of Practice for Fish and Fishery Products (optional final product requirements for commodities)
Each issue listed will be fully described in documents distributed, or to be distributed, by the Codex Secretariat before the Committee Meeting. Members of the public may access or request copies of these documents (see
At the February 6, 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.
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
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a planning meeting of the Massachusetts Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 12:00 p.m. (EST) on Friday, February 20, 2014, at McCarter & English, located at 265 Franklin St., Boston, MA 02110. The purpose of the meeting is for the committee is to discuss its September briefing on the criminalization of school discipline, and to plan the next steps for its project on school disciplinary policies and if such policies have a disparate impact on students of color.
Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments. The comments must be received in the regional office by Thursday, March 20, 2014. Comments may be mailed to the Eastern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425, faxed to (202) 376-7548, or emailed to Barbara de La Viez at
Persons needing accessibility services should contact the Eastern Regional Office at least 10 working days before the scheduled date of the meeting.
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Eastern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site,
The meetings will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the Commission and FACA.
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, (202) 482-0336, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to Jasmeet Seehra, OMB Desk Officer, by email to
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, grantee of FTZ 49, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of Western Carriers, Inc. (WCI), located in North Bergen, New Jersey. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on January 13, 2014.
The WCI facility is located within Site 15 of FTZ 49. The facility is used for the production of liquor gift sets by WCI and its customers. 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 WCI and its customers from customs duty payments on the foreign status components used in export production. On its domestic sales, WCI and its customers would be able to choose the duty rate during customs entry procedures that applies to finished whiskey, gin, or vodka gift sets (free) for the foreign status inputs noted below. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign status production equipment.
The components sourced from abroad include: glassware (drinking glasses); Irish/Scotch whiskey; gin; and, vodka (duty rate ranges from free to 22.5%).
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 March 10, 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
Pierre Duy at
Enforcement and Compliance, formerly Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On December 18, 2013, the United States Court of International Trade (the Court or CIT) sustained the Department of Commerce's (the Department) final results of the remand redetermination relating to the less than fair value investigation of polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) from Taiwan, in
Effective December 30, 2013.
Sandra Dreisonstok, Office I, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0768.
On February 1, 2011, the Department published the
Because there is now a final court decision in this case, the Department is amending its
Pursuant to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's (Federal Circuit's) decision in
This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written 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 the APO is a sanctionable violation.
In its decision in
Accordingly, the Department intends to issue instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection to suspend liquidation of all unliquidated entries of subject merchandise from Taiwan which are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after December 30, 2013. The company-specific cash deposit rate will be zero percent. Pursuant to
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(e)(l) of the Act.
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed topics of discussion for a public meeting of the Advisory Committee on Supply Chain Competitiveness (Committee).
The meeting will be held on February 20, 2014, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Eastern Standard Time (EST).
The meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 4830, Washington, DC 20230.
Richard Boll, Office of Supply Chain, Professional & Business Services, International Trade Administration. (Phone: (202) 482-1135 or email:
The meeting will be open to the public and press on a first-come, first-served basis. Space is limited. The public meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Individuals requiring accommodations, such as sign language interpretation or other ancillary aids, are asked to notify Mr. Richard Boll, at (202) 482-1135 or
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to the Committee at any time before and after the meeting. Parties wishing to submit written comments for consideration by the Committee in advance of this meeting must send them to the Office of Supply Chain, Professional & Business Services, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW., Room 11014, Washington, DC 20230, or email to
For consideration during the meeting, and to ensure transmission to the Committee prior to the meeting, comments must be received no later than 5 p.m. EST on February 10, 2014. Comments received after February 10, 2014, will be distributed to the Committee, but may not be considered at the meeting. The minutes of the meeting will be posted on the Committee Web site within 60 days of the meeting.
International Trade Administration, Commerce.
Notice.
The United States Secretary of Commerce will lead an Energy Business Development Mission to West Africa with stops in Ghana and Nigeria from May 18-23, 2014. This business development mission will promote U.S. exports to Africa by helping U.S. companies launch or increase their business in the energy sector in West Africa. The mission will include
The President approved the Presidential Policy Directive (PPD) on Sub-Saharan Africa on June 14, 2012, which became publicly known as the U.S. Strategy Toward Sub-Saharan Africa (“Strategy”). The Strategy recognizes that Africa holds the promise to be “the world's next major economic success story.” This recognition of the significant development within Sub-Saharan African economies over the past several years also marks a call for the evolution of U.S. Government economic and commercial policy toward the region, doing more to focus on the two-way nature of trade and investment. This is the first time that promoting U.S. trade and investment has been a cornerstone of a PPD on Sub-Saharan Africa, and it is this objective that the Department of Commerce is working to institutionalize. During his trip to Africa in late June/early July, the President announced plans for Secretary Pritzker to lead a trade mission to sub-Saharan Africa in 2014.
The delegation will be composed of 20-25 U.S. energy firms, representing the mission's target sub-sectors. Representatives of the U.S. Trade and Development Agency (USTDA), the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im) and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) will be invited to participate to provide information and counseling regarding their suite of programs and services in sub-Saharan Africa. This collaborative interagency approach highlights the Doing Business in Africa (DBIA) campaign, which aims to harness federal trade promotion and financing capabilities to help the U.S. private sector identify and seize upon trade and investment opportunities.
With over 600 million people in sub-Saharan Africa lacking access to electricity, the development challenge is enormous. More than two-thirds of the population of sub-Saharan Africa is without electricity, including more than 85 percent of those living in rural areas. According to the International Energy Agency, sub-Saharan Africa needs more than $300 billion in investments to achieve universal electricity access by 2030—far beyond the capacity of any traditional development program.
This mission is an opportunity to connect U.S. company products, services and expertise to support Africa's enormous power potential, including new discoveries of vast reserves of oil and gas.
This West Africa nation of 25 million people is often referred to as the `Ireland of Africa,' a testament to the Ghanaian's well-earned reputation for being friendly and welcoming to outsiders. It is expected that the country will lead the region as an example for stability, transparency and steady and diversified economic growth. Ghana also holds a special place in the colonial history of the continent, having been the first democratic Sub-Saharan African nation to gain independence when the Republic of Ghana was established on March 6, 1957.
Ghana's economy has been strengthened by a quarter century of relatively sound management, a competitive business environment, and sustained reductions in poverty levels. Per-capita GDP (PPP) in Ghana now stands at $3,500, significantly higher than most of Sub-Saharan Africa and built on a more sustainable and diversified economy. GDP growth has averaged 4% to 8% over the last decade, surging to 7.9% in 2012 (making Ghana the fastest growing economy that year) as new oil revenue came on line. Ghana continues to face challenges in infrastructure development and a worrying increase it its debt-to-GDP ratio has limited financing options. A recent credit downgrade by Fitch, rating Ghana's sovereign debt at B-, will make future financing options even more limited.
While services make up an increasingly important role in Ghana's economy, natural resources and commodity prices still dominate domestic decision making. Ghana is the world's second largest exporter of cocoa and one of the largest producers of gold. The nation's resource base was diversified in 2007 when moderate amounts of oil and gas reserves were discovered offshore in the Gulf of Guinea—enough to spur strong economic growth but not enough to destabilize the economy. Offshore exploration and production has been managed primarily by foreign firms, led by Tullow Oil, and continues to grow with new fields discovered in recent years. Manufacturing lags far behind, due to supply chain uncertainties, lack of a skilled workforce and inadequate infrastructure.
Oil production at Ghana's offshore Jubilee field began in mid-December, 2010 and has, as expected, boosted economic growth significantly. The field is currently producing 120,000 barrels a day, its expected peak level, with reserves estimated at 2 billion barrels. Additional fields are currently being explored and developed, with additional oil resources expected to come online in the next five years. Gas production from the fields continues to be a problem, primarily the result of delays in planning and development of required infrastructure developments. A Chinese-funded and developed gas processing facility originally scheduled for completion in 2012 is still months or years away from production.
A worrying development, impacting particularly the oil and gas sector, is Ghana's recent push for local content requirements. In November 2013, Parliament approved legislation that limits foreign investments in Ghana's petroleum sector due to requirements that local partners of foreign investors maintain a significant share of any oil and gas projects and that corporate management be predominately local. With a petroleum industry that is only four years old, foreign investors will be challenged in finding qualified partners, managers and employees as Ghana's local content regulations go into force.
Without doubt one of Ghana's greatest challenges is utilizing its petroleum reserves and putting local production to use in the power sector. Ghana currently produces 2,000 megawatts of power, half from hydropower plants on the Volta River. Ghana's thermal power production has been hampered by adequate and reliable sources of gas. The primary supplier to Ghana's gas-fired power plants, the West Africa Gas Pipeline has been both an unreliable and costly solution. Plans to bring greater amounts of gas onshore from Jubilee have yet to materialize. The U.S. Government's Power Africa initiative and the Millennium Challenge Corporation are putting together programs that will help this significant problem facing the country.
Ghana will continue to be viewed as a success story for West Africa and, indeed, for all of Sub Saharan Africa. To truly reach its potential, however, decisive leadership making difficult decisions needs to lead the nation to the
Nigeria is Africa's most populous country, accounting for approximately one-fifth of the continent's people and 2.4 percent of the world's population. It is arguably one of the most culturally diverse societies in the world, with approximately 250 ethnic groups among its estimated 170 million people. In 1991, Nigeria's capital was moved from Lagos to Abuja, tagged as the “Center of Unity.” A planned city, Abuja is now the political center, or seat of Nigeria's Federal Government. International organizations such as the United Nations, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), African Union (AU), and Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) have regional headquarters in Abuja. The “Commercial Hub,” Lagos is the most populous city in Nigeria and one of the fastest growing cities in the world. Lagos State is estimated to have a population of more than 17 million and is modernizing itself to meet the criteria of a “mega city,” with major infrastructure projects including the construction of a metro/light railway.
Nigeria's annual growth rate averaged over seven percent during the past decade. As a result, the country is regarded as one of the fastest-growing economies in the world. To sustain this annual growth rate, the Government of Nigeria (GON) is privatizing important sectors of Nigeria's economy, promoting public-private partnerships, and encouraging strategic alliances with foreign firms, especially for infrastructure development and technology acquisition in critical sectors such as security, power generation, transportation, and healthcare.
Nigeria is the chief driver of international trade in the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), which consists of 16 countries. Market analysts from the National Association of Chambers of Commerce, Industry, Mines, and Agriculture (NACCIMA) claim that Nigeria accounts for over 40 percent of imports in the sub-region and ranks among Africa's largest consumer markets. As a gateway to 15 smaller West African countries and a net importer of equipment, Nigeria can be a very rewarding market for U.S. companies that take the time and effort to understand its complex market conditions and opportunities, find the right partners and clients, and take a long-term approach to market development.
Nigeria ranks as Africa's largest oil producer and the twelfth largest in the world, producing high-value, low-sulfur content crude oil. A five-year-long effort to reform Nigeria's oil and gas legal framework has created uncertainty, delaying billions of dollars in potential investment in this sector. The Nigerian National Assembly is reviewing the most recent version of a Petroleum Industry Bill (PIB), which seeks to incorporate and update 16 different laws that regulate the sector. However, international oil companies operating in Nigeria have expressed concern that this latest version of the PIB would boost GON royalty and tax revenues to a level that makes new investment unprofitable. In contrast, the GON has argued that the PIB reflects current internationally-accepted industry contract standards.
In April 2010, Nigeria signed into law the Nigerian Oil and Gas Industry Content Development Act, which we refer to as the local content law. Commerce in collaboration with the USG interagency has worked to encourage Nigeria to ensure that it is in compliance with their World Trade Organization (WTO) obligations. The law was designed to encourage Nigerian participation in the oil and gas industry. The Government of Nigeria (GON) estimates that $8 billion is spent annually in the country's petroleum industry and approximately five percent is retained in Nigeria. The local content law's stated purpose is to include more Nigerians in this sector and increase significantly economic links to the Nigerian private sector. To accomplish this, the local content law includes provisions regarding Nigerian content (goods and services), operations and transactions in the petroleum industry and the functions of the Nigerian Content Division (NCD), and the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC).
Over the next two to three years, U.S. exporters of power generation, transmission and distribution equipment, and services will have significant trade opportunities in Nigeria. The GON recently announced that Nigeria requires more than $3.5 billion to improve its power generation, transmission, and distribution capacity from less than 5000 MW to 20,000 MW by 2016. U.S. exporters of electrical components and parts have growth opportunities here as well.
In 2013, the Nigerian government completed the privatization of 11 electricity distribution and six generation companies, with a total value of $2.6 billion. Investment in distribution assets will be required to address major issues facing the newly-privatized utilities, including reducing technical, commercial, and collection losses from a current estimated of 40% down to 10-15%. Near-term opportunities in Nigeria's distribution sector exist for providers of basic infrastructure equipment, services, and monitoring; metering, billing and collection software, systems, and solutions; and utility IT systems. Over the medium-term, the distribution utilities are also looking to deploy GIS and SCADA systems for the mapping, monitoring and control of their networks, as well smart grid technologies and applications like Distribution Automation, Demand Side Management, and Outage Management Systems.
Nigeria is also one of the most promising export markets for ethanol. Nigeria has a policy of blending 10 percent ethanol with gasoline; it is not however a mandate. The Organization for Economic and Cooperation Development estimates that consumption of ethanol in Nigeria will increase about 25 percent from 2013 to 2015. As Africa's largest oil producer, Nigeria is in good position logistically to export blended gasoline or even pure ethanol to other countries in Africa, many of whom have ethanol blending mandates. Trade data indicates that Nigeria exported $4.3 million in ethanol in 2012, including a large amount to Ghana. In recent years, Chinese investment in the Nigerian biofuels industry (ethanol and biodiesel) has soared.
According to Nigeria's National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), imports from Asia accounted for 41% of Nigeria's imports in 2012, while imports from Europe and America accounted for 26.5% and 25.3% respectively. NBS reports that imports are dominated by machinery, transport equipment, manufactured goods, and commodities.
Domestic currency commercial lending interest rates remain very high (ranging from 20 to 35 percent), despite Government efforts to lower them. This is fueling demand for U.S. Ex-Im Bank's financing and credit facilities by Nigerian importers. As of December 2012, Ex-Im Bank's credit exposure in Nigeria exceeded $178 million.
The official exchange rate of the Naira to the dollar currently fluctuates between 155 and 160 (2012 average exchange rate N156.8:$1).
This mission will demonstrate the United States' commitment to a sustained economic partnership in West Africa. The mission's purpose is to
• Assist in identifying potential partners and strategies for U.S. companies to gain access to each market for energy and power generation products and services.
• Confirm U.S. Government support for the activities of U.S. businesses in each market and to provide access to senior decision makers in the Ghanaian and Nigerian governments.
• Listen to the needs, suggestions and experience of individual participants to help shape appropriate U.S. Government positions regarding U.S. business interests in the region.
• Organize private and focused events with local business and association leaders capable of becoming partners and clients of U.S. firms as they develop their business in the region.
• Assist development of competitive strategies and market access with high level information gathering from private and public-sector leaders.
The mission will stop in Accra, Ghana and Lagos and Abuja, Nigeria. In each country, participants will meet with pre-screened potential agents, distributors, and representatives, as well as other business partners and government officials. They will also attend market briefings by U.S. Embassy officials, as well as networking events offering further opportunities to speak with local business and industry decision-makers.
All parties interested in participating in the Secretarial Energy Business Development Mission to West Africa must complete and submit an application package for consideration by the Department of Commerce. All applicants will be evaluated on their ability to meet certain conditions and best satisfy the selection criteria as outlined below. Approximately 20-25 companies will be selected to participate in the mission from the applicant pool. U.S. companies doing business in Ghana and Nigeria, as well as U.S. companies seeking to enter these markets for the first time may apply.
After a company has been selected to participate on the mission, a payment to the Department of Commerce in the form of a participation fee is required. The fee schedule for each mission is below:
• $11,000 for large firms
• $9,000 for a small or medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)
• $2,750 each additional firm representative (large firm or SME)
Expenses for travel, lodging, most meals, and incidentals will be the responsibility of each mission participant.
An applicant must submit a completed and signed mission application and supplemental application materials, including adequate information on the company's products and/or services, primary market objectives, and goals for participation. If the Department of Commerce receives an incomplete application, the Department may reject the application, request additional information, or take the lack of information into account when evaluating the applications. Each applicant must also:
• Certify that the products and services it seeks to export through the
○ U.S. materials and equipment content;
○ U.S. labor content;
○ Repatriation of profits to the U.S. economy;
○ Potential for follow-on business that would benefit the U.S. economy;
• Certify that the export of the products and services that it wishes to export through the mission would be in compliance with U.S. export controls and regulations;
• Certify that it has identified to the Department of Commerce for its evaluation any business pending before the Department of Commerce that may present the appearance of a conflict of interest;
• Certify that it has identified any pending litigation (including any administrative proceedings) to which it is a party that involves the Department of Commerce; and
• Sign and submit an agreement that it and its affiliates (1) have not and will not engage in the bribery of foreign officials in connection with a company's/participant's involvement in this mission, and (2) maintain and enforce a policy that prohibits the bribery of foreign officials.
Selection will be based on the following criteria, listed in decreasing order of importance:
• Suitability of a company's products or services to the target markets and the likelihood of a participating company's increased exports or business interests in the target markets as a result of this mission;
• Consistency of company's products or services with the scope and desired outcome of the mission's goals;
• Demonstrated export experience in the target markets and/or other foreign markets;
• Current or pending major project participation; and
• Rank/seniority of the designated company representative.
Additional factors, such as diversity of company size, type, location, and demographics, may also be considered during the review process.
Referrals from political organizations and any documents containing references to partisan political activities (including political contributions) will be removed from an applicant's submission and not considered during the selection process.
Mission recruitment will be conducted in an open and public manner, including publication in the
Recruitment will begin immediately and conclude no later than March 14, 2014. Applications can be completed on-line at the Africa Energy Mission Web site at
The application deadline is Friday, March 14, 2014. Completed applications should be submitted to the Office of Business Liaison. Applications received after Friday, March 14, 2014, will be considered only if space and scheduling constraints permit.
Applications can be downloaded from the business development mission Web site (
General Information and Applications: The Office of Business Liaison, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 5062, Washington, DC 20230, Tel: 202-482-1360, Fax: 202-482-4054, Email:
International Trade Administration, Commerce.
Notice.
The United States Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration, is organizing a trade mission to the Caribbean region, in conjunction with the Department of Commerce's Trade Americas—Opportunities in the Caribbean Region Conference in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic. Trade mission participants will arrive in Santo Domingo on June 8, and will attend the Trade Americas—Opportunities in the Caribbean Region Conference on June 9. Following the morning session of the conference, trade mission participants will participate in one-on-one consultations with U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service (US&FCS) Commercial Officers and/or Economic/Commercial Officers from the following U.S. Embassies in the Caribbean region: the Bahamas, Barbados and the Eastern Caribbean, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Jamaica, and Trinidad and Tobago. The following day, June 10, trade mission participants will engage in business-to-business appointments with Dominican companies. A limited number of trade mission participants will then travel to either the Bahamas, Barbados, Haiti, Jamaica, or Trinidad and Tobago (choosing only one market) for optional additional business-to-business appointments, each of which will be with a pre-screened potential buyer, agent, distributor or joint-venture partner.
The Department of Commerce's Trade Americas—Opportunities in the Caribbean Region Conference will focus on regional and industry-specific sessions, market entry strategies, logistics and trade financing resources as well as pre-arranged one-one-one consultations with US&FCS Commercial Officers and/or Department of State Economic/Commercial Officers with expertise in commercial markets throughout the region.
The mission is open to U.S. companies from a cross section of industries with growing potential in the Caribbean region, but is focused on U.S. companies in best prospects sectors
The combination of participation in the Trade Americas—Opportunities in the Caribbean Region Conference and business-to-business matchmaking appointments in the Dominican Republic and one of the other optional Caribbean countries, will provide participants with access to substantive information about and strategies for entering or expanding their business across the Caribbean region.
The Bahamian economy is driven by tourism and financial services. The Bahamas imports nearly all of its food and manufactured goods from the United States, and U.S. goods and services tend to be favored by Bahamians due to cultural similarities and exposure to U.S. advertising. Due to its dependence on tourism imports from the United States and trade with the United States, the Bahamian economy is notably affected by U.S. economic performance. There are no significant barriers to trade in the Bahamas. The Bahamas is currently reviewing proposals for alternative energy source projects. Best prospects sectors for U.S. exports include: Hotel Equipment; Franchise; Construction Equipment and Supplies; Consumer Products; and Drugs and Pharmaceutical Products.
Barbados enjoys one of the highest per capita incomes in the region and an investment climate which benefits from its political stability and stable institutions. Financial and information services are important foreign exchange earners and thrive from having the same time zone as eastern U.S. financial centers and a highly educated workforce. A renewable energy bill that will open up the possibility of private energy production and selling back to the grid is expected to be passed this year. The tourism sector is expected to be upgraded through several ongoing construction projects. Best Prospects are Construction and Building Products; Consumer Goods; Agricultural Products and Equipment; Renewable Energy Technologies and Equipment; and Hotel and Restaurant Equipment.
With a population of 10 million consumers and a GDP of $59 billion, the Dominican Republic (DR) is the ninth largest economy in Latin America and the second largest in the Caribbean region. The United States represents, by far, the DR's largest trading partner. 43.6% of imports into the DR are of U.S. origin. There is extremely high receptivity to U.S. goods and services and U.S. product standards are generally accepted. Since the entry into force of the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR) in March 2007, bilateral trade has grown at a robust pace. By 2012, U.S. exports to the DR had grown by 33% over the pre-CAFTA days of 2006.
The strength of the trade relationship stems from close geographic proximity and the historic cultural and personal ties that many Dominicans have with the United States. Best prospect sectors for U.S. exports include: Automotive Parts, Hotel and Restaurant Equipment, Travel and Tourism, Safety and Security Equipment; Renewable Energy Technologies and Equipment; Telecommunications Services and Equipment; Printing and Graphic Arts Products and Equipment; Computers and Peripherals; Medical Equipment; and Construction and Building Products.
The United States is Haiti's chief trading partner, with a 40% share of Haiti's import market. Haiti's economy is unique in the Caribbean region, with a large population of 10 million people but a relatively small $7.9 billion GDP. Haiti's geographic proximity and historically strong links with the United States contribute to a strong market for U.S. exports. Haiti imports more than 70% of market goods, and American businesses continue to do well in finding local buyers and distributors. Haiti has the lowest import tariffs in the Caribbean region. Best prospects sectors for U.S. exports include: Apparel and Textile; Machinery and Transport; Automotive Sector and Parts; Telecommunications Services and Equipment; Electrical Power Systems; Tourism; and Construction and Building Products/Equipment.
The United States is Jamaica's largest trading partner, accounting for almost 40% of Jamaica's total trade. A small economy of 2.8 million people and $15 billion GDP, Jamaica's geographic proximity and historically strong links with the United States have encouraged a wide range of U.S. investors and exporters to enter the Jamaican market. Best prospects sectors for U.S. exports include: Agriculture; Pharmaceuticals/Chemicals; Machinery/Transportation Equipment; Consumer Products and Tourism; ICT; Automobiles; Energy Production; and Telecommunications Services and Equipment.
The United States is Trinidad and Tobago's largest trading partner, accounting for 33% of Trinidad and Tobago's total imports and purchasing 44% of its exports. A small country of 1.2 million people and a per capita GDP of $20,000, one of the highest in the region, Trinidad and Tobago's economy is dominated by the energy sector. Trinidad and Tobago's geographic proximity and strong links with the United States have encouraged a wide range of U.S. investors and exporters to enter Trinidad and Tobago's market. Best prospects sectors for U.S. exports include: Oil and Gas Field Machinery and Services; Food Processing and Packaging; Automotive Parts and Services; Telecommunications; Computers and Peripherals; Construction; Tourism; and Maritime Industries.
The foregoing analysis of export opportunities in the Caribbean Region is not intended to be exhaustive, but illustrative of the many opportunities available to U.S. businesses. Applications from U.S. companies will be considered and evaluated by the U.S. Department of Commerce on their market potential in the Caribbean region.
The goal of the mission is to help participating U.S. companies find potential partners, agents, distributors, and joint venture partners in the Bahamas, Barbados, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Jamaica, and Trinidad and Tobago, laying the foundation for successful long-term ventures to take advantage of market opportunities in the Caribbean region. During the mission, the delegation will have access to US&FCS Commercial Officers, Commercial Specialists, and Department of State Economic/Commercial Officers from the markets in the region. They will learn about the many business opportunities in the Caribbean region, and gain first-hand market exposure. Trade mission participants already doing business in the Caribbean will have the opportunity to further advance business relationships and explore new opportunities.
The mission will include registration for the Trade Americas—Opportunities in the Caribbean Region Conference, including conference materials and admission to all sessions and networking events with industry and government representatives; industry and country market briefings; and logistical support. It also includes one-on-one appointments with pre-screened potential business partners in the Dominican Republic and one other Caribbean market.
U.S. delegation members will arrive in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic on June 8, 2014. On the morning of June 9, trade mission participants will attend the Trade Americas—Opportunities in the Caribbean Region Conference, featuring regional and industry-specific sessions, market entry strategies, logistics and trade financing resources. On the afternoon of June 9, mission participants will engage in pre-arranged one-on-one consultations with US&FCS Commercial Officers and/or Department of State Economic/Commercial Officers with expertise in commercial markets throughout the region, as well as business service providers. On June 10, mission participants will stay in the Dominican Republic for business-to-business meetings. On June 11, a limited number of mission participants will travel to the Bahamas, Barbados, Haiti, Jamaica or Trinidad and Tobago (choosing one) for additional business-to-business meetings to be held on June 12.
All parties interested in participating in the U.S. Department of Commerce Trade Mission to the Caribbean Region must complete and submit an application package for consideration by the Department of Commerce. All applicants will be evaluated on their ability to meet certain conditions and best satisfy the selection criteria as outlined below.
A minimum of 20 and a maximum of 30 companies will be selected to participate in the mission from the applicants on a rolling basis. During the registration process, applicants will be able to select their markets of choice and will receive a brief market assessment for each selected market. All selected participants will attend business-to-business meetings in the Dominican Republic. For those companies seeking to participate in additional business-to-business meetings in another market on June 12, we will select based on market suitability. The number of companies that may be selected for each country are as follows: 2-3 companies for the Bahamas; 2 companies for Barbados; 4-6 companies for Haiti; 4-6 companies for Jamaica; and 3 companies for Trinidad and Tobago. U.S. companies already doing business in, or seeking to enter the market in the Bahamas, Barbados, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Jamaica, and Trinidad and Tobago for the first time may apply.
After a company has been selected to participate on the mission, a payment to the Department of Commerce in the form of a participation fee is required.
For business-to-business meetings in the Dominican Republic only (not traveling to an additional trade mission country), the participation fee will be $1,800 for a small or medium-sized enterprise (SME)* and $2,800 for large firms*.
For business-to-business meetings in the Dominican Republic and one other market, i.e. the Bahamas OR Barbados OR Haiti OR Jamaica OR Trinidad and Tobago, the participation fee will be $2,500 for a small or medium-sized enterprise (SME)
The mission registration fee also includes the Trade Americas—Opportunities in the Caribbean Region Conference registration fee of $400 for one participant from each firm, market assessment for the region, market briefings, networking reception, lunch during the conference and coffee breaks, interpreters and transportation associated with the conference, and U.S. Embassy officer consultations. There will be a $200 fee for each additional firm representative (large firm or SME) that wishes to participate in business-to-business meetings after the conference on Tuesday in the Dominican Republic and on Thursday in any of the markets selected.
Expenses for travel, lodging, most meals, and incidentals will be the responsibility of each mission participant.
• An applicant must submit a completed and signed mission application and supplemental application materials, including adequate information on the company's products and/or services, primary market objectives, and goals for participation. If the Department of Commerce receives an incomplete application, the Department may reject the application, request additional information, or take the lack of information into account when evaluating the applications.
• Each applicant must also certify that the products and services it seeks to export through the mission are either produced in the United States, or, if not, marketed under the name of a U.S. firm and have at least 51% U.S. content of the value of the finished product or service.
Selection will be based on the following criteria:
• Suitability of the company's products or services to each of the markets the company has expressed an interest in visiting as part of this trade mission.
• Company's potential for business in each of the markets the company has expressed an interest in visiting as part of this trade mission.
• Consistency of the applicant's goals and objectives with the stated scope of the mission.
Referrals from political organizations and any documents containing references to partisan political activities (including political contributions) will be removed from an applicant's submission and not considered during the selection process.
Mission recruitment will be conducted in an open and public manner, including publication in the
Recruitment for the mission will begin immediately and conclude no later than Friday, April 4, 2014. The U.S. Department of Commerce will review applications and make selection decisions on a rolling basis until the maximum of 30 participants are selected. After April 4, 2014, companies will be considered only if space and scheduling constraints permit.
David Royce, U.S. Export Assistance Center—Fort Worth, TX,
Diego Gattesco, U.S. Export Assistance Center—Wheeling, WV,
Isabella Cascarano, Senior Commercial Officer, U.S. Commercial Service—Dominican Republic,
Maria Elena Portorreal, Regional Commercial Specialist, U.S. Commercial Service—Dominican Republic,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before March 31, 2014.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Patsy A. Bearden, (907) 586-7008 or
This request is for extension of a currently approved information collection.
The king and Tanner crab fisheries in the exclusive economic zone of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands, Alaska, are managed under the Fishery Management Plan for Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crabs (FMP). The North Pacific Fishery Management Council prepared the FMP under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act as amended in 2006. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) manages the crab fisheries in the waters off the coast of Alaska under the FMP. Regulations implementing the FMP and all amendments to the Crab Rationalization Program (CR Program) appear at 50 CFR part 680. Program details are found at:
The CR Program balances the interests of several groups who depend on the crab fisheries. The CR Program addresses conservation and management issues associated with the previous derby fishery, reduces bycatch and associated discard mortality, and increases the safety of crab fishermen by ending the race for fish. Share allocations to harvesters and processors, together with incentives to participate in fishery cooperatives, increases efficiencies, provides economic stability, and facilitates compensated reduction of excess capacities in the harvesting and processing sectors. Community interests are protected by Western Alaska Community Development Quota allocations and regional landing and processing requirements, as well as by several community protection measures.
The NMFS established the CR Program as a catch share program for nine crab fisheries in the BSAI, and assigned quota share (QS) to persons and processor quota share (PQS) to processors based on their historic participation in one or more of these nine crab fisheries during a specific period. The CR Program components include QS allocation, PQS allocation, individual fishing quota (IFQ) issuance, and individual processing quota (IPQ) issuance, quota transfers, use caps, crab harvesting cooperatives, protections for Gulf of Alaska groundfish fisheries, arbitration system, monitoring, economic data collection, and cost recovery fee collection.
Respondents have a choice of either electronic or paper forms. Methods of submittal include online, email of electronic forms, mail, and facsimile transmission of paper forms.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
The Estuarine Reserves Division, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Public meeting notice.
The Office of Planning, Hawaii Coastal Zone Management Program and the University of Hawaii with the support of the Estuarine Reserves Division of the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM), National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. Department of Commerce, will hold a public meeting for the purpose of receiving comments on the preliminary recommendation that the Heeia estuary be proposed for designation as a National Estuarine Research Reserve in Hawaii.
The meeting will be held on February 27, 2014 at 5:30 p.m.
The meeting will be held at Governor Samuel Wilder King Intermediate School Dining Room, 46-155 Kamehameha Hwy, Kaneohe, HI 96744.
This will be the second public meeting held regarding the State's preliminary recommendation that the Heeia estuary in Kaneohe Bay, Oahu, be proposed for designation as a National Estuarine Research Reserve (NERR). A previous meeting was held on January 9, 2014. These meetings are held in compliance with NOAA regulations at 15 CFR Part 921 for the selection, designation and management of NERRs.
The views of interested persons and organizations on the proposed site recommendation are solicited, and may be expressed to the State of Hawaii orally during the meeting and/or in written statements to the Office of Planning, Coastal Zone Management Program, Attn: NERRS, P.O. Box 2359, Honolulu, HI 96804. An informational presentation on the Heeia Estuary and the National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS) is scheduled for 5:30 p.m. All comments received at the meeting will be considered in a formal nomination by the state to NOAA. All comments provided to NOAA will be shared with the State of Hawaii as part of the site selection process.
The NERRS is a federal-state partnership that is administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The system protects more than 1.3 million acres of estuarine habitat for long-term research, monitoring, education and stewardship throughout the coastal United States. Established by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1451-1466 each reserve is managed by a lead state agency or university, with input from local partners. NOAA provides funding and national programmatic guidance.
The NERR site selection effort is a culmination of several years of local, grassroots support for a Hawaii NERR. The recommendation of the Heeia site follows a public solicitation and site proposal evaluation process. Federal, state, and county agency representatives and estuarine experts evaluated site proposals and recommended to the State that Heeia be considered as the preferred site.
Ms. Erica H. Seiden, Acting Chief, NOAA's Estuarine Reserves Division, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Ocean Service, NOAA, 1305 East West Highway, N/ORM2, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Phone: 301-563-1172. Please email comments to:
Persons with disabilities please contact Leo Asuncion at the Office of Planning, Coastal Zone Management Program by February 18, 2014 to make arrangements. Phone: 808-587-2846.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
The USPTO database of official tribal insignias provides evidence of what a federally or state-recognized Native American tribe considers to be its official insignia. The database thereby assists trademark examining attorneys in their examination of applications for trademark registration by serving as a reference for determining the registrability of a mark that may falsely suggest a connection to the official insignia of a Native American tribe. The entry of an official insignia into the database does not confer any rights to the tribe that submitted the insignia, and entry is not the legal equivalent of registering the insignia as a trademark under 15 U.S.C. 1051
This information collection is used by the USPTO to enter an official insignia submitted by a federally or state-recognized Native American tribe into the database. There are no forms associated with this collection.
Once submitted, the request will be publicly available in electronic format through the Information Collection Review page at
Paper copies can be obtained by:
•
•
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent on or before February 27, 2014 to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB Desk Officer, via email to
Proposed collection; comment request.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on this continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).
Written comments must be submitted on or before March 31, 2014.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Requests for additional information should be directed to Catherine Cain, Attorney Advisor, Office of the Commissioner for Trademarks, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450, by telephone at 571-272-8946, or by email at
This collection of information is required by the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq., which provides for the federal registration of trademarks, service marks, collective trademarks and service marks, collective membership marks, and certification marks. Individuals and businesses that use such marks, or intend to use such marks, in interstate commerce may file an application to register their marks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). In some cases, the USPTO issues Office Actions to applicants who have applied for a trademark application, requesting additional information that was not provided with the initial submission but is required before the issuance of a registration. Also, the USPTO may determine that a mark is not entitled to registration, pursuant to one or more provisions of the Trademark Act. In such cases, the USPTO will issue an Office Action advising the applicant of the refusal to register the mark. Applicants reply to these Office Actions by providing the required information and/or by putting forth legal arguments as to why the refusal of registration should be withdrawn.
The USPTO administers the Trademark Act through Chapter 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations. These rules allow the USPTO to request and receive information required to process applications. These rules also allow applicants to submit certain amendments to their applications.
Applicants may also supplement their applications and provide further information by filing a Voluntary Amendment Not in Response to USPTO Office Action/Letter, a Request for Reconsideration after Final Office Action, a Post-Publication Amendment, a Petition to Amend Basis Post-Publication, and a Suspension Inquiry or Letter of Suspension, or by submitting a Substitute Trademark/Servicemark, Substitute Certification Mark, or Substitute Collective Membership Mark application.
Thus, this collection includes information that was not submitted with the initial application and is needed by the USPTO to review applications for trademark registration.
The forms in this collection are available in electronic format through the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), which may be accessed on the USPTO Web site. TEAS Global Forms are available for the items where a TEAS form with dedicated data fields is not yet available. Applicants may also submit the information in paper form by mail, fax, or hand delivery.
Customers incur postage costs when submitting non-electronic information to the USPTO by mail through the United States Postal Service. The USPTO expects that the majority (roughly 98%) of the paper forms are submitted to the USPTO via first-class mail. The USPTO estimates that these submissions will typically weigh approximately one ounce and that the first-class postage rate for these submissions is 49 cents.
There are no filing fees associated with this collection.
The USPTO estimates that the total (non-hour) respondent cost burden for this collection in the form of postage costs is $5,916 per year.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.
The USPTO is soliciting public comments to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice of meeting.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) announces that on February 12, 2014, from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m., the Global Markets Advisory Committee (GMAC) will hold a public meeting at the CFTC's Washington, DC, headquarters. The GMAC will discuss the CFTC staff's advisory issued on November 14, 2013, related to the CFTC's cross-border guidance addressing the applicability of certain Commission regulations.
The meeting will be held on Wednesday, February 12, 2014, from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. Members of the public who wish to submit written statements in connection with the meeting should submit them by February 6, 2014.
The meeting will take place in the Conference Center at the CFTC's headquarters, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581. Written statements should be submitted by electronic mail to:
Ted Serafini, GMAC Designated Federal Officer, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581; (202) 418-5010.
The CFTC GMAC will hold a public meeting on Wednesday, February 12, 2014, from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. at the CFTC's Washington, DC headquarters. The GMAC meeting will focus on the CFTC staff's advisory issued on November 14, 2013, related to the CFTC's cross-border guidance addressing the applicability of certain Commission regulations.
The meeting will be open to the public with seating on a first-come, first-served basis. Persons requiring special accommodations to attend the meeting because of a disability should notify the contact person listed above.
Members of the public may also listen to the meeting by telephone by calling a domestic toll-free telephone or international toll or toll-free number to connect to a live, listen-only audio feed. Call-in participants should be prepared to provide their first name, last name, and affiliation. The call-in information is as follows:
After the meeting, a transcript of the meeting will be published through a link on the CFTC's Web site,
10 a.m., Friday, January 31, 2014.
1155 21st St. NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room
Closed
Surveillance, Enforcement Matters, and Examinations. In the event that the times, dates or locations of this or any future meetings change, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date and location of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's Web site at
Melissa D. Jurgens, 202-418-5516.
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Notice.
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC or Commission) requests comments on a proposed extension of approval of a collection of information from persons who may voluntarily register and participate in a Consumer Opinion Forum on the CPSC Web site,
Submit written or electronic comments on the collection of information by March 31, 2014.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2009-0093, by any of the following methods:
Robert H. Squibb, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; (301) 504-7815, or by email to:
Section 5(a) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), 15 U.S.C. 2054(a), authorizes the Commission to conduct studies and investigations relating to the causes and prevention of deaths, accidents, injuries, illnesses, other health impairments, and economic losses associated with consumer products. Section 5(b) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2054(b), further provides that the Commission may conduct research, studies and investigations on the safety of consumer products or test consumer products and develop product safety test methods and testing devices.
To help identify and evaluate product-related incidents, Commission staff seeks to solicit consumer opinions and perceptions about consumer product use, on a voluntary basis, through questions posted on the CPSC's Consumer Opinion Forum (Forum). The Forum invites consumers to answer questions and provide information regarding their experiences, opinions, and/or perceptions on the use, or pattern of use, of a specific product, or type of product. The Forum is intended for consumers, 18 years and older, who have access to the Internet and email, who voluntarily register to participate through a participant registration process, and respond to the questions posted in the Forum. The CPSC Web site,
The information that the agency collects from the Forum will help inform the Commission's identification and evaluation of consumer products and product use, by providing insight and information into consumer perceptions and usage patterns. This information may also assist the Commission in its efforts to support voluntary standards activities, and help CPSC identify consumer safety issues requiring additional research. In addition, based on the information obtained, CPSC may be able to provide safety information to the public that is easier to read and understood by a wider range of consumers. For example, CPSC may want to propose new language or revise existing language in warning labels or manuals if many Forum participants perceive that certain warning language is unclear or subject to misinterpretation.
In addition, CPSC may use the Forum to solicit consumer opinions about the effectiveness of product recall communications and what actions consumers take in response to such communications and why. This information may help CPSC to tailor future recall activities to increase the success of those activities.
Four surveys have been conducted thus far. The first survey sought information on consumer experiences with recalled products. The second survey sought information on consumer experiences with electrical outlets that contain ground fault circuit interrupters (GFCIs). The third survey sought information on consumer experiences with clothes dryers and clothes dryer maintenance. The fourth survey sought information on consumer experiences with tipovers of televisions.
The Forum has been in existence since June 2007. As of January 7, 2014, 3,489 have registered to participate in the Forum. The CPSC has not limited the total number of Forum respondents, and registration continues to be open. Based on the rate at which participants are registering, however, staff does not believe that the total number of registrants will increase substantially over the next few years. Staff believes that the number of registrants is not likely to exceed the CPSC staff's original estimate of 5,000 respondents. Staff estimates that registration takes no more than 10 minutes; the aggregate registration burden is estimated to be about 83 burden hours per year.
The time required for a respondent to respond to survey questions varies considerably, depending upon the specific number, type, and complexity of questions asked. Although this variability makes the time to respond to a survey difficult to estimate, staff estimates that respondents will need less than 15 minutes to complete any Forum survey.
CPSC has conducted four surveys. Although the starting and ending times for each completed survey are available, because respondents can begin a survey and return later to complete the survey, the results may overstate the actual time spent responding to the survey. The resulting data show that the average completion times for the four surveys were 9.5, 5.0, 9.3, and 4.3 minutes, respectively. However, the median completion times of 4.3, 3.4, 5.4, and 3.0 minutes, respectively, are more likely to reflect the true “average” completion time.
For each survey, staff estimates that the aggregate burden to all respondents would not exceed 73 hours (25 percent response rate for 3,489 potential respondents at about 5 minutes per survey). If CPSC conducted one survey per year, the total estimated burden for new registrations and surveys, combined, would not exceed 156 hours annually (73 hours per survey, plus 83 hours for new registrations).
According to the September 2013, press release from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average compensational hourly rate is $29.23 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Employer Costs for Employee Compensation,” September 2013, Table 9, total compensation for all workers in private industries:
The total staff time for preparing questions for the Forum, maintaining the Forum, and analyzing the responses from the Forum is estimated at about one staff month per year, or about one staff month per survey. Accordingly, if
The Commission invites comments on the proposed collection of information, including:
• Whether the collection of information described above is necessary for the proper performance of the Commission's functions, including whether the information would have practical utility;
• whether the estimated burden of the proposed collection of information is accurate;
• whether the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected could be enhanced; and
• whether the burden imposed by the collection of information could be minimized by use of automated, electronic, or other technological collection techniques, or other forms of information technology.
Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS), DoD.
30-Day notice of submission of information collection approval from the Office of Management and Budget and request for comments.
As part of an effort to streamline the process to seek feedback from the public on service delivery, DFAS has submitted a Generic Information Collection Request (Generic ICR): “Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery ” to OMB for approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Comments must be submitted by February 27, 2014.
Fred Licari, 571-372-0493.
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra at the Office of Management and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
You may also submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by the following method:
•
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice to alter a system of records.
The Department of the Navy proposes to alter the system of records, N01000-5, entitled “Naval Clemency and Parole Board Files” in its inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended. This system is used in conjunction with periodic review of the member's or former member's case to determine whether or not clemency or parole is warranted.
This proposed action will be effective on February 28, 2014 unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination. Comments will be accepted on or before February 27, 2014.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
Ms. Robin Patterson, Head, PA/FOIA Office (DNS-36), Department of the Navy, 2000 Navy Pentagon, Washington, DC 20350-2000, or by phone at (202) 685-6545.
The Department of the Navy's notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the
The proposed system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on October 24, 2013, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).
Naval Clemency and Parole Board Files (January 29, 2007, 72 FR 3983).
Delete entry and replace with “The file contains individual applications for clemency and/or parole, reports and recommendations thereon indicating progress in confinement or while awaiting completion of appellate review if not confined, or on parole; correspondence between the individual or his counsel and the Naval Clemency and Parole Board or other Navy offices; other correspondence concerning the case; the court-martial order and staff Judge Advocate's review; records of trial; and a summarized record of the proceedings of the Board. Records include the individual's name, Social Security Number (SSN), military personnel records, and medical records.”
Delete entry and replace with “10 U.S.C. 874(a), 952-954, Remission and Suspension; 10 U.S.C. 5013, Secretary of the Navy; 42 U.S.C. 10601
Delete entry and replace with “In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, these records contained therein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
To victims and witnesses of a crime for purposes of providing information regarding the investigation and disposition of an offense (Victim's Rights and Restitution Act of 1990).
The DoD Blanket Routine Uses that appear at the beginning of the Navy's compilation of system of records notices may apply to this system.
This system of records contains Individually Identifiable Health Information. The DoD Health Information Privacy Regulation (DoD 6025.18-R) issued pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, applies to most such health information. DoD 6025-18-R may place additional procedural requirements on the uses and disclosures of such information beyond those found in the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended or mentioned in this system of records notice.”
Delete entry and replace with “Paper records and electronic storage media.”
Delete entry and replace with “Name and SSN.”
Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system should address written inquiries to the Director, Secretary of the Navy Council of Review Boards, Department of the Navy, 720 Kennon Street SE., Room 309, Washington Navy Yard, DC 20374-5023.
Requests should contain full name and SSN, and must be signed.
The system manager may require an original signature or a notarized signature as a means of proving the identity of the individual requesting access to the records.”
Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking access to information about themselves contained in this system should address written inquiries to the Director, Secretary of the Navy Council of Review Boards, Department of the Navy, 720 Kennon Street SE., Room 309, Washington Navy Yard, DC 20374-5023.
Requests should contain full name and SSN, and must be signed.
The system manager may require an original signature or a notarized signature as a means of proving the identity of the individual requesting access to the records.”
Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before February 27, 2014.
Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
For questions related to collection activities or burden, please call Kate Mullan, 202-401-0563 or electronically mail
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education.
Applications for New Awards; extension of the application period.
On November 5, 2013, we published in the
RoseAnn Ashby, U.S. Department of Education, Rehabilitation Services Administration, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., room 5055, PCP, Washington, DC 20202-2800. Telephone: (202) 245-7258 or by email:
On November 5, 2013, the Secretary invited applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2014 under the Rehabilitation Training: Rehabilitation Long-Term Training Program—Vocational Rehabilitation Counseling competition (78 FR 66346). The Rehabilitation Long-Term Training program provides financial assistance for—
(1) Projects that provide basic or advanced training leading to an academic degree in areas of personnel shortages in rehabilitation as identified by the Secretary;
(2) Projects that provide a specified series of courses or program of study leading to the award of a certificate in areas of personnel shortages in rehabilitation as identified by the Secretary; and
(3) Projects that provide support for medical residents enrolled in residency training programs in the specialty of physical medicine and rehabilitation.
The notice inviting applications established a February 3, 2014, deadline for the submission of applications. That same day, because of technical difficulties and to ensure the accuracy of information in the application package, the Department withdrew the application package from the Education Publications Center for a period of 18 hours. To ensure that all interested parties are provided a minimum of 90 days to submit their applications, we are extending the application period for one day to February 4, 2014. Consequently, we are also extending the deadline for intergovernmental review to April 5, 2014. All other information in the November 5, 2013, notice, including the two absolute priorities, remains the same.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Oak Ridge Reservation. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Wednesday, February 12, 2014; 6 p.m.
Department of Energy Information Center, Office of Science and Technical Information, 1 Science.gov Way, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830.
Melyssa P. Noe, Federal Coordinator, Department of Energy Oak Ridge Operations Office, P.O. Box 2001, EM-90, Oak Ridge, TN 37831. Phone (865) 241-3315; Fax (865) 576-0956 or email:
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a combined meeting of the Environmental Monitoring and Remediation Committee and Waste Management Committee of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Northern New Mexico (known locally as the Northern New Mexico Citizens' Advisory Board [NNMCAB]). The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Wednesday, February 12, 2014; 2:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m.
Cities of Gold Conference Center, NNMCAB Conference Room, 94 Cities of Gold Road, Pojoaque, NM 87506.
Menice Santistevan, Northern New Mexico Citizens' Advisory Board, 94 Cities of Gold Road, Santa Fe, NM 87506. Phone (505) 995-0393; Fax (505) 989-1752 or Email:
Department of Energy (DOE).
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Portsmouth. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Thursday, February 6, 2014, 6:00 p.m.
Ohio State University, Endeavor Center, 1862 Shyville Road, Piketon, Ohio 45661.
Greg Simonton, Alternate Deputy Designated Federal Officer, Department of Energy Portsmouth/Paducah Project Office, Post Office Box 700, Piketon, Ohio 45661, (740) 897-3737,
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following land acquisition reports:
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:
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(s). Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 447897), the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for an original license for the proposed 5.25-megawatt (MW) Braddock Locks and Dam Hydroelectric Project, which would be located on the US Army Corps of Engineers' Braddock Locks and Dam facility on the Monongahela River in the Borough of West Mifflin and the City of Duquesne, Pennsylvania, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Commission staff prepared a draft Environmental Assessment (EA) which analyzes the potential environmental effects of construction and operation of the project and concludes that issuing a license for the project, with appropriate environmental measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
A copy of the draft EA is on file with the Commission and is available for public inspection. The draft EA may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
You may also register online at
Comments on the draft EA should be filed within 30 days from the date of this notice. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments using the Commission's eFiling system at
You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
For further information contact Andy Bernick at (202) 502-8660.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives notice that members of its staff may attend the meetings of the Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP) Regional Entity Trustee (RE), Regional State Committee (RSC) and Board of Directors, as noted below. Their attendance is part of the Commission's ongoing outreach efforts.
All meetings will be held at the Omni Hotel at Southpark, 4140 Governor's Row, Austin, TX 78744. The hotel's phone number is (512) 448-2222.
The discussions may address matters at issue in the following proceedings:
Docket No. ER06-451,
Docket No. ER08-1419,
Docket No. ER09-659,
Docket No. ER11-4105,
Docket No. ER12-959,
Docket No. ER12-1179,
Docket No. ER12-1401,
Docket No. ER12-1402,
Docket No. ER12-1586,
Docket No. ER12-1772,
Docket No. ER12-1779,
Docket No. ER12-2292,
Docket No. ER12-2366,
Docket No. EL12-2,
Docket No. EL12-60,
Docket No. ER12-1813,
Docket No. ER12-1071,
Docket No. EL12-59,
Docket No. ER09-548,
Docket No. ER12-480,
Docket No. EL11-34,
Docket No. ER09-36,
Docket No. ER09-35,
Docket No. EL12-28,
Docket No. EL13-15,
Docket No. EL13-35,
Docket No. ER13-301,
Docket No. ER13-366,
Docket No. ER13-367,
Docket No. ER13-664,
Docket No. ER13-989,
Docket No. ER13-1013,
Docket No. ER13-1014,
Docket No, ER13-1032,
Docket No. ER13-1061,
Docket No. ER13-1068,
Docket No. ER13-1084,
Docket No. ER13-1173,
Docket No. ER13-1264,
Docket No. ER13-1768,
Docket No. ER13-2078,
Docket No. ER14-416,
Docket No. ER14-521,
Docket No. ER14-522,
Docket No. ER14-523,
Docket No. ER14-524,
Docket No. ER14-526,
Docket No. ER14-528,
Docket No. ER14-529,
Docket No. ER14-530,
Docket No. ER14-531,
Docket No. ER14-532,
Docket No. ER14-591,
Docket No. ER14-592,
Docket No. ER14-594,
Docket No. ER14-596,
Docket No. ER14-614,
Docket No. ER14-617,
Docket No. ER14-620,
Docket No. ER14-644,
Docket No. ER14-662,
Docket No. ER14-781,
Docket No. ER14-788,
Docket No. ER14-791,
Docket No. ER14-794,
Docket No. ER14-807,
Docket No. ER14-813,
Docket No. ER14-814,
Docket No. ER14-815,
Docket No. ER14-962,
Docket No. ER13-2164,
Docket No. EL13-84,
These meetings are open to the public.
For more information, contact Patrick Clarey, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (317) 249-5937 or
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice of amended settlement.
Under 122(h) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), the United States Environmental Protection Agency has amended a settlement entered into with Castpa, LLC and W.C. Development, Inc. that addresses past costs concerning the Georgia-Pacific Hardwood Site located in Plymouth, Washington County, North Carolina. The Agency had previously entered into a settlement in 2008 addressing costs from a fund-lead Removal Action taken by EPA at the Site. The amendment to the settlement reduces the past cost owed to the Agency based on an ability to pay by the settling parties.
The Agency will consider public comments on the amended settlement until February 27, 2014. The Agency will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent to the amended settlement if comments received disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the amended settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.
Copies of the amended settlement are available from the Agency by contacting Ms. Paula V. Painter, Environmental Protection Specialist using the contact information provided in this notice. Comments may also be submitted by referencing the Site's name through one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Paula V. Painter at 404/562-8887
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office requests public nominations of scientific experts to augment the SAB Chemical Assessment Advisory Committee (CAAC) for the review of the EPA's draft Toxicological Review of Benzo[a]pyrene in Support of Summary Information on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS).
Nominations should be submitted by February 18, 2014 per the instructions below.
Any member of the public wishing further information regarding this Notice and Request for Nominations may contact the Designated Federal Officer for the review, as identified below. Nominators unable to submit nominations electronically as described below may contact the Designated Federal Officer for assistance. General information concerning the EPA SAB can be found at the EPA SAB Web site at
The National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA) in the EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) develops toxicological reviews/assessments for various chemicals for IRIS. NCEA has developed a draft IRIS assessment for benzo[a]pyrene and has asked the SAB to peer review the draft document. The SAB Staff Office is seeking experts to augment the SAB CAAC for this peer review.
Benzo[a]pyrene is a five-ring polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon that is relatively insoluble in water and has low volatility. It is ubiquitous in the environment primarily as a result of incomplete combustion emissions. Natural sources of benzo[a]pyrene include forest fires and volcanoes, and anthropogenic sources include stoves/furnaces burning fossil fuels (especially wood and coal), motor vehicle exhaust, and various industrial combustion processes. Major sources of occupational exposure involve production of aluminum, coke, graphite and silicon carbide, as well as coal tar distillation. Major sources of non-occupational exposure involve tobacco products and diet (e.g., barbequed or charred meats).
NCEA's draft
Additionally, on December 12-13, 2013, NCEA held a public meeting to obtain stakeholder and public feedback on the draft charge and the draft benzo[a]pyrene toxicological assessment. As a result of the comments received during the public comment period and the discussions at the December meeting, the August 2013 draft versions of these documents may be revised prior to their submission to the SAB CAAC panel for peer review.]
Persons having questions about the nomination procedures, or who are unable to submit nominations through the SAB Web site, should contact Ms. Sanzone as noted above. Nominations should be submitted in time to arrive no later than February 18, 2014. EPA values and welcomes diversity. In an effort to obtain nominations of diverse candidates, EPA encourages nominations of women and men of all racial and ethnic groups.
The EPA SAB Staff Office will acknowledge receipt of nominations. The names and biosketches of qualified nominees identified by respondents to this
For the EPA SAB Staff Office a balanced review panel includes candidates who possess the necessary domains of knowledge, the relevant scientific perspectives (which, among other factors, can be influenced by work history and affiliation), and the collective breadth of experience to adequately address the charge. In forming this expert panel, the SAB Staff Office will consider public comments on the List of Candidates, information provided by the candidates themselves, and background information independently gathered by the SAB Staff Office. Selection criteria to be used for panel membership include: (a) Scientific and/or technical expertise, knowledge, and experience (primary factors); (b) availability and willingness to serve; (c) absence of financial conflicts of interest; (d) absence of an appearance of a loss of impartiality; (e) skills working in committees, subcommittees and advisory panels; and, (f) for the panel as a whole, diversity of expertise and scientific points of view.
The SAB Staff Office's evaluation of an absence of financial conflicts of interest will include a review of the “Confidential Financial Disclosure Form for Special Government Employees Serving on Federal Advisory Committees at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency” (EPA Form 3110-48). This confidential form allows government officials to determine whether there is a statutory conflict between a person's public responsibilities (which include membership on an EPA federal advisory committee) and private interests and activities, or the appearance of a loss of impartiality, as defined by federal regulation. The form may be viewed and downloaded from the following URL address
The approved policy under which the EPA SAB Office selects members for subcommittees and review panels is described in the following document:
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Notice of Information Collection—Extension Without Change: Elementary-Secondary Staff Information Report (EEO-5).
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) announces that it intends to submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for a three-year extension without change of the Elementary-Secondary Staff Information Report (EEO-5).
Written comments on this notice must be submitted on or before March 31, 2014.
Comments should be sent to Bernadette Wilson, Acting Executive Officer, Executive Secretariat, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street NE., Washington, DC 20507. As a convenience to commenters, the Executive Secretariat will accept comments totaling six or fewer pages by facsimile (“FAX”) machine. This limitation is necessary to assure access to the equipment. The telephone number of the fax receiver is (202) 663-4114. (This is not a toll-free number). Receipt of FAX transmittals will not be acknowledged, except that the sender may request confirmation of receipt by calling the Executive Secretariat staff at (202) 663-4070 (voice) or (202) 663-4074 (TTD). (These are not toll-free telephone numbers.) Instead of sending written comments to EEOC, you may submit comments and attachments electronically at
Ronald Edwards, Director, Program Research and Surveys Division, 131 M Street NE., Room 4SW30F, Washington, DC 20507; (202) 663-4949 (voice) or (202) 663-7063 (TTY).
Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and OMB regulations
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Commission's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
Revisions to the form that amended the race and ethnicity categories were approved by OMB in 2012. The previously used categories (White, Black, Hispanic, Asian or Pacific Islander, and American Indian or Alaska Native) were replaced with the following: Hispanic or Latino; White; Black or African American; Asian; Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander; American Indian or Alaska Native; and Two or More Races. EEOC is seeking a three year extension without change of the form approved by OMB in 2012.
For the Commission.
Export-Import Bank of the United States.
Submission for OMB review and comments request.
The Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank), as a part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to comment on the proposed information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
The small business exporter survey seeks to obtain feedback from customers on trade credit insurance policy purchases made in a Fiscal Year. This survey will help Ex-Im Bank better understand small business customers' perspectives on the bank's products, the level of service provided, and how Ex-Im Bank's assistance impacts their small business. The objective is to identify possible service improvements and better understand small business owners' experiences working with Ex-Im Bank.
The survey can be reviewed at:
Comments should be received on or before February 27, 2014.
Comments may be submitted electronically on
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Notice and request for comment.
In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the FDIC may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, the FDIC invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on renewal of an existing information collection, as required by the PRA. On October 22, 2013 (78 FR 62632), the FDIC requested comment for 60 days on renewal of its information collection entitled
Comments must be submitted on or before February 27, 2014.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to the FDIC by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Leneta Gregorie, at the FDIC address above.
The Guidance on Sound Incentive Compensation Practices helps ensure that incentive compensation policies at insured state nonmember banks and state savings associations do not encourage excessive risk-taking and are consistent with the safety and soundness of the organization. Under the Guidance, banks are required to: (i) Have policies and procedures that identify and describe the role(s) of the personnel and units authorized to be involved in incentive compensation arrangements, identify the source of significant risk-related inputs, establish appropriate controls governing these inputs to help ensure their integrity, and identify the individual(s) and unit(s) whose approval is necessary for the establishment or modification of incentive compensation arrangements; (ii) create and maintain sufficient documentation to permit an audit of the organization's processes for incentive compensation arrangements; (iii) have any material exceptions or adjustments to the incentive compensation arrangements established for senior executives approved and documented by its board of directors; and (iv) have its board of directors receive and review, on an annual or more frequent basis operation of the organization's incentive compensation system in providing risk-taking incentives that are consistent with the organization's safety and soundness.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Federal Election Commission.
Thursday, January 30, 2014 at 10:00 a.m.
999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC (ninth floor).
This meeting will be open to the public.
Individuals who plan to attend and require special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact Shawn Woodhead Werth, Secretary and Clerk, at (202) 694-1040, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting date.
Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
On June 15, 1984, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delegated to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) its approval authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.16, to approve of and assign OMB control numbers to collection of information requests and requirements conducted or sponsored by the Board under conditions set forth in 5 CFR 1320 Appendix A.1. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. Copies of the Paperwork Reduction Act Submission, supporting statements and approved collection of information instruments are placed into OMB's public docket files. The Federal Reserve may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Comments must be submitted on or before March 31, 2014.
You may submit comments, identified by
•
•
•
•
•
All public comments are available from the Board's Web site at
Additionally, commenters may send a copy of their comments to the OMB Desk Officer—Shagufta Ahmed—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-6974.
A copy of the PRA OMB submission, including the proposed reporting form and instructions, supporting statement, and other documentation will be placed into OMB's public docket files, once approved. These documents will also be made available on the Federal Reserve Board's public Web site at:
Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Cynthia Ayouch—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551 (202) 452-3829. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263-4869, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.
The following information collections, which are being handled under this delegated authority, have received initial Board approval and are hereby published for comment. At the end of the comment period, the proposed information collections, along with an analysis of comments and recommendations received, will be submitted to the Board for final approval under OMB delegated authority. Comments are invited on the following:
a. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Federal Reserve's functions; including whether the information has practical utility;
b. The accuracy of the Federal Reserve's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
c. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
d. Ways to minimize the burden of information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
e. Estimates of capital or start up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
The FR Y-9C consists of standardized financial statements similar to the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income (Call Reports) (FFIEC 031 & 041; OMB No. 7100-0036) filed by commercial banks. It collects consolidated data from HCs, and is filed by top-tier HCs with total consolidated assets of $500 million or more.
• Since the start of the Advance Collection process in 2004, the FR Y-9C processing time period has shortened by 15 days allowing access to the officially submitted data in a more timely fashion.
• The companies (i.e., the 50 largest BHCs) participating in the process have increased the quality and quantity of data available in their press release information.
• There would be resource savings at the companies and the Federal Reserve as a result of discontinuing the “Voluntary Advance Collection” process.
Current actions:
Since the Payments Systems Surveys were originally approved, the Federal Reserve has assumed additional responsibilities for currency-related activities including, management of the currency education program, which was previously managed by the U.S. Treasury's Bureau of Engraving and Printing, and increased responsibilities for security and tactile feature development. To ensure that the Federal Reserve has the flexibility to collect data from respondents that will inform the Federal Reserve's decision-making on the education program and new banknote designs, Federal Reserve proposes to revise the FR 3054a to increase the number and type of respondents, from which it collects data. In addition, the Federal Reserve's approval of the FR 3067, in July, provides additional burden hours and flexibility to conduct surveys. Federal Reserve proposes to add individuals and law enforcement agencies to its current respondent group, reduce the annual frequency from 10 times to 1 time per year, which reflects its expectation that it will only survey respondents once, reduce the estimated time to complete a survey from 15 hours to 0.75 hours, and increase the number of respondents from 100 to 12,000. Federal Reserve anticipates that the FR 3054a will primarily be used for the currency education program, which will result in asking respondents to answer a small number of very targeted questions that respondents can complete in about thirty minutes, but will require a larger respondent pool to ensure that the public is aware of banknote designs and security features. The FR 3054a may also be used to collect information from the Federal Reserve's stakeholders regarding the societal cost effect of a raised tactile feature on banknotes.
Federal Reserve proposes to revise the FR 3054d to include a perception study. Since the Payments Systems Surveys were originally approved, Federal Reserve has employed this survey to conduct numerous surveys with Banknote Equipment Manufacturers' (BEM's) regarding the functionality of banknotes. Federal Reserve plan on conducting follow-up interviews with BEM's and a perception study to determine how individuals use the features of banknotes currently in circulation and potential new features. Federal Reserve proposes to revise the FR 3054d to increase the number and type of respondents from which it collects data. Federal Reserve proposes to (1) rename the survey the Currency Functionality and Perception Survey, (2) include additional respondent groups (such as individuals), (3) increase the frequency of the survey from one time per year to four times per year, (4) reduce the estimated time to complete the survey from 48 hours to 2.5 hours, and (5) increase the number of respondents from 20 to 250. These changes reflect a greater need to gather targeted perception information from individuals rather than conduct face-to-face bilateral discussions with BEM's to obtain very technical information on how the equipment they manufacture determines what denomination a banknote is and if it genuine or counterfeit.
The FR Y-9 family of reporting forms continues to be the primary source of financial data on HCs that examiners rely on in the intervals between on-site inspections and off-site assessments through the Small Bank Holding Company Supervision Program. Financial data from these reporting forms are used to detect emerging financial problems, to review performance and conduct pre-inspection analysis, to monitor and evaluate capital adequacy, to evaluate HC mergers and acquisitions, and to analyze an HC's overall financial condition to ensure the safety and soundness of its operations.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than February 12, 2014.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Chapelle Davis, Assistant Vice President) 1000 Peachtree Street, NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30309:
1.
B. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacqueline K. Brunmeier, Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:
1.
2.
3.
C. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
1.
D. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (E. Ann Worthy, Vice President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 23, 2014.
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
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 21, 2014.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (E. Ann Worthy, Vice President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:
1.
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).
Notice of Computer Matching Program (CMP).
In accordance with the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, this notice announces the establishment of a Computer Matching Program that CMS plans to conduct with the Social Security Administration (SSA) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), a Bureau of the Department of Treasury.
Comments are invited on all portions of this notice. Public comments are due 30 days after publication. The matching program will become effective no sooner than 40 days after the report of the matching program is sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Congress, or 30 days after publication in the
The public should send comments to: CMS Privacy Officer, Division of Privacy Policy, Privacy Policy and Compliance Group, Office of E-Health Standards & Services, Offices of Enterprise Management, CMS, Room S2-24-25, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1850. Comments received will be available for review at this location, by appointment, during regular business hours, Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m., Eastern Time zone.
Richard Mazur, Technical Advisor, Office of Financial Management, Financial Services Group, Division of Medicare Secondary Payer Program Operations, CMS, Mail Stop C3-14-16, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1850, Office Phone: (410) 786-1418, Facsimile: (410) 786-7030, E-Mail:
The Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 100-503), amended the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) by describing the manner in which computer matching involving Federal agencies could be performed and adding certain protections for individuals applying for and receiving Federal benefits. Section 7201 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-508) further amended the Privacy Act regarding protections for such individuals. The Privacy Act, as amended, regulates the use of computer matching by Federal agencies when records in a system of records (SOR) are matched with other Federal, state, or local government records. It requires Federal agencies involved in computer matching programs to:
1. Negotiate written agreements with the other agencies participating in the matching programs;
2. Obtain the Data Integrity Board approval of the match agreements;
3. Furnish detailed reports about matching programs to Congress and OMB;
4. Notify applicants and beneficiaries that the records are subject to matching; and,
5. Verify match findings before reducing, suspending, terminating, or denying an individual's benefits or payments.
“Computer Matching Agreement between the Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Services, and the Social Security Administration and the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services for the Medicare Secondary Payer Program”
Unclassified
Department of Treasury, Internal Revenue Service (IRS); Social Security Administration (SSA); and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).
Section 6103(l)(12) of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) (26 U.S.C. 6103(1)(12)), and section 1862(b)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395y(b)(5)) implements the information matching provisions of the matching program.
Section 1106 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1306) permits the disclosure of SSA data under this matching program.
The purpose of this matching program is to establish the conditions under which: (1) IRS agrees to disclose return information relating to taxpayer identity to SSA, and (2) SSA agrees to disclose return information relating to beneficiary and employer identity, commingled with information disclosed by the IRS, to CMS.
These disclosures will provide CMS with information to determine the extent to which any Medicare beneficiary is covered under any Group Health Plan (GHP).
The matching program will be conducted with data maintained by CMS in the following SORs:
• Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug (MARx) System, CMS System No.
• Medicare Multi-Carrier Claims System (MCS), CMS System No. 09-70-0501, published at 71 FR 64968 (November 6, 2006);
• Fiscal Intermediary Shared System (FISS), CMS System No. 09-70-0503, published at 71 FR 64961 (November 6, 2006);
• Common Working File (CWF), CMS System No. 09-70-0526, published at 71 FR 64955 (November 6, 2006);
• National Claims History (NCH), CMS System No. 09-70-0558, published at 71 FR 67137 (November 20, 2006).
The matching program will also be conducted with data maintained by IRS in CADE (Customer Account Data Engine) Individual Master File (IMF), Treasury/IRS 24.030, published at 77 FR 47946-947 (August 10, 2012); and SSA in Master Beneficiary Record (MBR), SSA/ORSIS 60-0090, published at 71 FR 1826 (January 11, 2006) and Earnings Recording and Self-Employment Income System, SSA 60-0059, referred to as the Master Earnings File (MEF), published at 71 FR 1819 (January 11, 2006).
This Computer Matching Program will become effective no sooner than 40 days after the report of the matching program is sent to OMB and Congress, or 30 days after publication in the
In compliance with the requirements of Section 506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. Email address:
The Department specifically requests comments on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.
Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with Section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) has submitted an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. Comments submitted during the first public review of this ICR will be provided to OMB. OMB will accept further comments from the public during the review and approval period.
Comments on this ICR should be received within 30 days of this notice.
Submit your comments, including the Information Collection Request Title, to the desk officer for HRSA, either by email to
To request a copy of the clearance requests submitted to OMB for review, email the HRSA Information Collection Clearance Officer at
Under Title VIII, section 846A of the Public Health Service Act, as amended by Public Law 111-148, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) enters into an agreement with a school of nursing and makes an award to the school. The award is used to establish a distinct account for the NFLP loan fund at the school. The school of nursing makes loans from the NFLP loan fund account to students enrolled full-time or part-time in a master's or doctoral nursing education program that will prepare them to become qualified nursing faculty. Following graduation from the NFLP lending school, loan recipients may receive up to 85 percent NFLP loan cancellation over a consecutive 4-year period in exchange for service as full-time faculty at a school of nursing. The NFLP lending school collects any portion of the loan that is not cancelled and any loans that go into repayment, and deposits these monies into the NFLP loan fund to make additional NFLP loans.
The school of nursing must keep records of all NFLP loan fund transactions. The NFLP-APR Financial Data Form is used to monitor grantee performance by collection of information relating to the NFLP loan fund operations and financial activities for a specified reporting period (July 1 through June 30, of the academic year). Participating schools are required to complete and submit the NFLP-APR Financial Data Form semi-annually. The data provided in the form are essential for HRSA to effectively monitor the school's use of NFLP funds in accordance with program guidelines. Approval of the revised NFLP-APR Financial Data Form will facilitate our current effort to determine future awards to the school.
The electronic data collection capability will streamline the report submission process, enable an efficient annual performance review process, and serve as a data repository to facilitate reporting on the use of funds and analysis of program outcomes.
Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects (Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995), the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) announces plans to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Prior to submitting the ICR to OMB, HRSA seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate, below, or any other aspect of the ICR.
Comments on this Information Collection Request must be received within 60 days of this notice.
Submit your comments to
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and draft instruments, email
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the information request collection title for reference.
The statute provides that eligible Teaching Health Centers receive payments for both direct and indirect expenses associated with training residents in community-based ambulatory patient care centers. Direct medical expenses payments are designed to compensate eligible teaching health centers for those expenses directly associated with resident training, while indirect medical expenses payments are intended to compensate for the additional expenses of training residents in such programs.
HRSA specifically requests comments on (1) the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions, (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden, (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects (Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995), the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) announces plans to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Prior to submitting the ICR to OMB, HRSA seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate, below, or any other aspect of the ICR.
Comments on this Information Collection Request must be received within 60 days of this notice.
Submit your comments to
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and draft instruments, email
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the information request collection title for reference.
MCHB seeks to conduct a mixed-methods evaluation to assess the effectiveness of the program on individual, organizational, and community-level outcomes. Data collection instruments will include a Women, Children, and Families Information Form; Healthy Start Grantee Web Survey; Community Action Network (CAN) Web Survey; Healthy Start Site Visit Protocol; and Healthy Start Participant Focus Group Protocol.
HRSA specifically requests comments on (1) the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions, (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden, (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with Section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork
Comments on this ICR should be received within 30 days of this notice.
Submit your comments, including the Information Collection Request Title, to the desk officer for HRSA, either by email to
To request a copy of the clearance requests submitted to OMB for review, email the HRSA Information Collection Clearance Officer at
On October 25, 2013, HRSA published revised standards for core medical services waiver requests in the
Under the provisions of Section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
To obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments or request more information on the proposed project contact: Irene Prabhu Das, Division of Cancer Control & Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 3E-518, Bethesda, MD 20892-0704 or call non-toll-free number 240-276-6799 or Email your request, including your address to:
OMB approval is requested for 1 year. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 22.
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.
National Protection and Programs Directorate, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Committee Management notice of an open Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The President's National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee (NSTAC) will meet via teleconference on Wednesday, February 19, 2014. The meeting will be open to the public.
The NSTAC will meet on Wednesday, February 19, 2014, from 2 p.m. to 3 p.m. Please note that the meeting may close early if the committee has completed its business.
The meeting will be held via conference call. For access to the conference call bridge, contact Ms. Suzanne Daage by email at
•
•
•
•
A public comment period will be held during the conference call on Wednesday, February 19, 2014, from 2:25 p.m. to 2:40 p.m. Speakers who wish to participate in the public comment period must register in advance no later than Friday, February 14, 2014, at 5:00 p.m. by emailing Suzanne Daage at
Mr. Mike Echols, NSTAC Alternate Designated Federal Officer, Department of Homeland Security, telephone (703) 235-5469.
Notice of this meeting is given under the
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of federal advisory committee meeting.
The Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee (MERPAC) will meet on March 11, 2014 and March 12, 2014 in Dania Beach, FL, to discuss various issues related to the training and fitness of merchant marine personnel. This meeting will be open to the public.
MERPAC working groups will meet on March 11, 2014, from 8 a.m. until 4 p.m., and the full committee will meet on March 12, 2014, from 8 a.m. until 4 p.m. Please note that this meeting may adjourn early if all business is finished.
The Committee will meet in Room 217 of the STAR Center, 2 West Dixie Highway, Dania Beach, FL 33004. Please be advised all attendees will be required to provide identification in the form of a government-issued picture identification card in order to gain admittance to the facility. For further information on the location of the STAR Center, please contact Mr. Graeme
For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance, please contact Mr. Mark Gould, Alternate Designated Federal Officer (ADFO), telephone 202-372-1409, or at
To facilitate public participation, we are inviting public comment on the issues to be considered by the committee and working groups as listed in the “Agenda” section below. Written comments for distribution to committee members and inclusion on MERPAC Web site must be submitted on or before February, 25, 2014. Written comments must be identified by Docket No. USCG-2013-1089 and submitted by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Public oral comment periods will be held each day. Speakers are requested to limit their comments to 3 minutes. Please note that the public oral comment periods may end before the prescribed ending time following the last call for comments. Contact Mr. Mark Gould as indicated below to register as a speaker.
This notice may be viewed in our online docket, USCG-2013-1089, at
Mr. Mark Gould, Alternate Designated Federal Officer (ADFO), telephone 202-372-1409, or at
Notice of this meeting is given under the
MERPAC is an advisory committee established under the Secretary's authority in section 871 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Title 6, United States Code, section 451, and chartered under the provisions of the FACA. The Committee acts solely in an advisory capacity to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) through the Commandant of the Coast Guard and the Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards on matters relating to personnel in the U.S. merchant marine, including but not limited to training, qualifications, certification, documentation, and fitness standards. The Committee will advise, consult with, and make recommendations reflecting its independent judgment to the Secretary.
A copy of all meeting documentation is available at
The agenda for the March 11, 2014, meeting is as follows:
(1) The full committee will meet briefly to discuss the working groups' business/task statements, which are listed under paragraph 2 (a)-(g) below.
(2) Working groups addressing the following task statements, available for viewing at
(a) Task Statement 30, Utilizing Military Education, Training and Assessment for the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW) and U.S. Coast Guard Certifications;
(b) Task Statement 58, Communication between External Stakeholders and the Mariner Credentialing Program, as it Relates to the National Maritime Center;
(c) Task Statement 78, Consideration of the International Labour Organization's Maritime Labour Convention, 2006;
(d) Task Statement 80, Crew Training Requirements Onboard Natural Gas-Fueled Vessels Other Than Liquefied Natural Gas Carriers;
(e) Task Statement 81, Development of Competency Requirements for Vessel Personnel Working Within the Polar Regions;
(f) Task Statement 83, Development of Competency Requirements to meet STCW Chief Engineer III/2 for Personnel Working on Small Vessels with High Horsepower; and
(g) Task Statement 85, Correction of Merchant Mariner Credentials issued with Clear Errors.
(3) Public comment period.
(4) Reports of working groups. At the end of the day, the working groups will report to the full committee on what was accomplished in their meetings. The full committee will not take action on these reports on this date. Any official action taken as a result of this working group meeting will be taken on day 2 of the meeting.
(5) Adjournment of meeting.
The agenda for the March 12, 2014, committee meeting is as follows:
(1) Introduction;
(2) Remarks from Coast Guard Leadership;
(3) Swearing in of new members.
(4) Roll call of committee members and determination of a quorum;
(4) Designated Federal Officer (DFO) announcements;
(5) Reports from the following working groups;
(a) Task Statement 30, Utilizing Military Education, Training and Assessment for STCW and U.S. Coast Guard Certifications;
(b) Task Statement 58, Communication between External Stakeholders and the Mariner Credentialing Program, as it Relates to the National Maritime Center;
(c) Task Statement 78, Consideration of the International Labour Organization's Maritime Labour Convention, 2006;
(d) Task Statement 80, Crew Training Requirements Onboard Natural Gas-Fueled Vessels Other Than Liquefied Natural Gas Carriers;
(e) Task Statement 81, Development of Competency Requirements for Vessel Personnel Working Within the Polar Regions;
(f) Task Statement 83, Development of Competency Requirements to meet STCW Chief Engineer III/2 for Personnel Working on Small Vessels with High Horsepower; and
(g) Task Statement 85, Correction of Merchant Mariner Credentials issued with Clear Errors.
(6) Other items for discussion:
(a) Report on National Maritime Center (NMC) activities from NMC Commanding Officer, such as the net processing time it takes for a mariner to receive his or her credential after application submittal;
(b) Report on Mariner Credentialing Program Policy Division activities, such as its current initiatives and projects;
(c) Report on International Maritime Organization (IMO)/International Labour Organization (ILO) issues related to the merchant marine industry;
(d) Report on the implementation of the 2010 amendments to the STCW Convention; and
(e) Briefings about on-going Coast Guard projects related to personnel in the U.S. Merchant Marine, such as proposed Task Statements concerning:
Implementation of the Amendments to the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, and Changes to National Endorsements; and Training of Personnel and Manning on Mobile Offshore Units (MOUs) and Offshore Supply Vessels (OSVs) on the United States' Outer Continental Shelf (OCS); and
(7) Public comment period/presentations.
(8) Discussion of working group recommendations. The committee will review the information presented on each issue, deliberate on any recommendations presented by the working groups and approve/formulate recommendations for the Department's consideration. Official action on these recommendations may be taken on this date.
(9) Closing remarks/plans for next meeting.
(10) Adjournment of meeting.
A copy of all meeting documentation is available at
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice and request for comments; Extension of an existing collection of information.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) of the Department of Homeland Security 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: Importer ID Input Record (CBP Form 5106). This is a proposed extension of an information collection that was previously approved. CBP is proposing that this information collection be extended with no change to the burden hours. This document is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
Written comments should be received on or before February 27, 2014 to be assured of consideration.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the OMB Desk Officer for Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, and sent via electronic mail to
Requests for additional information should be directed to Tracey Denning, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, at 202-325-0265.
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3507). The comments should address: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden including the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology; and (e) the annual costs burden to respondents or record keepers from the collection of information (a total capital/startup costs and operations and maintenance costs). The comments that are submitted will be summarized and included in the CBP request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. In this document CBP is soliciting comments concerning the following information collection:
CBP Form 5106 is authorized by 19 U.S.C 1484 and provided for by 19 CFR 24.5. This form is accessible at:
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice and request for comments; Extension of an existing collection of information: 1651-0090.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) of the Department of Homeland Security 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: Commercial Invoice. This is a proposed extension of an information collection that was previously approved. CBP is proposing that this information collection be extended with no change to the burden hours. This document is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
Written comments should be received on or before February 27, 2014 to be assured of consideration.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the OMB Desk Officer for Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, and sent via electronic mail to
Requests for additional information should be directed to Tracey Denning, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, at 202-325-0265.
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3507). The comments should address: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden including the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology; and (e) the annual costs burden to respondents or record keepers from the collection of information (a total capital/startup costs and operations and maintenance costs). The comments that are submitted will be summarized and included in the CBP request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. In this document CBP is soliciting comments concerning the following information collection:
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research, HUD.
Notice.
This notice announces that HUD is soliciting public comments regarding changes to the data collection methodology for Survey of New Manufactured (Mobile) Home Placements, commonly referred to as the Manufactured Homes Survey. The goal of the data collection methodology changes is to reduce survey costs while continuing to produce statutorily-mandated estimates of prices of manufactured housing for the nation and for states, as well as important characteristics of new units produced and sold.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments must refer to the above docket number and title. There are two methods for submitting public comments.
To receive consideration as public comments, comments must be submitted through one of the two methods specified above. Again, all submissions must refer to the docket number and title of the rule.
Shawn Bucholtz, Director, Housing and Demographic Analysis Division, Office of Policy Development and Research, 451 7th Street SW., Room 8222, Washington, DC 20410-0500, telephone number 202-402-5538 (this is not a toll-free number). Hearing or speech-impaired individuals may access this number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at telephone number 1-800-8-77-8339.
As required by statute,
Manufactured housing units, as a share of all new housing units, have been declining over the past decade. In 2011 and 2012, manufactured housing units represented about 8 percent of all housing units constructed. There were 55,000 manufactured housing units constructed in 2012.
Under its regulatory authority to set and certify compliance with construction standards for manufactured housing, each month HUD provides Census with a list of all manufactured housing units shipped to dealers (these are used to make national and state-level shipment counts). The Census Bureau draws a sample of the units shipped to dealers and sends the MHS form to the dealer to which each sampled unit was shipped. The dealer fills out the MHS form for each unit that has been placed at its final destination. If a unit has not yet been placed (meaning it is still part of a dealer's inventory), the Census Bureau contacts the dealer each month to inquire about the status until the unit is placed at its final destination and the dealer returns the MHS form. These monthly follow-up calls to dealers are necessary in order to produce placement and dealer inventory estimates. The Census Bureau estimates that the annual cost to produce estimates of placements and dealer inventory is $467,000, or 58 percent of the entire cost of the survey.
The production of a manufactured home begins when an individual places an order for a new home with a dealer. The dealer then relays the order to the manufacturer. When the manufacturing process is complete, the home is shipped to the dealer, where it remains until the final destination site on which it is to be placed is ready to receive the unit.
Considering today's industry practices, placement estimates do not add additional useful information for estimating demand beyond what can be gleaned from shipment counts. Unlike twenty years ago, manufactured homes today are typically produced on an “on demand” or “as ordered” basis. The result of the industry shift towards “as ordered” is that the number of shipments and number of placements are essentially (and statistically) measuring the same thing. The correlation coefficient between annual national-level shipment counts and annual national-level placement estimates between 2006 and 2012 was 0.99. Furthermore, about 90 percent of all new manufactured homes are eventually placed in the same state to which they were shipped.
The dealer inventory estimate is not measuring a supply of housing units waiting to be sold. Rather, it is estimating the number of manufactured housing units already sold and waiting to be transported to their final destination. That is, the “dealer inventory” of manufactured homes as currently measured by MHS is more akin to counting the goods sitting on the front porches of customers of an internet retailer rather than counting the goods sitting in the company's warehouse.
HUD is considering changing the MHS data collection methodology to eliminate follow-up calls with dealers, beginning in fiscal year 2015. The impact of this change is that the MHS would no longer be used to produce estimates of final placements or dealer inventory. Consistent with the MHS statute, the MHS would continue to be used to produce annual estimates of price for the nation, Census Regions, and states. The MHS would also continue to be used to produce monthly estimates of price for the nation and annual estimates of selected characteristics of manufactured housing units. This proposed change to the MHS data collection methodology is estimated to save up to $467,000 per year.
HUD is seeking information from the public regarding these proposed changes to the MHS for fiscal year 2015 and beyond. Governmental policy makers, academic researchers, MHS
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice; request for comments.
We (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) have sent an Information Collection Request (ICR) to OMB for review and approval. We summarize the ICR below and describe the nature of the collection and the estimated burden and cost. This information collection is scheduled to expire on February 28, 2014. We may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. However, under OMB regulations, we may continue to conduct or sponsor this information collection while it is pending at OMB.
You must submit comments on or before February 27, 2014.
Send your comments and suggestions on this information collection to the Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior at OMB-OIRA at (202) 395-5806 (fax) or
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Hope Grey at
• Human beings;
• The interests of agriculture, horticulture, and forestry; or
• Wildlife or the wildlife resources of the United States.
The Department of the Interior is charged with enforcement of this Act. The Act and regulations at 50 CFR 16 allow for the importation of animals classified as injurious if specific criteria are met. To effectively carry out responsibilities and protect the aquatic resources of the United States, we must gather information on the animals being imported with regard to their source, destination, and health status. It is also imperative that we ensure the qualifications of those individuals who provide the fish health data and sign the health certificate upon which we base our decision to allow importation.
We use three forms to collect this information:
(1) FWS Form 3-2273 (Title 50 Certifying Official Form). New applicants and those seeking recertification as a title 50 certifying official provide information so that we can assess their qualifications.
(2) FWS Form 3-2274 (U.S. Title 50 Certification Form). Certifying officials use this form or their own health certificate to affirm the health status of the fish or their reproductive products to be imported.
(3) FWS Form 3-2275 (Title 50 Importation Request Form). We use the information on this form to ensure the safety of the shipment and to track and control importations.
We again invite comments concerning this information collection on:
• Whether or not the collection of information is necessary, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
• The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information;
• Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask OMB in your comment to withhold your personal identifying
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice; request for comments.
We (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) have sent an Information Collection Request (ICR) to OMB for review and approval. We summarize the ICR below and describe the nature of the collection and the estimated burden and cost. This information collection is scheduled to expire on January 31, 2014. We may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. However, under OMB regulations, we may continue to conduct or sponsor this information collection while it is pending at OMB.
You must submit comments on or before February 27, 2014.
Send your comments and suggestions on this information collection to the Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior at OMB-OIRA at (202) 395-5806 (fax) or
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Hope Grey at
Applicants seeking to conduct activities must request an LOA for the specific activity and submit onsite monitoring reports and a final report of the activity to the Secretary. This is a nonform collection. Regulations at 50 CFR 18.27 outline the procedures and requirements for submitting a request. Specific regulations governing authorized activities in the Beaufort Sea are in 50 CFR part 18, subpart J. Regulations governing authorized activities in the Chukchi Sea are in 50 CFR part 18, subpart I. These regulations provide the applicant with a detailed description of information that we need to evaluate the proposed activity and determine whether or not to issue specific regulations and, subsequently, LOAs.
We use the information to verify the finding required to issue incidental take regulations, to decide if we should issue an LOA, and, if issued, what conditions should be in the LOA. In addition, we analyze the information to determine impacts to polar bears and Pacific walruses and the availability of those marine mammals for subsistence purposes of Alaska Natives.
One commenter expressed opposition to authorization of activities for the oil and gas industry. We note the concerns raised by this individual; however, we do not grant authorization for industry activities. Instead, we are required under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA to take certain actions with regard to the “incidental taking” of marine mammals that may result from specified activities. The regulations at 50 CFR 18.27(c) define incidental, but not intentional, taking as “takings which are infrequent,
The other commenter expressed support for the information collection process. The commenter stated that the specified information allowed the Service “to make the required findings for issuing the appropriate authorizations for the incidental taking of marine mammals under the statute and implementing regulations, and ensures permittee compliance with specific monitoring and reporting measures.” The information also helped “to provide a better understanding of the types of effects the oil and gas industry activities are having on polar bear and walrus populations and the effectiveness of mitigation and monitoring requirements.”
We again invite comments concerning this information collection on:
• Whether or not the collection of information is necessary, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
• The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information;
• Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask OMB in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that it will be done.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of public meetings.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Rio Grande Natural Area Commission will meet as indicated below.
The Rio Grande Natural Area Commission will meet March 13, June 12, September 11 and December 11, 2014. Each meeting will begin at 10 a.m. and adjourn at approximately 3:30 p.m., with public comment periods regarding matters on the agenda at 10:15 a.m. Agendas will be available before the meeting at
Rio Grande Water Conservation District Office, 10900 East U.S. Highway 160, Alamosa, CO 81101.
Kyle Sullivan, Public Affairs Specialist, Royal Gorge Field Office, 3028 E Main Street, Cañon City, CO 81212; (719)-269-8553. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
The Rio Grande Natural Area Commission was established in the Rio Grande Natural Area Act (16 U.S.C. 460rrr-2). The nine-member commission advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, concerning the preparation and implementation of a management plan for non-Federal land in the Rio Grande Natural Area, as directed by law. Planned agenda topics for the meetings include finalizing the draft management plan, conducting public outreach for the plan and discussing property boundaries with the Rio Grande Natural Area. The public may offer oral comments at 10:15 a.m. or written statements, which may be submitted for the Commission's consideration. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited. Summary minutes for the meetings will be maintained in the San Luis Valley Field Office and will be available for public inspection and reproduction during regular business hours within 30 days following the meeting. Meeting minutes and agendas are also available at:
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Gateway West Project Subcommittee of the Boise District Resource Advisory Council (RAC), will hold meetings as indicated below.
The meetings will be held on February 26, 2014; March 10, 2014; March 18, 2014; March 27, 2014, and April 2, 2014 at the Boise District Office located at 3948 Development Avenue, Boise, ID 83705, beginning at 9:00 a.m. and adjourning at 3:00 p.m. Members of the public are invited to attend. There will be a public comment period at each meeting.
Marsha Buchanan, Supervisory Administrative Specialist and RAC Coordinator, BLM Boise District, 3948 Development Ave., Boise, ID 83705, Telephone (208) 384-3364.
The Gateway West Project Subcommittee advises the Boise District Resource Advisory Council on matters of planning and management of the Gateway West Project (segments 8 and 9). The Boise District Resource Advisory
It is possible that the Subcommittee will not need all of the scheduled meetings to complete its work. If one or more of the meetings announced in the
Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance should contact the BLM Coordinator as provided above. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has filed the plats of survey of the lands described below in the BLM Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming, on the dates indicated.
Bureau of Land Management, 5353 Yellowstone Road, P.O. Box 1828, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82003.
These surveys and supplementals were executed at the request of the Bureau of Land Management, and are necessary for the management of resources. The lands surveyed are:
The plat and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of portions of the east boundary and subdivisional lines, and the survey of the subdivision of section 12, Township 18 North, Range 102 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 841, was accepted August 7, 2013.
The plat and field notes representing the retracement and dependent resurvey of a portion of the east boundary, portions of the subdivisional lines and certain mineral surveys, and the survey of the subdivision of section 13, Township 29 North, Ranges 99 and 100 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 845, was accepted August 7, 2013.
The plat and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the east boundary and subdivisional lines, and the survey of the subdivision of sections 13, 14 and 23, Township 26 North, Range 80 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 859, was accepted August 7, 2013.
The supplemental plat showing amended lottings is based upon the dependent resurvey plat accepted June 18, 1982, and supplemental plat accepted June 22, 1988, Township 36 North, Range 75 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Group No. 890, was accepted August 7, 2013.
The plat and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the Fourth Standard Parallel North, through Range 87 West, a portion of the west boundary and a portion of the subdivisional lines, and the survey of the subdivision of sections 5, 7 and 18, Township 16 North, Range 87 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 855, was accepted November 22, 2013.
The plat and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the south boundary and a portion of the subdivisional lines and the survey of the subdivision of section 34, Township 44 North, Range 82 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 862, was accepted November 22, 2013.
The supplemental plat, showing amended lottings, is based upon the resurvey plat approved May 29, 1912, Township 24 North, Range 111 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 897, was accepted November 22, 2013.
The plat and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the west boundary and portions of the subdivisional lines, the survey of the subdivision of certain sections, and the survey of portions of the Fortification Creek Wilderness Study Area boundary, Township 52 North, Range 75 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 864, was accepted December 18, 2013.
The plat and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the east boundary and subdivisional lines, and the survey of the subdivision of section 24, Township 30 North, Range 103 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 869, was accepted December 18, 2013.
Copies of the preceding described plats and field notes are available to the public at a cost of $1.10 per page.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on December 23, 2013, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of Magna Electronics Inc. of Auburn Hills, Michigan. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain vision-based driver assistance system cameras and components thereof by reason of infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,116,929 (“the ’929 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 8,593,521 (“the ’521 patent”). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337.
The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order.
The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone
The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-2560.
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain vision-based driver assistance system cameras and components thereof by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 of the ’929 patent and claims 1, 29, 35, and 39 of the ’521 patent, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainant is: Magna Electronics Inc., 2050 Auburn Road, Auburn Hills, MI 48326.
(b) The respondent is the following entity alleged to be in violation of section 337, and is the party upon which the complaint is to be served:
TRW Automotive U.S., LLC, 12001 Tech Center Drive, Livonia, MI 48150.
(c) The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436;
(3) Complainant's motion to consolidate this investigation with Inv. No. 337-TA-899 (Motion Docket No. 2993-001) is denied; and
(4) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondent in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of the respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
On January 22, 2014, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed consent decree with the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia in the lawsuit entitled
In the complaint, the United States, on behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), asserts that Wynn Housel purchased hazardous substances, including resins, adhesives, cleaning solvents, paint thinners and corrosives, from the Defense Logistics Agency of the Department of Defense and brought them to the Site where he stored and ultimately abandoned them. The United States asserts a claim under Section 107(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9607(a), to recover EPA's past removal costs, approximately $1.3 million, with respect to the Site. Based on his financial status, reviewed by a qualified financial analyst, the consent decree recognizes Mr. Housel lacks the ability to pay response costs and does not include recovery of any past costs from him. The consent decree bars Mr. Housel from purchasing excess property of the United States.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the consent decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site:
Consent Decree Library, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611.
Please enclose a check or money order for $5.25 (25 cents per page
Notice is hereby given that, on December 26, 2013, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, Simbol Test Systems, Inc., Gatineau, Quebec, CANADA; PLX Technology, Sunnyvale, CA; C&H Technologies, Round Rock, TX; and Beijing Aerospace Measurement & Control, Corp., Beijing, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA, 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 PXI Systems Alliance, Inc. intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On November 22, 2000, PXI Systems Alliance, Inc. 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 October 10, 2013. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on December 27, 2013, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
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 MSGIP 2.0 intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On February 5, 2013, MSGIP 2.0 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 October 11, 2013. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on December 20, 2013, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, Globecomm, Hauppauge, NY; and Harry Plate (individual member), Snohomish, WA, have withdrawn as parties to this venture. In addition, Harris Corp. has changed its name to Harris Broadcast, Monument, CO.
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 Advanced Media Workflow Association, Inc. intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On March 28, 2000, Advanced Media Workflow Association, Inc. 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 September 24, 2013. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on December 19, 2013, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
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 CableLabs intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On August 8, 1988, CableLabs 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 August 26, 2013. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on December 9, 2013, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
On September 15, 2004, ASTM 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 September 16, 2013. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on December 26, 2013, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place of business of the standards development organization is National Council of State Boards of Nursing, Chicago, IL. The nature and scope of NCSBN's standards development activities are nurse competency research and assessment.
I, Isaac Fulwood, of the United States Parole Commission, was present at a meeting of said Commission, which started at approximately 11:00 a.m., on Tuesday, January 14, 2014 at the U.S. Parole Commission, 90 K Street NE., Third Floor, Washington, DC 20530. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss original jurisdiction cases pursuant to 28 CFR 2.27. Five Commissioners were present, constituting a quorum when the vote to close the meeting was submitted.
Public announcement further describing the subject matter of the meeting and certifications of the General Counsel that this meeting may be closed by votes of the Commissioners present were submitted to the Commissioners prior to the conduct of any other business. Upon motion duly made, seconded, and carried, the following Commissioners voted that the meeting be closed: Isaac Fulwood, Jr., Cranston J. Mitchell, Patricia K. Cushwa, J. Patricia Wilson Smoot and Charles T. Massarone.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) revision titled, “Job Corps Health Questionnaire,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for use in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Submit comments on or before February 27, 2014.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov Web site at
Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-ETA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-6881 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or sending an email to
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR seeks to revise the Job Corps Health Questionnaire, Form ETA-653. Information on the health status of a Job Corps applicant is obtained and entered on the Form during an interview with an admissions counselor as part of the admissions process. This ICR has been classified as a revision, because the ETA has made a few minor adjustments to the Form. None of these changes is expected to result in changes to the burden estimates.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Safety Defects—Examination, Correction, and Records,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501
Submit comments on or before February 27, 2014.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov Web site at
Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-MSHA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-6881 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authorization for the Safety Defects—Examination, Correction, and Records information collection requirements. Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) section 103(h), 30 U.S.C. 813(h), authorizes the MSHA to collect information necessary to carry out its duty in protecting the safety and health of miners. This ICR covers information collection requirements mentioned in this notice.
Regulations 30 CFR 56.13015 and 57.13015 require compressed-air receivers and other unfired pressure vessels to be inspected by an inspector holding a valid National Board Commission and in accordance with the applicable chapters of the National Board Inspection Code, a Manual for Boiler and Pressure Vessels Inspectors, 1979. Safety defects found on compressed-air receivers and other unfired pressure vessels have caused injuries and fatalities in the mining industry. A record of each inspection must be kept in accordance with National Board Inspection Code requirements, and the records must be made available to the Secretary or an authorized representative.
Regulations 30 CFR 56.13030 and 57.13030 require that a fired pressure vessel (boiler) be equipped with water level gauges, pressure gauges, automatic pressure-relief valves, blowdown piping and other safety devices approved by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) to protect against hazards from overpressure, a flameout, fuel interruption and low water level. These sections also require that a record of each inspection and repair be retained by the mine operator in accordance with the requirements of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, 1977, and the National Board Inspection Code (progressive records—no limit on retention time) and shall be made available to the Secretary or an authorized representative.
Regulations 30 CFR 56.14100 and 57.14100 require an operator to inspect equipment, machinery, and each tool to be used during a shift for safety defects before the equipment is placed in operation. Any defect affecting safety is required to be corrected in a timely manner. In an instance where the defect makes continued operation of the equipment hazardous to persons, the equipment must be removed from service, tagged to identify that it is out of use, and repaired before use is resumed. Safety defects on self-propelled mobile equipment account for many injuries and fatalities in the mining industry. Inspection of this equipment prior to use is required to assure safe operation. The equipment operator is required to make a visual and operational check of the various primary operating systems that affect safety, such as brakes, lights, horn, seatbelts, tires, steering, back-up alarm, windshield, cab safety glass, rear and side view mirrors, and other safety and health related items. Any found defect found is required to be either corrected immediately or reported to, and recorded by, the mine operator prior to the timely correction. A record is not required if an unsafe condition is not present upon examination prior to use if the defect is corrected immediately. The precise format in which the record is kept is left to the discretion of the mine operator. A report of an uncorrected defect is required to be recorded by the mine operator and kept at the mine office from the date the defects are recorded, until the defects are corrected.
A competent person designated by the operator must examine each working place at least once each shift for conditions that may adversely affect safety or health. A record of such examinations must be kept by the operator for a period of one year and must be made available for review by the Secretary or an authorized representative.
These information collection requirements are subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on January 31, 2014. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Nonmonetary Determination Activity Report,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501
Submit comments on or before February 27, 2014.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov Web site at
Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-ETA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-6881 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR seeks to maintain PRA authorization for the Nonmonetary Determination Activity Report (Form ETA-207) information collection. Form ETA-207 collects data on the number and types of issues States adjudicate when unemployment insurance claims are filed. The Form also collects data on the number of disqualifications issued for reasons associated with a claimant's separation from employment and reasons related to a claimant's continuing eligibility for benefits. These data are used by the ETA, Office of Unemployment Insurance to determine workload counts for allocation of administrative funds, to analyze the ratio of disqualifications to determinations, and to examine and evaluate the program effect of nonmonetary activities.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on February 28, 2014. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL also notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Health Standards for Diesel Particulate Matter Exposure in Underground Coal Mines,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Submit comments on or before February 27, 2014.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov Web site at
Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-MSHA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-6881 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authorization for the Health Standards for Diesel Particulate Matter Exposure in Underground Coal Mines information collection. Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) section 101(a) provides that the Secretary of Labor—as may be appropriate—shall develop, promulgate, and revise improved mandatory health or safety standards for the protection of life and prevention of injuries in coal or other mines. In addition, Mine Act section 103(h) mandates that a mine operator keep any records and make any reports reasonably necessary for the MSHA to perform its duties under the Mine Act. The MSHA has established standards and regulations for diesel-powered equipment in underground coal mines that provide additional important protection for coal miners who work on and around diesel-powered equipment. The standards are designed to reduce risks to an underground coal miner of serious health hazards associated with exposure to high concentrations of diesel particulate matter. The standards cover information collection requirements, codified in regulations 30 CFR 72.510(a) and (b) and 72.520(a) and (b), for underground coal mine operators.
Section 72.510(a) requires an underground coal mine operator to provide annual training to each miner who may be exposed to diesel emissions. The training must cover health risks associated with exposure to diesel particulate matter; methods used in the mine to control diesel particulate concentrations; identification of the personnel responsible for maintaining those controls; and actions miners must take to ensure controls operate as intended. Section 72.510(b) requires the operator to keep a record of the training for one year.
Section 72.520(a) and (b) requires an underground coal mine operator to maintain an inventory of diesel powered equipment units together with a list of information about any unit's emission control or filtration system. The operator must update the list within seven (7) calendar days of any change.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on January 31, 2014. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) sponsored information collection request (ICR) revision titled, “Current Population Survey—Basic Labor Force,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for use in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Submit comments on or before February 27, 2014.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov Web site at
Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-BLS, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-6881 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Contact Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or sending an email to
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR seeks to revise the Current Population Survey—Basic Labor Force information collection. The labor force data collected in the Current Population Survey (CPS) help to determine the employment situation of specific population groups as well as general trends in employment and unemployment. The survey is the only source of monthly data on total employment and unemployment. The
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
Employment and Training Administration, Labor.
Notice of Solicitation for Grant Applications (SGA).
The Employment and Training Administration (ETA), U.S. Department of Labor, announces the availability of approximately $6 million for grants to State Workforce Agencies (SWA) to develop the Workforce Data Quality Initiative (WDQI).
Grants awarded will provide SWAs the opportunity to develop or expand State workforce longitudinal administrative data systems. These State longitudinal data systems will, at a minimum, include information on programs that provide training, employment services, and unemployment insurance; connect with education data contained in Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems (SLDS) databases; be linked longitudinally at the individual level to allow for enhanced opportunity for evaluation of federally and State-supported education and workforce programs; be capable of generating workforce training provider performance information and outcomes in a standardized, easy to understand format (e.g. scorecards), consistent with all applicable Federal and State privacy laws; and lead to better information for customers and stakeholders of the workforce system. Where such longitudinal systems do not exist or are in early development, WDQI grant assistance may be used to design and develop these systems. WDQI grant assistance can also be used to improve upon existing State longitudinal systems. Current WDQI grant recipients who did not receive a Round III award under solicitation SGA-DFA PY-12-07 and states that currently do not have a WDQI grant are eligible for this competition.
The complete SGA and any subsequent SGA amendments in connection with this solicitation are described in further detail on ETA's Web site at
The closing date for receipt of applications under this announcement is March 25, 2014. Applications must be received no later than 4:00:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
Linda Forman, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-4716, Washington, DC 20210; Telephone: 202-693-3416.
By application dated December 2, 2013, Teamsters Local No. 205 requested administrative reconsideration of the negative determination regarding workers' eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) applicable to workers and former workers of Polyone Designed Structures and Solutions LLC, a subsidiary of Polyone Corporation, Donora, Pennsylvania (subject firm). The determination was issued on November 5, 2013. The Department's Notice of determination was published in the
The negative determination was based on the Department's findings that with respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, imports of articles like or directly competitive with color additives and inks have not increased in 2011, 2012 or during the period of January through September 2013.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the investigation revealed that the firm has not shifted the production of articles like or directly competitive with color additives and inks to a foreign country or acquired like or directly competitive articles from a foreign country. Rather, the investigation confirmed that production is being shifted from the Donora, Pennsylvania facility to other facilities within the United States.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the investigation revealed that the firm is not a Supplier or Downstream Producer to a firm that employed a group of workers who received a certification of eligibility under Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a).
Finally, the group eligibility requirements under Section 222(e) of the Act have not been satisfied because the workers' firm has not been publicly identified by name by the International Trade Commission as a member of a domestic industry in an investigation resulting in an affirmative finding of serious injury, market disruption, or material injury, or threat thereof.
The request for reconsideration alleges that there is “additional evidence of the anticipated shift/transfer of equipment and operations to a foreign country”. The request for reconsideration also alleges that production has shifted to Mexico and China. The request for reconsideration also includes additional attachments, including documentation of products that are allegedly produced in Mexico.
The Department has carefully reviewed the request for reconsideration and the existing record, and will conduct further investigation to determine if the workers meet the eligibility requirements of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the U.S. Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, granted.
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (“Act”), 19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on October 29, 2013, applicable to workers of Caterpillar Reman Powertrain Services, Inc., a
At the request of the State, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. New information from the company shows that a worker leased from Robert Half/AccounTemps was employed on-site at the Summerville, South Carolina location of Caterpillar Reman Powertrain Services, Inc., a subsidiary of Caterpillar, Inc. The Department has determined that this worker was sufficiently under the control of Salter Labs to be considered a leased worker.
The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers of the subject firm who were adversely affected by a shift in the production of remanufactured automotive and hydraulic parts to a foreign country. Based on these findings, the Department is amending this certification to include workers leased from Robert Half/AccounTemps working on-site at the Summerville, South Carolina location of the subject firm.
The amended notice applicable to TA-W-83,094 is hereby issued as follows:
All workers from Caterpillar Reman Powertrain Services, Inc., a subsidiary of Caterpillar, Inc., including on-site leased workers from Robert Half/AccounTemps, Aerotek, Phillips Staffing, Hagemeyer and ATS, Inc., Summerville, South Carolina, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after September 17, 2012, through October 29, 2015, and all workers in the group threatened with total or partial separation from employment on date of certification through two years from the date of certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (“Act”), 19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on July 9, 2012, applicable to workers of OSRAM SYLVANIA INC., General Lighting, formerly known as the Consumer Lighting division, including on-site leased workers from Superior Technical Resources, St. Marys, Pennsylvania (TA-W-81,688) and on-site leased workers from W&W and Sons Contractors, Inc. (TA-W-81,688A). The workers are engaged in activities related to the production of incandescent, halogen, and Light-Emitting Diodes (LED) light bulbs. The notice was published in the
Workers of OSRAM SYLVANIA INC., General Lighting, formerly known as the Consumer Lighting division, St. Marys, Pennsylvania were certified under petition number TA-W-71,711 that expired on October 1, 2011. The on-site leased workers from W&W and Sons Contractors, Inc. were not covered by that earlier certification.
At the request of the company official, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. New information from the company shows that workers of OSRAM SYLVANIA, including on-site leased workers from Manpower and Superior Tech Services, York, Pennsylvania were separated due to the same increased imports that led to separations at the St. Marys, Pennsylvania facility.
The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers of the subject firm who were adversely affected by increased customer imports.
Based on these findings, the Department is amending this certification to include all workers of OSRAM SYLVANIA, including on-site leased workers from Manpower and Superior Tech Services, York, Pennsylvania.
The amended notice applicable to TA-W-81,688 is hereby issued as follows:
“All workers of OSRAM SYLVANIA INC., General Lighting, formerly known as the Consumer Lighting division, including on-site leased workers from Technical Superior Resources, St. Marys, Pennsylvania (TA-W-81,688) who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after October 2, 2011 through July 9, 2014, and all workers in the group threatened with total or partial separation from employment on July 9, 2012 through July 9, 2014 are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended,
AND
All leased workers from W&W and Sons Contractors, Inc., working on-site at OSRAM SYLVANIA INC., General Lighting, formerly known as the Consumer Lighting division, St. Marys, Pennsylvania (TA-W-81,688A), and all workers of OSRAM SYLVANIA, including on-site leased workers from Manpower and Superior Tech Services, York, Pennsylvania (TA-W-81,688B) who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after June 5, 2011 through July 9, 2014, and all workers in the group threatened with total or partial separation from employment on July 9, 2012 through July 9, 2014, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.”
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (“Act”), 19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on October 29, 2013, applicable to workers of Caterpillar Reman Powertrain Services, Inc., a subsidiary of Caterpillar, Inc., including
At the request of the State, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. New information from the company shows that workers leased from Robert Half/AccounTemps were employed on-site at the Summerville, South Carolina location of Caterpillar Reman Powertrain Services, Inc., a subsidiary of Caterpillar, Inc. The Department has determined that these workers were sufficiently under the control of Caterpillar Reman Powertrain Services, Inc., a subsidiary of Caterpillar, Inc. to be considered leased workers.
The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers of the subject firm who were adversely affected by a shift in the production of remanufactured automotive and hydraulic parts to a foreign country.
Based on these findings, the Department is amending this certification to include workers leased from Robert Half/AccounTemps working on-site at the Summerville, South Carolina location of the subject firm.
The amended notice applicable to TA-W-83,094 is hereby issued as follows:
All workers from Caterpillar Reman Powertrain Services, Inc., a subsidiary of Caterpillar, Inc., including on-site leased workers from Robert Half/AccounTemps, Aerotek, Phillips Staffing, Hagemeyer and ATS, Inc., Summerville, South Carolina, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after September 17, 2012, through October 29, 2015, and all workers in the group threatened with total or partial separation from employment on date of certification through two years from the date of certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (“Act”), 19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on July 3, 2013, applicable to workers of Boise White Paper, LLC, a subsidiary of Boise, Inc., including on-site leased workers from Bartlett & Associates, International Falls, Minnesota. The workers are engaged in activities related to the production of paper (uncoated and coated free sheet). The notice was published in the
At the request of Minnesota State, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. New information from the company shows that some workers separated from employment at the International Falls, Minnesota location of Boise White Paper, LLC, a subsidiary of Boise, Inc. had their wages reported through a separate unemployment insurance (UI) tax account under the name MDW Railroad.
Accordingly, the Department is amending this certification to include workers of the subject firm whose unemployment insurance (UI) wages are reported through MDW Railroad.
The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers of the subject firm who were adversely affected by increased imports of paper.
The amended notice applicable to TA-W-82,750 is hereby issued as follows:
All workers of Boise White Paper, LLC, a subsidiary of Boise, Inc., including workers whose unemployment insurance (UI) wages are reported through MDW Railroad, including on-site leased workers from Bartlett & Associates, International Falls, Minnesota, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after May 17, 2012, through July 3, 2015, and all workers in the group threatened with total or partial separation from employment on date of certification through two years from the date of certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2273) the Department of Labor herein presents summaries of determinations regarding eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance for workers by (TA-W) number issued during the period of January 6, 2014 through January 14, 2014.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for workers of a primary firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(a) of the Act must be met.
I. Under Section 222(a)(2)(A), the following must be satisfied:
(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2) The sales or production, or both, of such firm have decreased absolutely; and
(3) One of the following must be satisfied:
(A) Imports of articles or services like or directly competitive with articles produced or services supplied by such firm have increased;
(B) Imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles into which one or more component parts produced by such firm are directly incorporated, have increased;
(C) Imports of articles directly incorporating one or more component parts produced outside the United States that are like or directly competitive with imports of articles incorporating one or more component parts produced by such firm have increased;
(D) Imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced directly using services supplied by such firm, have increased; and
(4) The increase in imports contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation and to the decline in the sales or production of such firm; or
II. Section 222(a)(2)(B) all of the following must be satisfied:
(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2) One of the following must be satisfied:
(A) There has been a shift by the workers' firm to a foreign country in the production of articles or supply of services like or directly competitive with those produced/supplied by the workers' firm;
(B) There has been an acquisition from a foreign country by the workers' firm of articles/services that are like or directly competitive with those produced/supplied by the workers' firm; and
(3) The shift/acquisition contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of separation.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for adversely affected workers in public agencies and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(b) of the Act must be met.
(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in the public agency have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2) The public agency has acquired from a foreign country services like or directly competitive with services which are supplied by such agency; and
(3) The acquisition of services contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for adversely affected secondary workers of a firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(c) of the Act must be met.
(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in the workers' firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2) The workers' firm is a Supplier or Downstream Producer to a firm that employed a group of workers who received a certification of eligibility under Section 222(a) of the Act, and such supply or production is related to the article or service that was the basis for such certification; and
(3) Either—
(A) The workers' firm is a supplier and the component parts it supplied to the firm described in paragraph (2) accounted for at least 20 percent of the production or sales of the workers' firm; or
(B) A loss of business by the workers' firm with the firm described in paragraph (2) contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of separation.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for adversely affected workers in firms identified by the International Trade Commission and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(f) of the Act must be met.
(1) The workers' firm is publicly identified by name by the International Trade Commission as a member of a domestic industry in an investigation resulting in—
(A) An affirmative determination of serious injury or threat thereof under section 202(b)(1);
(B) An affirmative determination of market disruption or threat thereof under section 421(b)(1); or
(C) An affirmative final determination of material injury or threat thereof under section 705(b)(1)(A) or 735(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b)(1)(A) and 1673d(b)(1)(A));
(2) The petition is filed during the 1-year period beginning on the date on which—
(A) A summary of the report submitted to the President by the International Trade Commission under section 202(f)(1) with respect to the affirmative determination described in paragraph (1)(A) is published in the
(B) Notice of an affirmative determination described in subparagraph (1) is published in the
(3) The workers have become totally or partially separated from the workers' firm within—
(A) The 1-year period described in paragraph (2); or
(B) Notwithstanding section 223(b)(1), the 1-year period preceding the 1-year period described in paragraph (2).
The following certifications have been issued. The date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(A) (increased imports) of the Trade Act have been met.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(B) (shift in production or services) of the Trade Act have been met.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(c) (supplier to a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA) of the Trade Act have been met.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(c) (downstream producer for a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA) of the Trade Act have been met.
In the following cases, the investigation revealed that the eligibility criteria for worker adjustment assistance have not been met for the reasons specified.
The investigation revealed that the criterion under paragraph (a)(1), or (b)(1), or (c)(1)(employment decline or threat of separation) of section 222 has not been met.
After notice of the petitions was published in the
The following determinations terminating investigations were issued because the petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn.
The following determinations terminating investigations were issued in cases where these petitions were not filed in accordance with the requirements of 29 CFR 90.11. Every petition filed by workers must be signed by at least three individuals of the petitioning worker group. Petitioners separated more than one year prior to the date of the petition cannot be covered under a certification of a petition under Section 223(b), and therefore, may not be part of a petitioning worker group. For one or more of these reasons, these petitions were deemed invalid.
The following determinations terminating investigations were issued because the petitioning groups of workers are covered by active certifications. Consequently, further investigation in these cases would serve no purpose since the petitioning group of workers cannot be covered by more than one certification at a time.
I hereby certify that the aforementioned determinations were issued during the period of
Petitions have been filed with the Secretary of Labor under Section 221 (a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (“the Act”) and are identified in the appendix to this notice. Upon receipt of these petitions, the Director of the Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, has instituted investigations pursuant to section 221(a) of the Act.
The purpose of each of the investigations is to determine whether the workers are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under title II, chapter 2, of the Act. The investigations will further relate, as appropriate, to the determination of the date on which total or partial separations began or threatened to begin and the subdivision of the firm involved.
The petitioners or any other persons showing a substantial interest in the subject matter of the investigations may request a public hearing, provided such request is filed in writing with the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than February 7, 2014.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments regarding the subject matter of the investigations to the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than February 7, 2014.
The petitions filed in this case are available for inspection at the Office of the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-5428, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210.
Veterans' Employment and Training Service, U.S. Department of Labor.
Announcement of funds available under the Homeless Veterans' Reintegration Program to support local Stand Down events in Fiscal Year (FY) 2014, FY 2015 and FY 2016 dependent on funding availability.
The U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL), Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS) supports local Stand Down events that help homeless veterans attain meaningful civilian employment. Authority to support such events is in 38 U.S.C. section 2021, which provides that the “Secretary of Labor shall conduct, directly or through grant or contract, such programs as the Secretary determines appropriate to provide job training, counseling, and placement services (including job readiness and literacy and skills training) to expedite the reintegration of homeless veterans into the labor force.” A Stand Down is a local community event where homeless veterans are provided a wide variety of services and incentives. Stand Down funding is provided in the form of non-competitive grants that are awarded on a first-come, first-served basis until available funding is exhausted.
VETS anticipates that approximately $600,000 will be available to award approximately 70 grants in each of the three Federal fiscal years covered by this solicitation. The Federal fiscal year begins on October 1 and ends on September 30 of the next calendar year. Availability of Stand Down grant funding each fiscal year will be dependent upon Federal appropriation. Awards will be made for a maximum of $10,000 per multi-day event, which is up to three days, or $7,000 per one-day event.
VETS is now accepting applications for grant awards to fund Stand Down events in FY 2014. All applications for Stand Down grant funding must be submitted to the appropriate State Director for Veterans' Employment and Training (DVET) no less than 90 days prior to the event. Address and contact information for each state DVET can be found at:
Stand Down grant awards are contingent upon a Federal appropriation or a continuing resolution each Federal fiscal year. Therefore, applications submitted after July 1 for events to be held after September 30 may be held for consideration contingent upon Federal funding availability during the upcoming fiscal year. Grant applicants cannot obligate grant funding toward Stand Down expenses prior to receiving a Notice of Award from the Grant Officer; any such expenses will be disallowed.
Each year, the Assistant Secretary for Veterans' Employment and Training awards Stand Down grants to assist with the reintegration of homeless veterans into the labor force through programs that enhance employment and training opportunities and promote self-sufficiency. Typically, services available at these events include temporary shelter, showers, haircuts, meals, clothing, hygiene care kits, medical examinations, immunizations, legal advice, state identification cards, veteran benefit information, training program information, employment services, and referral to other supportive services.
Stand Down funding is provided in the form of non-competitive grants that are awarded on a first-come, first-served basis until available funding is exhausted. For the purpose of a Stand Down grant award, applicants must describe a plan that clearly demonstrates how grant funding will be used for homeless veterans only. While both veterans and non-veterans may participate in Stand Down events, grant funding can only be used to purchase items, to include food and meals, for homeless veteran participants. The following minimum services must be available for homeless veteran participants:
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)—benefits, medical and mental health services;
Department of Labor—State Workforce Agency employment and training services to include Disabled Veterans' Outreach Program (DVOP) specialist or other American Job Center staff, where available; and
Referral services to secure immediate emergency housing.
Stand Down grant funds must be used to enhance employment and training opportunities or to promote the self-sufficiency of homeless veterans through paid work. Homeless veterans do not always have access to basic hygiene supplies necessary to maintain their health and confidence. Lack of shelter limits their ability to prepare for and present themselves at job interviews or be contacted for follow-up. Basic services such as showers, haircuts, attention to health concerns and other collaborative services provided at a Stand Down can give the homeless veteran a greater sense of self, improving their chances of securing and maintaining employment. Therefore, grant funds may be used to support Stand Down activities such as:
The purchase of food, bottled water, clothing, sleeping bags, one-person tents, backpacks filled with non-perishable foods, hygiene care kits, and non-prescription reading glasses.
Vouchers may be purchased for minor time-limited legal services, consumer credit counseling services, food, and gasoline gift cards for homeless veteran participants. The purchase of gift cards for food and/or gas must be restricted to cards that can only be used to purchase food or gas. Federal awards may not be used for the purchase of alcohol or tobacco products; see 2 CFR 200.423. All grantees purchasing gift cards with grant funds will be required to state the measures they will use to comply with this regulation.
The purchase of job search media such as employment guides or literature in hard copy or on portable storage media, etc.
Special one-time costs for the duration of the Stand Down event such as rental of facilities and/or tents, electricity, equipment, portable toilets and communications or internet access.
The purchase of janitorial supplies, kitchen supplies, and advertising materials such as event posters. Care should be taken to minimize advertisement costs in order to maximize funding available to purchase items or provide services that immediately and positively impact the veteran in need. Applicants that request funding for advertisement expenses that appear to be unreasonable (i.e. over 20 percent of the total grant award) will be asked to reevaluate and reallocate those funds to ensure the homeless veteran participants benefit.
The hiring of security personnel.
The rental of transportation equipment (bus, van, car, taxi, etc.) to provide transportation of homeless veterans to and from the Stand Down event.
The purchase or rental of other pertinent items and services for homeless veteran participants and their families as deemed appropriate by VETS.
Stand Down grant funds may not be used to pay for administrative costs or administrative and/or programmatic staff. Stand Down grant funds may not be used to purchase clothing items for volunteers, pen sets, military and veteran type patches/medals, memento gifts for staff members, visitors, or volunteers (e.g. t-shirts, hats); pen sets, military and veteran type patches/medals, memento gifts for staff members, visitors, or volunteers, or any other supplementary/replacement item(s) not approved by the DVET. Planned budget expenses must be fully itemized and applicants must provide details for every item in the budget narrative. Any planned expenses listed as “other” or “miscellaneous” must be clarified and itemized.
Stand Down grant funding cannot be used to pay for health care related expenses. All medical examinations, to include dental and optometry examinations, should be provided by the VA or a community provider. Purchases of prescription eye wear and dental work are considered medical care expenses and are not allowable. Applicants should explore all opportunities to secure health related services through the local VA Medical Center or VA Outpatient Clinic. Non-prescription reading glasses are considered an allowable expense.
VETS reserves the right to disapprove any proposed cost not consistent with the funding restrictions in this announcement.
The maximum amount that can be awarded to support a multiple day Stand Down event is $10,000 per applicant per fiscal year. If the event is held for one (1) day, the maximum amount that can be awarded is $7,000. Additional grants can be awarded to the same organization as long as the participants being served are geographically separated. In these cases, the first submission has priority for funding.
1. Eligible Applicants—The following organizations may apply for grants under this solicitation: state and local Workforce Investment Boards, Veterans Service Organizations, local public agencies, tribal governments, and non-profit organizations including community and faith-based organizations. Organizations registered with the Internal Revenue Service as 501(c)(4) organizations are not eligible to apply for this funding opportunity.
2. Cost Sharing or Matching—Cost sharing and matching funds are not required. However, VETS strongly encourages applicants to leverage other available resources to maximize the services and incentives provided to homeless veteran participants at Stand Down events.
3. Other Eligibility Requirements
A. As of July 2012, all applicants must register with the System for Award Management (SAM) before submitting an application. SAM is a web-enabled government wide application that collects, validates, stores, and disseminates business information about the Federal government's trading partners in support of contract award, grants, and the electronic payment process. Step by Step instructions for registering with SAM can be found at:
B. All applicants for Federal funding are required to include a Dun and Bradstreet Number (DUNS) with their application. Applicants can obtain a DUNS number at:
To be considered responsive, all applications for Stand Down grant funding must include:
1. An original applicant memorandum requesting Stand Down funds
2. Applicants must provide a Program Narrative that clearly states the need for the Stand Down. The narrative must detail the geographical area to be served and the estimated number of homeless veterans to be served. The narrative must explain the role of the DVOP specialist or other American Job Center (AJC) staff and include a timeline for completion of all Stand Down event activities. The timeline must clearly indicate critical dates in the planning, execution, and follow-up process. If applicable, the timeline will demonstrate the need to draw down awarded funding in advance of the event date with the purpose and date of the funding need. Funding will be made available for draw down no earlier than 45 days prior to the event date, or as identified in the timeline. The timeline must include the date the post-event report is due to the DVET (30 days following the end of the Federal fiscal quarter in which the Stand Down was held) as explained in section VIII of this document;
3. An original Standard Form (SF) 424, Application for Federal Assistance, (OMB No. 4040-0004) signed in blue ink. The SF-424 can be downloaded from
4. A SF 424A, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (OMB No. 4040-0006). The SF-424A can be downloaded from
5. A Budget Narrative—A detailed description of each planned expenditure listed on the SF 424A. The description should describe or indicate the methodology used to determine the cost estimates such as price per quantity, if
The fair share calculation must be applied for expenditures shared among homeless veteran participants and non-homeless veteran participants.
6. An original signed Assurances and Certifications Signature Page, described at Appendix C in section X of this document.
7. Survey on Ensuring Equal Opportunity for Applicants (OMB No. 1894-0010), described as Appendix D in section X of this document.
8. A copy of the SAM Registration active through date of event.
9. Letters of support, particularly from the local AJC and/or DVOP specialists, VA, Department of Housing and Urban Development or the local Continuum of Care, VSOs, State and local government agencies, local businesses, and local non-profit organizations including community-based and faith-based organizations. Letters clearly stating that the DVOP specialist(s) will actively provide employment services at the Stand Down must be provided.
10. If applicable, a copy of the Internal Revenue Service documentation indicating approval of non-profit status, for example: 501(c)(3), 501(c)(19).
Stand Down funding is a non-competitive grant awarded on a first-come, first-served basis until available funding is exhausted for the fiscal year. Funding is subject to approval by the Grant Officer and is dependent upon various factors such as urban, rural and geographic balance, the availability of funds, prior performance and proposals that are most advantageous to the government. If approved, the Grant Officer will notify the grantee through a Notice of Award. Under no circumstances will a Stand Down event be awarded funding after the event has taken place.
Upon award, grantees will receive a Personal Identification Number (PIN) and password for e-Grants, the Federal financial reporting system, from the grant officer. If a grantee does not receive a PIN and password for e-Grants, the grantee must notify the DVET immediately. Access to e-Grants is required in order to comply with Federal financial reporting requirements. The grantee will also receive a financial form to complete in order for the USDOL Office of Financial Management Operations to set-up an account in the Health and Human Services, Payment Management System (HHS/PMS). The grantee must submit the completed form as directed in order to electronically draw down awarded funding. The form should be returned via FedEx, UPS, or other non-U.S. Postal Service provider to avoid processing delays. Questions or problems relating to accessing funding or the electronic draw down process should be referred to the USDOL Office of Financial Management Operations at (202) 693-6871.
After setting up the account, the grantee will be able to draw down funds to reimburse approved expenses incurred after award and to cover approved expenses that will be paid within three (3) days of the draw down. Funds requested for draw down through the HHS/PMS are directly deposited into the designated account within 24 hours of the request.
After receiving a grant award, the grantee must complete a Federal Financial Report (SF 425) no later than 30 days after the end of each Federal fiscal quarter (October 30, January 30, April 30 and July 30). Instructions for completing this requirement are provided in the HHS/PMS information packet and are also available at:
All grant awarded funds must be drawn down by the grantee within 90 calendar days of the Stand Down. For example, if a Stand Down is held on July 12, 2014 (FY 2014), all funds should be drawn down within 90 days or by October 10, 2014 (FY 2015).
A final SF 425 is due no later than thirty (30) calendar days after the end of the Federal fiscal quarter in which all expended funds have been drawn down. For example, if a Stand Down is held on July 27 and the final drawdown of all expended funds occurs on September 15, the final FFR is due on October 30.
In addition to financial reporting, the grantee is required to submit a post-event report to the DVET at the same time the final SF 425 is completed. The required content of this report will be provided to grantees in the notification of award, which includes the Special Grant Provisions and the grant award letter.
Grantees that anticipate a delay in submitting any SF 425 report or the post-event report should immediately contact the appropriate DVET and provide a justification to request an extension. If VETS disapproves a particular expenditure, and the funds were already drawn down, the grantee will be notified in writing with an explanation for the disapproval and instructions to electronically return the funds to the HHS/PMS account within fifteen (15) calendar days of notification from VETS.
Any failure to comply with the guidance and reporting requirements set forth in the Stand Down Special Grant Provisions provided with the Grant Award letter will be taken into consideration in future funding award decisions by USDOL/VETS.
Questions regarding this announcement should be directed to the DVET in your State. Contact information for each DVET is located in the VETS Staff Directory at the following Web page:
A. Printed Materials/Intellectual Property: In all circumstances, the following must be displayed on printed materials prepared by the grantee while in receipt of USDOL grant funding: “Preparation of this item was funded by the United States Department of Labor under Grant No. [Insert the appropriate grant number].” All printed materials must also include the following notice: “This workforce product was funded by a grant awarded by the U.S. Department of Labor's Veterans' Employment and Training Service. The product was created by the grantee and does not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Labor and/or the Veterans' Employment and Training Service. The U.S. Department of Labor and/or the Veterans' Employment and Training Service makes no guarantees, warranties, or assurances of any kind, expressed or implied, with respect to such information, including any information on linked sites and including, but not limited to, accuracy of the information or its completeness, timeliness, usefulness, adequacy, continued availability, or ownership. This product is copyrighted by the institution that created it. Internal use by an organization and/or personal use by an individual for non-commercial purposes are permissible. All other uses require the prior authorization of the copyright owner.”
B. Public references to grant: When issuing statements, press releases, requests for proposals, bid solicitations, and other documents describing projects or programs funded in whole or in part with Federal money, all grantees receiving Federal funds must clearly state:
• The percentage of the total costs of the program or project that will be financed with Federal money;
• The dollar amount of Federal financial assistance for the project or program; and
• The percentage and dollar amount of the total costs of the project or program that will be financed by non-governmental sources.
C. Use of USDOL Logo: The Grant Officer must approve the use of the USDOL logo. In addition, once approval is given the following guidance is provided:
• The USDOL logo may be applied to USDOL-funded material prepared for distribution, including posters, videos, pamphlets, research documents, national survey results, impact evaluations, best practice reports, and other publications of global interest. The grantee(s) must consult with USDOL on whether the logo may be used on any such items prior to final draft or final preparation for distribution. In no event will the USDOL logo be placed on any item until USDOL has given the grantee permission to use the logo on the item.
• All documents must include the following notice: “This documentation does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Department of Labor, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.”
OMB Information Collection No 1225-0086, Expires January 31, 2016. According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless such collection displays a valid OMB control number. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average twenty (20) hours per response, including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding the burden estimated or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the U.S. Department of Labor, to the attention of Michel Smyth, Departmental Clearance Officer, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N1301, Washington, DC 20210. Comments may also be emailed to
This information is being collected for the purpose of awarding a grant. The information collected through this “Solicitation for Grant Applications” will be used by the Department of Labor to ensure that grants are awarded to the applicant best suited to perform the functions of the grant. Submission of this information is required in order for the applicant to be considered for award of this grant. Unless otherwise specifically noted in this announcement, information submitted in the respondent's application is
Located on the VETS homepage at:
Wage and Hour Division, Department of Labor.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95). 44 U.S.C. 3056(c)(2)(A). This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Wage and Hour Division is soliciting comments concerning its proposal to extend Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval of the Information Collection: Disclosures to Workers Under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act. A copy of the proposed information request can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the
You may submit comments identified by Control Number 1235-0002, by either one of the following methods:
Mary Ziegler, Director, Division of Regulations, Legislation, and Interpretation, Wage and Hour, U.S. Department of Labor, Room S-3502, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-0406 (this is not a toll-free number). Copies of this notice may be obtained in alternative formats (Large Print, Braille, Audio Tape, or Disc), upon request, by calling (202) 693-0023 (not a toll-free number). TTY/TTD callers may dial toll-free (877) 889-5627 to obtain information or request materials in alternative formats.
MSPA sections 201(d) and 301(c)—29 U.S.C. 1821(d), 1831(c) and regulations 29 CFR 500.80(a), require each Farm Labor Contractor, Agricultural Employer, and Agricultural Association that employs a migrant or seasonal worker to make, keep, and preserve records for three years for each such worker concerning the: (1) Basis on which wages are paid; (2) number of piece work units earned, if paid on a piece work basis; (3) number of hours worked; (4) total pay period earnings; (5) specific sums withheld and the purpose of each sum withheld; (6) net pay. Respondents are also required to provide an itemized written statement of this information to each migrant and seasonal agricultural worker each pay period.
• 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;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
• 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;
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).
Request for comment.
The NCUA intends to submit the following information collection to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). This information collection is published to obtain comments from the public. NCUA is proposing to add fields to the 5300 Call Report to collect Bank Secrecy Act/Anti-Money Laundering, charitable donations, derivatives and investments to fund employee benefits.
Comments will be accepted until March 31, 2014.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to the NCUA Contact and the OMB Reviewer listed below:
Requests for additional information, a copy of the information collection request, or a copy of submitted comments should be directed to Tracy Crews at the National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314-3428, or at (703) 518-6444.
NCUA is amending the currently approved collection for 3133-0004. Two specific forms are used, NCUA Form 5300 and NCUA Profile Form 4501A, also known as the Call Report and Profile, respectively. Section 741.6 of the NCUA Rules and Regulations requires all federally insured credit unions to submit a Call Report quarterly. 12 CFR 741.6. The information enables NCUA to monitor credit unions whose share accounts are insured by the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund (NCUSIF). NCUA uses the information collected from
The NCUA requests that you send your comments on this collection to the location listed in the addresses section. Your comments should address: (a) The necessity of the information collection for the proper performance of NCUA, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of our estimate of the burden (hours and cost) of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways we could enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways we could minimize the burden of the collection of the information on the respondents such as through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. It is NCUA's policy to make all comments available to the public for review.
Proposal for the following collection of information:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Determination of inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria (ITAAC).
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has determined that the inspections, tests, and analyses have been successfully completed, and that the specified acceptance criteria are met for ITAAC 3.3.00.09, for the Vogtle Unit 3 Combined License.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2008-0252 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may access publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
David H. Jaffe, Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1439, email:
On December 11, 2013, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (the licensee) submitted an ITAAC closure notification (ICN) under § 52.99(c)(1) of Title 10 of the
The NRC staff has determined that the inspections, tests, and analyses have been successfully completed, and that the specified acceptance criteria are met for Vogtle Unit 3 Combined License, ITAAC 3.3.00.09. This notice fulfills the staff's obligations under 10 CFR 52.99(e)(1) to publish a notice in the
The documentation of the NRC staff's determination is in the ITAAC Closure Verification Evaluation Form (VEF) dated January 8, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14008A377). The VEF is a form that represents the NRC staff's structured process for reviewing ICNs. The ICN presents a narrative description of how the ITAAC was completed, and the NRC's ICN review process involves a determination on whether, among other things, (1) the ICN provides sufficient information, including a summary of the methodology used to perform the ITAAC, to demonstrate that the inspections, tests, and analyses have been successfully completed; (2) the ICN provides sufficient information to demonstrate that the acceptance criteria are met; and (3) any inspections for the
The NRC staff's determination of the successful completion of this ITAAC is based on information available at this time and is subject to the licensee's ability to maintain the condition that the acceptance criteria are met. If new information disputes the NRC staff's determination, this ITAAC will be reopened as necessary. The NRC staff's determination will be used to support a subsequent finding, pursuant to 10 CFR 52.103(g), at the end of construction that all acceptance criteria in the combined license are met. The ITAAC closure process is not finalized for this ITAAC until the NRC makes an affirmative finding under 10 CFR 52.103(g). Any future updates to the status of this ITAAC will be reflected on the NRC's Web site at
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Weeks of January 27, February 3, 10, 17, 24, March 3, 2014.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and Closed.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of February 3, 2014.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of February 10, 2014.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of February 24, 2014.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. To verify the status of meetings, call (recording)—301-415-1292. Contact person for more information: Rochelle Bavol, 301-415-1651.
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (e.g. braille, large print), please notify Kimberly Meyer, NRC Disability Program Manager, at 301-287-0727, or by email at
Members of the public may request to receive this information electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969), or send an email to
U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
Notice; correction.
The purpose of this change is to correct an error in the original notice which listed the comment period as 60 days. The correct comment period for this notice is 30 days.
The notice published on January 23, 2014 at Vol. 79, No. 15 Page 3879 is corrected as of January 28, 2014.
John Still, 202-606-1275.
In the
This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.1.
On July 17, 2013, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (“Exchange” or “ISE”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to list and trade cash-settled, European-style options on the Index, which measures changes in implied volatility of the SPDR S&P 500 Exchange-Traded Fund (“SPY”).
The Index is calculated using a methodology developed by NationsShares, which uses published real-time bid/ask quotes of SPY options.
The Exchange proposes that the standard trading hours for index options (9:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., New York time) will apply to options on the Index. Options on the Index will expire on the Wednesday that is thirty days prior to the third Friday of the calendar month immediately following the expiration month. Trading in expiring options on the Index will normally cease at 4:15 p.m. (New York time) on the Tuesday preceding an expiration Wednesday. The exercise and settlement value will be calculated on Wednesday at 9:30 a.m. (New York time) using the mid-point of the NBBO for the SPY options used in the calculation of the Index at that time. The exercise-settlement amount is equal to the difference between the settlement value and the exercise price of the option, multiplied by $100. Exercise will result in the delivery of cash on the business day following expiration.
In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange expresses its view that manipulation of the Index would be very difficult, particularly around the time when the settlement value is determined. According to the Exchange, the settlement value calculation for the Index, which is based on the mid-point NBBO of the input components, is a methodology unlike how other index settlement values are determined, as most are calculated based on transaction prices of the individual index components. The Exchange believes that manipulating the Index settlement value will be difficult based on the dynamics of a quote-based calculation methodology as opposed to a single transaction price and because the option prices themselves would make such an endeavor cost prohibitive. Further, according to the Exchange, the vast liquidity of SPY options as well as the underlying SPY shares ensures a multitude of market participants at any given time. For example, ISE notes that at least 19 market makers actively traded SPY options on ISE during September 2013 on any given day, and there are now 12 options exchanges that list SPY options. Due to the high level of participation among market makers that can enter quotes in SPY options series, the Exchange believes it would be very difficult for a single participant to alter the NBBO width across multiple series in any significant way without exposing the would-be manipulator to regulatory scrutiny and financial costs.
The Exchange proposes to adopt minimum trading increments for options on the Index to be $0.05 for series trading below $3, and $0.10 for series trading at or above $3. The Exchange also proposes to set the minimum strike price interval for options on the Index at $1 or greater when the strike price is $200 or less, and $5 or greater when the strike price is greater than $200. Currently, when new series of index options with a new expiration date are opened for trading, or when additional series of index options in an existing expiration date are opened for trading as the current value of the underlying index moves substantially from the exercise prices of series already opened, the exercise prices of such new or additional series must be reasonably related to the current value of the underlying index at the time such series are first opened for trading.
The Exchange proposes to list options on the Index in the three consecutive near-term expiration months plus up to three successive expiration months in the March cycle.
The Exchange believes that the Index is a broad-based index, as that term is defined in ISE Rule 2001(k).
In addition, the Exchange proposes that the trading of options on the Index will be subject to the same rules that currently govern the trading of Exchange index options, including sales practice rules and trading rules. Trading of options on the Index will also be subject to the trading halt procedures applicable to other index options traded on the Exchange.
The Exchange represents that it has an adequate surveillance program in place for options on the Index and intends to apply those same program procedures that it applies to the Exchange's other options products. Further, in Amendment No. 1, the Exchange notes that it will monitor for any potential manipulation of the Index settlement value both according to its current procedures and additional enhanced surveillance measures.
The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
As noted above, the Commission received two comment letters regarding the proposed rule change.
In its response letter, ISE draws an analogy between the Index and the VIX.
ISE also argues that the proposed Index options are not analogous to Alpha Index options.
Further, as discussed above, in Amendment No. 1, ISE asserts that there is a low potential for manipulation of the settlement value of the Index due to the quote-based calculation methodology used, high cost that would result from any attempted manipulation, and the vast liquidity and high level of participation among market participants making manipulation very difficult.
The Commission believes that the Exchange's proposal to impose no position limits on the Index options is appropriate and consistent with the Act.
The Commission also believes that permitting $1.00 strike price intervals if the strike price is equal to or less than $200 will provide investors with added flexibility in the trading of these options and will further the public interest by allowing investors to establish positions that are better tailored to meet their investment objectives. As noted above, the Exchange proposes to provide an exception for the proposed Index options from the existing requirement that exercise prices of new or additional series must be reasonably related to the current value of the Index at the time such series are first opened for trading.
The Commission also believes that it is consistent with the Act to apply margin requirements to the proposed Index options that are otherwise applicable to options on broad-based indexes.
As a national securities exchange, the Exchange is required, under Section 6(b)(1) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31 to add a minimum execution size designation for Tracking Orders and MPL-IOC Orders. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange is proposing to amend NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31 to add a minimum execution size designation for Tracking Orders and MPL-IOC Orders.
A Tracking Order is an undisplayed, priced round lot order that is eligible for execution in the Tracking Order Process
An MPL Order is a type of Working Order that has conditional or undisplayed price and/or size. As set forth in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31(h)(5), an MPL Order is a Passive Liquidity Order that is priced at the midpoint of the PBBO and does not trade through a Protected Quotation. An MPL Order has a minimum order entry size of one share and Users may specify a minimum executable size for an MPL Order, which must be no less than one share. If an MPL Order has a specified minimum executable size, it will execute against an incoming order that meets the minimum executable size and is priced at or better than the midpoint of the PBBO. If the leaves quantity becomes less than the minimum size, the minimum executable size restriction will no longer be enforced on executions.
As set forth in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31(h)(6), an MPL-IOC Order is an MPL Order priced at the midpoint of the PBBO when entered that follows the time-in-force instructions of an immediate-or-cancel order. An MPL-IOC Order follows the same execution and priority rules as an MPL Order, provided, however, (i) an MPL-IOC Order shall have a minimum order entry size of one round lot, (ii) Users may not specify a minimum executable size for an MPL-IOC Order, and (iii) if the market is locked or crossed, the MPL-IOC Order will cancel.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.31(f) to add optional functionality so that the ETP Holder may designate a minimum execution size for a Tracking Order. For example, if an ETP Holder that submits a Tracking Order to buy for 1,000 shares sets a minimum quantity of 200 shares, that Tracking Order will only execute against eligible contra-side interest that is 200 to 1,000 shares in size at the same price. As proposed, if the Tracking Order with a minimum size requirement is executed but not exhausted and the remaining portion of the Tracking Order is less than the minimum size requirement, the Exchange would cancel the Tracking Order. So if the Tracking Order for 1,000 shares has a minimum quantity of 200 shares, and receives an execution of 900 shares, because the remaining portion (100 shares) is less than the minimum execution quantity, it would be cancelled.
The Exchange also proposes to amend NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31(h)(6) to delete that Users may not specify a minimum executable size for an MPL-IOC Order. As proposed, an MPL-IOC Order will operate in the same manner as a regular MPL Order with respect to the ability to specify a minimum executable size. Because such order also includes the immediate-or-cancel time-in-force condition, if the contra-side available liquidity does not meet the minimum executable size designated for the MPL-IOC Order, the MPL-IOC Order will immediately cancel. The Exchange is proposing to make this change because it now has the technological capability to enable Users to specify a minimum executable size for MPL-IOC Orders, thereby reducing one of the differences between regular MPL Orders and MPL-IOC Orders.
The Exchange believes that providing ETP Holders with the option to designate a minimum quantity for additional non-displayed order types will promote the entry of liquidity at the Exchange because ETP Holders entering such orders will be assured of obtaining a larger-sized execution. With respect to Tracking Orders, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change could attract ETP Holders that are seeking larger executions to enter Tracking Orders because by designating a
The Exchange also proposes to clarify Rule 7.31(f) to specify that STP modifiers, as defined in Rule 7.31(qq), are ignored for Tracking Orders. The Exchange notes that the Exchange makes STP modifiers available to ETP Holders on an optional basis. If, however, an ETP Holder designates a Tracking Order with an STP modifier, Exchange systems will ignore that modifier when processing the order. The Exchange notes that this is current functionality and proposes to update the rule to provide transparency regarding how order types and optional modifiers interact. The Exchange further notes that the functionality associated with STP modifiers was added after the Tracking Order process was implemented and the two functions are not currently technologically compatible.
The Exchange will announce by Trader Update the implementation date of the proposed change to add a minimum execution size designation for Tracking Orders and MPL-IOC Orders.
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange believes that the proposal would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and protect investors and the public interest because it would provide an incentive for ETP Holders seeking larger-sized executions both to post liquidity at the Exchange using these features and to route larger-sized orders to the Exchange because of the potential for an execution against such liquidity. While interest with a minimum execution quantity will not execute against arriving smaller-sized contra interest, the Exchange does not believe that this will permit unfair discrimination among customers, brokers, or dealers because a size designation does not discriminate against a particular ETP Holder. Rather, the proposed functionality would be available to all ETP Holders. The Exchange further believes that adding an optional minimum quantity would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market system because the proposed functionality is similar to existing functionality available to ETP Holders with the MPL Order type, which also permits an ETP Holder to designate a minimum execution quantity. The proposed functionality is also similar to functionality available at the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”)
The Exchange believes that adding specificity to Rule 7.31(f) that STP modifiers are ignored for Tracking Order [sic] removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market by providing transparency of when STP modifier protection is not available. The Exchange notes that use of STP modifiers is optional and that ETP Holders that enter Tracking Orders should be aware that they have entered such interest and therefore can undertake measures other than STP modifiers to prevent wash sales.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the proposed amendment will not impose any burdens on competition because the proposal would extend the availability of an existing functionality—the optional minimum execution quantity—to an [sic] additional non-displayed liquidity-providing order types, the Tracking Order and the MPL-IOC Orders. The Exchange further notes that Nasdaq already offers similar functionality for its non-displayed orders.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31(b)(2) to specify that the Exchange would not apply limit order price protection to limit orders entered before Core Trading Hours that are designated for the Core Trading Session or the Market Order Auction. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange is proposing to amend NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31(b)(2) to specify that the Exchange would not apply limit order price protection to limit orders entered before Core Trading Hours that are designated for the Core Trading Session or the Market Order Auction. The Exchange also proposes to add a descriptive heading of “Limit Order Price Protection” to Rule 7.31(b)(2).
Pursuant to Rule 7.31(b)(2), a limit order will be rejected if it is priced a specified percentage away from the contra-side national best bid (“NBB”) or national best offer (“NBO”),
During the Opening Session, the Exchange accepts limit orders that are designated for the Core Trading Session. Limit orders designated for the Core Trading Session are not eligible to participate in the Opening Session, but are eligible to participate in the Market
Currently, limit orders entered during the Opening Session that are designated for the Core Trading Session or the Market Order Auction are evaluated upon arrival of whether they are priced a specified percentage away of the then-applicable NBB or NBO and rejected if priced outside such parameters. For example, if a limit order designated for the Core Trading Session is entered at 7:30 a.m. Eastern, which is two hours before the Core Trading Session begins, it will be evaluated based on the NBB or NBO at 7:30 a.m. Eastern of whether it should be rejected, even though it would not be eligible to execute at that time.
The Exchange does not believe that the original purpose of the price protection feature, which is to reject orders that are priced so far away from the prevailing quote in the market that they could cause significant price dislocation,
Instead, the Exchange believes that orders designated for the Core Trading Session or the Market Order Auction should be accepted by Exchange systems and not subject to the limit order price protection upon arrival so that such orders may populate the Exchange's book in advance of the Core Trading Session. In particular, the Exchange believes that allowing all eligible limit orders to participate in the Market Order Auction would promote the objective of price discovery by ensuring that all interest intended for such Auction, regardless of the NBB or NBO at time of arrival, would be eligible to be considered for the Auction. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.31(b)(2) to specify that that the Exchange would not apply limit order price protection to limit orders entered before Core Trading Hours that are designated for the Core Trading Session or the Market Order Auction.
The Exchange will announce by Trader Update the implementation date of the proposed change.
The statutory basis for the proposed rule change is Section 6(b)(5) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the proposal raises any competitive issues because it simply assures that interest that is entered before Core Trading Hours and that is designated for the Core Trading Session or the Market Order Auction, and thus are [sic] not eligible to execute in the Opening Session, would not be rejected based on an NBB or NBO at the time of arrival.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2014-03. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of New Dragon Asia Corp. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended September 25, 2011.
The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above-listed company. Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the above-listed company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EST on January 24, 2014, through 11:59 p.m. EST on February 6, 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 Jinhao Motor Company because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended September 30, 2010.
The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above-listed company. Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the above-listed company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EST on January 24, 2014, through 11:59 p.m. EST on February 6, 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 Advanced Pipe Fitting Technologies Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended July 31, 2011.
The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above-listed company. Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the above-listed company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EST on January 24, 2014, through 11:59 p.m. EST on February 6, 2014.
By the Commission.
Social Security Administration.
Notice announcing addresses for summons and complaints.
Our Office of the General Counsel (OGC) is responsible for processing and handling summonses and complaints in lawsuits involving judicial review of our final decisions on individual claims for benefits under titles II, VIII, and XVI of the Social Security Act (Act). This notice sets out the names and current addresses of those offices and the jurisdictions for which each office has responsibility.
Jeannette Mandycz, Office of the General Counsel, Office of Program Law, Social Security Administration, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6404, (410) 965-6471. For information on eligibility or filing for benefits, call our national toll-free number, 1-800-772-1213 or TTY 1-800-325-0778, or visit our Internet site, Social Security Online, at
You should mail summonses and complaints in cases involving judicial review of our final decisions on individual claims for benefits under titles II, VIII, and XVI of the Act directly to the OGC location responsible for the jurisdiction in which the complaint has been filed. This notice replaces the notice we published on March 11, 2010 (75 FR 11610), and reflects the current jurisdictional assignments for our Regional Chief Counsels' Offices and our Office of Program Law. This notice reflects changes in the OGC jurisdictional assignments that take effect for civil actions filed on or after January 1, 2014. The jurisdictional responsibilities, names, and addresses of our OGC offices are as follows:
U.S. District Court—Middle District of Alabama: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Atlanta (Region IV).
U.S. District Court—Northern District of Alabama: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Atlanta (Region IV).
U.S. District Court—Southern District of Alabama: Office of Program Law, Baltimore
U.S. District Court—Alaska: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Seattle (Region X).
U.S. District Court—Arizona: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Seattle (Region X).
U.S. District Court—Eastern District of Arkansas: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Dallas (Region VI).
U.S. District Court—Western District of Arkansas: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Dallas (Region VI).
U.S. District Court—Central District of California: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, San Francisco (Region IX).
U.S. District Court—Eastern District of California: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, San Francisco (Region IX).
U.S. District Court—Northern District of California: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, San Francisco (Region IX).
U.S. District Court—Southern District of California: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, San Francisco (Region IX).
U.S. District Court—Colorado: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Denver (Region VIII).
U.S. District Court—Connecticut: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, New York (Region II).
U.S. District Court—Delaware: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Philadelphia (Region III).
U.S. District Court—District of Columbia: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Philadelphia (Region III).
U.S. District Court—Middle District of Florida: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Atlanta (Region IV).
U.S. District Court—Northern District of Florida: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Atlanta (Region IV).
U.S. District Court—Southern District of Florida: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Atlanta (Region IV).
U.S. District Court—Middle District of Georgia: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Atlanta (Region IV).
U.S. District Court—Northern District of Georgia: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Atlanta (Region IV).
U.S. District Court—Southern District of Georgia: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Atlanta (Region IV).
U.S. District Court—Guam: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, San Francisco (Region IX).
U.S. District Court—Hawaii: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, San Francisco (Region IX).
U.S. District Court—Idaho: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Seattle (Region X).
U.S. District Court—Central District of Illinois: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Chicago (Region V).
U.S. District Court—Northern District of Illinois: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Chicago (Region V).
U.S. District Court—Southern District of Illinois: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Chicago (Region V).
U.S. District Court—Northern District of Indiana: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Chicago (Region V).
U.S. District Court—Southern District of Indiana: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Chicago (Region V).
U.S. District Court—Northern District of Iowa: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Dallas (Region VI).
U.S. District Court—Southern District of Iowa: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Dallas (Region VI).
U.S. District Court—Kansas: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Denver (Region VIII).
U.S. District Court—Eastern District of Kentucky: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Denver (Region VIII).
U.S. District Court—Western District of Kentucky: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Chicago (Region V).
U.S. District Court—Eastern District of Louisiana: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Dallas (Region VI).
U.S. District Court—Middle District of Louisiana: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Dallas (Region VI).
U.S. District Court—Western District of Louisiana: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Dallas (Region VI).
U.S. District Court—Maine: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Boston (Region I).
U.S. District Court—Maryland: Office of Program Law, Baltimore.
U.S. District Court—Massachusetts: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Boston (Region I).
U.S. District Court—Eastern District of Michigan: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Boston (Region I).
U.S. District Court—Western District of Michigan: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Boston (Region I).
U.S. District Court—Minnesota: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Dallas (Region VI).
U.S. District Court—Northern District of Mississippi: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Dallas (Region VI).
U.S. District Court—Southern District of Mississippi: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Dallas (Region VI).
U.S. District Court—Eastern District of Missouri: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Kansas City (Region VII).
U.S. District Court—Western District of Missouri: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Kansas City (Region VII).
U.S. District Court—Montana: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Seattle (Region X).
U.S. District Court—Nebraska: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Dallas (Region VI).
U.S. District Court—Nevada: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, San Francisco (Region IX).
U.S. District Court—New Hampshire: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Boston (Region I).
U.S. District Court—New Jersey: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Philadelphia (Region III).
U.S. District Court—New Mexico: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Denver (Region VIII).
U.S. District Court—Eastern District of New York: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, New York (Region II).
U.S. District Court—Northern District of New York: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, New York (Region II).
U.S. District Court—Southern District of New York: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, New York (Region II).
U.S. District Court—Western District of New York: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, New York (Region II).
U.S. District Court—Eastern District of North Carolina: Office of Program Law, Baltimore.
U.S. District Court—Middle District of North Carolina: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Philadelphia (Region III).
U.S. District Court—Western District of North Carolina: Office of Program Law, Baltimore.
U.S. District Court—North Dakota: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Dallas (Region VI).
U.S. District Court—Northern Mariana Islands: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, San Francisco (Region IX).
U.S. District Court—Northern District of Ohio: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Chicago (Region V).
U.S. District Court—Southern District of Ohio: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Chicago (Region V).
U.S. District Court—Eastern District of Oklahoma: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Denver (Region VIII).
U.S. District Court—Northern District of Oklahoma: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Denver (Region VIII).
U.S. District Court—Western District of Oklahoma: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Denver (Region VIII).
U.S. District Court—Oregon: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Seattle (Region X).
U.S. District Court—Eastern District of Pennsylvania: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Philadelphia (Region III).
U.S. District Court—Middle District of Pennsylvania: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Philadelphia (Region III).
U.S. District Court—Western District of Pennsylvania: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Philadelphia (Region III).
U.S. District Court—Puerto Rico: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, New York (Region II).
U.S. District Court—Rhode Island: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Boston (Region I).
U.S. District Court—South Carolina: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Philadelphia (Region III).
U.S. District Court—South Dakota: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Dallas (Region VI).
U.S. District Court—Eastern District of Tennessee: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Kansas City (Region VII).
U.S. District Court—Middle District of Tennessee: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Kansas City (Region VII).
U.S. District Court—Western District of Tennessee: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Kansas City (Region VII).
U.S District Court—Eastern District of Texas: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Dallas (Region VI).
U.S. District Court—Northern District of Texas: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Dallas (Region VI).
U.S. District Court—Southern District of Texas: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Dallas (Region VI).
U.S. District Court—Western District of Texas: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Dallas (Region VI).
U.S. District Court—Utah: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Denver (Region VIII).
U.S. District Court—Vermont: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, New York (Region II).
U.S. District Court—Virgin Islands: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, New York (Region II).
U.S. District Court—Eastern District of Virginia: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Philadelphia (Region III).
U.S. District Court—Western District of Virginia: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Philadelphia (Region III).
U.S. District Court—Eastern District of Washington: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Seattle (Region X).
U.S. District Court—Western District of Washington: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Seattle (Region X).
U.S. District Court—Northern District of West Virginia: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Philadelphia (Region III).
U.S. District Court—Southern District of West Virginia: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Philadelphia (Region III).
U.S. District Court—Eastern District of Wisconsin: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Chicago (Region V).
U.S. District Court—Western District of Wisconsin: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Chicago (Region V).
U.S. District Court—Wyoming: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Denver (Region VIII).
Department of State.
Notice.
On November 24, 2013, the United States and its partners in the P5+1—France, the United Kingdom, Russia, China, and Germany—reached an initial understanding with Iran that halts progress on its nuclear program and rolls it back in key respects. In return, the P5+1 committed to provide limited, temporary, and targeted sanctions relief to Iran. This Notice outlines the U.S. Government (USG) actions taken to implement the sanctions relief aspects of this understanding.
On general issues: John Hughes, Office of Economic Sanctions Policy and Implementation, Department of State, Telephone: (202) 647-7489.
On November 24, 2013, the P5+1 (China, France, Germany, Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom, coordinated by EU High Representative Catherine Ashton) reached an initial understanding with Iran, outlined in a Joint Plan of Action (JPOA), that halts progress on Iran's nuclear program and rolls it back in key respects. The JPOA includes the first meaningful limits Iran has accepted on its nuclear program in close to a decade. In return for important steps to constrain Iran's nuclear program, the P5+1 committed to provide Iran with limited, temporary, and targeted sanctions relief for a period of six months, starting on January 20, 2014, and concluding on July 20, 2014 (the “JPOA period”).
The sanctions relief specified in the JPOA focuses on a limited number of commercial activities and associated services for: Iran's exports of petrochemical products; Iran's purchase and sale of gold and precious metals; the provision of goods and services to Iran's automotive sector; and the licensing of safety-of-flight inspections and repairs for Iranian civil aviation. The sanctions relief also pauses efforts to further reduce Iran's crude oil exports, enabling the current importers of Iranian crude oil—China, Japan, South Korea, India, Turkey, and Taiwan—to maintain purchases at current average levels during the JPOA period. (The purchase of Iranian crude oil by entities in jurisdictions outside of China, Japan, South Korea, India, Turkey, and Taiwan remains sanctionable under U.S. law.) Iran will also gain access, in installments, to $4.2 billion of its restricted revenues now held in overseas accounts. Finally, Iran and the P5+1 have committed to establish a financial channel to facilitate Iran's import of certain humanitarian goods, the payment of medical expenses incurred by Iranians overseas, payments of Iran's UN obligations, and up to $400 million toward university tuition for Iranian students studying abroad.
To implement this limited sanctions relief, the U.S. government has executed temporary, partial waivers of certain statutory sanctions and has issued guidance regarding the suspension of sanctions under relevant Executive Orders and regulations. Because some of the waivers have a duration less than the six-month period of the JPOA, the USG plans to take such additional actions as may be necessary to extend this limited sanctions relief to July 20, 2014.
Acting under the authorities vested in me as Secretary of State, including through the applicable delegations of authority, I hereby make the following determinations and certifications:
Pursuant to Sections 1244(i), 1245 (g), 1246(e), and 1247(f) of the Iran Freedom and Counter-Proliferation Act of 2012 (subtitle D of title XII of Public Law 112-239, 22 U.S.C. 8801
1. Section 1244(c)(1) of IFCA
a. Transactions by non-U.S. persons for the export from Iran of petrochemical products,
b. Transactions by U.S. or non-U.S. persons for the supply and installation of spare parts necessary for the safety of flight for Iranian civil aviation, for safety-related inspections and repairs in Iran, and for associated services, provided that OFAC has issued any required licenses, excluding any transactions involving persons on the SDN List except for Iran Air;
c. Transactions by non-U.S. persons to which sanctions would not apply if an exception under section 1244(g)(2) of IFCA were applied to China, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and Turkey, and for insurance and transportation services associated with such transactions, provided that such transactions are consistent with the purchase amounts provided for in the Joint Plan of Action of November 24, 2013, excluding any transactions or associated services involving persons on the SDN List except for the National Iranian Oil Company and the National Iranian Tanker Company;
d. Transactions by non-U.S. persons for the sale, supply or transfer to or from Iran of precious metals, provided that such transactions are within the scope of the waiver of Sections 1245(a)(1)(A) and 1245(c) of IFCA (section 3 below), and for associated services, excluding any transactions involving persons on the SDN List except for any political subdivision, agency, or instrumentality of the Government of Iran listed solely pursuant to E.O. 13599;
2. Section 1244(d) of IFCA to the extent required for the sale, supply or transfer of goods or services by non-U.S. persons in connection with transactions by non-U.S. persons to which sanctions would not apply if an exception under section 1244(g)(2) of IFCA were applied to China, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and Turkey, and for insurance and transportation services associated with such transactions, provided that such transactions are consistent with the purchase amounts provided for in the Joint Plan of Action of November 24, 2013, excluding any transactions or associated services involving persons on the SDN List except for the National Iranian Oil Company and the National Iranian Tanker Company;
3. Sections 1245(a)(1)(A) and 1245(c) of IFCA to the extent required for transactions by non-U.S. persons for the sale, supply, or transfer to or from Iran of precious metals, provided that:
a. Such transactions do not involve persons on the SDN List, except for any political subdivision, agency, or instrumentality of the Government of Iran listed solely pursuant to E.O. 13599 or any Iranian depository institution listed solely pursuant to E.O. 13599; and
b. This waiver shall not apply to transactions for the sale, supply, or transfer to Iran of precious metals involving funds credited to an account located outside Iran pursuant to Section 1245(d)(4)(D)(ii)(II) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012;
4. Section 1246(a) of IFCA
a. By non-U.S. persons for the export from Iran of petrochemical products and for associated services, excluding any transactions involving persons on the SDN List except for the following companies: Bandar Imam Petrochemical Company; Bou Ali Sina Petrochemical Company; Ghaed Bassir Petrochemical Products; Iran Petrochemical Commercial Company; Jam Petrochemical Company; Marjan Petrochemical Company; Mobin Petrochemical Company; National Petrochemical Company; Nouri Petrochemical Company; Pars Petrochemical Company; Sadaf Petrochemical Assaluyeh Company; Shahid Tondgooyan Petrochemical Company; Shazand Petrochemical Company; and Tabriz Petrochemical Company;
b. By U.S. persons or non-U.S. persons for the supply and installation of spare parts necessary for the safety of flight for Iranian civil aviation, for safety-related inspections and repairs in Iran, and for associated services, provided that OFAC has issued any required licenses, excluding any transactions involving persons on the SDN List except for Iran Air;
c. By non-U.S. persons for transactions to which sanctions would not apply if an exception under section 1244(g)(2) of IFCA were applied to China, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and Turkey, and for insurance and transportation services associated with such transactions, provided that such transactions are consistent with the purchase amounts provided for in the Joint Plan of Action of November 24, 2013, excluding any transactions or associated services involving persons on the SDN List except for the National Iranian Oil Company and the National Iranian Tanker Company; and
d. By non-U.S. persons for the sale, supply or transfer to or from Iran of precious metals, provided that such transactions are within the scope of the waiver of Sections 1245(a)(1)(A) and 1245(c) of IFCA, and for associated services, excluding any transactions involving persons on the SDN List except for any political subdivision, agency, or instrumentality of the Government of Iran listed solely pursuant to E.O. 13599;
e. By non-U.S. persons for the sale, supply or transfer to Iran of goods and services used in connection with the automotive sector of Iran and for associated services, excluding any transactions involving persons on the SDN List.
5. Section 1247(a) of IFCA
a. Bandar Imam Petrochemical Company; Bou Ali Sina Petrochemical
b. Iran Air for the supply and installation of spare parts necessary for the safety of flight by Iran Air and for safety-related inspections and repairs for Iran Air, provided that OFAC has issued any required licenses;
c. The National Iranian Oil Company and the National Iranian Tanker Company for transactions by non-U.S. persons to which sanctions would not apply if an exception under section 1244(g)(2) of IFCA were applied to China, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and Turkey, provided that such transactions are consistent with the purchase amounts provided for in the Joint Plan of Action of November 24, 2013, excluding any transactions or associated services involving any other persons on the SDN List; and
d. Any political subdivision, agency, or instrumentality of the Government of Iran listed solely pursuant to E.O. 13599 for the sale, supply or transfer to or from Iran of precious metals, provided that such transactions are within the scope of the waiver of Sections 1245(a)(1)(A) and 1245(c) of IFCA.
Pursuant to section 1245(d)(5) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, I determine that it is in the national security interest of the United States to waive the imposition of sanctions under Section 1245(d)(1) with respect to:
(1) Foreign financial institutions under the primary jurisdiction of China, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the authorities on Taiwan, and Turkey, subject to the following conditions:
a. This waiver shall apply to a financial transaction only for trade in goods and services between Iran and the country with primary jurisdiction over the foreign financial institution involved in the financial transaction (but shall not apply to any transaction for the sale, supply, or transfer to Iran of precious metals involving funds credited to an account described in paragraph (b));
b. Any funds owed to Iran as a result of such trade shall be credited to an account located in the country with primary jurisdiction over the foreign financial institution involved in the financial transaction; and
c. With the exception that certain foreign financial institutions notified directly in writing by the U.S. Government may engage in financial transactions with the Central Bank of Iran in connection with the repatriation of revenues and the establishment of a financial channel, to the extent specifically provided for in the Joint Plan of Action of November 24, 2013; and
(2) Foreign financial institutions under the primary jurisdiction of Switzerland that are notified directly in writing by the U.S. Government, to the extent necessary for such foreign financial institutions to engage in financial transactions with the Central Bank of Iran in connection with the repatriation of revenues and the establishment of a financial channel as specifically provided for in the Joint Plan of Action of November 24, 2013.
Pursuant to Section 302(e) of the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-158) (TRA), I determine that it would cause damage to the national security of the United States to identify or designate a foreign person under section 302(a) of TRA in connection with transactions by non-U.S. persons with the National Iranian Oil Company to which sanctions would not apply if an exception under section 1244(g)(2) of IFCA were applied to China, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and Turkey, and for insurance and transportation services associated with such transactions, provided that such transactions are consistent with the purchase amounts provided for in the Joint Plan of Action of November 24, 2013.
Pursuant to Section 4(c)(1)(A) of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-172, 50 U.S.C. 1701 note) (ISA), I certify that it is vital to the national security interests of the United States to waive the application of section 5(a)(7) of ISA to the National Iranian Oil Company and the National Iranian Tanker Company to the extent required for insurance and transportation services provided on or after the date of transmittal of this certification to the appropriate congressional committees and associated with transactions to which sanctions would not apply if an exception under section 1244(g)(2) of IFCA were applied to China, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and Turkey, provided that such transactions are consistent with the purchase amounts provided for in the Joint Plan of Action of November 24, 2013.
These waivers shall take effect upon their transmittal to Congress, unless otherwise provided in the relevant provision of law.
Therefore, these sanctions have been waived as described in the determinations above. Relevant agencies and instrumentalities of the United States Government shall take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of this notice.
Office of the United States Trade Representative (“USTR”).
Invitation for applications.
The United States-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement (the “Agreement”) calls for the Parties to establish four rosters of individuals that would be available to serve as panelists in dispute settlement proceedings arising under the Agreement. A general roster is required to be established under Chapter Twenty (Dispute Settlement). Chapter Twelve (Financial Services), Chapter Sixteen (Labor), and Chapter Seventeen (Environment) require the establishment of separate rosters for disputes arising under those chapters. USTR is inviting interested persons to apply to be on any of the rosters under the Agreement, as indicated below.
Applications should be received no later than March 14, 2014 to be assured of consideration.
Applications should be submitted electronically to
For information regarding the form of the
USTR is seeking applications from interested persons to serve on one or more of the rosters under the Agreement. The details for how to apply are provided below as is a short description of the rosters. In response to this notice, USTR will accept applications from U.S. citizens and nationals of other countries.
The Agreement is a bilateral agreement in force between the United States and Panama. Chapter 20 of the Agreement sets out detailed procedures for the resolution of disputes arising under the Agreement. Dispute settlement involves three stages: (1) Consultations between the Parties to try to arrive at a mutually satisfactory resolution of the matter; (2) efforts by the Free Trade Commission, comprising cabinet-level representatives from the United States and Panama, to resolve the matter; and (3) resort to an arbitral panel to make a determination regarding the matter at issue between the Parties. The panel is composed of three individuals normally chosen by the Parties, or selected by lot, from a roster.
The Agreement requires the Parties to establish a roster of up to twenty individuals who are willing and able to serve as panelists. The roster is to include up to seven individuals who are nationals of each Party and up to six individuals who are not nationals of either Party. Individuals on the roster are appointed by agreement of the Parties for a minimum term of three years, and remain on the list until the Parties form a new roster. See Article 20.7.1 of the Agreement.
The Agreement provides for the Parties to agree on a chair and then for each party to select one panelist, normally from the roster. If the Parties are unable to agree on a chair within 15 days, the chair is selected by lot from among roster members who are not nationals of a Party. Similarly, if a Party fails to select a panelist within 15 days of selection of the chair, the panelist is selected by lot from among the roster members who are nationals of the Party. Accordingly, applications are sought from applicants who are nationals of the United States, Panama, or any non-Party country.
The text of the Agreement can be found on the USTR Web site (
To qualify for inclusion on the roster, an applicant must: (1) Be objective, reliable, and possess sound judgment; (2) have expertise or experience in law, international trade, other matters covered by the Agreement, or the resolution of disputes arising under international trade agreements; (3) be independent of, and not be affiliated with or take instructions from, either Party; and (4) comply with a code of conduct established by the Parties.
An interagency committee chaired by USTR prepares a preliminary list of candidates eligible for inclusion on the rosters. After consultation with the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate, USTR selects the final list of individuals that the United States will nominate for inclusion on the rosters. The members of the rosters are appointed by agreement of the Parties to the Agreement.
Eligible individuals who wish to be considered for inclusion on one or more of the rosters are invited to submit applications. However, eligible individuals who have submitted a prior application for one or more lists under the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement (“CAFTA-DR”), chapter 20 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (“NAFTA”), the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement, the United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement (“USAFTA”), the United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement (“USCTPA”), the United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement (“KORUS”), the United States-Morocco Free Trade Agreement (“USMFTA”), or the United States-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (“USSFTA”) in response to the
Applications must be typewritten, and should be headed “Application for Inclusion on a U.S.-Panama TPA Roster.” Applicants must specify for which of the four rosters they wish to be considered: General, Financial Services, Labor, or Environment. Applicants may specify more than one roster. Applications should include the following information, and each section of the application should be numbered as indicated:
1. Name of the applicant.
2. Business address, telephone number, fax number, and email address.
3. Citizenship(s).
4. Current employment, including title, description of responsibility, and name and address of employer.
5. Relevant education and professional training.
6. Fluency in any relevant language other than English, written and spoken.
7. Post-education employment history, including the dates and addresses of each prior position and a summary of responsibilities.
8. Relevant professional affiliations and certifications, including, if any, current bar memberships in good standing.
9. A list and copies of publications, testimony, and speeches, if any, concerning the relevant area(s) of expertise. Judges or former judges should list relevant judicial decisions. Only one copy of publications, testimony, speeches, and decisions need be submitted.
10. A list of international trade proceedings or domestic proceedings relating to international trade matters or other relevant matters in which the applicant has provided advice to a party or otherwise participated.
11. Summary of any current and past employment by, or consulting or other work for, the Government of the United States or the Government of Panama.
12. The names and nationalities of all foreign principals for whom the applicant is currently or has previously been registered pursuant to the Foreign Agents Registration Act, 22 U.S.C. 611
13. A short statement of qualifications and availability for service on dispute settlement panels under the Agreement, including information relevant to the applicant's familiarity with international trade law and relevant area(s) for the roster for which the applicant seeks to be considered, and willingness and ability to make time commitments necessary for service on panels.
14. On a separate page, the names, addresses, telephone and fax numbers of three individuals willing to provide information concerning the applicant's qualifications for service, including the
As indicated above, an individual who has submitted an application in response to the
Applications normally will not be subject to public disclosure and will not be posted publicly on
False statements by an applicant regarding his or her personal or professional qualifications, or financial or other relevant interests that bear on the applicant's suitability for placement on a roster or appointment to a panel are subject to criminal sanctions under 18 U.S.C. 1001.
The following statements are made in accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552a). Provision of the information requested above is voluntary; however, failure to provide the information will preclude consideration as a candidate for inclusion on a list. This information is maintained in a system of records entitled “Dispute Settlement Panelists Roster.” Notice regarding this system of records was published in the
The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart B (formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201
The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart B (formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201
The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart B (formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201
Notice of public meeting.
This notice announces a public meeting of the National Freight Advisory Committee (NFAC). The NFAC will provide information, advice, and recommendations to the U.S. Secretary of Transportation on matters relating to U.S. freight transportation, including implementation of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), Public Law 112-141.
Tretha Chromey, Designated Federal Officer at (202) 366-1999 or
On November 19, 2013, the Federal Highway Administration published in the
During this meeting, NFAC members will discuss and prepare a joint comment on the
Agenda: The agenda will include: (1) Welcome and introductions; (2) overview of the meeting format; (3) remarks from the NFAC Chair and Vice Chair; (4) discussion and consideration by full Committee of draft comments; (5) public comment; and (6) adjournment.
To participate in or view the webinar meeting, members of the NFAC and of the public must pre-register online at
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice.
The FAA announces its determination that the noise exposure maps submitted by the Wayne County Airport Authority, Michigan for Willow Run Airport under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 47501
Ernest P. Gubry, 11677 S. Wayne Road, Suite 107, Romulus, MI 48174, Email:
This notice announces the FAA finds that the noise exposure maps submitted for Willow Run Airport are in compliance with applicable requirements of Part 150, effective January 15, 2014. Further, FAA is reviewing a proposed noise compatibility program for that airport which will be approved or disapproved on or before July 14, 2014. This notice also announces the availability of this program for public review and comment.
Under 49 U.S.C. 47503 of the Act, an airport operator may submit to the FAA noise exposure maps which meet applicable regulations and which depict non-compatible land uses as of the date of submission of such maps, a description of projected aircraft operations, and the ways in which such operations will affect such maps. The Act requires such maps to be developed in consultation with interested and affected parties in the local community, government agencies, and persons using the airport.
An airport operator who has submitted noise exposure maps that are found by FAA to be in compliance with the requirements of part 150, promulgated pursuant to the Act, may submit a noise compatibility program for FAA approval which sets forth the measures the operator has taken or proposes to take to reduce existing non-compatible uses and prevent the introduction of additional non-compatible uses.
The Wayne County Airport Authority submitted to the FAA on December 12, 2013, noise exposure maps, and other documentation that were produced during the Willow Run Airport 14 CFR part 150 Noise Compatibility Study. It was requested that the FAA review this material as the noise exposure maps, as described in section 47503 of the Act, and that the noise mitigation measures, to be implemented jointly by the airport and surrounding communities, be approved as a noise compatibility program under section 47504 of the Act.
The FAA has completed its review of the noise exposure maps and related descriptions submitted by the Wayne County Airport Authority. The specific documentation determined to constitute the noise exposure maps includes: Figure S1 (Existing 2012 Noise Exposure Map); Figure S2 (Future 2018 Noise Exposure Map), Information pertinent to the aircraft operations, fleet mix, runway utilization, and nighttime use are located in Chapter D, updated in Chapter I and Chapter S. This is inclusive of all tables. Information about noise monitoring sites is located in Figure C11 (Noise Measurement Sites). The FAA has determined that these maps for Willow Run Airport are in compliance with applicable requirements. This determination is effective on January 15, 2014. FAA's determination on an airport operator's noise exposure maps is limited to a finding that the maps were developed in accordance with the procedures contained in appendix A of 14 CFR part 150. Such determination does not constitute approval of the applicant's data, information or plans, or constitute a commitment to approve a noise compatibility program or to fund the implementation of that program.
If questions arise concerning the precise relationship of specific properties to noise exposure contours depicted on a noise exposure map submitted under section 47503 of the Act, it should be noted that the FAA is not involved in any way in determining the relative locations of specific properties with regard to the depicted noise contours, or in interpreting the noise exposure maps to resolve questions concerning, for example, which properties should be covered by the provisions of section 47506 of the Act. These functions are inseparable from the ultimate land use control and planning responsibilities of local government. These local responsibilities are not changed in any way under part 150 or through FAA's review of noise exposure maps. Therefore, the responsibility for the detailed overlaying of noise exposure contours onto the map depicting properties on the surface rests exclusively with the airport operator that submitted those maps, or with those public agencies and planning agencies with which consultation is required under section 47503 of the Act. The FAA has relied on the certification by the airport operator, under section 150.21 of part 150, that the statutorily required consultation has been accomplished.
The FAA has formally received the noise compatibility program for Willow Run Airport, also effective on January 15, 2014. Preliminary review of the submitted material indicates that it conforms to the requirements for the submittal of noise compatibility programs, but that further review will be necessary prior to approval or disapproval of the program. The formal review period, limited by law to a maximum of 180 days, will be completed on or before July 14, 2014. A public hearing was held on November 6, 2013 at 5:30 p.m.
The FAA's detailed evaluation will be conducted under the provisions of section 150.33 of part 150. The primary considerations in the evaluation process are whether the proposed measures may reduce the level of aviation safety, create an undue burden on interstate or foreign commerce, or be reasonably consistent with obtaining the goal of reducing existing non-compatible land uses and preventing the introduction of additional non-compatible land uses.
Interested persons are invited to comment on the proposed program with specific reference to these factors. All comments should be sent to Ernest P. Gubry at the address under
Questions may be directed to the individual named above under the heading,
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of intent to rule on request to release airport property at the Colonel James Jabara Airport (AAO), Wichita, Kansas.
The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the release of land at the Colonel James Jabara Airport (AAO), Wichita, Kansas, under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 47107(h)(2).
Comments must be received on or before February 27, 2014.
Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to the FAA at the following address: Lynn D. Martin, Airports Compliance Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Airports Division, ACE-610C, 901 Locust Room 364, Kansas City, MO 64106.
In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered to: John Oswald, Airport Engineer, Colonel James Jabara Airport, Wichita Airport Authority; 2173 Air Cargo Rd., Wichita, KS 67209, (316) 946-4700.
Lynn D. Martin, Airports Compliance Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Airports Division, ACE-610C, 901 Locust Room 364, Kansas City, MO 64106, (816) 329-2644,
The request to release property may be reviewed, by appointment, in person at this same location.
The FAA invites public comment on the request to release approximately 5.22± acres of airport property at the Colonel James Jabara Airport (AAO) under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 47107(h)(2). On September 15, 2013, the City of Wichita's Airport Engineer requested from the FAA that approximately 5.22± acres of property be released for sale to Sedgwick County Public Works for the purpose of road widening and utilities. On December 22, 2013, the FAA determined that the request to release property at Colonel James Jabara Airport (AAO) submitted by the Sponsor meets the procedural requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration and the release of the property does not and will not impact future aviation needs at the airport. The FAA may approve the request, in whole or in part, no sooner than thirty days after the publication of this Notice.
The following is a brief overview of the request:
Colonel James Jabara Airport (AAO) is proposing the release of a parcel, totaling 5.22± acres. The release of land is necessary to comply with Federal Aviation Administration Grant Assurances that do not allow federally acquired airport property to be used for non-aviation purposes. The sale of the subject property will result in the land at the Colonel James Jabara Airport (AAO) being changed from aeronautical to nonaeronautical use and release the surface lands from the conditions of the AIP Grant Agreement Grant Assurances, but retaining the mineral rights. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 47107(c)(2)(B)(i) and (iii), the airport will receive fair market value for the property.
Any person may inspect, by appointment, the request in person at the FAA office listed above under
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of request to release deed restrictions.
The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the release of deed restrictions at Yellowstone Airport under the provisions of Title 49, U.S.C. Section 47125.
Comments must be received on or before Februrary 28, 2014.
Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to the FAA at the following address: Mr. David S. Stelling, Manager, Federal Aviation Administration, Northwest Mountain Region, Airports Division, Helena Airports District Office, 2725 Skyway Drive, Suite 2, Helena, Montana 59602.
In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered to Ms. Debbie Alke, Administrator, Montana Department of Transportation Aeronautics Division, at the following address: Ms. Debbie Alke, Administrator, Aeronautics Division, Montana Department of Transportation, P.O. Box 200507, Helena, MT 59620-0507.
Mr. Steve Engebrecht, Civil Engineer/Compliance Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Northwest Mountain Region, Helena Airports District Office, 2725 Skyway Drive, Suite 2, Helena, Montana 59602.
The request to release deed restrictions may be reviewed, by appointment, in person at this same location.
The FAA invites public comment on the request to release deed restrictions at the Yellowstone Airport under the provisions of the Title 49, U.S.C. 47125.
The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, HR 658, Section 817, gave the Secretary of Transportation the authorization to grant an airport, city, or county release from any of the terms, conditions, reservations, or restrictions contained in a deed under which the United States conveyed to the airport, city, or county an interest in real property for airport purposes pursuant to Section 16 of the Federal Airport Act
On January 9, 2014, the FAA determined that the request to release deed restrictions at the Yellowstone Airport submitted by the Montana Department of Transportation meets the procedural requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration. The FAA may approve the request, in whole or in part, no later than February 28, 2014.
The following is a brief overview of the request:
The Montana Department of Transportation is proposing the release of deed restrictions at the Yellowstone Airport from a Correction Deed issued on August 12, 1968. On October 7, 1963, a deed containing restrictions transferred the airport property from the United States to the State of Montana. The airport was built in 1963 as a cooperative effort between the United States Departments of the Interior and Agriculture, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and the State of Montana. A subsequent Correction Deed (correcting the legal description) issued on August 12, 1968 contains those same restrictions, under which the airport has operated for 50 years. In an effort to make the airport more economically viable, the State of Montana and the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) request the following deed restrictions be removed:
• Deed Restriction 1. “The State of Montana will use the lands herein conveyed for airport development.”: Requesting release of 214.45 acres from this deed restriction in order to maintain financial viability by permitting possible development of these areas for non-airport development related purposes to generate new sources of income to operate and maintain the airport.
• Deed Restriction 6. “That all facilities of the airport developed with Federal aid and all those useable for landing and take-off of aircraft will be available at all times without charge for use by the Department of Agriculture and Interior in the conduct of its official business in common with other aircraft.”: Requesting release of all airport property from this deed restriction in order to maintain financial viability by being permitted to charge for substantial use by the Department of Agriculture and Department of Interior aircraft, in compliance with Grant Assurance 27.
• Deed Restriction 7. “That no commercial overnight facilities, such a motels, hotels, or private residences will be constructed on the property herein conveyed.”: Requesting release of 214.45 acres from this deed restriction in order to maintain financial viability by permitting possible development of commercial overnight facilities and generate new sources of income to operate and maintain the airport. MDT understands that residential development is non-compliant with its federal grant assurances and has no intention of allowing private residences to be constructed on airport property.
• Deed Restriction 8. “That commercial advertising signs will be prohibited within the airport access road area.”: Requesting release of 104.93 acres from this deed restriction in order to maintain financial viability by permitting possible development of commercial advertising signs within the airport access road area and generate new sources of income to operate and maintain the airport.
Any person may inspect, by appointment, the request in person at the FAA office listed above under
In addition, any person may, upon appointment and request, inspect the request to release deed restrictions and other documents germane to the request in person at the Yellowstone Airport.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of Meeting.
FMCSA announces that its Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee (MCSAC) will meet on February 10-11, 2014, to provide ideas that Agency should consider for reauthorization of the surface transportation legislation. On February 12, 2014, MCSAC's Compliance, Safety and Accountability (CSA) subcommittee will convene. Meetings are open to the public for their entirety and there will be a period of time at the end of each day for the public to submit oral comments.
Ms. Shannon L. Watson, Senior Advisor to the Associate Administrator for Policy, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, (202) 385-2395,
For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, please contact Ms. Dana Larkin at (617) 494-2821 or
MCSAC was established to provide FMCSA with advice and recommendations on motor carrier safety programs and motor carrier safety regulations. MCSAC is composed of 20 voting representatives from safety advocacy, safety enforcement, labor, and industry stakeholders of motor carrier safety. The diversity of the Committee ensures the requisite range of views and expertise necessary to discharge its responsibilities. The Committee operates as a discretionary committee under the authority of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), established in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended, 5 U.S.C. App. 2. See FMCSA's MCSAC Web site for additional information about the committee's activities at
Oral comments from the public will be heard during the last half-hour of the meetings each day. Should all public comments be exhausted prior to the end of the specified period, the comment period will close. Members of the public may submit written comments on the topics to be considered during the meeting by Wednesday, February 5, 2014, to Federal Docket Management
•
•
•
•
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew the exemptions from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for 41 individuals. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals from the vision requirement if the exemptions granted will not compromise safety. The Agency has concluded that granting these exemption renewals will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions for these commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.
This decision is effective January 29, 2014. Comments must be received on or before February 27, 2014.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) numbers: Docket No. [Docket No. FMCSA-2001-9258; FMCSA-2001-9561; FMCSA-2003-15268; FMCSA-2005-21254; FMCSA-2009-0121; FMCSA-2011-0140; FMCSA-2011-0141], using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Elaine M. Papp, Chief, Medical Programs Division, 202-366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may renew an exemption from the vision requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce, for a two-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The procedures for requesting an exemption (including renewals) are set out in 49 CFR part 381.
This notice addresses 41 individuals who have requested renewal of their exemptions in accordance with FMCSA procedures. FMCSA has evaluated these 41 applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period. They are:
The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions: (1) That each individual has a physical
Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon application for additional two year periods. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the 41 applicants has satisfied the entry conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirements (66 FR 17743; 66 FR 30502; 66 FR 33990; 66 FR 41654; 68 FR 35772; 68 FR 37197; 68 FR 44837; 68 FR 48989; 70 FR 30999; 70 FR 33937; 70 FR 41811; 70 FR 42615; 70 FR 46567; 72 FR 32705; 72 FR 40359; 72 FR 40360; 74 FR 26461; 74 FR 34074; 74 FR 34630; 74 FR 34632; 76 FR 37169; 76 FR 40445; 76 FR 44653; 76 FR 49531; 76 FR 50318; 76 FR 53710). Each of these 41 applicants has requested renewal of the exemption and has submitted evidence showing that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirement specified at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and that the vision impairment is stable. In addition, a review of each record of safety while driving with the respective vision deficiencies over the past two years indicates each applicant continues to meet the vision exemption requirements.
These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each driver's ability to continue to drive safely in interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each renewal applicant for a period of two years is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
FMCSA will review comments received at any time concerning a particular driver's safety record and determine if the continuation of the exemption is consistent with the requirements at 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315. However, FMCSA requests that interested parties with specific data concerning the safety records of these drivers submit comments by February 27, 2014.
FMCSA believes that the requirements for a renewal of an exemption under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 can be satisfied by initially granting the renewal and then requesting and evaluating, if needed, subsequent comments submitted by interested parties. As indicated above, the Agency previously published notices of final disposition announcing its decision to exempt these 41 individuals from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). The final decision to grant an exemption to each of these individuals was made on the merits of each case and made only after careful consideration of the comments received to its notices of applications. The notices of applications stated in detail the qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each applicant for an exemption from the vision requirements. That information is available by consulting the above cited
Interested parties or organizations possessing information that would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption of a driver.
You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change this proposed rule based on your comments. FMCSA may issue a final rule at any time after the close of the comment period.
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble, To submit your comment online, go to
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
Notice; Issuance of Advisory Bulletin.
Conforming Facility Response Plans (FRPs) to Appendix A to Part 194—“Guidelines for the Preparation of Response Plans” and Identifying Deficiencies.
PHMSA is issuing this advisory bulletin to remind all onshore oil pipeline operators of the circumstances of the Marshall, Michigan, pipeline accident and the need to update FRPs every five years from the date of last submission or the last approval according to its significant and substantial designation. Plans must also be updated whenever new or different operating conditions would affect the implementation of a response plan. (See 49 CFR 194.121.) When updating their FRPs, operators should utilize Appendix A Part 194—Guidelines for the Preparation of Response Plans and submit them electronically to PHMSA.
This bulletin also notifies that FRPs found to meet the requirements of PHMSA's regulations at Part 194 will be posted on PHMSA's Web site for public viewing. Prior to posting, PHMSA will redact certain information, such as personally identifiable information and certain security related information, in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act and any other applicable Federal law. This document also alerts operators and their plan submitters to common errors in plans that require amendment prior to PHMSA's issuance of approval. Finally, onshore oil pipeline operators are encouraged to consider replacing incorporations by reference in their FRPs with a summary of referenced material or a copy of the full document.
Justin Pryor by phone at 202-366-4595 or by email at
On Sunday, July 25, 2010, at 5:58 p.m. eastern daylight time, a segment of a 30-inch-diameter pipeline (Line 6B), owned and operated by Enbridge Incorporated (Enbridge), ruptured in a wetland in Marshall, Michigan. The rupture was not discovered or addressed for over 17 hours. During the time lapse, Enbridge twice pumped additional oil (81 percent of the total release) into Line 6B during two startups; the total release was estimated to be 843,444 gallons of crude oil. The oil saturated the surrounding wetlands and flowed into the Talmadge Creek and the Kalamazoo River. Local residents self-evacuated from their homes, and serious environmental damage has required long-term remediation. About 320 people reported symptoms consistent with crude oil exposure. No fatalities were reported. Cleanup and remediation continues, and costs have exceeded $1 billion.
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) determined that the probable cause of the pipeline rupture was stress corrosion cracking that grew and coalesced from crack and corrosion defects under disbonded polyethylene tape coating. The rupture and prolonged release were caused by pervasive organizational failures at Enbridge that included: (1) Deficient integrity management procedures, which allowed well-documented crack defects in corroded areas to propagate until the pipeline failed; (2) inadequate training of control center personnel, which resulted in Enbridge's failure to recognize the rupture for 17 hours and through two re-starts of the pipeline; and (3) insufficient public awareness and education, which allowed the release to continue for nearly 14 hours after the first notification of an odor to local emergency response agencies.
Furthermore, the NTSB found that a failure to identify and ensure the availability of well-trained emergency responders with sufficient response resources, a lack of regulatory guidance for pipeline facility response planning, and limited oversight of pipeline emergency preparedness led to a deficient FRP that contributed to the severity of the environmental damage and long term consequences.
The NTSB noted that, because the pipeline safety regulations do not explicitly mandate the amount of resources or recovery capacity required for a worst-case discharge, Enbridge misinterpreted and miscalculated the amount of oil response resources required by § 194.115, resulting in a lack of adequate oil spill recovery equipment and resources during the initial response. The NTSB also explained that although Part 194 Appendix A recommends using the United States Coast Guard (USCG) regulations for preparation of FRPs, there was no indication that Enbridge utilized the USCG regulations in the preparation of its FRP.
Section 194.115(a) requires operators to identify in their FRP the resources that are available to respond to a release. PHMSA points operators to Appendix C to 33 CFR part 154 Section 7, “Calculating the Worst Case Discharge Planning Volumes” as the best reference for planning for and ensuring proper response capability. Appendix A of Part 194—“Guidelines for the Preparation of Response Plans” recommends that operators use the USCG regulations for preparation of response plans. To help comply with the identification and assurance of adequate response resources, as noted in the preamble to the Final Rule “Pipeline Safety: Response Plans for Onshore Transportation-Related Oil Pipelines,” PHMSA “encourages operators to use USCG-classified oil spill response organizations (OSRO).” An operator contracting with USCG-classified OSROs for response to a worst case discharge will not have to describe the response resources or the response equipment maintenance program of the USCG-classified OSROs. The operator must consider the time required for the USCG-classified OSRO to respond to the spill from wherever the contractor is based to the high volume area and all other areas.
For operators that contract with non-USCG-classified OSRO's, PHMSA uses the USCG guidelines at 33 CFR part 154, Appendix C, along with the USCG planning volume worksheet when it reviews FRPs to confirm sufficiency of response resources and compliance with Part 194.
Section 194.115(b) lists the maximum times allowed for response resources and personnel to arrive at the scene of a rupture. The increments of time are dependent on whether the spill occurs in a high volume area. The NTSB noted that Enbridge's plan erroneously indicated that tiers refer to the size of a spill. Operators are reminded that “high
As stated in a prior advisory bulletin ADB-2010-05 published in the
Additionally, to assist PHMSA in the timely processing and review of FRPs, onshore pipeline operators are encouraged to submit electronic copies of their response plans. PHMSA prefers electronic copies of plans in Portable Document Format over hard copies of plans. Electronic copies can be sent via commercial courier on disc or flash drive to the Office of Pipeline Safety at PHMSA Headquarters' address below:
Office of Pipeline Safety (Attn: Response Plan Review), Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, PHP-5, East Building, 2nd Floor, E22-321, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Alternatively, electronic files less than 5 MB can be sent to
PHMSA also wishes to point out errors that commonly result in the rejection of plans in order to facilitate plan preparation and review. These errors include: (1) Missing, incorrect or incomplete methodology and calculations used to determine a Worst Case Discharge (WCD) that compares the volumes of WCDs from the pipeline, breakout tanks, and maximum historical discharge to include, if necessary, an affirmation that any of these elements are not applicable to the calculation; (2) failure to identify response resources that are available to respond to an incident scene; (3) failure to identify specific environmentally and economically sensitive areas applicable to the pipeline area of operation; (4) missing provisions to ensure responders are safe at a response site; and (5) omission of the name or title and 24-hour telephone number of an operator's “Qualified Individual” and at least one alternate. Deficiencies in any of these areas will require correction before PHMSA can approve a plan. FRPs found to meet the requirements of PHMSA's regulations found at Part 194 will be approved and redacted in accordance with FOIA and any other applicable Federal law and posted on PHMSA's Web site for public viewing. PHMSA posts these plans to help Federal, state and local officials strengthen and coordinate planning and prevention activities.
Finally, PHMSA advises operators that while it is permitted to incorporate material into an FRP by reference, this practice may inhibit regulators' and incident responders' access to and understanding of an FRP during response to oil spill incidents and emergencies. For example, when responding to a spill, responders and regulators need access to operations, maintenance, and emergency manuals. It is important that all of the potential users of an FRP have immediate access to all relevant information and procedures.
Therefore, operators should review their FRPs and carefully consider each incorporated document and determine whether full copies or summaries of documents should replace the references. PHMSA suggests operators include the relevant portion of any externally referenced procedural manual that is required in the FRP, by provisions of 49 CFR part 194. This practice will also allow PHMSA to more effectively determine that the operator's FRP procedures are consistent with Part 194 requirements.
49 U.S.C. chapter 601: 49 CFR 1.53.
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 27, 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
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury 's Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) is publishing the name of one individual whose property and interests in property has been blocked pursuant to the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act (“Kingpin Act”) (21 U.S.C. 1901-1908, 8 U.S.C. 1182).
The designation by the Director of OFAC of the one individual identified in this notice pursuant to section 805(b) of the Kingpin Act is effective on January 16, 2014.
Assistant Director, Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC 20220, Tel: (202) 622-2490.
This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available on OFAC's Web site at
The Kingpin Act became law on December 3, 1999. The Kingpin Act establishes a program targeting the activities of significant foreign narcotics traffickers and their organizations on a worldwide basis. It provides a statutory framework for the imposition of sanctions against significant foreign narcotics traffickers and their organizations on a worldwide basis, with the objective of denying their businesses and agents access to the U.S. financial system and the benefits of trade and transactions involving U.S. companies and individuals.
The Kingpin Act blocks all property and interests in property, subject to U.S. jurisdiction, owned or controlled by significant foreign narcotics traffickers as identified by the President. In addition, the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Homeland Security may designate and block the property and interests in property, subject to U.S. jurisdiction, of persons who are found to be: (1) Materially assisting in, or providing financial or technological support for or to, or providing goods or services in support of, the international narcotics trafficking activities of a person designated pursuant to the Kingpin Act; (2) owned, controlled, or directed by, or acting for or on behalf of, a person designated pursuant to the Kingpin Act; or (3) playing a significant role in international narcotics trafficking.
On January 16, 2014, the Director of OFAC designated the following one individual whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to section 805(b) of the Kingpin Act.
1. TAPIA QUINTERO, Jose Guadalupe, Sinaloa, Mexico; DOB 19 Feb 1971; POB Sinaloa, Mexico; nationality Mexico; citizen Mexico; C.U.R.P. TAQG710219HSLPND08 (Mexico) (individual) [SDNTK].
U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission.
Notice of open public hearing—January 22, 2014, Washington, DC
Notice is hereby given of the following hearing of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission.
The hearing will be co-chaired by Commissioners James M. Talent and Katherine C. Tobin. Any interested party may file a written statement by January 30, 2014, by mailing to the contact below. A portion of each panel will include a question and answer period between the Commissioners and the witnesses.
Any member of the public seeking further information concerning the hearing should contact Reed Eckhold, 444 North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 602, Washington DC 20001; phone: 202-624-1496, or via email at
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Proposed rule.
We are proposing to amend the National Poultry Improvement Plan (NPIP, the Plan) and its auxiliary provisions by removing the descriptions of specific tests and sanitation procedures from the regulations. Instead, we would require tests to be performed and sanitation to be maintained in a manner approved by the Administrator. Approved procedures would be listed in an NPIP Program Standards document, which we would make available on the NPIP Web site. In addition, we are proposing to establish new compartment classifications for defined subpopulations of primary breeding turkeys, primary egg-type chickens, and primary meat-type chickens. We would also provide new or modified sampling and testing procedures for Plan participants and participating flocks. The proposed changes were voted on and approved by the voting delegates at the Plan's 2010 and 2012 National Plan Conferences. These changes would streamline the provisions of the Plan, keep those provisions current with changes in the poultry industry, and provide for the use of new sampling and testing procedures.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before March 31, 2014.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2011-0101, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
Dr. Denise Brinson, DVM, Acting Director, National Poultry Improvement Plan, VS, APHIS, USDA, 1506 Klondike Road, Suite 101, Conyers, GA 30094-5104; (770) 922-3496.
The National Poultry Improvement Plan (NPIP, also referred to below as “the Plan”) is a cooperative Federal-State-industry mechanism for controlling certain poultry diseases. The Plan consists of a variety of programs intended to prevent and control poultry diseases. Participation in all Plan programs is voluntary, but breeding flocks, hatcheries, and dealers must first qualify as “U.S. Pullorum-Typhoid Clean” as a condition for participating in the other Plan programs.
The Plan identifies States, flocks, hatcheries, dealers, and slaughter plants that meet certain disease control standards specified in the Plan's various programs. As a result, customers can buy poultry that has tested clean of certain diseases or that has been produced under disease-prevention conditions.
The regulations in 9 CFR parts 145, 146, and 147 (referred to below as the regulations) contain the provisions of the Plan. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS, also referred to as “the Service”) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA, also referred to as “the Department”) amends these provisions from time to time to incorporate new scientific information and technologies within the Plan.
The proposed amendments discussed in this document are consistent with the recommendations approved by the voting delegates to the last two National Plan Conferences, which were held on September 1 and 2, 2010, and September 25 through 27, 2012. Participants in both National Plan Conferences represented flockowners, breeders, hatcherymen, slaughter plants, and Official State Agencies from all cooperating States.
We are proposing two major changes to the regulations. One is to remove tests and detailed testing procedures, as well as sanitation procedures, from the regulations in part 147. The regulations in part 147 would instead indicate that tests and sanitation procedures must be approved by the Administrator and can be found in an NPIP Program Standards document. The other is to establish U.S. H5/H7 Avian Influenza Clean Compartment and U.S. Avian Influenza Clean Compartment classifications for defined subpopulations of primary breeding turkeys, primary egg-type breeding chickens, and primary meat-type breeding chickens. These changes are the first discussed below. The remaining proposed amendments are discussed in the order they would appear in the regulations.
The NPIP regulations in 9 CFR parts 145 and 146 contain requirements that must be observed by flocks that participate in the Plan. These requirements include requirements to test poultry for the specific disease addressed by each classification in which the flock participates. The procedures by which that testing is conducted are largely contained in 9 CFR part 147, subparts A, B, and D. Subpart A sets out blood testing procedures, subpart B sets out bacteriological examination procedures, and subpart D sets out molecular examination procedures, which currently include polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests.
Some of these tests are referred to specifically in 9 CFR parts 145 and 146. In addition, §§ 145.14 and 146.13 contain some requirements for the use of various tests in part 147 to determine whether flocks are eligible for certain NPIP classifications.
Subpart C of part 147 contains various sanitation procedures. These are set out as guidelines for the production of healthy poultry, although some of them are referred to in parts 145 and 146.
We are proposing to move the tests and sanitation procedures in subparts A, B, C, and D of part 147 to an NPIP Program Standards document, which would be made available to the public on the NPIP's Web site.
We are proposing to take this action for several reasons. First, there are constant changes in the science and technology that go into developing effective, efficient tests. In order to have a successful voluntary program to
In addition, new tests are also continually developed that can provide valuable alternatives to existing approved tests. For example, there has been a great deal of progress in developing PCR tests in recent years. Adding such tests allows NPIP participants to take advantage of the latest testing technology.
Similarly, the sanitation procedures used as best practices to prevent the introduction or spread of disease in a poultry flock are constantly changing, as more information becomes available about possible sources of infection and about the effectiveness of various means of preventing infection.
In the past, we have updated the regulations once every 2 years, following the biennial Plan Conference. However, with the continual changes in diagnostic science and testing technology, and in best practices for maintaining sanitation, the biennial update schedule has resulted in the regulations becoming out-of-date between updates. When this happens, sometimes the Plan's General Conference Committee (GCC) approves interim changes to the tests or sanitation procedures in accordance with the process outlined in § 147.43(d)(5)(iii).
However, it would make the program more effective if all participants could be made aware of the new tests and sanitation procedures as soon as possible, by updating a document recognized in the regulations as a resource for tests and sanitation procedures. Moving the testing and sanitation procedures to an NPIP Program Standards document, and replacing those procedures in the regulations with performance standards as described below, would allow for quicker updates to the allowed testing and sanitation procedures while continuing to allow for public comment on the testing and sanitation procedures. This would potentially make those updates available to producers and others 2 years or more earlier than they could be made available through the rulemaking process we currently use.
Finally, tests can be difficult to render in the regulations. The current regulations in §§ 147.11 and 147.12, for example, contain diagrams and flowcharts that are part of larger processes, all of which require several pages to describe in narrative format. We believe that it that would be easier to understand some of our tests if they were laid out in another fashion, which would be possible in an NPIP Program Standards document.
The regulations in parts 145 and 146 currently refer to specific sections within part 147. We are proposing to revise these references to state more generally that tests must be conducted and sanitation must be maintained in accordance with part 147. For example, we are proposing to replace references to conducting egg yolk testing for
In subparts A, B, and D of part 147, we are proposing to indicate that blood testing, bacteriological examination, and molecular examination must be conducted in a manner approved by the Administrator. We would further state that approved testing procedures are listed in the NPIP Program Standards and that testing procedures may also be approved by the Administrator, as described in provisions we are proposing to add to subpart F of part 147. Subpart C would contain a similar placeholder for sanitation procedures.
Subpart F of part 147 currently sets out procedures for approving authorized laboratories (in § 147.51) and for approving diagnostic test kits that are not licensed by the Service (in § 147.52). We are proposing to reorganize this subpart and add a new section indicating where to find tests and sanitary procedures and how they are approved.
In our proposed reorganization, a new § 147.51 would set out definitions of key terms.
Proposed § 147.52 would contain the current provisions for approving authorized laboratories, although rather than referring to the laboratories' ability to perform tests in accordance with part 147, the regulations would refer to performing tests in accordance with the NPIP Program Standards or other tests approved by the Administrator in accordance with proposed § 147.53. (We are also proposing to make some changes to this section that are unrelated to the removal of tests from the regulations; these other changes are discussed later in this document.)
Proposed § 147.53 would describe where approved tests and sanitation procedures could be found and the process for changing them. Paragraph (a) of proposed § 147.53 would set out performance standards for the approval tests and sanitation procedures. Paragraph (a)(1) would indicate that all tests that are used to qualify flocks for NPIP classifications must be approved by the Administrator as effective and accurate at determining whether a disease is present in a poultry flock or in the environment. Paragraph (a)(2) would indicate that all sanitation procedures performed as part of qualifying for an NPIP classification must be approved by the Administrator as effective at reducing the risk of incidence of disease in a poultry flock or hatchery.
Paragraph (b) of proposed § 147.53 would indicate that tests and sanitation procedures that have been approved by the Administrator may be found in the NPIP Program Standards. In addition, paragraph (b) would indicate that all tests that use veterinary biologics (e.g., antiserum and other products of biological origin) that are licensed or produced by the Service and used as described in the NPIP Program Standards are approved for use in the NPIP. This provision is found in current § 147.52(a).
Under paragraph (c) of proposed § 147.53, any new tests and sanitation procedures, or changes to existing tests and sanitation procedures, that have been approved by the NPIP in accordance with the process described in 9 CFR part 147 subpart E would be
Proposed paragraph (d) of § 147.53 would describe the processes for submitting other tests or sanitation procedures for approval by the Administrator and the NPIP Technical Committee. The NPIP Technical Committee is made up of technical experts on poultry health, biosecurity, surveillance, and diagnostics. The committee consists of representatives from the poultry and egg industries, universities, and State and Federal governments and is appointed by the Senior Coordinator and approved by the GCC. The Technical Committee conducts primary review of tests and sanitation procedures submitted at NPIP conferences. The process described in proposed paragraph (d) would be an alternative process for interested persons who do not want to or cannot submit their ideas for changes at an NPIP conference.
Under proposed paragraph (d), persons who wish to have a test or sanitation procedure approved by the Administrator would be able to apply for approval by submitting the test or sanitation procedure, along with any supporting information and data, to the NPIP. Upon receipt of such an application, the Technical Committee would review the test or sanitation procedure and any supporting information and data supplied with the application. If the Administrator and the Technical Committee determine the test or sanitation procedure to be of potential general use, the Administrator would submit the test or sanitation procedure for consideration by the GCC of the NPIP in accordance with subpart E of part 147, and the Administrator would respond with approval or denial of the test or sanitation procedure.
Proposed paragraph (e) would describe the procedure for taking public comment on changes to the Program Standards. When the Administrator approves a new test or sanitation procedure or a change to an existing test or sanitation procedure, APHIS would publish a notice in the
After the close of the public comment period, APHIS would publish a notice in the
• No comments were received on the notice;
• The comments on the notice supported the action described in the notice; or
• The comments on the notice were evaluated but did not change the Administrator's determination that approval of the test or sanitation procedure is appropriate based on the standards in proposed § 147.53(a).
If comments indicate that changes should be made to the test or sanitation procedure as it was made available in the initial notice, APHIS will publish a notice in the
Whenever APHIS adds or makes changes to tests or sanitation procedures, APHIS will make available a new version of the NPIP Program Standards that reflects the additions or changes. The new version of the NPIP Program Standards would also be available on the NPIP Web site.
If comments present information that causes the Administrator to determine that approval of the test or sanitation procedure would not be appropriate, APHIS will publish a notice informing the public of this determination after the close of the comment period.
We are proposing to move the provisions for approval of test kits from § 147.52 to § 147.54. As noted earlier, proposed § 147.53 would include the provisions currently found in § 147.52(a), meaning it would not be necessary to include § 147.52(a) in proposed § 147.54. Instead, paragraph (b) of § 147.52 would become the entire text of § 147.54.
Paragraph (c) of current § 147.52 lists specific test kits that have been approved for use. We would move this list to the NPIP Program Standards, and a new paragraph (f) would indicate that the list of approved test kits could be found in that document.
We believe these changes would make it easier for APHIS, Official State Agencies, and the poultry industry to implement timely changes to tests and sanitation procedures, while continuing to make those procedures publicly available in an easily accessible document. We welcome public comment on this approach.
At the 2010 NPIP Plan Conference, attendees approved some changes to existing tests and sanitation procedures in part 147, as well as two new molecular examination procedures and a new set of sanitation procedures. (The last of these is discussed briefly under the next heading in this document.)
At the 2012 NPIP Plan Conference, attendees approved a laboratory procedure to establish inter-laboratory equivalence for molecular identification of Plan diseases sampled in the poultry upper respiratory tract; amendments to current approved molecular examination procedures to allow for the use of equally effective diagnostic procedures; new diagnostic test kits; and a statement on the use of cloacal swabs from waterfowl as specimens for the reverse real-time PCR assay in certain circumstances.
If this proposed rule is finalized and the regulations are revised to remove tests and sanitation procedures, we will include the changes to existing tests and sanitation procedures and the new tests and sanitation procedures that were approved at the 2010 and 2012 Plan Conferences in the NPIP Program Standards. We are providing a draft version of the Program Standards that contains these new or revised tests and sanitation procedures, as well as the existing tests and sanitation procedures, to the public for review and comment. It is available on Regulations.gov (see
We are proposing to establish a new U.S. H5/H7 Avian Influenza Clean Compartment classification for defined subpopulations of primary breeding turkeys and new U.S. Avian Influenza Clean Compartment classifications for defined subpopulations of primary egg-type breeding chickens and primary meat-type breeding chickens. These classifications are based on the compartmentalization guidelines issued by the World Organization of Animal Health (OIE), an international standard-setting body for veterinary health issues in which the United States participates. If these Avian Influenza Clean Compartment classifications are internationally recognized, they would add an option for producers wishing to ensure uninterrupted trade in breeding establishment flocks and products in the event of an avian influenza (AI) outbreak.
The OIE defines a compartment as “an animal subpopulation contained in one or more establishments under a
Currently, when outbreaks of H5/H7 AI occur, States impose movement restrictions on States or areas within a State that are considered to be affected with H5/H7 AI. In addition, other countries may impose restrictions on the trade of poultry and poultry products from the State or area. In these situations, the remainder of the United States is still considered free of the disease. (The OIE refers to any area treated separately from another area in a country with respect to a disease as a “zone.”) Individual breeding poultry producers, meanwhile, have been able to use the appropriate AI classification to demonstrate that their flocks, and the hatching eggs, chicks, and poults produced from them, undergo routine serological surveillance for AI and are free from disease. However, when there is an outbreak of H5/H7 AI in a zone (a defined geographical region), all producers within the zone are typically considered to be affected with H5/H7 AI, regardless of whether the disease is present in their flocks, and are thus subject to movement restrictions, including restrictions on export of their products.
As implied above, besides resulting in domestic movement restrictions, the presence of H5/H7 AI in a zone can interrupt exports from that zone. Although low pathogenicity AI (LPAI) is normally not a disease of concern, the H5 and H7 subtypes of LPAI can mutate into highly pathogenic AI (HPAI), a serious disease of birds and other species, including humans. The OIE refers to H5/H7 LPAI and HPAI collectively as notifiable AI (NAI), while the NPIP regulations in part 145 have historically referred to H5/H7 AI as the subtypes of concern. The proposed compartment classifications refer to NAI to be consistent with the OIE standards, although the terms are equivalent.
Although the proposed compartment classifications are concerned only with NAI, the classifications' titles would reflect the flock-level NPIP AI classifications that play crucial roles in the proposed compartment classifications: The primary breeding turkey AI classification refers to H5/H7 AI, and the primary egg-type breeding chicken and meat-type breeding chicken AI classifications refer to AI generally.
As the OIE states, the essential difference between zoning and compartmentalization is that the recognition of zones is based on geographical boundaries, whereas the recognition of compartments is based on epidemiologic boundaries, which are established by management practices and biosecurity. The new U.S. Avian Influenza Clean Compartment classifications would allow primary breeder companies to establish epidemiological boundaries for subpopulations of primary breeding turkeys, primary egg-type chickens, and primary meat-type chickens by establishing management practices and biosecurity for those subpopulations. If recognized as compartments, these subpopulations would not be considered to be affected by an NAI outbreak, even if part or all of the subpopulation was located within a State or an area within a State that was affected with H5/H7 AI, unless required active and passive surveillance showed the disease to be present within the compartment. For example, if a population of primary breeding turkeys located in two States was considered a compartment by our trading partners, and an outbreak of NAI occurred in one of those States, international trade in the products of that compartment from both States could continue uninterrupted. Thus, establishing the U.S. H5/H7 Avian Influenza Clean Compartment classification for primary breeding turkeys and the U.S. Avian Influenza Clean Compartment classifications for primary breeding egg-type chickens and meat-type chickens could give producers additional options with respect to international trade if the compartments are internationally recognized.
We are proposing to add the compartment classifications to the regulations in new §§ 145.45, 145.74, and 145.84, for primary breeding turkeys, primary egg-type breeding chickens, and primary meat-type breeding chickens, respectively. In part 145, the existing subparts for each of those types of poultry contain sections setting out classifications for individual flocks and, in the case of turkeys, for States; we believe that new sections with compartment-level classifications would help to indicate that the classifications apply to entire subpopulations of poultry, and not just individual flocks. The compartment provisions described below would be identical for turkeys, egg-type chickens, and meat-type chickens, except that references to existing flock classifications would be different for each type of poultry.
Proposed paragraph (a) of the new sections would contain the provisions of the U.S. H5/H7 Avian Influenza Clean Compartment classification for turkeys and the U.S. Avian Influenza Clean Compartment classification for egg-type chickens and meat-type chickens. The introductory text of paragraph (a) would state that the compartment program is intended to be the basis from which the primary turkey, egg-type chicken, or meat-type chicken breeding-hatchery industry may demonstrate the existence and implementation of a program that has been approved by the Official State Agency and the Service to establish a compartment consisting of a primary breeding-hatchery company that is free of NAI. This compartment would have the purpose of protecting the defined subpopulation and avoiding the introduction and spread of NAI within that subpopulation by prohibiting contact with other commercial poultry operations, other domestic and wild birds, and other intensive animal operations. (The last includes such operations as swine operations, in which the AI virus can also circulate.)
Proposed paragraph (a)(1) would set out the conditions for definition of the compartment. The primary breeder company seeking to establish a compartment would have to define the compartment with respect to NAI based on the guidelines established by the OIE in the Terrestrial Animal Health Code and the guidelines in proposed paragraph (a). Specifically, the company would have to use a comprehensive biosecurity program to define the compartment as a subpopulation of poultry with a health status for NAI that is separate from birds and poultry outside the compartment. The Official State Agency and the Service would have to approve all documentation submitted to substantiate the defined compartment as adequate to qualify for epidemiological separation from other potential sources of infection of NAI. Guidelines for the definition of the compartment would include:
In addition, the company would have to provide to the Service upon request any relevant historical and current NAI-related data for reference regarding surveillance for the disease within the compartment. Upon request, the company would also work with the Official State Agency to obtain NAI-related data for other bird populations located in the State. This would allow APHIS to evaluate the previous disease status of the compartment and other bird populations located in the State, if necessary.
• The physical and spatial factors that separate the compartment from surrounding bird populations and affect the biosecurity status of the compartment.
• The relevant environmental factors that may affect exposure of the birds to AI.
• The functional boundary and fencing that are used to control access to the compartment.
• Facilities and procedures to prevent access by wild birds and to provide separation from other relevant hosts.
• The relevant infrastructural factors that may affect exposure to AI, including the construction and design of buildings or physical components, cleaning and disinfection of buildings and physical components between production groups with quality assurance verification, cleaning and disinfection of equipment, and introduction of equipment or material into the compartment.
To address risks associated with functional relationships, all physical components of the compartment would have to be maintained in compliance with hygiene and biosecurity procedures for poultry primary breeding flocks and hatcheries in accordance with 9 CFR part 147. These procedures are best practices designed to address possible sources of infection within a compartment and to prevent the introduction of disease into a compartment. As part of this action, we would establish these approved procedures in the sanitation procedures section of the NPIP Program Standards. The documentation submitted by the company would have to demonstrate the company's consideration of and plan for complying with these procedures. In particular, the company would have to provide a biosecurity plan for the compartment and all included components. The plan would have to include:
• Requirements that company employees and contract growers limit their contact with live birds outside the compartment;
• An education and training program for company employees and contractors;
• Standard operating procedures for company employees, contractors, and outside maintenance personnel;
• Requirements for company employees and non-company personnel who visit any premises within the compartment;
• Company veterinary infrastructure to ensure flock monitoring and disease diagnosis and control measures;
• Policies for management of vehicles and equipment used within the compartment to connect the various premises;
• Farm site requirements (location, layout, and construction);
• Pest (insect and rodent) management program;
• Cleaning and disinfection process; and
• Requirements for litter and dead bird removal and/or disposal.
Based on the documentation provided, as well as any other information the Service and the Official State Agency determine to be necessary, the Service and the Official State Agency would approve or deny the classification of the compartment as U.S. H5/H7 Avian Influenza Clean or U.S. Avian Influenza Clean.
Proposed paragraph (a)(2) would set out requirements for the company to maintain the U.S. Avian Influenza Clean Compartment classification once it has been established.
The primary breeder company's management of biosecurity, surveillance, and disease control efforts would have to be uniform and equivalent among all components that are a part of the compartment. Oversight and inspection of these management practices would be conducted by the company's licensed, accredited veterinarians. Specifically, veterinary
The company would also need to maintain its AI Plan classifications for all flocks and products that comprise the compartment, continue to conduct surveillance for NAI within the compartment in accordance with § 145.15, and conduct tests in State and Federal laboratories or in NPIP authorized laboratories. Accredited veterinarians would be responsible for the enforcement of active and passive surveillance of NAI in primary breeder flocks. Baseline health status would have to be maintained and documented for all flocks or subpopulations within the compartment, indicating the dates and negative results of all avian influenza surveillance and monitoring testing, the dates and history of last disease occurrence (if any), the number of outbreaks, and the methods of disease control that were applied.
Documentation of surveillance and testing would be maintained in the company's database and would be verified as required by the Service and/or the Official State Agency, in addition to the reporting required for the AI Clean Plan classifications for all flocks and products and the reporting required under § 145.15.
Proposed paragraph (a)(3) would discuss the activities the Service, in cooperation with the Official State Agencies, will conduct to maintain the compartment once it has been established. This paragraph would clearly spell out how APHIS and the Official State Agencies would work to ensure the continued integrity of any recognized compartments, potentially helping to increase international acceptance of the proposed compartment classifications. Generally, the Service's responsibilities would include:
• Oversight of the establishment and management of compartments;
• Establishment of effective partnerships among the Service, the Plan, and the primary breeder industry;
• Approval or denial of classification of compartments as U.S. H5/H7 Avian Influenza Clean or U.S. Avian Influenza Clean under proposed paragraph (a)(1);
• Official certification of the health status of the compartment, and commodities that may be traded from it, through participation in the Plan for avian diseases, including the active surveillance programs described in §§ 145.43(g), 145.73(f), or 145.83(g), and diagnostic surveillance for H5/H7 LPAI as described in § 145.15;
• Conducting audits of compartments at least once every 2 years to confirm that the primary breeding company's establishments are epidemiologically distinct and pathways for the introduction of disease into the compartment are closed through routine operational procedures and to evaluate and assess the management and husbandry practices relating to biosecurity to determine whether they are in compliance with hygiene and biosecurity procedures for poultry primary breeding flocks and hatcheries in accordance with part 147;
• Providing, upon request, model plans for management and husbandry practices relating to biosecurity in accordance with part 147, risk evaluations in conjunction with the primary breeder industry (including disease surveillance such as VS Form 9-4, “Summary of Breeding Flock Participation”), and diagnostic capability summaries and systems for initial State response and containment plans in accordance with § 56.10;
• Publicizing and sharing compartment information with international trading partners, upon request, to establish approval and recognition of the compartment, including timeliness and accuracy of disease reporting and surveillance measures as described in §§ 145.15 and 145.43(g), 145.73(f), or 145.83(g).
Proposed paragraph (a)(4) would address emergency response and notification. In the case of a confirmed positive of NAI in the subpopulation of the compartment, the management of the compartment would notify the Service. The Service would immediately suspend the status of the compartment. Compartments would be eligible to resume trade with importing countries only after the compartment has adopted the necessary measures to reestablish the biosecurity level and confirm that NAI is not present in the compartment and the Service has reevaluated the management and biosecurity measures of the compartment and approved said compartment for trade.
The regulations in 9 CFR part 56 set out conditions for the payment of indemnity for costs associated with poultry that are infected with or exposed to H5/H7 LPAI and provisions for a cooperative control program for the disease. This control program involves APHIS, the Official State Agencies that cooperate with APHIS in the administration of the Plan, and Cooperating State Agencies. If the Official State Agency can enforce the movement restrictions and other provisions of part 56, it is the Cooperating State Agency; otherwise, the Cooperating State Agency is the State animal health authority. Part 146 of the regulations contains various active surveillance programs for H5/H7 LPAI in commercial poultry. The terms
We are proposing to make two editorial changes to the current definition of H5/H7 LPAI. The definition of this term in § 146.1 currently indicates that an H5/H7 AI virus can be considered LPAI when it has an intravenous pathogenicity index test in 6-week-old chickens less than 1.2 or less than 75 percent mortality in 4- to 8-week-old chickens infected intravenously. We would amend the definition to indicate that the pathogenicity index test can be less than or equal to 1.2, and to clarify that the virus causes the mortality in the intravenously infected chickens.
The definition of H5/H7 LPAI in § 56.1 omits the criterion of less than 75 percent mortality in 4- to 8-week-old chickens infected intravenously; we are proposing to add this criterion to the definition in § 56.1, with the proposed wording discussed above, and to make the same clarification about the pathogenicity index test as we are proposing in § 146.1. We are also proposing to add the proposed definition of H5/H7 LPAI to § 145.1, which sets out definitions for the NPIP programs for commercial breeding poultry, as the term H5/H7 LPAI is used extensively in 9 CFR part 145.
Along with providing various diagnostic criteria, the
We are proposing to amend this definition to indicate that, in the case of isolated serological positive results, the Cooperating State Agency and the Official State Agency would participate in the determination that a thorough epidemiological investigation does not demonstrate further evidence of H5/H7 LPAI infection. As these agencies cooperate in the administration of the Plan and the H5/H7 LPAI control provisions in part 56, it would be appropriate to involve them in making such a determination.
It is not necessary to add this definition to § 145.1, because the term “H5/H7 LPAI infection” is not used in that part.
Section 56.4 sets out provisions for determination of indemnity amounts, including indemnity provided for cleaning and disinfection of premises, conveyances, and materials that came into contact with poultry that are infected with or exposed to H5/H7 LPAI. When indemnity is requested for disposal of poultry, the regulations in paragraph (a)(2) of § 56.4 require that disposal be performed under a compliance agreement between the claimant, the Cooperating State Agency, and APHIS. Similarly, when indemnity is requested for cleaning and disinfection of premises, conveyances, and materials or for disposal of those articles, the regulations in § 56.4(c) require that such activities be performed under a compliance agreement. Requiring such activities to be performed under compliance agreements ensures that the claimant, the Cooperating State Agency, and APHIS have a common understanding of what work is to be performed before that work is undertaken and indemnity is requested for it.
The current regulations do not specify anything about the compliance agreement beyond the fact that it must exist for certain costs to be eligible for indemnification. In the course of responding to H5/H7 LPAI outbreaks, we have developed some more specific requirements for compliance agreements to ensure that they effectively document the activities eligible for indemnity and include other information necessary for the prompt payment of indemnity. We are proposing to add a new paragraph (d) to § 56.4 to set out requirements for a compliance agreement, to ensure a common understanding of what information a compliance agreement must contain and how it will be used.
Paragraph (d) would state that the compliance agreement is a comprehensive document that describes the depopulation, disposal, and cleaning and disinfection plans for poultry that were infected with or exposed to H5/H7 LPAI, or a premises that contained such poultry. It would also indicate that the compliance agreement sets out APHIS responsibilities, owner responsibilities, and Cooperating State Agency responsibilities. The compliance agreement would have to include the owner's name and the name and address of the affected premises. The compliance agreement would have to have signatories that include, but are not necessarily limited to, the owner, the grower (if applicable), the Cooperating State Agency representative, the State veterinarian, and the APHIS area supervisor. Concurrence from these parties would help to prevent misunderstandings.
In addition, the compliance agreement would be required to contain a flock plan with estimated cost breakdowns that include labor, materials, personal protective equipment, travel expenses for personnel involved, and any additional information deemed necessary by the Service. This would ensure a common understanding of the activities to be performed under the compliance agreement.
A compliance agreement is typically submitted in multiple stages as work is undertaken, as changing circumstances can necessitate changes in the compliance agreement. However, it is important that the final compliance agreement be submitted promptly to APHIS so that indemnity can be paid promptly. Accordingly, we would require the final compliance agreement to be submitted to the Service no later than 30 days after the premises is released from quarantine for H5 or H7 LPAI.
Section 56.5 sets out provisions for destruction and disposal of poultry and cleaning and disinfection of premises, conveyances, and materials in the event of an H5/H7 LPAI outbreak. Paragraph (c)(1) of § 56.5 provides that, at the discretion of the Cooperating State Agency and APHIS, poultry that has been infected with or exposed to H5/H7 LPAI can be moved for controlled marketing in accordance with the initial State response and containment plan described in § 56.10, if they are not moved until 21 days after the acute phase of the infection and if they are tested within 7 days of movement and found to be free of the virus.
We are proposing to remove the requirement that poultry may only be moved for controlled marketing after 21 days have passed since the acute phase of the infection. As LPAI is by definition a low pathogenicity disease, it can be difficult to determine the exact acute phase of the infection. Determining the acute phase has caused serious delays in the marketing of LPAI-infected and -exposed flocks.
If States want to permit controlled marketing in the event of an LPAI outbreak, States are required to include provisions for it in their initial State response and containment plans for LPAI. (Section 56.10 sets out the requirements for initial State response and containment plans.) Such provisions must include adequate safeguards to prevent the transmission of the virus from the flock to be moved for controlled marketing, and we are proposing to add two new requirements to paragraph (c) of § 56.5 to ensure that flocks moved for controlled marketing do not spread the virus. Most importantly, the flocks would still need to be tested within 7 days of movement and found to be free of the virus. We believe these constitute adequate safeguards against the spread of LPAI virus. We would replace the 21-day requirement with a requirement that the poultry may not be transported for controlled marketing until approved by the Cooperating State Agency in accordance with the initial State response and containment plan.
We are proposing to add two requirements to the existing controlled marketing requirements, in new paragraphs (c)(1)(iii) and (c)(1)(iv). Proposed paragraph (c)(1)(iii) would require that poultry moved for controlled marketing be moved to slaughter along routes that avoid other commercial poultry operations whenever possible. It would also require all load-out equipment, trailers, and trucks used on premises that have housed poultry that were infected with or exposed to H5/H7 LPAI to be cleaned and disinfected and not enter other poultry premises or facilities for 48 hours after removing such poultry from their premises. These requirements would reduce the risk that poultry and equipment moved for controlled marketing would spread H5/H7 LPAI to other poultry premises or facilities.
Proposed paragraph (c)(1)(iv) would require poultry moved for controlled marketing to be the last poultry marketed during the week they are marketed. Marketing poultry moved for controlled marketing at the end of the
Paragraph (d) of § 56.5 sets out guidelines for the development of a cleaning and disinfection plan for a premises and the materials and conveyances on that premises. We are proposing several updates to those guidelines based on our experience conducting cleaning and disinfection for H5/H7 LPAI and on the latest scientific information regarding the disease.
We note that not all of the guidelines may be applicable to all premises. The initial State response and containment plans for H5/H7 LPAI described in § 56.10 are expected to provide cleaning and disinfection plans tailored to poultry production conditions in each State. Nevertheless, the guidelines in paragraph (d) provide a general model for the development of cleaning and disinfection plans in the initial State response and containment plans, which is why it is important to update them.
Paragraph (d)(1) provides guidelines for preparing for cleaning and disinfection. Paragraph (d)(1)(i) recommends that persons conducting cleaning and disinfection secure and remove all feathers that might blow around outside the house in which the infected or exposed poultry were held by raking them together and burning the pile. We are proposing to indicate that any debris should be secured as well, and that these materials should not be raked together and burned but rather gathered and pushed into the affected poultry house. This would allow the feathers and other materials to be addressed in the confined space of the house at the same time as the materials found inside the house, reducing the risk of spreading H5/H7 LPAI.
Paragraph (d)(1)(iii) recommends that the house in which the poultry were held be closed, maintaining just enough ventilation to remove moisture, and heated to 100 °F to begin composting. After this, the house should be left undisturbed for a minimum of 21 days and as long as possible thereafter to allow as much H5/H7 LPAI virus as possible to die a natural death. Paragraph (d)(1)(iv) then recommends that the house be reheated to 100 °F for the 72 hours prior to cleaning and disinfection. However, the initial heating to 100 °F, the 21-day period, and the subsequent reheating are not necessary, given current knowledge about the time the virus can survive outside of its host and the environmental requirements for its survival. Leaving the house undisturbed for 72 hours, rather than for 21 days and without any heating requirements, would kill H5/H7 LPAI virus that may be present in the house and in any feathers and debris collected in the house. Therefore, we are proposing to indicate that the house should be left undisturbed for a minimum of 72 hours, and we would not indicate that the house should be heated before this period or reheated prior to cleaning and disinfection.
Paragraph (d)(2) of § 56.5 provides guidelines for the cleaning and disinfection process. Paragraph (d)(2)(i) addresses disposal of manure, debris, and feed. The paragraph indicates that manure, debris, and feed should be composted in the house if possible. We are proposing to amend this guideline to indicate that windrowing should be the composting method used when composting is possible. Windrowing (piling the material to be composted into long rows) is suitable to composting large volumes of material, if necessary, and also allows for turning the composted material if necessary to increase the effectiveness of the composting.
The paragraph goes on to discuss various means of disposal of manure, debris, and feed. We are proposing to add a sentence to the guidelines indicating that manure, debris, and feed may be composted on site, left in an undisturbed pile on site, or removed from the site in covered vehicles for disposal. We are also proposing to indicate that land application of manure, debris, and feed should only be performed in accordance with the initial State response and containment plan for H5/H7 LPAI described in § 56.10. Land application can present disease and environmental hazards if not performed in accordance with approved guidelines.
Finally, the current guidelines indicate that the house should not be cleaned out and litter should not be moved or spread until any H5/H7 LPAI virus that may have contaminated the manure and litter is dead, as determined by the Cooperating State Agency. This conflicts with guidance earlier in the paragraph in which a system may be set up for moving manure, debris, and feed to an approved site for burial, piling, or composting. Instead, we would indicate that houses should be cleaned out and litter should be moved or spread only as determined by the Cooperating State Agency and in accordance with the initial State response and containment plan.
Paragraph (d)(3) of § 56.5 provides guidelines for activities after cleaning and disinfection. It currently indicates that premises should be checked for virus before repopulation in accordance with the initial State response and containment plan. We are proposing to amend this to indicate that premises should remain empty until testing provides negative virus detection results and the premises has been checked by the Cooperating State Agency in accordance with the initial State response and containment plan. The proposed text would indicate better what type of check should be made for virus on the premises.
In § 145.3, paragraph (c) requires that participants submit reports on each breeding flock before the birds in the flock reach 24 weeks of age, or, in the case of ostriches, emus, rheas, and cassowaries, before the birds reach 20 months of age. This report includes identifying information, the source of the birds, and the intended classification of the birds. However, the Plan currently does not contain a requirement that participating flocks be tested for their classifications before moving into breeder production facilities.
It is a common practice in breeding poultry production to move pullets (sexually immature domesticated chickens grown for the primary purpose of producing hatching eggs) or spiking males (males used to increase the fertility of aging breeder hens) from a single poultry house to multiple hen houses. The movement of untested pullets and spiking males puts the industry at risk for unknowingly spreading Plan diseases. Therefore, we are proposing to add a new paragraph (d) to § 145.3 that would require flocks to be qualified for their intended Plan classifications before being moved into breeder production facilities. This proposed change would ensure that poultry being moved into breeder production facilities are free of diseases in their intended Plan classifications.
In paragraph (c) of § 145.3, we are also proposing to make a gender-specific reference gender-neutral and to add the word “and” to a series currently written as “ostriches, emus, rheas, cassowaries.”
In § 145.14, which discusses approved tests for breeding poultry and commercial poultry, paragraph (d) sets
Approved antibody detection tests for AI are set out in paragraph (d)(1) of § 145.14 and (b)(1) of § 146.13. One of these tests is the agar gel immunodiffusion (AGID) test. While this test is reliable for most poultry, it is not reliable for waterfowl. Because the regulations do not currently reflect this, we are proposing to add a statement that the AGID test is not recommended for use in waterfowl.
Paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of § 145.14 and paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of § 146.13 discuss testing for AI with a USDA-licensed type A influenza antigen capture immunoassay (ACIA). These paragraphs indicate that positive results from the ACIA must be further tested by Federal Reference Laboratories using appropriate tests for confirmation. The ACIA test, a screening test typically used on chicken and turkey flocks, is rapid and sensitive but can result in false positives. Conducting another confirmatory test before submitting to a Federal Reference Laboratory would ensure that fewer false positive results are submitted to Federal Reference Laboratories.
Therefore, we are proposing to amend §§ 145.14(d)(2)(ii)(B) and 146.13(b)(2)(ii)(B) to require all chicken and turkey flocks that test positive on the ACIA to be retested using the real-time reverse transcriptase/polymerase chain reaction assay (RRT-PCR) or using virus isolation. If those tests are positive for AI, those results would be further tested by Federal Reference Laboratories for confirmation.
We are proposing to make one other minor change to the AI testing requirements. Paragraphs (d)(2)(i) of § 145.14 and paragraph (b)(2)(i) of § 146.13 both require the RRT-PCR to be conducted using the National Veterinary Services Laboratories (NVSL) official protocol for the RRT-PCR, which has been numbered AVPR01510. However, NVSL now uses a new numbering system, meaning the number of the official protocol has changed, and it may change again in the future. To ensure that the regulations do not point to an incorrect protocol number, we are removing the protocol number from the regulations in §§ 145.14(d)(2)(i) and 146.13(b)(2)(i).
The regulations in §§ 145.22, 145.32, 145.72, and 145.82 provide requirements for participation in the NPIP for multiplier egg-type breeding chickens, multiplier meat-type breeding chickens, primary egg-type breeding chickens, and primary meat-type breeding chickens, respectively. Paragraph (b) of each of these sections requires hatching eggs produced by these flocks to be fumigated according to the procedure in § 147.25 or otherwise sanitized.
Eggs that are collected from nests frequently, to keep them clean without further processing, are known in the poultry industry as “nest clean” eggs. In recent years, the chicken industry has found that nest clean eggs hatch better and provide a better chick than other eggs, even when they are sanitized. Consequently, it has become standard practice in both the egg-type and meat-type industries to avoid sanitizing eggs and instead insist on nest clean eggs.
To recognize this practice, we are proposing to amend §§ 145.22(b), 145.32(b), 145.72(b), and 145.82(b) to state that hatching eggs produced by the relevant flocks should be nest clean, and that they may be fumigated in accordance with part 147 or otherwise sanitized.
The regulations set out requirements for the U.S. Avian Influenza Clean classification for multiplier egg-type chicken breeding flocks and primary egg-type chicken breeding flocks in §§ 145.23(h) and 145.73(f), respectively. We are proposing to amend certain provisions in these programs and revise their requirements for spent fowl testing.
After breeding chickens are no longer productive, they are moved to slaughter to capture their meat value. This movement provides an opportunity for additional testing to verify a breeding flock's AI Clean status. Currently, paragraph (h)(2) of § 145.23 and paragraph (f)(2) of § 145.73 require that, during each 90-day testing period, all spent fowl up to a maximum of 30 must be tested and found negative within 21 days prior to movement to slaughter. Rather than requiring up to 30 spent fowl to be tested, we are proposing to require instead the testing of a sample of at least 11 birds prior to movement to slaughter. Generally, the entire flock of egg-type breeding chickens will be moved to slaughter at one time. Testing 11 birds per flock is consistent with the testing requirements for meat-type commercial chickens moved to slaughter under the U.S. H5/H7 Avian Influenza Monitored program in § 146.33, and would provide adequate assurance that the flock is free of AI.
In addition, both the multiplier and primary egg-type chicken AI Clean programs indicate that to qualify for the classification, a minimum of 30 birds must be tested negative for antibodies to AI when more than 4 months of age. We are proposing to clarify that the birds must be tested and found negative. We are also proposing to remove the words “for antibodies,” as some tests approved in § 145.14 for AI do not test for antibodies but rather for the AI virus itself; this change would allow participants in these AI Clean programs the opportunity to use all of the tests approved in § 145.14 to qualify for these programs.
The regulations set out requirements for the U.S. Avian Influenza Clean classification for multiplier meat-type chicken breeding flocks and primary meat-type chicken breeding flocks at §§ 145.33(l) and 145.83(g), respectively. We are proposing to amend certain provisions in these programs and revise their requirements for spent fowl testing, although not in the same way as for egg-type chickens.
Paragraph (l)(1) of § 145.33 and paragraph (g)(1) of § 145.83 require that, to qualify for the classification, a minimum of 30 birds from the flock test negative for antibodies to AI when more than 4 months of age. We are proposing to clarify the requirement for testing by indicating that the testing must be conducted using an approved test described in § 145.14.
Currently, paragraph (h)(2) of § 145.23 and paragraph (f)(2) of § 145.73 require that, during each 90-day testing period, all spent fowl up to a maximum of 30 must be tested and found negative within 21 days prior to movement to slaughter. We are proposing to make two changes to this requirement. First, we would require that the spent fowl be tested serologically for AI, rather than using the agent detection tests listed in paragraph (d)(2) of § 145.14, and we would clarify that the spent fowl would have to be found negative for antibodies to AI. This would make the requirement for testing of spent fowl consistent with the other requirements in the AI Clean programs for primary and multiplier meat-type chickens, which refer to serological testing for antibodies to the virus. Second, we would require the spent fowl to be tested 21 days prior to slaughter, rather than prior to movement to slaughter. This would reduce delays associated with marketing spent fowl while continuing to provide testing to assure the flock's AI Clean status.
We are proposing to establish in § 145.33 a new U.S. Salmonella Enteritidis Monitored classification for multiplier meat-type breeding chickens. The classification would be added in a new paragraph (m). This classification would be intended for multiplier meat-type breeders wishing to monitor their breeding flocks for
A flock and the hatching eggs and chicks produced from it would be eligible for this classification if they meet the following requirements, as determined by the Official State Agency:
• The flock originated from a U.S. S. Enteritidis Clean primary meat-type breeding flock.
• The flock is maintained in accordance with 9 CFR part 147 with respect to Salmonella isolation, sanitation, and management.
• Environmental samples are collected from the flock in accordance with 9 CFR part 147 at 16-18 and 40-45 weeks of age. The samples would have to be examined bacteriologically for group D Salmonella at an authorized laboratory, and cultures from group D positive samples would be serotyped.
The following actions would have to be taken with respect to the test results that are generated from the proposed SE monitoring program:
• If SE is isolated from an environmental sample, a thorough evaluation of the practices and programs associated with the sampled flock would have to be conducted with the goal of ascertaining the reason(s) for the positive finding.
• The test results and the results of any evaluations after SE is isolated from an environmental sample would be reported on a quarterly basis to the Official State Agency and the NPIP Senior Coordinator.
• Participating broiler integrators would have to combine their respective test results (and the results of any associated evaluations) to help guide their decisionmaking regarding programs and practices to implement or maintain to address SE.
• Aggregate data regarding the prevalence of SE in participating U.S. meat-type parent breeding flocks would be made available to the U.S. Poultry and Egg Association and the National Chicken Council. Those bodies could use these data to better inform and guide their discussions on this topic with regulators and consumers.
This classification could be revoked by the Official State Agency if the participant fails to comply with the requirements of this classification. The Official State Agency would not revoke the participant's classification until the participant has been given an opportunity for a hearing in accordance with rules of practice adopted by the Official State Agency.
Paragraph (e) of § 145.43 sets out requirements for the U.S. M. Synoviae Clean classification for turkey breeding flocks. Paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) set out testing requirements for participating flocks to demonstrate that they are free of
We are proposing to remove this paragraph.
In addition, we are proposing to add to the end of paragraph (e)(1), which describes the testing requirements for this classification, a sentence indicating that it is recommended that samples be collected from birds with clinical signs of
Paragraph (g) of § 145.43 sets out requirements for the U.S. H5/H7 Avian Influenza Clean classification for turkey breeding flocks. We are proposing to revise its requirement for spent fowl testing. Currently, paragraph (g)(3) of § 145.43 requires all spent fowl from participating flocks, up to a maximum of 30, to be tested and found negative within 21 days prior to movement to slaughter.
Although paragraph (g) requires testing turkey breeding flocks for AI every 90 days, most commercial turkey breeding flocks participating in the classification test much more frequently. Given the high level of overall surveillance, we believe it is not necessary to test 30 birds when spent fowl are moved to slaughter. Testing 6 birds per flock would be consistent with the testing requirements for meat-type commercial turkey flocks moved to slaughter plants participating in the U.S. H5/H7 Avian Influenza Monitored program in § 146.43, and would provide adequate assurance that the flock is free of AI. Accordingly, we are proposing to revise paragraph (g)(3) to require that all spent fowl from participating flocks that are being marketed for meat be tested at a rate of 6 birds per flock within 21 days prior to movement to slaughter. This change would reduce burdens on participating flockowners while continuing to assure that H5/H7 AI is not present in the flock.
Section 145.52 discusses requirements for participation in the Plan for hobbyist and exhibition waterfowl, exhibition poultry, and game bird breeding flocks. We are proposing to add to these requirements a recommendation to keep separate waterfowl flocks and gallinaceous flocks (i.e., game birds and other “land fowl”) that are housed in open-air facilities. Waterfowl are the primary reservoir for AI virus, and they could easily spread the virus to gallinaceous flocks if they are housed in open-air facilities and not kept separate. This would not be a requirement to participate, but a recommendation to address a potential risk associated with keeping the two types of birds in an open-air facility and improve the overall biosecurity of participating facilities that have both waterfowl and gallinaceous flocks.
The regulations in § 145.53 set out classifications for hobbyist and exhibition waterfowl, exhibition poultry, and game bird breeding flocks and products. Paragraph (e) in § 145.53 sets out the U.S. H5/H7 Avian Influenza Clean classification for such poultry.
We are proposing to amend this classification to provide for the testing of cloacal swabs for virus isolation in place of birds for primary and multiplier breeding flocks composed of waterfowl. Waterfowl are more prone than other avian species to AI enteric carrier status, and ducks are somewhat immunologically unresponsive to AI exposure. The lack of an immune response in ducks means that antigenic tests that determine whether the AI virus itself is present, rather than an immune response to it, would provide a more accurate determination of a waterfowl breeding flock's AI status. More accurate AI testing would also reduce the necessity of frequent antibody serotyping to determine whether the AI virus detected in the waterfowl is of the H5 or H7 subtypes that are the focus of this classification.
As noted, this subpart includes hobbyist and exhibition poultry. In such poultry, the difference between a primary breeding flock and a multiplier breeding flock can be less clear than in more commercially oriented poultry sectors. While the U.S. H5/H7 Avian Influenza Clean program currently requires primary breeding flocks of hobbyist and exhibition waterfowl, exhibition poultry, and game birds to be tested at 90-day intervals, as opposed to 180 days for multiplier breeding flocks of such poultry, we do not believe it is necessary to make a distinction between the two types of flocks in this poultry sector. Therefore, we are proposing to change the 90-day testing interval for primary breeding flocks to be the same as the 180-day interval for multiplier breeding flocks. This would make the requirements for primary and multiplier breeding flocks identical; we would retain the separate sets of requirements to parallel other NPIP classifications.
In addition, the U.S. H5/H7 Avian Influenza Clean classification for hobbyist and exhibition waterfowl, exhibition poultry, and game bird breeding flocks and products contains a provision for testing spent fowl similar to those discussed earlier in this document. Specifically, paragraph (e)(3) requires that, during each 90-day period, all spent fowl, up to a maximum of 30, must be tested and found negative within 21 days prior to movement to slaughter. The U.S. H5/H7 Avian Influenza Clean classification for commercial breeding waterfowl, in § 145.93(c), contains an identical provision. We are proposing to amend both of these classifications to require a sample of at least 30 birds to be tested prior to movement to slaughter. Testing at this level is appropriate for these types of poultry, which are at higher risk for AI. We are also proposing to amend the spent fowl testing requirements in these classifications to clarify that the spent fowl must test negative to H5/H7 AI.
Finally, in the U.S. H5/H7 Avian Influenza Clean classification for commercial breeding waterfowl, the spent fowl requirement refers to the fowl being tested serologically. We are proposing to remove the word “serologically” to give commercial waterfowl producers the option to use the nonserological tests approved in § 145.13(d).
We are proposing to add a new U.S. Salmonella Monitored classification for hobbyist and exhibition waterfowl, exhibition poultry, and game bird breeding flocks and products. The classification would be added in a new paragraph (f) in § 145.53. This program is intended to be the basis from which the hatching industry may conduct a program for the prevention and control of salmonellosis. It is intended to reduce the incidence of
Under this classification, an Authorized Agent would collect a minimum of five environmental samples, e.g., chick papers, hatching trays, and chick transfer devices, from the hatchery at least every 30 days. Testing would have to be performed at an authorized laboratory. To claim products are of this classification, all products would have to be derived from a hatchery that meets the requirements of the proposed classification. This classification would be revoked by the Official State Agency if the participant fails to follow recommended corrective measures.
This change would give hobbyist and exhibition waterfowl, exhibition poultry, and game bird breeders an opportunity to participate in a formal
We are proposing several changes to the U.S. S. Enteritidis Clean classification for primary meat-type breeding chickens, which is found in § 145.83(e). These changes are intended to improve the sensitivity of testing and the overall ability to detect SE in primary breeding flocks with additional hatchery samples.
Paragraph (e)(1) of the classification states that a flock and the hatching eggs and chicks produced from it shall be eligible for this classification if the flock originated from a U.S. S. Enteritidis Clean flock or if one of two samples has been examined bacteriologically for
We are proposing to remove the option of testing meconium, as it does not provide optimal sensitivity to SE. To provide additional sensitivity for the environmental testing, we would expand the option for testing a sample of chick papers to include hatcher tray swabs or fluff. Finally, we are proposing to replace the option of testing a sample of 10 chicks that died within 7 days after hatching with an option to test samples of intestinal and liver or spleen tissues from a minimum of 30 chicks that died within 7 days after hatching and have been preserved daily by freezing prior to shipment to an authorized laboratory. The additional instructions on the type of tissue to be tested and its method of preservation, and the increase in tested samples from 10 to 30, will make the test more sensitive. The proposed options are thus better options for qualifying a primary breeding flock for the U.S. S. Enteritidis Clean classification than those currently in the regulations.
Paragraph (e)(1)(ii) currently contains requirements for feed used in U.S. S. Enteritidis Clean flocks. We are proposing to remove these requirements, as they have become standard industry practice and it is no
Paragraph (e)(1)(iv) currently contains a general requirement to collect and test environmental samples after the flock reaches 4 months of age to maintain the flock's U.S. S. Enteritidis Clean status. We are proposing to add new, more specific requirements for environmental testing after the flock is in egg production and chicks are hatching from it. Environmental samples collected during egg production would have to include at least 4 individual test assay results every 30 days in flocks of more than 500 birds or 2 individual test assay results per month in flocks of 500 birds or fewer. This requirement would ensure that an adequate level of surveillance is conducted. One of these results would have to come from samples collected from hatched chicks at a participating hatchery derived from the flock. This requirement would ensure that the products of the flock are tested for SE on a routine basis and would give a better chance of finding any SE infection. We would indicate that the individual test assays could be derived from pooled samples from the farm or hatchery, but would have to be run as separate test assays in the laboratory, to allow the results to be traced back to the hatchery samples if necessary.
We are not proposing to make any changes to the remaining requirements currently in paragraph (e)(1) of § 145.83, except to reflect moving tests from part 147 to the NPIP Program Standards, as discussed earlier.
Paragraph (e)(3) of § 145.83 sets out followup actions if SE is isolated from an environmental sample. Currently, in such circumstances, 25 randomly selected live birds from the flock and/or 500 cloacal swabs must be bacteriologically examined for SE. If only 1 bird from the 25-bird sample is found positive for SE., the participant may request bacteriological examination of a second 25-bird sample from the flock. If no SE is recovered from any of the specimens in the second sample, the flock will be eligible for the classification and will remain eligible for this classification if the flock is subjected to blood testing each 30 days and no positive samples are found.
We are proposing to change these requirements to make the required testing more sensitive to SE. Instead of testing 25 randomly selected live birds or 500 cloacal swabs, we would require both the bacteriological examination of an additional environmental sampling and 25 live cull birds or fresh dead birds (if present), or 25 other randomly selected live birds if fewer than 25 cull birds can be found in the flock. Requiring the environmental sampling in all cases would increase the chances that this followup testing will find SE if it is present, and the testing of cull birds or fresh dead birds rather than randomly selected birds would concentrate testing on birds most likely to be infected. In addition, if the flock with the SE isolation is in egg production and eggs are under incubation, the regulations would require the next four consecutive hatches to be examined bacteriologically. Samples would be collected from all of the hatching unit's chick trays and basket trays of hatching eggs, or from all chick box papers from the flock, and tested, pooling the samples into a minimum of 10 separate assays. Any followup hatchery-positive SE isolations would result in discontinuation of subsequent hatches until the flock status is determined by bird culture. The flock would be disqualified for the U.S. S. Enteritidis Clean classification if a bird or subsequent flock environmental assay results in isolation of SE. These provisions would provide more certainty regarding the presence of SE in the flock than the current provisions do.
Paragraph (e)(6) of § 145.83 sets out provisions by which a pedigree, experimental, or great-grandparent flock that is removed from the U.S. S. Enteritidis Clean program may be reinstated to the program. We are proposing to make these provisions applicable to grandparent flocks as well, as the corrective measures and testing required in that paragraph would be equally effective at ensuring that a grandparent flock is free of SE as they are for other types of flocks.
These changes would improve the effectiveness of the U.S. S. Enteritidis Clean classification.
Section 145.93 contains various classifications for meat-type waterfowl breeding flocks. (This section applies to commercial meat-type waterfowl breeding flocks, as opposed to the hobbyist and exhibition waterfowl breeding flocks covered by § 145.53.) We are proposing to add a new U.S. Salmonella Monitored classification for meat-type waterfowl breeding flocks and products. The classification would be added in a new paragraph (d) in § 145.93.
The proposed program is intended to be the basis from which the meat-type waterfowl breeding-hatching industry may conduct a program for the prevention and control of salmonellosis. It is intended to reduce the incidence of Salmonella organisms in hatching eggs and day-old waterfowl through an effective and practical sanitation program at the breeder farm and in the hatchery. This would afford other segments of the poultry industry an opportunity to reduce the incidence of Salmonella in their products.
A flock and the hatching eggs and day-old waterfowl produced from it would have to meet the following requirements, as determined by the Official State Agency, to be eligible for this classification:
• The flock would have to be maintained in compliance with isolation, sanitation, and management procedures for Salmonella in accordance with part 147.
• If feed contains animal protein, the protein products would have to have been heated throughout to a minimum temperature of 190 °F or above, or to a minimum temperature of 165 °F for at least 20 minutes, or to a minimum temperature of 184 °F under 70 lbs. pressure during the manufacturing process. These heating requirements would prevent Salmonella from being introduced into the flock via feed.
• Feed would have to be stored and transported in a manner that prevents contamination.
• Waterfowl would have to be hatched in a hatchery whose sanitation is maintained in accordance with part 147 and sanitized or fumigated in accordance with part 147.
• An Authorized Agent would take environmental samples from the hatchery every 30 days, i.e., meconium or box liner paper. An authorized laboratory for Salmonella would examine the samples bacteriologically.
• In addition, an Authorized Agent would take environmental samples in accordance with part 147 from each flock at 4 months of age and every 30 days thereafter, and an authorized laboratory for Salmonella would examine the environmental samples bacteriologically.
• Flocks would be allowed to be vaccinated with a paratyphoid vaccine (which helps to protect birds against Salmonella), provided that a sample of at least 100 birds is segregated and remains unvaccinated until the flock reaches at least 4 months of age. Requiring some birds to be segregated and unvaccinated would ensure that they can be tested for Salmonella without the antibodies from the vaccine causing false-positive results.
The Official State Agency would monitor the effectiveness of the egg
Part 146 of the regulations contains the NPIP provisions for commercial poultry. Currently, the only disease addressed in this part is H5/H7 LPAI; under part 146, table-egg layer flocks, meat-type chicken slaughter plants, meat-type turkey slaughter plants, and certain types of game birds and waterfowl may participate in U.S. H5/H7 Avian Influenza Monitored classifications.
Under subparts C, D, and E of part 146, slaughter plants for various types of poultry can participate, provided that they meet certain testing requirements. One option available for all types of slaughter plants is to slaughter only birds from flocks where a specified number of birds have been tested and found negative for H5/H7 AI no more than 21 days prior to slaughter.
Section 146.11 sets out the audit process for participating slaughter plants. Paragraph (b) states that flocks slaughtered at a slaughter plant will be considered to be not conforming to the required protocol of the classifications if there are no test results available, if the flock was not tested within 21 days before slaughter, or if the test results for the flocks were not returned before slaughter.
We are proposing to amend paragraph (b) to refer to samples being collected and tested and to results being returned prior to movement to slaughter. These changes would clarify the requirements and make the regulations in § 146.11(b) consistent with the relevant U.S. H5/H7 Avian Influenza Monitored classifications. In addition, it is important to have the test results for a flock returned prior to movement to slaughter to prevent the flock from being exposed to other, healthy birds and possibly requiring cleaning and disinfection at the slaughter plant.
The regulations in § 146.23(a) provide the U.S. H5/H7 Avian Influenza Monitored classification for table-egg layer pullet flocks and table-egg layer flocks. Separate testing requirements are set out for each type of flock in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2), respectively. The introductory text for paragraph (a) addresses the table-egg layer industry generally, including both table-egg layer pullet flocks and table-egg layer flocks. This has caused some confusion. To make it clear that each type of flock needs to participate and maintain its classification separately, we are proposing to reformat paragraph (a) so that it includes introductory text in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) that is specific to each type of flock. The testing requirements would remain the same.
The regulations in part 146 do not provide explicitly for the participation of spent fowl. Spent fowl are domesticated poultry, typically chickens, that were in production of hatching eggs or commercial table eggs and have been removed from such production. Although they were not raised for the primary purpose of meat production, such fowl no longer have value as layers and thus are slaughtered for meat at meat-type chicken slaughter plants.
However, the special provisions for the participation of meat-type chicken slaughter plants in subpart C of part 146 (§§ 146.31 through 146.33) define
We are proposing to define
We are also proposing to amend the U.S. H5/H7 Avian Influenza Monitored classification in § 146.33. This classification provides three options for participation in the program. Two of those options refer generically to birds tested at the slaughter plants or otherwise under surveillance testing and thus could apply both to meat-type chickens and spent fowl without modification. The third requires meat-type chicken slaughter plants to accept only meat-type chickens from flocks where surveillance is performed for H5/H7 AI. We would amend this option to indicate that meat-type chicken slaughter plants could also accept spent fowl from flocks where surveillance was being performed for H5/H7 AI. The surveillance requirements for meat-type chickens and spent fowl would be the same, as they are based on statistical principles for disease detection.
These changes would necessitate two minor changes elsewhere in part 146. To accommodate spent fowl flocks that may wish to participate in a State other than the State in which they are located, we would amend the definition of
These changes would allow spent fowl flocks to participate in the U.S. H5/H7 Avian Influenza Monitored program, thus providing for additional surveillance for H5/H7 LPAI in the poultry industry overall.
Besides the changes related to including spent fowl in the classification, we are proposing to clarify some wording in the U.S. H5/H7 Avian Influenza Monitored classification for commercial meat-type chicken slaughter plants. Paragraph (a)(2) of § 146.33 provides participating slaughter plants the option to qualify for the classification if they accept only meat-type chickens from flocks where a minimum of 11 birds have been tested negative for antibodies to the H5/H7 subtypes of avian influenza, as provided in § 146.13(b), no more than 21 days prior to slaughter. This wording has confused some participants in the program regarding when samples should be collected. We are proposing to change it to read “where samples from a minimum of 11 birds have been collected no more than 21 days prior to slaughter and tested negative to the H5/H7 subtypes of avian influenza.” We believe this wording will better convey that it is the testing that has to occur no more than 21 days prior to slaughter; the results can come later, as long as they
Both paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this classification refer to testing for antibodies to H5/H7 AI; we are proposing to remove the words “for antibodies” to allow for the use of the agent detection tests approved in § 146.13(b).
Paragraph (a) of § 146.43 contains the U.S. H5/H7 Avian Influenza Monitored classification for commercial turkey slaughter plants. Paragraph (a)(1) allows meat-type turkey slaughter plants to participate in the classification if they accept only meat-type turkeys from flocks where a minimum of 6 birds per flock has tested negative for antibodies to type A avian influenza, as provided in § 146.13(b), with an approved test no more than 21 days prior to slaughter. The regulations indicate that positive samples shall be further tested by an authorized laboratory using the hemagglutination inhibition test to detect antibodies to the hemagglutinin subtypes H5 and H7. They also recommend that samples be collected from flocks over 10 weeks of age with respiratory signs such as coughing, sneezing, snicking, sinusitis, or rales; depression; or decreases in food or water intake, to maximize the chances of finding AI should it be present.
We are proposing to revise the testing requirement to read “where a minimum of 6 samples per flock have been collected no more than 21 days prior to movement to slaughter and tested negative.” This revised language would help to clarify what is involved in testing. We would require the testing to take place prior to movement to slaughter, rather than prior to slaughter, as an additional precaution. We would also remove the current reference to testing for antibodies.
Finally, we would remove the sentence describing how positive samples would be handled. It is not necessary to specify this in the regulations, as this process is handled by APHIS internally, and we may wish to change the process in the future.
As discussed earlier, we are retaining subpart E and revising F of part 147. We are proposing minor changes to those subparts. Subpart E refers to the NPIP Technical Committee, which is defined in § 145.1 but not in part 147. We would add to § 147.41 a definition of
Besides the proposed changes to the requirements for authorized laboratories discussed earlier, including moving those requirements from § 147.51 to § 147.52, we are proposing some additional amendments. Paragraph (a) of current § 147.51 requires an authorized laboratory to use a regularly scheduled check test for all the tests it performs. We would add text indicating that the NPIP will serve as the lead agency for the coordination of available check tests from the NVSL, which among its other duties provides check tests for authorized laboratories.
Paragraph (b) of current § 147.51 indicates that testing procedures at an authorized laboratory must be run or overseen by a laboratory technician who has attended and satisfactorily completed Service-approved laboratory workshops for Plan-specific diseases within the past 3 years. Cuts to both State and Federal budgets have made it more difficult to provide and attend workshops in recent years. Given these constraints, we are proposing to increase the interval at which the workshops must be given to 4 years. We do not believe this would adversely affect laboratory technician performance given the other requirements for authorized laboratories, which include site visits from the Official State Agency and the Service and reporting requirements; increasing the interval would ease a burden on State and Federal participants.
Paragraph (c) of current § 147.51 indicates that official Plan assays must be performed and reported as described in part 147. Besides amending this paragraph to refer to the NPIP Program Standards or other procedures approved by the Administrator, we would also add that assays must be performed using control reagents approved by the Plan or the reagent manufacturer. This would ensure that control assays are accurate and effective.
Paragraph (d) of current § 147.51 states that the Official State Agency will conduct a site visit and recordkeeping audit annually, but does not describe what the site visit and audit will entail. We would add text indicating that these would include, but may not be limited to, review of technician training records, check test proficiency, and test results. The information from the site visit and recordkeeping audit would also be made available to the NPIP upon request.
We are also proposing to update references to § 147.51 in the definition of
The regulations in paragraph (c) of § 145.5 require a flock to participate in the U.S. Pullorum-Typhoid Clean classification in order to participate in the Plan. The list of subparts in 9 CFR part 145 that contain such a classification is out of date. We are proposing to update it to include subparts G, H, and I.
Section 145.10 shows illustrative designs corresponding to various classifications. For some of the classifications, the references to classifications are out of date; for example, the U.S. Pullorum-Typhoid Clean classification whose illustrative design is included in paragraph (a) of § 145.10 now includes classifications in §§ 145.73(b), 145.83(b), and 145.93(b). We are proposing to update that paragraph and other paragraphs in § 145.10 to include all of the classifications in the regulations that correspond to the specified illustrative designs.
In §§ 145.23 and 145.33, paragraph (b) sets out the U.S. Pullorum-Typhoid Clean classification for multiplier breeding egg-type chickens and meat-type chickens, respectively. The introductory text refers to meeting one of the criteria in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(5) to qualify for the classification, but these paragraphs only contain subparagraphs (b)(1) through (b)(4). We are proposing to correct the reference accordingly.
In § 145.33, paragraphs (j) and (k) set out requirements for the U.S. M. Gallisepticum Monitored and U.S. M. Synoviae Monitored classifications, respectively, for multiplier breeding meat-type chickens. These classifications prohibit setting eggs from these classifications in hatchers or incubators in which U.S. M. Gallisepticum Clean or U.S. M. Synoviae Clean primary breeding flocks are set. However, the paragraph references for these primary breeding flock classifications are out of date, as the provisions for primary breeding flocks were moved from § 145.33 to § 145.83. We would correct the citations.
In § 146.3, which discusses participation in the Plan for commercial poultry, paragraph (e) states that commercial table-egg layers will cease to participate in the Plan after September 26, 2008, unless the majority
Section 147.44 sets out the process for submitting, compiling, and distributing proposed changes to the NPIP. Paragraph (b) of that section indicates that proposed changes shall be submitted in writing so as to reach the Service not later than 150 days prior to the opening date of the Plan Conference, except as provided in paragraph (d)(2) of § 147.43. However, paragraph (d)(2) of § 147.43 does not discuss submission of proposals for changes to the Plan; paragraph (d)(4) does. We would correct the reference in § 147.44(b) accordingly.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we have analyzed the potential economic effects of this action on small entities. The analysis is summarized below. Copies of the full analysis are available by contacting the person listed under
The changes in this proposed rule are recommended by the NPIP GCC, which represents cooperating State agencies and poultry industry members and advises the Secretary of Agriculture on issues pertaining to poultry health. The proposed amendments to these regulations would improve the regulatory environment for poultry and poultry products.
This proposed rule would move approved tests and testing procedures from the Code of Federal Regulations to a program standards document; add compartmentalization standards to the NPIP regulations; and make a number of specific changes, including adding or amending definitions of technical terms to specific sections, amending poultry disease classifications and laboratory procedures, and adding specific tests for certain poultry diseases.
The establishments that would be affected by the proposed rule—principally entities engaged in poultry production and processing—are predominantly small by Small Business Administration standards. In those instances in which an addition or modification could potentially result in a cost to certain entities, we do not expect the costs to be significant. This rule embodies changes decided upon by the NPIP GCC on behalf of Plan members, that is, changes recognized by the poultry industry as in their interest. We note that NPIP membership is voluntary.
Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This program/activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.025 and is subject to Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V.)
This proposed rule contains no new information collection or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Animal diseases, Indemnity payments, Low pathogenic avian influenza, Poultry.
Animal diseases, Poultry and poultry products, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, we propose to amend 9 CFR parts 56, 145, 146, and 147 as follows:
7 U.S.C. 8301-8317; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
The revision reads as follows:
(d)
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Poultry infected with or exposed to H5/H7 LPAI must not be transported to a market for controlled marketing until approved by the Cooperating State Agency in accordance with the initial State response and containment plan described in § 56.10.
(iii) Routes to slaughter must avoid other commercial poultry operations whenever possible. All load-out equipment, trailers, and trucks used on premises that have housed poultry that were infected with or exposed to H5/H7 LPAI must be cleaned and disinfected and not enter other poultry premises or facilities for 48 hours after removing such poultry from their premises.
(iv) Flocks moved for controlled marketing must be the last poultry marketed during the week they are marketed.
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Secure all feathers and debris that might blow around outside the house in which the infected or exposed poultry were held by gathering and pushing the material into the house;
(iii) Close the house in which the poultry were held, maintaining just enough ventilation to remove moisture. Leave the house undisturbed for a minimum of 72 hours.
(2) * * *
(i) * * * Compost manure, debris, and feed by windrowing in the house if possible. If this is not possible, set up a system for hauling manure, debris, and feed to an approved site for burial, piling, or composting. Manure, debris and feed may be removed from the house or premises and disposed of by composting it on site, leaving it in a undisturbed pile on site, or removing it from the site in covered vehicles. Land application of manure, debris, and feed should only be performed in accordance with the initial State response and containment plan described in § 56.10. Clean out the house or move or spread litter as determined by the Cooperating State Agency and in accordance with the initial State response and containment plan. * * *
(3) * * * Premises should remain empty until testing provides negative virus detection results and checked by the Cooperating State Agency in accordance with the initial State response and containment plan described in § 56.10. * * *
7 U.S.C. 8301-8317; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
The additions read as follows:
The addition reads as follows:
(d) To ensure that Plan diseases are not spread, flocks should be qualified for their intended Plan classifications before being moved into breeder production facilities.
The revision reads as follows:
(a) * * * The sanitary procedures outlined in the NPIP Program Standards, or other procedures approved by the Administrator in accordance with § 147.53(d), will be considered as a guide in determining compliance with this provision. * * *
The revisions read as follows:
(c)
(g)
(m)
(o)
(t)
The revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(1) * * * Official blood tests must be conducted in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter or according to literature provided by the producer. * * *
(6) * * *
(ii) * * * Bacteriological examination must be conducted in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter. * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * * Tests must be conducted in accordance with this paragraph (b) and in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter. * * *
(3) When reactors to the test for which the flock was tested are submitted to a laboratory as prescribed by the Official State Agency, the final status of the flock will be determined in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter.
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) * * *
(C) The AGID test for avian influenza must be conducted in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter. The test can be conducted on egg yolk or blood samples. The AGID test is not recommended for use in waterfowl.
(2) * * *
(ii) * * *
(B) Chicken and turkey flocks that test positive on the ACIA must be retested using the RRT-PCR or virus isolation. Positive results from the RRT-PCR or virus isolation must be further tested by Federal Reference Laboratories using appropriate tests for confirmation. Final judgment may be based upon further sampling and appropriate tests for confirmation.
(b) Hatching eggs produced by multiplier breeding flocks should be nest clean. They may be fumigated in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter or otherwise sanitized.
The revisions read as follows:
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(viii) Hatching eggs are collected as quickly as possible, and their sanitation is maintained in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter.
(ix) Hatching eggs produced by the flock are incubated in a hatchery whose sanitation is maintained in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter and sanitized either by a procedure approved by the Official State Agency or in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter.
(h) * * *
(2) A sample of at least 11 birds must be tested and found negative to avian influenza within 21 days prior to slaughter.
(b) Hatching eggs produced by multiplier breeding flocks should be nest clean. They may be fumigated in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter or otherwise sanitized.
The revisions read as follows:
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(vi) Chicks shall be hatched in a hatchery whose sanitation is maintained in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter and sanitized or fumigated in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter;
(2) The Official State Agency may monitor the effectiveness of the sanitation practices in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter.
(l) * * *
(2) During each 90-day period, all primary spent fowl, up to a maximum of 30, must be tested serologically and found negative for antibodies to avian influenza within 21 days prior to slaughter.
(m)
(1) A flock and the hatching eggs and chicks produced from it shall be eligible for this classification if they meet the following requirements, as determined by the Official State Agency:
(i) The flock originated from a U.S. S. Enteritidis Clean primary meat-type breeding flock.
(ii) The flock is maintained in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter with respect to Salmonella isolation, sanitation, and management.
(iii) Environmental samples are collected from the flock in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter at 16-18 and 40-45 weeks of age. The samples shall be examined bacteriologically for group D Salmonella at an authorized laboratory, and cultures from group D positive samples shall be serotyped.
(2) The following actions must be taken with respect to the test results that are generated from this
(i) If
(ii) The test results and the results of any evaluations performed in accordance with paragraph (m)(2)(i) of this section will be reported on a quarterly basis to the Official State Agency and the NPIP Senior Coordinator.
(iii) Participating broiler integrators shall combine their respective test results (and the results of any associated evaluations) to help guide their decisionmaking regarding programs and practices to implement or maintain to address
(iv) Aggregate data regarding the prevalence of
(3) This classification may be revoked by the Official State Agency if the participant fails to comply with the requirements of this classification. The Official State Agency shall not revoke the participant's classification until the participant has been given an opportunity for a hearing in accordance with rules of practice adopted by the Official State Agency.
The revisions read as follows:
(e) * * *
(1) * * * It is recommended that samples be collected from birds with clinical signs of
(g) * * *
(3) All spent fowl being marketed for meat from flocks that have been tested as required by this paragraph shall be tested at a rate of 6 birds per flock within 21 days prior to movement to slaughter.
(a)
(1)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(A) The physical and spatial factors that separate the compartment from surrounding bird populations and affect the biosecurity status of the compartment.
(B) Relevant environmental factors that may affect exposure of the birds to AI.
(C) The functional boundary and fencing that are used to control access to the compartment.
(D) Facilities and procedures to prevent access by wild birds and to provide separation from other relevant hosts.
(E) The relevant infrastructural factors that may affect exposure to AI, including the construction and design of buildings or physical components, cleaning and disinfection of buildings and physical components between production groups with quality assurance verification, cleaning and disinfection of equipment, and introduction of equipment or material into the compartment.
(iv)
(A) Requirements that company employees and contract growers limit their contact with live birds outside the compartment.
(B) An education and training program for company employees and contractors.
(C) Standard operating procedures for company employees, contractors, and outside maintenance personnel.
(D) Requirements for company employees and non-company personnel who visit any premises within the compartment.
(E) Company veterinary infrastructure to ensure flock monitoring and disease diagnosis and control measures.
(F) Policies for management of vehicles and equipment used within the compartment to connect the various premises.
(G) Farm site requirements (location, layout, and construction).
(H) Pest management program.
(I) Cleaning and disinfection process.
(J) Requirements for litter and dead bird removal and/or disposal.
(v)
(vi)
(2)
(ii) Veterinary staff from the Official State Agency and NPIP staff will work in partnership with licensed, accredited veterinarians to train and certify auditors through Service-approved workshops. The trained auditors will conduct biosecurity and operational audits at least once every 2 years to ensure the integrity of the compartment. These audits will include evaluation of the critical control points and standard operating practices within the compartment, verification of the health status of the flock(s) contained within the compartment, and examination of the biosecurity and management system of the integrated components of the compartment.
(iii) In addition, the company must demonstrate compliance with paragraph (a)(1) of this section for remaining in the U.S. H5/H7 Avian Influenza Clean classification, surveillance for NAI within the compartment, and conducting tests in State or Federal laboratories or in NPIP authorized laboratories. Accredited veterinarians are responsible for the enforcement of active and passive surveillance of NAI in primary breeder flocks. Baseline health status must be maintained for all flocks or subpopulations within the compartment, indicating the dates and negative results of all avian influenza surveillance and monitoring testing, the dates and history of last disease occurrence (if any), the number of outbreaks, and the methods of disease control that were applied.
(iv) Documentation will be maintained in the company's database and will be verified as required by the Service and/or the Official State Agency.
(3)
(i) Oversight of the establishment and management of compartments;
(ii) Establishment of effective partnerships between the Service, the Plan, and the primary breeder industry;
(iii) Approval or denial of classification of compartments as U.S. H5/H7 Avian Influenza Clean Compartments under paragraph (a)(1) of this section;
(iv) Official certification of the health status of the compartment, and commodities that may be traded from it through participation in the Plan for avian diseases, including the U.S. H5/H7 Avian Influenza Clean program as described in § 145.43(g) and diagnostic surveillance for H5/H7 low pathogenicity AI as described in § 145.15;
(v) Conducting audits of compartments at least once every 2 years to:
(A) Confirm that the primary breeding company's establishments are
(B) Evaluate and assess the management and husbandry practices relating to biosecurity to determine whether they are in compliance with hygiene and biosecurity procedures for poultry primary breeding flocks and hatcheries in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter;
(vi) Providing, upon request, model plans for management and husbandry practices relating to biosecurity in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter, risk evaluations in conjunction with the primary breeder industry (including disease surveillance such as VS Form 9-4, “Summary of Breeding Flock Participation”), and diagnostic capability summaries and systems for initial State response and containment plans in accordance with § 56.10 of this chapter; and
(vii) Publicizing and sharing compartment information with international trading partners, upon request, to establish approval and recognition of the compartment, including timeliness and accuracy of disease reporting and surveillance measures as described in §§ 145.15 and 145.43(g).
(4)
(b) [Reserved]
The addition reads as follows:
(c) It is recommended that waterfowl flocks and gallinaceous flocks in open-air facilities be kept separate.
The revision and addition read as follows:
(e) * * *
(1) It is a primary breeding flock in which a minimum of 30 birds has been tested negative to the H5 and H7 subtypes of avian influenza as provided in § 145.14(d) when more than 4 months of age;
(2) It is a multiplier breeding flock in which a minimum of 30 birds has been tested negative to the H5 and H7 subtypes of avian influenza as provided in § 145.14(d) when more than 4 months of age;
(3) A sample of at least 30 birds must be tested and found negative to H5/H7 avian influenza within 21 days prior to movement to slaughter.
(f)
(1) An Authorized Agent shall collect a minimum of five environmental samples, e.g., chick papers, hatching trays, and chick transfer devices, from the hatchery at least every 30 days. Testing must be performed at an authorized laboratory.
(2) To claim products are of this classification, all products shall be derived from a hatchery that meets the requirements of the classification.
(3) This classification may be revoked by the Official State Agency if the participant fails to follow recommended corrective measures.
(b) Hatching eggs produced by primary breeding flocks should be nest clean. They may be fumigated in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter or otherwise sanitized.
The revisions read as follows:
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(ix) Hatching eggs produced by the flock are incubated in a hatchery whose sanitation is maintained in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter and sanitized either by a procedure approved by the Official State Agency or in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter.
(f) * * *
(2) A sample of at least 11 birds must be tested and found negative to avian influenza within 21 days prior to movement to slaughter.
(a)
(1)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(A) The physical and spatial factors that separate the compartment from surrounding bird populations and affect the biosecurity status of the compartment.
(B) Relevant environmental factors that may affect exposure of the birds to AI.
(C) The functional boundary and fencing that are used to control access to the compartment.
(D) Facilities and procedures to prevent access by wild birds and to provide separation from other relevant hosts.
(E) The relevant infrastructural factors that may affect exposure to AI, including the construction and design of buildings or physical components, cleaning and disinfection of buildings and physical components between production groups with quality assurance verification, cleaning and disinfection of equipment, and introduction of equipment or material into the compartment.
(iv)
(A) Requirements that company employees and contract growers limit their contact with live birds outside the compartment.
(B) An education and training program for company employees and contractors.
(C) Standard operating procedures for company employees, contractors, and outside maintenance personnel.
(D) Requirements for company employees and non-company personnel who visit any premises within the compartment.
(E) Company veterinary infrastructure to ensure flock monitoring and disease diagnosis and control measures.
(F) Policies for management of vehicles and equipment used within the compartment to connect the various premises.
(G) Farm site requirements (location, layout, and construction).
(H) Pest management program.
(I) Cleaning and disinfection process.
(J) Requirements for litter and dead bird removal and/or disposal.
(v)
(vi)
(2)
(ii) Veterinary staff from the Official State Agency and NPIP staff will work in partnership with licensed, accredited veterinarians to train and certify auditors through Service-approved workshops. The trained auditors will conduct biosecurity and operational audits at least once every 2 years to ensure the integrity of the compartment. These audits will include evaluation of the critical control points and standard operating practices within the compartment, verification of the health status of the flock(s) contained within the compartment, and examination of the biosecurity and management system of the integrated components of the compartment.
(iii) In addition, the company must demonstrate compliance with paragraph (a)(1) of this section for remaining in the U.S. Avian Influenza Clean classification, surveillance for NAI within the compartment, and conducting tests in State or Federal laboratories or in NPIP authorized laboratories. Accredited veterinarians are responsible for the enforcement of active and passive surveillance of NAI in primary breeder flocks. Baseline health status must be maintained for all flocks or subpopulations within the compartment, indicating the dates and negative results of all avian influenza surveillance and monitoring testing, the dates and history of last disease occurrence (if any), the number of outbreaks, and the methods of disease control that were applied.
(iv) Documentation will be maintained in the company's database and will be verified as required by the Service and/or the Official State Agency.
(3)
(i) Oversight of the establishment and management of compartments;
(ii) Establishment of effective partnerships between the Service, the Plan, and the primary breeder industry;
(iii) Approval or denial of classification of compartments as U.S. Avian Influenza Clean Compartments under paragraph (a)(1) of this section;
(iv) Official certification of the health status of the compartment, and commodities that may be traded from it through participation in the Plan for avian diseases, including the U.S. Avian Influenza Clean program as described in § 145.73(f) and diagnostic surveillance for H5/H7 low pathogenicity AI as described in § 145.15;
(v) Conducting audits of compartments at least once every 2 years to:
(A) Confirm that the primary breeding company's establishments are epidemiologically distinct and pathways for the introduction of disease into the compartment are closed through routine operational procedures; and
(B) Evaluate and assess the management and husbandry practices relating to biosecurity to determine whether they are in compliance with hygiene and biosecurity procedures for poultry primary breeding flocks and hatcheries in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter;
(vi) Providing, upon request, model plans for management and husbandry practices relating to biosecurity in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter, risk evaluations in conjunction with the primary breeder industry (including disease surveillance such as VS Form 9-4, “Summary of Breeding Flock Participation”), and diagnostic capability summaries and systems for initial State response and containment plans in accordance with § 56.10 of this chapter; and
(vii) Publicizing and sharing compartment information with international trading partners, upon request, to establish approval and recognition of the compartment, including timeliness and accuracy of disease reporting and surveillance measures as described in §§ 145.15 and 145.73(f).
(4)
(b) [Reserved]
(b) Hatching eggs produced by primary breeding flocks should be nest clean. They may be fumigated in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter or otherwise sanitized.
The revisions read as follows:
(e) * * *
(1) A flock and the hatching eggs and chicks produced from it shall be eligible for this classification if they meet the following requirements, as determined by the Official State Agency:
(i) The flock originated from a U.S. S. Enteritidis Clean flock, or one of the following samples has been examined bacteriologically for
(A) A sample of chick papers, hatcher tray swabs, or fluff collected and cultured in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter; and
(B) Samples of intestinal and liver or spleen tissues from a minimum of 30 chicks that died within 7 days after hatching and have been preserved daily by freezing prior to shipment to an authorized laboratory.
(ii) The flock is maintained in compliance with isolation, sanitation, and management procedures for Salmonella in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter.
(iii) Environmental samples are collected from the flock by or under the supervision of an Authorized Agent, in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter, when the flock reaches 4 months of age and every 30 days thereafter. Once the flock is in egg production and chicks are hatching from it, the samples must include at least 4 individual test assay results every 30 days in flocks of more than 500 birds or 2 individual assays per month in flocks of 500 birds or fewer. One of these results must come from samples collected from hatched chicks at a participating hatchery derived from said flock. These individual test assays may be derived from pooled samples from the farm or hatchery in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter, but must be run as separate test assays in the laboratory. The environmental samples shall be examined bacteriologically for group D Salmonella at an authorized laboratory, and cultures from group D positive samples shall be serotyped.
(iv) Blood samples from 300 birds from the flock are officially tested with pullorum antigen when the flock is at least 4 months of age. All birds with positive or inconclusive reactions, up to a maximum of 25 birds, shall be submitted to an authorized laboratory and examined for the presence of group D Salmonella in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter. Cultures from group D positive samples shall be serotyped.
(v) Hatching eggs produced by the flock are collected as quickly as possible and their sanitation is maintained in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter.
(vi) Hatching eggs produced by the flock are incubated in a hatchery whose sanitation is maintained in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter, and the hatchery must have been sanitized either by a procedure approved by the Official State Agency or by fumigation in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter.
(2) * * *
(3) If SE is isolated from an environmental sample collected from the flock in accordance with paragraph (e)(1)(iii) of this section, an additional environmental sampling and 25 live cull birds or fresh dead birds (if present), or other randomly selected live birds if fewer than 25 culls can be found in the flock, must be bacteriologically examined for SE in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter. If only 1 bird from the 25-bird sample is found positive for SE, the participant may request bacteriological examination of a second 25-bird sample from the flock. In addition, if the flock with the SE isolation is in egg production and eggs are under incubation, the next four consecutive hatches shall be examined bacteriologically in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter. Samples shall be collected from all of the hatching unit's chick trays and basket trays of hatching eggs, or from all chick box papers from the flock, and tested, pooling the samples into a minimum of 10 separate assays. Any followup hatchery-positive SE isolations shall result in discontinuation of subsequent hatches until the flock status is determined by bird culture. The flock will be disqualified for the U.S. S. Enteritidis Clean classification if a bird or subsequent flock environmental assay results in isolation of SE.
(f) * * *
(1) * * *
(iv) Chicks shall be hatched in a hatchery whose sanitation is maintained in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter and sanitized or fumigated in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter.
(2) The Official State Agency may monitor the effectiveness of the sanitation practices in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter.
(g) * * *
(2) During each 90-day period, all primary spent fowl, up to a maximum of 30 must be tested serologically and found negative for antibodies to avian influenza within 21 days prior to slaughter.
(a)
(1)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(A) The physical and spatial factors that separate the compartment from surrounding bird populations and affect the biosecurity status of the compartment.
(B) Relevant environmental factors that may affect exposure of the birds to AI.
(C) The functional boundary and fencing that are used to control access to the compartment.
(D) Facilities and procedures to prevent access by wild birds and to provide separation from other relevant hosts.
(E) The relevant infrastructural factors that may affect exposure to AI, including the construction and design of buildings or physical components, cleaning and disinfection of buildings and physical components between production groups with quality assurance verification, cleaning and disinfection of equipment, and introduction of equipment or material into the compartment.
(iv)
(A) Requirements that company employees and contract growers limit their contact with live birds outside the compartment.
(B) An education and training program for company employees and contractors.
(C) Standard operating procedures for company employees, contractors, and outside maintenance personnel.
(D) Requirements for company employees and non-company personnel who visit any premises within the compartment.
(E) Company veterinary infrastructure to ensure flock monitoring and disease diagnosis and control measures.
(F) Policies for management of vehicles and equipment used within the compartment to connect the various premises.
(G) Farm site requirements (location, layout, and construction).
(H) Pest management program.
(I) Cleaning and disinfection process.
(J) Requirements for litter and dead bird removal and/or disposal.
(v)
(vi)
(2)
(ii) Veterinary staff from the Official State Agency and NPIP staff will work in partnership with licensed, accredited veterinarians to train and certify auditors through Service-approved workshops. The trained auditors will conduct biosecurity and operational audits at least once every 2 years to ensure the integrity of the compartment. These audits will include evaluation of the critical control points and standard operating practices within the compartment, verification of the health status of the flock(s) contained within the compartment, and examination of the biosecurity and management system of the integrated components of the compartment.
(iii) In addition, the company must demonstrate compliance with paragraph (a)(1) of this section for remaining in the U.S. Avian Influenza Clean classification, surveillance for NAI within the compartment, and conducting tests in State or Federal laboratories or in NPIP authorized laboratories. Accredited veterinarians are responsible for the enforcement of active and passive surveillance of NAI in primary breeder flocks. Baseline health status must be maintained for all flocks or subpopulations within the compartment, indicating the dates and negative results of all avian influenza surveillance and monitoring testing, the dates and history of last disease occurrence (if any), the number of outbreaks, and the methods of disease control that were applied.
(iv) Documentation will be maintained in the company's database and will be verified as required by the Service and/or the Official State Agency.
(3)
(i) Oversight of the establishment and management of compartments;
(ii) Establishment of effective partnerships between the Service, the Plan, and the primary breeder industry;
(iii) Approval or denial of classification of compartments as U.S. Avian Influenza Clean Compartments under paragraph (a)(1) of this section;
(iv) Official certification of the health status of the compartment, and commodities that may be traded from it through participation in the Plan for avian diseases, including the U.S. Avian Influenza Clean program as described in § 145.83(g) and diagnostic surveillance for H5/H7 low pathogenicity AI as described in § 145.15;
(v) Conducting audits of compartments at least once every 2 years to:
(A) Confirm that the primary breeding company's establishments are epidemiologically distinct and pathways for the introduction of disease into the compartment are closed through routine operational procedures; and
(B) Evaluate and assess the management and husbandry practices relating to biosecurity to determine whether they are in compliance with hygiene and biosecurity procedures for poultry primary breeding flocks and hatcheries in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter;
(vi) Providing, upon request, model plans for management and husbandry practices relating to biosecurity in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter, risk evaluations in conjunction with the primary breeder industry (including disease surveillance such as VS Form 9-4, “Summary of Breeding Flock Participation”), and diagnostic capability summaries and systems for initial State response and containment plans in accordance with § 56.10 of this chapter; and
(vii) Publicizing and sharing compartment information with international trading partners, upon request, to establish approval and recognition of the compartment, including timeliness and accuracy of disease reporting and surveillance measures as described in §§ 145.15 and 145.83(g).
(4)
(b) [Reserved]
The revision and addition read as follows:
(c) * * *
(3) A sample of at least 30 birds must be tested and found negative to H5/H7 avian influenza within 21 days prior to movement to slaughter.
(d)
(1) A flock and the hatching eggs and day-old waterfowl produced from it must meet the following requirements, as determined by the Official State Agency, to be eligible for this classification:
(i) The flock is maintained in compliance with isolation, sanitation, and management procedures for Salmonella in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter.
(ii) If feed contains animal protein, the protein products must have been heated throughout to a minimum temperature of 190 °F or above, or to a minimum temperature of 165 °F for at least 20 minutes, or to a minimum temperature of 184 °F under 70 lbs. pressure during the manufacturing process.
(iii) Feed shall be stored and transported in a manner that prevents contamination.
(iv) Waterfowl shall be hatched in a hatchery whose sanitation is maintained in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter and sanitized or fumigated in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter.
(v) An Authorized Agent shall take environmental samples from the hatchery every 30 days, i.e., meconium or box liner paper. An authorized laboratory for Salmonella shall examine the samples bacteriologically.
(vi) An Authorized Agent shall take environmental samples in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter from each flock at 4 months of age and every 30 days thereafter. An authorized laboratory for Salmonella shall examine the environmental samples bacteriologically.
(vii) Flocks may be vaccinated with a paratyphoid vaccine:
(2) The Official State Agency may monitor the effectiveness of the egg sanitation practices in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter.
(3) To claim products are of this classification, all products shall be derived from a hatchery and flock that meet the requirements of the classification.
(4) This classification may be revoked by the Official State Agency if the participant fails to follow recommended corrective measures.
7 U.S.C. 8301-8317; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
The revision reads as follows:
(b) A flock will be considered to be not conforming to protocol if there are no test results available, if samples from the flock were not collected and tested within 21 days prior to slaughter, or if the test results for the flocks were not returned prior to movement to slaughter.
The revisions read as follows:
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) * * *
(C) The AGID test for avian influenza must be conducted in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter. The test can be conducted on egg yolk or blood samples. The AGID test is not recommended for use in waterfowl.
(2) * * *
(ii) * * *
(B) Chicken and turkey flocks that test positive on the ACIA must be retested using the RRT-PCR or virus isolation. Positive results from the RRT-PCR or virus isolation must be further tested by Federal Reference Laboratories using appropriate tests for confirmation. Final judgment may be based upon further sampling and appropriate tests for confirmation.
(a)
(1)
(2)
(c) If spent fowl are slaughtered at meat-type chicken slaughter plants that participate in the Plan, they may participate in the Plan through the provisions of this subpart C.
The revision reads as follows:
(a) * * *
(2) It is a meat-type chicken slaughter plant which accepts only meat-type chickens or spent fowl from flocks where samples from a minimum of 11 birds have been collected no more than 21 days prior to slaughter and tested negative to the H5/H7 subtypes of avian influenza, as provided in § 146.13(b); or
(a) * * *
(1) It is a meat-type turkey slaughter plant that accepts only meat-type turkeys from flocks where a minimum of 6 samples per flock have been collected no more than 21 days prior to movement to slaughter and tested negative with an approved test for type A avian influenza, as provided in § 146.13(b). It is recommended that samples be collected from flocks over 10 weeks of age with respiratory signs such as coughing, sneezing, snicking, sinusitis, or rales; depression; or decreases in food or water intake.
7 U.S.C. 8301-8317; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
Blood testing must be conducted in a manner approved by the Administrator. Approved blood testing procedures are listed in the NPIP Program Standards, as defined in § 147.51. Blood testing procedures may also be approved by the Administrator in accordance with § 147.53(d)(1).
Bacteriological examination must be conducted in a manner approved by the Administrator. Approved bacteriological examination procedures are listed in the NPIP Program Standards, as defined in § 147.51. Bacteriological examination procedures may also be approved by the Administrator in accordance with § 147.53(d)(1).
Sanitation must be maintained in a manner approved by the Administrator. Approved procedures for maintaining sanitation are listed in the NPIP Program Standards, as defined in § 147.51. Sanitation procedures may also be approved by the Administrator in accordance with § 147.53(d)(2).
Molecular examination must be conducted in a manner approved by the Administrator. Approved molecular examination procedures are listed in the NPIP Program Standards, as defined in § 147.51. Molecular examination procedures may also be approved by the Administrator in accordance with § 147.53(d)(1).
These minimum requirements are intended to be the basis on which an authorized laboratory of the Plan can be evaluated to ensure that official Plan assays are performed in accordance with the NPIP Program Standards or other procedures approved by the Administrator in accordance with § 147.53(d)(1) and reported as described in paragraph (f) of this section. A satisfactory evaluation will result in the laboratory being recognized by the NPIP office of the Service as an authorized laboratory qualified to perform the assays provided for in this part.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(2)
(g)
(a)(1) All tests that are used to qualify flocks for NPIP classifications must be approved by the Administrator as effective and accurate at determining whether a disease is present in a poultry flock or in the environment.
(2) All sanitation procedures performed as part of qualifying for an NPIP classification must be approved by the Administrator as effective at reducing the risk of incidence of disease in a poultry flock or hatchery.
(b) Tests and sanitation procedures that have been approved by the Administrator may be found in the NPIP Program Standards. In addition, all tests that use veterinary biologics (e.g., antiserum and other products of biological origin) that are licensed or produced by the Service and used as described in the NPIP Program Standards are approved for use in the NPIP.
(c) New tests and sanitation procedures, or changes to existing tests and sanitation procedures, that have been approved by the NPIP in accordance with the process described in subpart E of this part will be approved by the Administrator. NPIP participants may submit new tests and sanitation procedures, or changes to current tests and sanitation procedures, through that process.
(d)(1) Persons who wish to have a test approved by the Administrator as effective and accurate at determining whether a disease is present in a flock or in the environment may apply for approval by submitting the test, along with any supporting information and data, to the National Poultry Improvement Plan, APHIS, USDA, 1506 Klondike Road, Suite 101, Conyers, GA 30094. Upon receipt of such an application, the NPIP Technical Committee will review the test and any supporting information and data supplied with the application. If the NPIP Technical Committee determines the test to be of potential general use, the Administrator will submit the test for consideration by the General Conference Committee of the NPIP in accordance with subpart E of this part, and the Administrator will respond with approval or denial of the test.
(2) Persons who wish to have a sanitation procedure approved by the Administrator as effective at reducing the risk of incidence of disease in a poultry flock or hatchery may apply for approval by submitting the sanitation procedure, along with any supporting information and data, to the National Poultry Improvement Plan, APHIS, USDA, 1506 Klondike Road, Suite 101, Conyers, GA 30094. Upon receipt of such an application, the NPIP Technical Committee will review the sanitation procedure and any supporting information and data supplied with the application. If the NPIP Technical Committee determines the sanitation procedure to be of potential general use, the Administrator will submit the sanitation procedure for consideration by the General Conference Committee of the NPIP in accordance with subpart E of this part, and the Administrator will respond with approval or denial of the test.
(e)(1) When the Administrator approves a new test or sanitation procedure or a change to an existing test or sanitation procedure, APHIS will publish a notice in the
(2)(i) After the close of the public comment period, APHIS will publish a notice in the
(A) No comments were received on the notice;
(B) The comments on the notice supported the action described in the notice; or
(C) The comments on the notice were evaluated but did not change the Administrator's determination that approval of the test or sanitation procedure is appropriate based on the
(ii) If comments indicate that changes should be made to the test or sanitation procedure as it was made available in the initial notice, APHIS will publish a notice in the
(iii) Whenever APHIS adds or makes changes to tests or sanitation procedures, APHIS will make available a new version of the NPIP Program Standards that reflects the additions or changes.
(iv) If comments present information that causes the Administrator to determine that approval of the test or sanitation procedure would not be appropriate, APHIS will publish a notice informing the public of this determination after the close of the comment period.
Diagnostic test kits that are not licensed by the Service (e.g., bacteriological culturing kits) may be approved through the following procedure:
(a) The sensitivity of the kit will be estimated in at least three authorized laboratories selected by the Service by testing known positive samples, as determined by the official NPIP procedures found in the NPIP Program Standards or through other procedures approved by the Administrator. If certain conditions or interfering substances are known to affect the performance of the kit, appropriate samples will be included so that the magnitude and significance of the effect(s) can be evaluated.
(b) The specificity of the kit will be estimated in at least three authorized laboratories selected by the Service by testing known negative samples, as determined by tests conducted in accordance with the NPIP Program Standards or other procedures approved by the Administrator in accordance with § 147.53(d)(1). If certain conditions or interfering substances are known to affect the performance of the kit, appropriate samples will be included so that the magnitude and significance of the effect(s) can be evaluated.
(c) The kit will be provided to the cooperating laboratories in its final form and include the instructions for use. The cooperating laboratories must perform the assay exactly as stated in the supplied instructions. Each laboratory must test a panel of at least 25 known positive clinical samples supplied by the manufacturer of the test kit. In addition, each laboratory will be asked to test 50 known negative clinical samples obtained from several sources, to provide a representative sampling of the general population. The identity of the samples must be coded so that the cooperating laboratories are blinded to identity and classification. Each sample must be provided in duplicate or triplicate, so that error and repeatability data may be generated.
(d) Cooperating laboratories will submit to the kit manufacturer all raw data regarding the assay response. Each sample tested will be reported as positive or negative, and the official NPIP procedure used to classify the sample must be submitted in addition to the assay response value.
(e) The findings of the cooperating laboratories will be evaluated by the NPIP Technical Committee, and the Technical Committee will make a recommendation regarding whether to approve the test kit to the General Conference Committee. If the Technical Committee recommends approval, the final approval will be granted in accordance with the procedures described in §§ 147.46 and 147.47.
(f) Diagnostic test kits that are not licensed by the Service (e.g., bacteriological culturing kits) and that have been approved for use in the NPIP in accordance with this section are listed in the NPIP Program Standards.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This NPRM proposes to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, “Child restraint systems,” to adopt side impact performance requirements for all child restraint systems designed to seat children in a weight range that includes weights up to 18 kilograms (kg) (40 pounds (lb)). NHTSA is issuing this NPRM to ensure that child restraints provide a minimum level of protection in side impacts by effectively restraining the child, preventing harmful head contact with an intruding vehicle door or child restraint structure, and by attenuating crash forces to the child's head and chest.
This NPRM is also issued toward fulfillment of a statutory mandate set forth in the “Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act” (July 6, 2012), directing the Secretary of Transportation to issue a final rule amending FMVSS No. 213 to improve the protection of children seated in child restraint systems during side impacts.
Comments must be received on or before April 28, 2014.
You may submit comments to the docket number identified in the heading of this document by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Regardless of how you submit your comments, please mention the docket number of this document.
You may also call the Docket at 202-366-9324.
For technical issues, you may call Cristina Echemendia, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, (Telephone: 202-366-6345) (Fax: 202-493-2990). For legal issues, you may call Deirdre Fujita, Office of Chief Counsel (Telephone: 202-366-2992) (Fax: 202-366-3820). Mailing address: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Washington, DC 20590.
This NPRM proposes to amend FMVSS No. 213, “Child restraint systems,” to adopt side impact performance requirements for all child restraint systems designed to seat children in a weight range that includes weights up to 18 kg (40 lb). Frontal and side crashes account for most child occupant fatalities. Standard No. 213 currently requires child restraints to meet a dynamic test simulating a 48.3 kilometers per hour (30 miles per hour) frontal impact. Today's proposal would require an additional test in which such child restraints must protect the child occupant in a dynamic test simulating a full-scale vehicle-to-vehicle side impact.
Child restraints would be tested with a newly-developed instrumented side impact test dummy representing a 3-year-old child, called the Q3s dummy, and with a well-established 12-month-old child test dummy (the Child Restraint Air Bag Interaction (CRABI) dummy). NHTSA is issuing this NPRM to ensure that child restraints provide a minimum level of protection in side impacts by effectively restraining the child, preventing harmful head contact with an intruding vehicle door or child restraint structure, and by attenuating crash forces to the child's head and chest.
This NPRM is also issued toward fulfillment of a statutory mandate set forth in the “Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act” (July 6, 2012), directing the Secretary of Transportation to issue a final rule amending FMVSS No. 213 to improve the protection of children seated in child restraint systems during side impacts.
Impacts to the side of a vehicle rank almost equal to frontal crashes as a source of occupant fatalities and serious injuries to children ages 0 to 12. Side impacts are especially dangerous when the impact is on the passenger compartment because, unlike a frontal or rear-end crash, there are no substantial, crushable metal structures between the occupant and the impacting vehicle or object. The door collapses into the passenger compartment and the occupants contact the door relatively
In a vehicle-to-vehicle side impact crash, the striking vehicle first interacts with the door structure of the struck vehicle and commences crushing the door and intruding laterally into the vehicle compartment. Second, the striking vehicle engages the sill of the struck vehicle and begins to push the struck vehicle away. At this time, the occupant sitting in the vehicle experiences the struck vehicle seat moving away from the impacting vehicle while the door intrudes towards him or her. Next, the occupant interacts with the intruding door, after which the occupant is accelerated away from the door until the occupant reaches the velocity of the struck and striking vehicle.
Passenger vehicles provide protection in vehicle-to-vehicle crashes by meeting FMVSS No. 214, “Side impact protection.” FMVSS No. 214 requires passenger vehicles to provide side impact protection in several different side crashes. In a full-scale crash test representing a severe intersection collision between two passenger vehicles, FMVSS No. 214 requires passenger vehicles to protect occupants when the vehicle is struck on either side by a moving deformable barrier (MDB) simulating an impacting vehicle.
Today's NPRM proposes a side impact test that simulates the two-vehicle side crash replicated by the FMVSS No. 214 MDB test of a small passenger car. Today's proposal would require all child restraint systems (CRSs) designed to seat children in a weight range that includes weights up to18 kg (40 lb) to meet specific performance criteria in a dynamic sled test that simulates the MDB test (striking vehicle traveling at 48.3 km/h (30 mph) impacting the struck vehicle traveling at 24 km/h (15 mph)). Approximately 92 percent of side crashes involving restrained children are of equivalent or lower crash severity than the FMVSS No. 214 MDB crash test of a small passenger car.
The proposed sled test is the first of its kind in the world for testing child restraints in a sled system that simulates the vehicle acceleration and intruding door of a small passenger car in a side impact (a vehicle-to-vehicle intersection crash). We do not have sufficient data to determine what share of covered crashes involve an intruding door, however door intrusion is a causative factor for moderate and serious injury to children in side impacts. Child restraints would be tested in the side impact sled test with the Q3s instrumented side impact test dummy representing the size and weight of a 3-year-old (3 YO) child, and with the CRABI dummy representing a 12-month-old (12 MO) infant. NHTSA has previously published an NPRM proposing to amend our regulation for anthropomorphic test devices, 49 CFR Part 572, to add specifications for the Q3s (78 FR 69944; November 21, 2013). The CRABI dummy's specifications are incorporated into 49 CFR Part 572, Subpart R.
NHTSA is issuing this NPRM to ensure that subject child restraints provide a minimum level of protection in side impacts. The CRSs would have to effectively restrain the child, prevent harmful head contact with an intruding vehicle door or child restraint structure, and attenuate crash forces to the child's chest. Injury criteria (expressed in terms of a head injury criterion (HIC) and chest deflection) are proposed for the Q3s. These criteria allow a quantitative evaluation of the effectiveness of the CRS to prevent or attenuate head and chest impact with the intruding door. The 12 MO CRABI would be used to measure the containment capability of the CRS (the ability to prevent the dummy's head from making contact with the intruding door of the sled assembly). In addition, CRSs would be required to meet other structural integrity requirements in the sled test that ensure a sound level of performance in side impacts.
We estimate that a final rule resulting from this proposal would reduce 5.2 fatalities and 64 non-fatal injuries (MAIS
Accident data indicate that CRSs designed for children in a weight range that includes weights up to 18 kg (40 lb) are generally already remarkably effective in reducing the risk of death and serious injury in side impacts. We have observed in recent years that increasing numbers of these CRSs appear to have more side structure coverage (CRS side “wings”) and side padding than before.
On July 6, 2012, President Obama signed the “Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act” (MAP-21), P.L. 112-141. Subtitle E of MAP-21, entitled “Child Safety Standards,” includes section 31501(a) which states that, not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of the Act, the Secretary shall issue a final rule amending Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 213 to improve the protection of children seated in child restraint systems during side impact crashes.
We interpret this provision of MAP-21 as providing us a fair amount of discretion. NHTSA informed Congress in 2004 that enhanced side impact protection for children in child restraints was a priority for NHTSA.
Accountability, and Documentation Act,” February 2004.
We believe that MAP-21's short deadline for issuance of a final rule indicates that Congress intended for NHTSA to use the existing state of knowledge gained from our research efforts to initiate and complete the regulation as the agency had planned. There are no child test dummies other than the Q3s available at this time that have been proven sufficiently durable
Further, MAP-21 requires a final rule amending FMVSS No. 213, which means that the rulemaking must be conducted in accordance with the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. 30101
We have developed a regulation that will improve the protection of children seated in child restraint systems during side impacts, in accordance with MAP-21, while meeting the criteria of section 30111 of the Vehicle Safety Act. We believe that the proposed regulation meets the need for safety, is stated in objective terms, and is reasonable, practicable, and appropriate. While the language of section 31501(a) of MAP-21 is broad enough to encompass a large universe of child restraint systems, there are technical and practical reasons for applying the dynamic side impact test only to CRSs designed to seat children in a weight range that includes weights up to 18 kg (40 lb). For one, there is no side impact dummy representative of children larger than those represented by the Q3s that can reasonably be used to test CRSs for children above 18 kg (40 lb) to the dynamic side impact requirements proposed today. Without an appropriate test dummy, the data from a dynamic test would not provide a meaningful assessment of the performance of the CRS in protecting children of weights above 18 kg (40 lb). In addition, the seated height of children weighing more than 18 kg (40 lb) who are restrained in child restraints is typically sufficient to take advantage of the vehicle's side impact protection systems, such as side curtain air bags. Thus, the safety need for Standard No. 213's dynamic side impact requirements is attenuated for these CRSs. These reasons are further discussed in a section below, and are presented for public comment.
CRSs are highly effective in reducing the likelihood of death or serious injury in motor vehicle crashes. NHTSA estimates that for children less than 1 year old, a child restraint can reduce the risk of fatality by 71 percent when used in a passenger car and by 58 percent when used in a pickup truck, van, or sport utility vehicle (light truck).
The most significant dynamic performance requirements of FMVSS No. 213 relevant to this NPRM are briefly described below.
l. The crash performance of a CRS is evaluated in a frontal dynamic test involving a 48.3 km/h (30 mph) velocity change, which is representative of a severe crash. CRSs are tested while attached to a standardized seat assembly representative of a passenger vehicle seat. CRSs other than booster seats must meet minimum performance requirements when anchored to the standard seat assembly with a lap belt only, or with the lower anchorages of the “LATCH”
2. CRSs are dynamically tested with anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs) (child test dummies) representative of the children for whom the CRS is recommended. FMVSS No. 213 specifies the use of ATDs representing a newborn, a 12 MO infant, a 3 YO, a 6 YO, a weighted 6 YO, and a 10 YO.
3. To protect the child, FMVSS No. 213 requires CRSs to limit the amount of force that can be exerted on the head and chest of the ATD during the dynamic test. FMVSS No. 213 also requires CRSs to meet head excursion limits to reduce the possibility of head injury from contact with vehicle interior surfaces and ejection, and limits knee excursion.
4. FMVSS No. 213 requires CRSs to maintain system integrity (i.e., not fracture or separate in such a way as to harm a child). The standard also specifies requirements for the size and shape of contactable surfaces of the CRS to ensure that surfaces that can harm on impact are absent, and specifies requirements for the performance of belts and buckles to make sure that, among other things, a buckle can be swiftly unlatched after a crash by an adult for expeditious egress from the crash site but cannot be easily unbuckled by an unsupervised child.
This NPRM proposes to amend FMVSS No. 213 to adopt side impact performance requirements for CRSs designed to seat children in a weight range that includes weights up to 18 kg (40 lb). The side impact test requirements would be specified in a new standard, FMVSS No. “213a.” FMVSS No. 213 would be amended to include a requirement that the CRSs covered by this NPRM must meet the new FMVSS No. 213a in addition to the requirements established in FMVSS No. 213.
The most significant amendments proposed by this NPRM are described below.
1. A dynamic (sled) test would be used to evaluate the performance of the CRS in a side impact. The sled test was developed based on an acceleration sled system
2. The test buck consists of a sliding “vehicle” seat (representative of a rear seat designated seating position) mounted to a rail system along with a “side door” structure rigidly mounted to the sled buck structure. The sliding “vehicle” seat and side door are representative of today's passenger vehicles. This “side impact seat assembly” (SISA) proposed for the side impact test is specified by drawings that have been placed in the docket for today's NPRM. The sliding vehicle seat is positioned sufficiently away from the side door to allow the sled to reach a desired velocity (31.3 km/h) prior to the time the sliding “vehicle” seat starts to accelerate to a specific acceleration profile.
3. Most CRSs would be attached using LATCH to the sliding “vehicle” seat of the SISA. CRSs covered by this NPRM that are not currently required by FMVSS No. 213 to have LATCH attachments (i.e., belt-positioning seats) would be tested using a lap and shoulder belt on the SISA. The center of the CRS is positioned 300 mm from the edge of the sliding seat next to the intruding door (simulating a near-side position). At the time the sliding seat starts to accelerate, the armrest on the door is located 32 mm from the edge of the seat towards the child restraint system. For forward-facing CRSs with LATCH attachments, the LATCH lower anchorages and the top tether, if provided, would be used (assuming the top tether is recommended for use in motor vehicles by the CRS manufacturer).
4. CRSs recommended for children with weights that include 10 kg to 18 kg (22 lb to 40 lb) would be tested on the SISA with an ATD representing a 3 YO child, referred to as the “Q3s.” The Q3s is a side impact version of the 3 YO child Q-series dummy (Q3), a frontal crash dummy developed in Europe. CRSs recommended to seat children with weights up to 10 kg (22 lb) would be tested with the 12 MO CRABI dummy (49 CFR Part 572, Subpart R).
5. Injury criteria (expressed in terms of HIC
The following principles guided our decision-making in developing this NPRM. Several of these principles have guided our past rulemakings on FMVSS No. 213.
a. NHTSA estimates that CRSs are already 42 percent effective in preventing death in side crashes of 0 to 3 YO children.
b. In making regulatory decisions on possible enhancements to CRS performance, the agency must bear in mind the consumer acceptance of cost increases to an already highly-effective item of safety equipment. Any enhancement that would significantly raise the price of the restraints could potentially have an adverse effect on the sales of this voluntarily-purchased equipment. The net effect on safety could be negative if the effect of sales losses exceeds the benefit of the improved performance of the restraints that are purchased. Thus, to maximize the total safety benefits of its efforts on FMVSS No. 213, the agency must balance those improvements against impacts on the price of restraints. In addition, NHTSA must also consider the effects of improved performance on the ease of using child restraints. If the use of child restraints becomes overly complex or unwieldy, the twin problems of misuse and nonuse of child restraints could be exacerbated.
c. Estimating the net effect on safety of this rulemaking, consistent with the principles for regulatory decision-making set forth in Executive Order (E.O.) 12286, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and E.O. 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” was limited by several factors. One was that data are sparse on side crashes resulting in severe injuries or fatalities to children in CRSs. Data indicate that side crashes resulting in fatalities to children in CRSs mainly occur in very severe, un-survivable side impact conditions. A dynamic test involving a very high test speed or intrusion level may have undesirable impacts on FMVSS No. 213 regarding practicability, cost, and possible detrimental effects on safety (i.e., the possible effects on the use of CRSs, discussed above).
Another limiting factor was there is no information comparing the real world performance of “good” performing CRSs versus “poor” performing CRSs. Without these data, we had to use test data and injury curves to determine the effectiveness of possible countermeasures (e.g., large side wings with energy absorbing padding). We are also limited by the unavailability of child ATDs for side impact testing. Currently, there is only an ATD representing a 3 YO child that has been specially developed for side impacts. The 12 MO CRABI dummy is a frontal impact dummy, and can only be used in a limited capacity to estimate benefits in this side impact rulemaking.
d. In developing this NPRM, we sought to build on the levels of side impact protection provided by FMVSS No. 214. The sled test proposed today is based on the FMVSS No. 214 MDB test of a small passenger car, replicating the real-world side crashes that occur most frequently today. The proposed sled test set-up is representative of the side impact environment in which a CRS would be used in today's vehicles. The environment is based on the rear seat and side door of vehicles meeting FMVSS No. 214. Children seated in the rear seat are benefitting from FMVSS No. 214's requirements: Side door beams and door and sill structure reinforcements prevent intrusion and enable the vehicle to better manage the crash energy.
Yet, due to their size and fragility, infants and toddlers are dependent on child restraint systems to augment FMVSS No. 214 protection, and to manage the side crash energy further. In developing this NPRM, our objectives were to ensure that CRSs provide a minimum level of protection in side impacts by effectively restraining the child, preventing harmful head contact with an intruding vehicle door or CRS structure, and by attenuating crashes forces to the child's chest.
e. This rulemaking is issued in furtherance of MAP-21. MAP-21 requires a final rule amending FMVSS No. 213 to improve the protection of children seated in child restraint systems during side impact crashes.
Consistent with the principles discussed above, we propose to apply the side impact test requirements to all CRSs designed to seat children in a weight range that includes weights up to 18 kg (40 lb). Children in the 0 to 18 kg (40 lb) group (which encompasses children from birth to about 4 YO) have a high rate of child restraint use (<1 YO = 98 percent and 1 to 3 YO
We believe that focusing at this time on the 0 to 18 kg (40 lb) (0 to 4 YO) age group is highly appropriate for several reasons. Real-world data show that head injuries are the most common injuries in a side impact environment. According to McCray,
Focusing on children weighing up to 18 kg (40 lb) (0 to 4 YO age group) also appropriately reflects the near-side impact environment in which CRSs will be used. Our test results indicated that an important factor in the near side impact environment is the position of the child's head with respect to the “beltline” (also referred to as the window sill)
Importantly also, due to the absence of an array of side impact child test dummies, we believe that focusing this NPRM on CRSs designed for children in a weight range that includes weights up to 18 kg (40 lb) best accords with Vehicle Safety Act requirements, which, among other factors, require each FMVSS to be “appropriate for the types of motor vehicle equipment for which it is prescribed.”
On the other hand, currently, the 3 YO child dummy used in the frontal crash program is not used to test CRSs with regard to performance in restraining children weighing more than 18 kg (40 lb). This is because the 3 YO test dummy is not considered representative of children for whom the CRS is recommended. Similarly, we believe that the Q3s, which has only been made available recently, would not be a suitable dummy to test the performance of CRSs with respect to children weighing more than 18 kg (40 lb). The Q3s would not be representative of children for whom the CRS is recommended, and test data obtained by use of the ATD would not likely be meaningful as to the performance of the CRS in restraining
We request comments on the merits of amending FMVSS No. 213 at this time to improve the protection of children weighing over 18 kg (40 lb), assessing performance of the CRSs with the Q3s or by other means. We also seek comments on whether belt-positioning (booster) seats recommended for older children have design limitations that might impede their ability to meet the proposed requirements. We have noticed that some belt-positioning seats for older children are advertised as providing side impact protection. We ask manufacturers to provide us information on the methods they use to demonstrate that their side impact design features for belt-positioning seats do in fact improve protection in side impacts.
There are a number of different types of child restraints designed for children in a weight range that includes weights up to 18 kg (40 lb). With regard to belt-positioning (booster) seats recommended for children weighing up to 18 kg (40 lb),
On the other hand, we believe that the proposed requirements should not apply to harnesses. FMVSS No. 213 defines a harness as “a combination pelvic and upper torso child restraint system that consists primarily of flexible material, such as straps, webbing or similar material, and that does not include a rigid seating structure of the child.” NHTSA tentatively believes that harnesses should be excluded because of practicability concerns about the ability of the harness to meet the proposed requirements and because harnesses serve a need in certain populations. Harnesses would likely not be able to meet the proposed performance requirements because they do not have a side structure that can be reinforced and/or padded to mitigate forces on the Q3s in the side test. At the same time, we recognize that there is a niche served by harnesses on certain school buses and special needs buses, one whose needs cannot be met by any other type of CRS. In addition, the side impact crash environment of a school bus is significantly different from that simulated by the proposed sled test procedure (which simulates a near-side impact of a small passenger car). Accordingly, we propose excluding harnesses from the proposed side impact requirements.
Car beds would also be excluded from the proposed requirements. Car beds do not “seat” children but instead restrain or position a child in a supine or prone position on a continuous flat surface. FMVSS No. 213 requires manufacturers of car beds to provide instructions stating that the car bed should be positioned in the vehicle such that the child's head is near the center of the vehicle. We believe that, due to the supine position and location of the head of the child, the risk of injury and the injury patterns of children in car beds are much different from those of children seated forward- or rear-facing. There is no accident data available that show that benefits would accrue from applying the proposed side impact protection standard to car beds.
The motor vehicle occupant fatality rate among children 4 YO and younger has declined from 4.5 in 1975 to 1.54 in 2009 (per 100,000 occupants). This decline in fatality rate is partially attributed to increased use of child restraint systems. The 2009 NSUBS found that most (92 percent) children 0 to 7 YO were riding in the rear seats of vehicles and were restrained in CRSs (98 percent of 0 to 1 YO children, 93 percent of 1 to 3 YO children, and 55 percent of 4 to 7 YO children).
According to the 2009 FARS data files, there were 33,808 persons killed in motor vehicle crashes in 2009, 322 of whom were children aged 4 and younger killed in passenger vehicle crashes. Among the 322 child occupant fatalities, 92 (29 percent) were unrestrained, 27 (8 percent) were restrained by vehicle seat belts, 178 (55 percent) were restrained in CRSs, and 25 (8 percent) had unknown restraint use.
In 1996, the agency estimated the effectiveness of CRSs and found the devices to reduce fatalities by 71 percent for children younger than 1 YO and by 54 percent for toddlers 1 to 4 YO in passenger vehicles.
The agency estimates that the lives of 284 children 4 YO and younger were saved in 2009 due to the use of child restraint systems. At 100 percent use of child restraint systems for children 0 to 4 YO, an estimated 372 lives would have been saved in 2009.
Failure to use proper occupant restraints is a significant factor in a large number of child occupant fatalities resulting from motor vehicle crashes. In
The agency further examined the real world crash databases managed by the agency (FARS and the National Automotive Sampling System-Crashworthiness Data System (NASS-CDS)) for the years 2005-2009 to better understand fatalities to children restrained in child restraints when involved in side crashes.
First, we categorized the crash cases involving children (0 to 12 YO) seated in rear seating positions, by restraint use, crash type, and child age. See Tables 5 and 6, below.
Annually, there were 619 crash fatalities among children 0 to 12 YO seated in rear seating positions of light vehicles. Among these fatalities, 220 (36 percent) were to children restrained in CRSs (162 were 0 to 3 YO and 58 were 4 to 12 YO). Nearly three-quarters of the CRS restrained child fatalities were to children 0 to 3 YO.
As shown in the last column of Table 6, among the 220 fatalities of children 0 to 12 YO restrained in rear seats of light passenger vehicles and in CRSs, approximately 32 percent occurred in frontal crashes, 31 percent in side crashes, 25 percent in rollovers, and 11 percent in rear crashes. Approximately 60 percent of side impact fatalities (41/68.4) were in near-side impacts. (“Far-side” position means the outboard seating position on the opposite side of the point of impact.)
Of the side impact crash fatalities among CRS restrained children 0 to 12 YO in rear seating positions, three quarters of near side fatalities (30.6/41) were to children under the age of 4.
In 2010, the agency published an analysis of the NASS—General Estimates System (GES) data for the years 1999-2008 to better understand injuries to children in motor vehicle traffic crashes.
In support of the NPRM, the agency analyzed NASS-CDS for the years 1995-2009 to obtain annual estimates of moderate or higher severity injuries (AIS 2+ injuries) among children of different ages in different restraint environment and crash modes. See Table 7 and 8.
Annually, there were, on average, approximately 6,100 AIS 2+ injuries to children 12 YO and younger seated in the rear seats of light passenger vehicles with 1,373 of these injured occupants being younger than 4 YO. Approximately 1,485 CRS restrained children 12 YO and younger sustained AIS 2+injuries, among which 1,047 (71 percent) were children younger than 4 YO and 422 (28 percent) were 4 to 7 YO children.
The NASS-CDS data files for the years 1995-2009 were further analyzed to determine crash characteristics. Table 8 presents the average annual estimates of 0 to12 YO children with AIS 2+ injuries in rear seating positions of light passenger vehicles. Thirty-one percent of the children were injured in side crashes, 40 percent in frontal crashes, and 23 percent in rollover crashes.
To better understand the crash characteristics of children restrained in child restraints, a similar analysis as that shown in Table 8 was conducted except that only the cases where the children were restrained in CRSs were included in the analysis. The results are presented in Table 9.
For AIS 2+ injured 12 YO and younger child occupants in passenger vehicles restrained in CRSs in rear seating positions, 15 percent of the injuries were in rollover events, 43 percent in frontal crashes, 33 percent in side crashes, and 9 percent in rear crashes. Sixty-seven percent (319/475) of the occupants in side crashes were in near-side impacts.
In the above analyses some of these injuries and fatalities involved children in seats that were incorrectly used. However, we do not have complete data on the number accidents that involved misuse because accident databases do not generally collect data on how child restraints were used.
In the past, NHTSA has explored the possibility of side impact requirements for child restraints in FMVSS No. 213.
When NHTSA first considered dynamic testing of child restraints (39 FR 7959; March 1, 1974), the agency proposed a 90 degree lateral impact simulating a 32 km/h (20 mph) crash. NHTSA proposed that each CRS would have to retain the test dummy within the system, limit head motion to 483 mm (19 inches (in)) in each lateral direction measured from the exterior surface of the dummy's head, and suffer no loss of structural integrity.
NHTSA withdrew the proposal after testing a number of restraints at a speed of 32 km/h (20 mph) and at a horizontal angle of 60 degrees from the direction of the test platform travel. The tests found that for outboard seating positions, only one of those restraints—one that required a tether—could meet the lateral head excursion limits that had been proposed. This was of concern because tethers were widely unused at that time. Further, the agency found that some restraints with impact shields, which, the agency stated, performed well in frontal crashes and which were rarely misused, could not pass the lateral test even when placed in the center seating position. The agency decided not to pursue lateral testing of child restraints given the cost of the design changes that would have been necessary to meet the lateral test, the problems with misuse of tethers, and the possible price sensitivity of child restraint sales. (43 FR 21470, 21474; May 18, 1978.)
In 2002, in response to the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability and Documentation Act (“TREAD Act”) (Pub. L. 106-414, 114 Stat. 1800), NHTSA issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) to request comments on the agency's work in developing a possible side impact protection requirement for CRSs (67 FR 21836, May 1, 2002).
Information indicated that child head injury was prevalent in side crashes. However, the agency was not able to confirm whether the majority of injuries and fatalities occur primarily due to direct head contact with the vehicle interior or other objects in the vehicle, or whether these injuries and fatalities are a result of non-contact, inertial loading on the head and neck structure. Due to these unknowns about head injury causation, the agency considered two side impact performance tests for child restraints. The tests were modeled after the simulated side impact test administered by the New South Wales, Australia, Roads and Traffic Authority (discussed in the next section). In one test, the CRS had to limit head excursion and HIC
The ANPRM requested information on the following areas: (a) Determination of child injury mechanisms in side impacts, and crash characteristics associated with serious and fatal injuries to children in child restraints; (b) development of test procedures, a suitable test dummy and appropriate injury criteria; and (c) identification of cost beneficial countermeasures.
The agency received approximately 17 comments on the ANPRM. Commenters supported enhancing child passenger protection in side impacts, but were concerned about the uncertainties with respect to the three areas highlighted above. A number of commenters believed that a dynamic test should account for some degree of vehicle intrusion into the occupant compartment.
NHTSA withdrew the ANPRM after considering the comments on the ANPRM and other information. The agency found that for side crashes: (a) Data were not widely available as to how children are being injured and killed in side impacts (e.g., to what degree injuries were caused by intrusion of an impacting vehicle or other object); (b) there was not a consensus on an appropriate child test dummy and associated injury criteria for side impact testing; and, (c) potential countermeasures for side impact intrusion were not identified. NHTSA determined that an NPRM was not feasible given unknowns about side crashes involving children in CRSs and the time constraints of the TREAD Act.
Notwithstanding the ANPRM's withdrawal, NHTSA continued research into improved side impact protection requirements for child restraints.
As discussed in this section, the state of knowledge about side crashes and CRS-restrained children is considerably greater now than it was in 2002. Information about how restrained children are being injured and killed in side crashes has become increasingly available in recent years. In addition, the agency has continued to evaluate test parameters and potential methodologies to replicate a representative side impact scenario that could potentially be developed into a dynamic side impact test procedure.
Sherwood
Sherwood also found that most side crashes had a longitudinal crash component and recommended that child restraints be designed to take into account both longitudinal and lateral components of the direction of force in a side crash. This finding accords with that found by NHTSA while developing FMVSS No. 214 (55 FR 45733), where data showed that during most side impact crashes, the struck vehicle is traveling forward while being struck on the side.
Nagabhushana
McCray (2007)
Arbogast (2004)
NHTSA analyzed NASS-CDS average annual estimates (1995-2009) for AIS 2+ injuries to children 0 to 12 YO in rear seats. The most common AIS 2+ injuries among restrained children in near-side impacts were to the head and face (55 percent), torso (chest and abdomen—29 percent), upper and lower extremities (13 percent). The most common injury contacts for AIS 2+ injuries were the side interior (33 percent), the front seat back (11.12 percent) and the CRS (9 percent).
Arbogast (2010)
Globally, several organizations have developed or continued work on side impact test procedures for child restraints.
• Australia and New Zealand's dynamic side impact test procedure (AS/NZS 1754 Revision 2004) specifies two different side impact tests. The first test simulates a far-side crash, in which a bench seat with a CRS attached to it is mounted on a sled at a 90 degree orientation and is subjected to lateral acceleration representative of that in a side impact vehicle crash. The second test simulates a near-side crash, incorporating a bench seat mounted at 90 degrees on the sled along with a fixed door mounted at the front of the sled adjacent to the bench seat. The sled is calibrated to undergo a velocity change of not less than 32 km/h (20 mph), with a deceleration of 14-20 g. P-series dummies developed by the Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research (TNO) are used to test forward-facing seats and boosters, and the TNO P-series and the TARU Theresa dummy are used for infant rear-facing restraints. The AS/NZS 1754 regulation specifies that the child restraints shall not allow any head contact with any part of the test door. (The P-series ATDs are frontal impact test dummies. They were not specially designed for use in side impacts. The TARU Theresa dummy represents a 6-week-old infant and is an uninstrumented dummy with a weight of only 4 kg (9 lb).)
• Australia's consumer information program rates the performance of CRSs in side impacts through the “Child Restraint Evaluation Program” (CREP). The test procedure is similar to AS/NZS 1754. CREP utilizes two side impact tests for its CRS rating system; one test is at a 90 degree impact and the other is at a 66 degree
• Germany's Allgemeiner Deutscher Automobil-Club (ADAC) adopted a consumer information rating program. The procedure uses a body-in-white of a VW Golf or Opel Astra. The body-in-white
• The International Standards Organization (ISO) and TNO have continued to work on developing a side impact test which uses a rotating hinged door to simulate door intrusion into the CRS.
• The World Forum for the Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29) of the European Union (EU) approved Phase I (total of 3 phases) of a new regulation on child restraint systems in November 2012, which includes a side impact test procedure.
• European authorities are developing a new consumer program, “New Programme for the Assessment of Child Restraint Systems (NPACS),”
• Takata developed a sled test buck for testing child restraints in a side impact environment. The buck has two moving fixtures: The sled buck itself and the sliding “vehicle” seat on which the child restraint is attached. The sliding “vehicle” seat is mounted to a rail system, along with a “side door” structure rigidly mounted to the sled buck structure. The details of this test procedure are described more fully in section IX.
The development of a specially-designed child side impact test dummy, the Q3s, has provided an important tool for evaluating CRSs in side impact. The Q3s is built on the platform of the standard Q3 dummy series (the Q-series are frontal ATDs used in Europe), but the Q3s has enhanced lateral biofidelity, durability and additional instrumentation for specialized use in side impact testing. The Q3s is more fully discussed in the 49 CFR Part 572 NPRM.
The state of knowledge and the practicability of measures that can be taken to improve side impact protection are now sufficient for NHTSA to propose a reasonable and realistic side impact test for incorporation into FMVSS No. 213.
Based on the information that has become available since the 2002 ANPRM, we tentatively conclude that a side impact is best replicated if the test procedure reflects and replicates dynamic elements of both the striking and struck vehicle in a vehicle-to-vehicle crash. We believe that a side impact test procedure should account for: (1) The struck vehicle door velocity prior to the interaction of the striking vehicle with the door sill of the struck vehicle, (2) the acceleration profile of the struck vehicle, and (3) the impact angle to replicate the longitudinal component of the direction of force. Specification of these parameters, based on actual vehicle crash characteristics, would enable the realistic simulation of the relative velocity between the intruding door and the CRS.
Selection of these parameters is consistent with the findings from other researchers (see Side Impact Environment for Children, section IX,
In order to build on existing efforts, NHTSA reviewed the above procedures and regulations developed globally that dynamically test child restraints in the side impact environment. Except for the Takata test procedure, the procedures and regulations did not replicate all of
NHTSA considered AS/NZS 1754 for implementation into FMVSS No. 213 but has not proposed it, mainly because the procedure does not simulate the intruding door, which we believe is an important component in the side impact environment. In addition, AS/NZS 1754 does not account for a longitudinal component, which we also believe to be an important characteristic of a side crash. (As noted above, NHTSA's 2002 ANPRM,
Germany's ADAC test procedure lacks an intruding door. Further, the vehicles represented by the body-in-white in Germany's ADAC test procedure are limited, and do not represent the range of vehicles in the U.S. fleet that we would like to have represented in our side impact test to safeguard child passengers in the U.S.
While the ISO/TNO test procedure accounts for the deceleration and intrusion experienced by a car in a side impact crash, one of its limitations is that the angular velocity of the hinged door is difficult to control, which reportedly results in poor repeatability.
The EU's test procedure did not appear appropriate since the test is of lower severity than the FMVSS No. 214 MDB side impact crash test of a small passenger vehicle. Moreover, the test procedure is only intended for evaluating CRSs with rigid ISOFIX attachments, which are not available on CRSs in the U.S., and, due to the differences in to the two systems discussed above, a test designed for one type of system will not produce useful results for testing the other system. Further, the test procedure does not seem to produce a representative interaction between the door and CRS during a side impact. The NHTSA-developed test procedure replicates a real-world T-bone type intersection collision, involving two moving vehicles, with door intrusion. In contrast, the European test with the sliding ISO anchorages is a purely lateral impact (stationary vehicle impacted laterally by another vehicle) and it does not correctly represent the door intrusion and door to child restraint interaction in real world side crashes, In addition, the sliding anchors in the European test allow for the child restraint to slide away from the impacting door, which also causes the European test be less reflective of a real-world crash than the test proposed in today's NPRM. The European test is likewise sensitive to the friction of the sliding anchorages, which may introduce variability in the test results.
The NPACS consumer program for side impact is still undergoing development and the details of the sled test procedure and dummies are not available.
In 2007, the agency began evaluating the Takata sled test procedure for evaluating child restraints in side impact.
In its preliminary evaluation of the Takata test protocol, after making minor modification to the test parameters,
The Takata procedure is based on an acceleration sled with a test buck consisting of a sliding “vehicle” seat mounted to a rail system, along with a “side door” structure rigidly mounted to the sled buck structure. The vehicle seat and side door are representative of today's passenger vehicles. Aluminum honeycomb is mounted below the side door structure. The sliding vehicle seat is positioned sufficiently away from the side door to allow the sled to reach a desired velocity prior to the sliding vehicle seat coming into contact with the side door and aluminum honeycomb. The purpose of the design is for the side door structure to impact the sliding “vehicle” seat at a specified speed, at which time the aluminum honeycomb begins to crush. The door contacts the CRS about the same time as the honeycomb contacts the sliding “vehicle” seat. The honeycomb characteristics are selected such that the desired sliding seat acceleration is achieved. The procedure is illustrated in Figure 1 below.
After considering the Takata test procedure, NHTSA selected the test method as a basis for developing a side impact test for evaluating CRS performance.
As shown above, the proposed test buck consists of a sliding “vehicle” seat and “side door” rigidly mounted to the
The agency examined data from FMVSS No. 214 MDB compliance tests to identify kinematic characteristics of the vehicle test that should be replicated in the sled test environment so that the latter is representative of the crash experience of a child restrained in a CRS in the rear seat. The following sled kinematic parameters were identified: (1) The acceleration profile of the sliding seat (representing the struck vehicle acceleration); (2) the door velocity at time of contact with the sliding seat (this represents the struck vehicle door velocity; and (3) the impact angle of the door with the sliding seat (to replicate the longitudinal component of the direction of force).
NHTSA selected and analyzed several FMVSS No. 214 MDB tests of small passenger vehicles to determine the test parameters and test corridors representative of the target crash environment. The agency determined that a small passenger vehicle in an FMVSS No. 214 MDB crash test experiences a lateral change in velocity of about 30 km/h (18.6 mph). This change in velocity is greater than 92 percent of near-side impact real-world crashes involving restrained children 0 to 12 YO in light vehicles, as estimated by NHTSA using the NASS-CDS datafiles. In order to ensure that the side impact test would be sufficiently stringent to account for the greater acceleration and intrusion experienced by smaller vehicles, the agency focused on the crash characteristics of small passenger vehicles in FMVSS No. 214 side MDB tests, as opposed to the average estimates from all vehicles.
To obtain a target acceleration pulse for the sliding seat that represents the motion of the struck vehicle, the right rear sill (the opposite side of impact) lateral (Y-axis) acceleration of ten small vehicles in FMVSS No. 214 tests were analyzed.
To obtain the sliding seat velocity (representing the motion of the struck vehicle), the right rear sill lateral (Y-axis) accelerations of the ten small vehicles were integrated to calculate the velocity. The results showed a change in velocity of approximately 26 to 29 km/h (16 to 18 mph).
The door velocity (which represents the struck vehicle door velocity), was obtained from the integration of door acceleration data from four of the ten previously selected FMVSS No. 214 compliance tests (only these four vehicles were tested with accelerometers installed on the door).
The relative velocity profile of the intruding door with respect to the sliding seat from the time the door first contacts the sliding seat structure to the time the sliding seat and the door reach a common velocity was determined from sled simulations with a door impact velocity of the 31 km/h (19.3 mph) in the direction of the sliding seat motion and a sliding seat acceleration profile shown in Figure 2. Figure 3 shows the average (dotted line) and the upper and lower boundaries (solid lines) of the velocity profile for the door relative to the sliding seat in sled tests performed during the development of the test procedure. The upper and lower boundaries of the relative door velocity represent the maximum and minimum values of the cluster of relative door velocity profiles in these sled tests.
Today's NPRM only proposes an acceleration profile for the sliding seat and a door impact velocity but does not propose a relative door velocity profile so as not to over specify the test environment. However, a door velocity profile with respect to the sliding seat may be desirable to ensure reproducible interaction of the intruding door with the child restraint in different types of sled systems. We are requesting comments on the need for specifying a relative door velocity profile to improve reproducibility of the test procedure. Depending on whether we receive information sufficiently supporting such a velocity profile, we may include one in the final rule.
The ten small vehicle FMVSS No. 214 tests were used to determine the impact angle of the sled buck. The right rear sill acceleration signals on both the longitudinal (X-axis) and lateral (Y-axis) directions were integrated to obtain the X and Y vehicle velocities. These velocities were used to calculate the angle of the resultant deceleration with respect to the lateral axis of the vehicle during the crash event.
A reference frame was used in which a pure left-to-right lateral impact was zero degrees and a pure frontal impact was 90 degrees. The mean angles over the time period of interest for the ten vehicles ranged from 4 to 15 degrees, while the angle at any specific time ranged from −8 to 22 degrees across the ten vehicles. From these ranges, the agency decided to perform tests within a range of 0 to 20 degrees. These tests (at 0, 10, 15 and 20 degrees) were performed in an effort to evaluate the effect of the test buck's impact angle on dummy kinematics and injury responses. Based on the tests and on the average impact angle computed from the vehicle right rear sill velocities of MDB-to-vehicle crash tests, we selected a 10 degree impact angle as the most appropriate. NHTSA also conducted sled tests at different impact angles (0, 5, 10, and 20 degrees) using the Takata sled procedure to compare them to four MDB crash tests (discussed in a later section) performed using the Q3s dummy restrained in a CRS in the rear seat behind the driver. We found that a 10 degree impact angle on the sled test produced dummy responses closer to those measured by the ATD in the same CRS in the four MDB crash tests than the other impact angles.
The proposed SISA consists of a sliding “vehicle” seat mounted to a rail system, along with a side door structure rigidly mounted to the sled buck
NHTSA also performed a series of sled tests to undertake a sensitivity analysis to better understand the effect of the sled test parameters and sled system configuration on dummy responses. The parameters evaluated were the seat cushion stiffness, door padding stiffness, presence of armrest, and window sill height. Details of the findings of the sensitivity analysis are discussed in Sullivan (2011),
In the vehicle survey, NHTSA measured the rear seat cushion stiffness of 13 vehicles, as well as the seat cushion stiffness of the seat cushions used in FMVSS No. 213, ECE R.44, and the NPACS programs.
Measurements were taken at various locations on the rear seat cushion of vehicles in quasi-static compression tests using an indentation plate.
In NHTSA's sensitivity analysis (see docketed technical report), we conducted sled tests with the Q3s to determine the effect of the seat cushion stiffness on dummy readings and CRS performance. Three CRS models were evaluated (Evenflo Triumph Advance DLX, Maxi-Cosi Priori XP and Graco SafeSeat Step2/Cozy Cline). The FMVSS No. 213 foam (with vinyl cover) and the ECE R.44 foam (with cloth cover) were used in this series of tests.
Based on the above, the agency is proposing that the seat cushion foam for the SISA have the stiffness of the ECE R.44 seat foam, given that the ECE R.44 foam is more representative of the current rear seats in the vehicle fleet than the FMVSS No. 213 cushion foam. The agency prefers the ECE R.44 foam over that of the NPACS foam because, although the two foams are similar in stiffness, the ECE R.44 foam is more readily available than the NPACS foam. Further, the NPACS procedure is still in draft form.
The agency has initiated a research program to evaluate how the test parameters of the FMVSS No. 213 frontal sled test should be updated to reflect any significant real world developments. Within this program, the agency's plans include developing a test bench seat with seat cushion stiffness that has characteristics of seat cushions in recent vehicle models.
To determine the sled door padding characteristics, we impact-tested eight vehicle doors using a Free Motion Head (FMH) (see the docketed technical report and Sullivan (2011)). The FMH impact tests consisted of a 3.5 kg (7.7 lb) child head form launched horizontally towards the door at 24 and 32 km/h (15 and 20 mph, respectively), which are the FMH impact test velocities used to test vehicle interiors in FMVSS No. 201, “Occupant protection in interior impact” (49 CFR 571.201).
The FMH was directed at different locations on the door where the head of the dummy was most likely to make contact. That is, the impact points were selected based on the center of gravity and top of the head locations of the Hybrid III (HIII) 3 YO child ATD, the HIII 6 YO child ATD, and the HIII 10 YO child ATD seated on the vehicle seat. The impact points were determined by tracking the location of head-to-door contact of these different sized ATDs when seated in the rear seat of a vehicle and leaned forward and laterally towards the door. Based on the results from the FMH tests of the eight vehicles, three foams (described as “stiff,” “average” and “soft” foams) spanning the range of vehicle door padding FMH impact characteristics were selected.
In NHTSA's sensitivity analysis (see technical report), we conducted a series of sled tests with the Q3s to assess the effect of door padding stiffness on the performance of the two CRS models (Graco Safe Seat Step 2 and Maxi Cosi Priori XP). “Soft” (United Foam # 2), “average” (Dow Ethafoam 220), and “stiff” (United Foam # 4) foam were used in 51 mm (2 in) thick padding applied to the simulated door wall panel.
Given the above information, the agency is proposing that the door of the SISA comprise of 51 mm (2 in) thick foam of “average” stiffness, so as to be representative of the average rear seat characteristics. In addition, the foam material with average stiffness (Dow Ethafoam 220) is of lower cost compared to the other foams, is relatively easy to obtain commercially, and is relatively fungible, in that other materials with similar physical properties could easily be used in its place.
The agency surveyed 2010 model year passenger vehicles (passenger cars, SUVs, vans) to obtain dimensional
The seat back angle of the vehicles surveyed ranged from 9 to 28 degrees. The average was 20 degrees with a standard deviation of 4 degrees (see Sullivan et. al (2011) and technical report). The seat pan angle (the angle of the seat cushion to the horizontal) ranged from 7 to 23 degrees. The average seat pan angle was 13 degrees with a standard deviation of 4 degrees.
The original Takata buck had a seat back angle and a seat pan angle of 20 and 15 degrees, respectively. Both the seat back angle and the seat pan angle are well within the ranges found in NHTSA's vehicle survey, and are the same as the ECE R.44 bench seat. Therefore, these angles were adopted in the SISA.
The armrest thickness (protrusion of armrest in the door) for the 25 vehicles surveyed ranged from 25 mm to 105 mm (1 in to 4.1 in). One vehicle was at or below 50 mm (2.1 in), 8 vehicles were between 51 mm and 70 mm (2.0 in and 2.75 in), 10 vehicles were between 71 mm and 80 mm (2.75 in and 3.1 in), and 5 vehicles were above 81 mm (3.1 in). One vehicle had no armrest.
The armrest thickness selected for the SISA sled system consists of a 64 mm (2.5 in) thick padding material attached to a 51 mm (2 in) thick door panel. The 64 mm (2.5 in) thickness of the armrest foam is within the range of armrest thickness from surveyed vehicles.
The beltline (window sill) and top of the armrest heights of the 24 surveyed vehicles were measured using the SGMF with respect to point A (center of the hinge of the SGMF) (see Figure 4).
The survey showed that the beltline heights varied between 413 mm and 566 mm (16.2 in and 22.2 in) in height and the armrest heights varied between 122 mm and 349 mm (4.8 in and 13.7 in) with respect to point A. A 489 mm (19.2 in) beltline height and a 238 mm (9.3 in) armrest height were found to be about the median values of the vehicles' ranges. A 494 mm (19.4 in) beltline height and a 229 mm (9 in) armrest height were found to be about the average values for the vehicles surveyed.
In NHTSA's sensitivity analysis, we conducted sled tests of forward-facing and rear-facing CRS models and the Q3s dummy with the beltline height at 479 mm (18.8 in) and at 500 mm (19.6 in) to determine the effect of beltline height on dummy responses. Only 2 CRS models showed slightly lower HIC
Tests with the CRABI dummy in rear-facing CRSs showed that the different beltline heights did not affect dummy responses. We believe this was due to the fact that most rear-facing CRSs designed for smaller children position
Only 6 vehicles (of the 24 surveyed) had a windowsill below the 479 mm (18.8 in) and were considered less representative of the vehicle fleet. Our test results indicated that with the Q3s seated higher above the beltline, HIC
The dimensions of the SISA door structure and armrest design and placement relative to the test platform are shown in Figure 5 below.
To have a door panel/armrest configuration in the SISA test buck with similar stiffness characteristics to those observed in the surveyed vehicles, we conducted FMH tests on various padding material combinations. Four of the 8 vehicles previously tested with the FMH to assess door panel force displacement characteristics also had impacts to the armrests to determine their armrest characteristics. The energy versus displacement curves of FMH impacts to the armrests indicated that the average armrest stiffness in the vehicles surveyed could be replicated on the SISA using 64 mm (2.5 in) of the foam we identified as “stiff” foam (United Foam #4) (see “Rear Seat Door Stiffness” section,
In NHTSA's sensitivity analysis, we conducted sled tests with the Maxi Cosi Priori and the Graco Safe Seat 2 with the armrest/door configuration. The results of these tests were compared to those from door padding-only sled tests and from the actual vehicle tests. We found that the addition of the armrest tended to reduce the HIC
NHTSA is proposing that the armrest/door configuration for the SISA consist of the 51 mm (2 in) “average” stiffness foam padding (Ethafoam 220) on the door and a 64 mm (2.5 in) “stiff” foam (United Foam #4) for the armrest. This configuration appears to be representative of the rear seat environment, and dummy responses with this armrest/door configuration were similar to those seen in vehicle crash tests (see Dynamic Validation of Sled Test section,
The SISA bench seat consists of a single seating position representing a rear outboard seating position for simulating a near-side impact. The centerline of this outboard seating position is at a distance of 300 mm (11.8 in) measured laterally from the edge of the bench seat closest to the impacting door. NHTSA is proposing to install the child restraint centered on the SISA bench seating position. In addition, NHTSA is proposing that the front face of the armrest on the door be approximately 32 mm from the edge of the bench seat towards the child restraint system at the time the door assembly interacts with the SISA bench seat structure. Because of the prescribed position of the armrest (32 mm from the edge of the seat) and the CRS (centered 300 mm from the edge of the seat) at the time the door first interacts with the bench seat structure, the intruding door will contact CRSs that are wider earlier in the event than those that are narrower. This would result in higher door impact velocity to wide CRSs than to narrow CRSs. We believe this is representative of how different CRS designs will perform in a specific vehicle. However, we are requesting comment on whether the distance of the front face of the armrest from the edge of the seat at the time the sliding seat starts to accelerate should be kept constant or should be varied such that all CRSs, regardless of their width, contact the impacting door at the same time and with the same initial impact speed.
We propose that the SISA be equipped with LATCH anchorages that are symmetrically located on either side of the centerline of this simulated
FMVSS No. 213 currently requires CRSs to be capable of being secured to a vehicle seat with the LATCH system,
We propose that the child restraint's top tether be attached during the side impact test when testing forward-facing CRSs that provide a tether. We are requesting comment on whether the standard should also require testing without the top tether attached for these forward-facing CRSs.
Comments are also requested on whether the standard should require CRSs to meet the proposed side impact requirements when attached to the SISA with a belt system, and on whether the belt system should be a Type I (lap) or a Type II (lap and shoulder) belt system.
To determine if the sled test with the selected parameters satisfactorily simulates a small passenger vehicle side impact crash test, NHTSA conducted four FMVSS No. 214 MDB tests of a 2008 Nissan Sentra and 2008 Nissan Versa using the Q3s dummy and two CRS models (see Table 10). For the first test of the Sentra (Test #6634), the impact location was that specified in FMVSS No. 214. (In an FMVSS No. 214 MDB test, the MDB is positioned such that in a left side impact, the MDB's left forward edge (corner) impacts the struck vehicle 940 mm (37 inches) forward of the mid-point of the wheelbase.) In the remaining three tests, the impact location was moved 229 mm (9 in) rearward so that the MDB engaged most of the rear door instead of the front door, to provide for more direct contact of the MDB with the CRS. The side curtain air bags were disabled from the vehicle tests to allow for a direct comparison to the sled. (Sullivan (2009).)
Table 11 shows data from the vehicle tests. The technical report docketed with this NPRM presents a detailed analysis of these data. The sled type side impact test with a 10 degree angle, an armrest and a beltline height of 479 mm (18.8 in)
The Q3s dummy responses in the modified Takata sled tests were compared to the three vehicle side impact crash tests. Peak pelvic and spine accelerations were similar but the magnitude of HIC
A 3 YO child test dummy and a 12 MO infant dummy have been tentatively selected for testing CRSs under the proposed side impact requirements.
The agency has selected the Q3s dummy, representing a 3 YO child, for testing CRSs designed for children in a weight range that includes children weighing from 10 kg to 18 kg (22 lb to 40 lb). The 18 kg (40 lb) weight cut off would be identical to that of the frontal collision requirements of FMVSS No. 213 (see S7). For the frontal crash requirements, a Hybrid III 3 YO child ATD is used to test CRSs recommended for children weighing from 10 kg to 18 kg (22 lb to 40 lb). The agency tentatively concludes that the Q3s, weighing 14.5 kg (32 lb), would suitably represent children in the 10 kg to 18 kg (22 lb to 40 lb) range for side impact testing. The anthropometry of the Q3 (and the side impact adaptation Q3s) is based on the Child Anthropometry Database (CANDAT) for a 3 YO child compiled by the Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research (TNO). CANDAT includes various characteristic dimensions and weights of children of different ages obtained from different regions in the world including United States, Europe, and Japan.
The Q3s dummy is a three-year-old child crash test dummy built on the platform of the standard Q3 dummy series with enhanced lateral biofidelity, durability and additional instrumentation for side impact testing. The Q3s dummy features a new head and a neck that has biofidelic lateral, and frontal performance. The ATD also has a deformable shoulder with shoulder deflection measurement capabilities, a new arm with improved flesh characteristics, a laterally compliant chest and a pelvis with improved upper leg flesh, floating hip cups, and a pubic load transducer.
The agency began evaluating the Q3s in 2002. The evaluation has demonstrated good biofidelity, repeatability, reproducibility, and durability. We have tentatively selected the Q3s dummy for this NPRM because it is commercially available, and has shown to be durable and biofidelic for the intended application in the proposed FMVSS No. 213 side impact tests. Further discussion of the Q3s can be found in the NPRM proposing incorporation of the Q3s test dummy into 49 CFR Part 572, “Anthropomorphic test devices,” previously published.
The Q3s dummy accepts different types of instrumentation, including accelerometers and load cells among others. The instrumentation we propose using with the ATD are three uni-axial accelerometers at the head center of gravity (C.G.) and an InfraRed Telescoping Rod for Assessment of Chest Compression (IR-TRACC) in the thorax for measuring lateral chest deflection. The IR-TRACC is a deformation measurement tool that consists of an infrared LED emitter and an infrared phototransistor detector. The emitter and detector are enclosed at each end of a telescoping tube. The chest deformation is determined from the irradiance measured by the detector, which is inversely proportional to the distance of the detector from the emitter. The IR-TRACC is standard instrumentation in the Q3s dummy.
The enhanced biofidelity and instrumentation capabilities of the Q3s make it our preferred option for use in FMVSS No. 213. NHTSA has considered an alternative 3 YO child ATD, based on the Hybrid III design, for use in this NPRM. Our reasons for preferring the Q3s are discussed in the 49 CFR Part 572 NPRM.
The agency analyzed NASS-CDS data average annual estimates (1995-2009) for AIS 2+ injuries to children 0 to 12 YO in rear seats. Data showed that the most common AIS 2+ injuries among children restrained in side impacts were to the head and face (55 percent), torso (chest and abdomen—29 percent), and upper and lower extremities (13 percent). Given the high frequency of head and thoracic injuries to children involved in side crashes reported in these data and in multiple studies,
The agency is proposing to address the potential for head injuries by setting a maximum on the HIC value measured by the Q3s in the side impact test. HIC is used in FMVSS No. 213 and in all other crashworthiness FMVSSs that protect against adult and child head injury. However, while the current FMVSS No. 213 frontal impact requirement specifies an injury assessment reference value (IARV) of 1,000 measured in a 36 ms timeframe (36 ms for integrating head acceleration) (HIC
We recognize that FMVSS No. 213's frontal impact performance requirement specifies a HIC
We tentatively conclude that today's proposed side impact test differs from FMVSS No. 213's frontal impact test such that the FMVSS No. 208 scaled IARV of HIC
With regard to chest protection, the agency proposes a chest displacement IARV for the Q3s of 23 mm to evaluate CRS performance in a side environment. Mertz (2003)
NHTSA tentatively believes that there is not a need for a performance criterion that would prohibit head contact with the intruding door.
Given that the head acceleration values computed during the time of head-to-door contact were lower than the peak head acceleration, we believe that the risk of head injury from head-to-door contacts for the 13 CRSs was much lower than the risk from the peak acceleration. For the above reasons, the agency has tentatively decided not to use a performance criterion based on head contact in tests with the Q3s dummy because HIC
The agency has tentatively selected the CRABI dummy (49 CFR Part 572, Subpart R) for testing CRSs designed to seat children in a weight range that includes weights up to 10 kg (22 lb). The 10 kg (22 lb) weight cut off would be identical to that of the frontal collision requirement of FMVSS No. 213 (see S7 of FMVSS No. 213), which specifies use of the CRABI to test CRSs recommended for children weighing from 5 kg to 10 kg (11 lb to 22 lb).
The CRABI was developed through the efforts of the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Child Restraint Air Bag Interaction Task Force. The ATD is used in FMVSS No. 208 to test advanced air bag systems and in FMVSS No. 213.
While the CRABI dummy is not a side impact dummy, the agency believes that it could be a useful tool to evaluate some aspects of CRS performance in side impacts. Children under 1 YO have the highest restraint use, so we believe that it is important for safety and for MAP-21 to evaluate the performance of the CRSs they use, even if the evaluation is limited to containment, structural integrity, and other related matters.
NHTSA is proposing that the CRABI be used to measure head-to-door contact only, and not HIC
We hypothesize that a reason for the results using HIC
On the other hand, we tentatively believe that the CRABI dummy would be suitable and should be used for assessing safety risks related to a CRS's ability to limit head-to-door contact in side crashes. Because the 0 to 12 MO age group has the highest restraint use of any age group, we seek to evaluate the performance of CRSs for this age group in side crashes even if such evaluation is limited to assessing head-to-door contact. Although the CRABI dummy may not be appropriate for use in measuring the potential for head injuries using HIC
In addition, we tentatively believe that the CRABI dummy would be suitable and should be used for assessing a CRS's ability to maintain its structural integrity in side crashes when restraining 1 YO children. (Structural integrity requirements are discussed below.) We seek comment on the use of the CRABI dummy, and on the use of the proposed head-to-door contact pass-fail criterion.
In the simulated side impact test, the CRS would be required to maintain system integrity when tested with the Q3s and with the CRABI. When a CRS is dynamically tested with the appropriate ATD, there could not be any complete separation of any load-bearing structural element of the CRS or any partial separation exposing surfaces with sharp edges that may contact an occupant. These requirements would reduce the likelihood that a child using the CRS would be injured by the collapse or disintegration of the system in a side crash or by contact with the interior of the passenger compartment or with components of the CRS.
Injury from contacting protrusions, such as the pointed ends of screws mounted in padding, would be prevented in a similar manner as that specified for the frontal crash test in FMVSS No. 213. The height of such
NHTSA tested 12 forward-facing and 5 rear-facing CRSs to estimate the performance of the fleet with the Q3s in the proposed test procedure.
Applying the proposed injury criteria specified for the Q3s dummy (HIC
For the 5 rear-facing CRSs tested, the results of the fleet tests showed that the Q3s measured HIC
As to positioning the Q3s, we note that further analysis of the data showed that the chest displacements of the Q3s, tested in the same CRS model, were higher when the dummy's arm was positioned in line with the thorax, than when the arm was rotated upward exposing the thorax to direct contact with the intruding door. The agency is proposing an arm position at 25 degrees with respect to the thorax. The Q3s dummy's shoulder contains a detent to aid in positioning the arm at 25 degrees with respect to the thorax. We are requesting comment on the arm position.
When testing with the Q3s dummy in a rear-facing CRS, the legs of the dummy were extended upwards and rotated down until they were in contact with the SISA seat back. We are also requesting comment on the position of the Q3s dummy legs when testing rear-facing CRSs with this dummy.
NHTSA tested 12 rear-facing CRSs to estimate the performance of the fleet with the CRABI. All tests were performed with the SISA mounted on a dynamic test platform so that the seat orientation reference line (SORL) of the seat was 10 degrees from the perpendicular direction of the test platform travel. CRSs were attached to the seat bench using LATCH. A 64 mm (2.5 in) thick armrest of “stiff” foam was added to the 50 mm (2 in) door panel foam. Twelve tests were performed with a window sill height at 479 mm (18.8 in). The test procedure proposed in today's NPRM was used for this fleet test except for the use of the NPACS foam instead of the ECE R.44 foam and a window sill height of 479 mm (18.8 in) instead of a 500 mm (19.6 in) window sill height. The NPACS foam was used on these series of tests, as previous testing appeared to show that cushion stiffness did not have a significant influence in the readings of the ATDs.
Three additional tests were performed with the beltline at 500 mm (19.6 in).
Using head-to-door contact as the performance criterion in the fleet tests, the results showed that the CRABI had head contact only with the Combi Shuttle model (1 out of 12 models). The Combi Shuttle model was retested and results were found to be repeatable. The test results are summarized in Table 12.
The tests NHTSA performed during the development of the test procedure showed that some design characteristics such as side coverage (through head inserts or side structure/wings) can influence the values measured by the test dummy. As previously discussed, we examined each CRS with a seated Q3s dummy from a side view to evaluate if the head of the dummy was completely covered (obscured) by the side structure or wing insert or if it was partially visible. We rated designs as “good” (solid outline) when they had “full” side view coverage (dummy's head not visible, totally obscured). We considered the CRS designs as “average” (dashed outline) when 75 percent or more of the dummy's head was obscured by the side structure or wing insert. We considered a “poor” design (filled-in black) to be when less than 75 percent of the dummy's head was obscured by the side structure and/or head insert. Interestingly, test results showed that the CRSs with less side coverage (filled-in black) had the highest HIC
These test results indicate that “good” side coverage as a fundamental element of the child restraint design can help improve child restraint performance. This can be achieved by having more side structure with padding on the interior side and/or by adding padded head inserts.
We note that other features observed in the tested CRS models were a side air baffle (Britax Advocates) and an air pillow (Safety 1st Air Protect). According to the manufacturers of those CRSs, both the air baffle and the air pillow are supposed to absorb energy during impact. NHTSA was unable to verify these statements in our developmental program. We are interested in data showing that these or any other features are effective in improving CRS side impact performance.
On May 4, 2009, we received a petition from the Dorel Juvenile Group (DJG) requesting us to include in our side impact proposal a dynamic side impact test procedure that uses a deceleration sled, as an alternative or substitute to a procedure based on the acceleration sled. The petitioner noted that NHTSA's developmental work for this NPRM was done at VRTC, which uses an acceleration sled. Unlike an acceleration sled, a deceleration sled is first accelerated to a target velocity and then decelerated to a prescribed deceleration profile. The main event of interest occurs during the sled deceleration phase.
DJG stated that the primary reason the new side impact test procedure for CRSs should allow a deceleration sled as an option to the acceleration sled is because CRS manufacturers are familiar with the deceleration sled in the frontal impact context, and either have or have ready access to deceleration sled equipment. It further noted that the deceleration sled is less expensive to acquire and operate.
In its petition, DJG described work it conducted in collaboration with Kettering University to develop a CRS side impact sled test procedure using a deceleration sled (hereinafter referred to as the Dorel/Kettering test procedure). DJG's petition provided a description of the Dorel/Kettering test procedure and included preliminary sled test data simulating a New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) MDB side impact test.
According to DJG, the Dorel/Kettering test procedure employed a deceleration sled with a simulated door rigidly mounted to it (bullet sled) which impacted a target sled (bench seat with a CRS installed on it) that was initially stationary on a pair of low friction bearings, separate from the sled. In the procedure, the sled was accelerated to the impact velocity of the NCAP MDB barrier face. The petitioner stated that the sled decelerator was tuned to match the MDB deceleration profile. The target sled was positioned such that contact of the honeycomb on the target sled with the door structure was coincident with the initiation of sled deceleration. The characteristics of the honeycomb attached to the target sled were selected such that its crushing resulted in the desired target sled acceleration profile (acceleration profile of the impacted vehicle in a side NCAP test).
DJG provided data from four baseline sled tests, using a Hybrid III 3 YO child dummy with a modified neck (HIII-3Cs) in a CRS attached to the target sled, which were conducted to establish test parameters such as the bullet and target sled velocities. DJG also presented results to demonstrate the consistency and accuracy of the bullet and target sled velocities. In addition, DJG conducted a sensitivity analysis of various test parameters and said that the only parameter affecting the target sled was the honeycomb crushable area.
DJG stated that it later conducted sled tests with the HIII-3Cs dummy in a Maxi Cosi Priori and a Safety 1st 3-in-1 forward-facing child restraint and compared the results with tests conducted by NHTSA's VRTC, which used an acceleration sled with the HIII-3Cs dummy in the same child restraints. According to DJG, the comparison showed that even though there were
The DJG petition, along with the test data, is available in the docket of this NPRM.
After analyzing the petitioner's data, we are unable to conclude that the Dorel/Kettering test procedure complements, i.e., is comparable to, the Takata procedure we evaluated on the acceleration sled. While the Dorel/Kettering test procedure appears to represent the intruding door velocity profile reasonably well, it does not sufficiently estimate the change in velocity of the passenger compartment as does the Takata acceleration sled procedure. The Dorel/Kettering test procedure does not include oblique side impacts or a representative armrest to the intruding door. In addition, the resultant head acceleration, HIC, upper neck forces and moments, pelvic resultant acceleration, and resultant spine acceleration of the HIII-3Cs dummy were consistently lower in the Dorel/Kettering tests than in the acceleration sled tests using the same CRS, door impact velocity, and similar type of dummy.
We note, however, that one of the strengths of the Takata test procedure is its simplicity and apparent versatility for application on an acceleration or a deceleration sled system. We believe that the provisions of the proposed test procedure, specified in the regulatory text, can be used to conduct the test on either an acceleration or a deceleration sled. Therefore, we do not believe there is a need to include a new test procedure expressly applicable to a deceleration sled in this proposal, as DJG requested.
It is our desire that the proposed test procedure be specified in a way that it can be conducted on an acceleration or a deceleration sled. The agency is planning to evaluate the repeatability and reproducibility of the proposed sled test procedure in different laboratories. We are interested in comments on what parameters, additional to the proposed specifications, should be specified to reproduce the proposed test procedure on a deceleration sled.
In any event, we note that under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, child restraint manufacturers are required to certify the compliance of their child restraints with the applicable FMVSSs. The Safety Act does not require manufacturers to certify their products using the test procedures specified in the applicable safety standard. Instead, the safety standard sets forth the procedures that NHTSA will take to conduct compliance tests. In the event of a noncompliance with an FMVSS, NHTSA will ask the manufacturer the basis for its certification, and will review the data upon which the certification was made. Depending on the situation, the information used for the certification could be from a sled test matching the test specified in the standard, a comparable sled test providing valid and accurate results, or it could be from entirely different method of inquiry as long as a good faith certification could be made. Thus, if FMVSS No. 213 were to specify a test that describes an acceleration sled system, that would not preclude a manufacturer from using a deceleration sled to test and certify its child restraints. Accordingly, since the FMVSSs do not need to incorporate a specific test procedure preferred by a manufacturer for the manufacturer to be able to use the test procedure as its chosen basis for certification, the petitioner's requested action is not necessary. For these reasons, the petition is denied.
There are approximately 7.42 million child restraints sold annually for children weighing up to 40 lb. These child restraints are composed of rear-facing infant seats, convertible seats (seats that can be used rear-facing and forward-facing), toddler seats (seats with harnesses, used only forward-facing), and combination seats (seats that can be used from forward-facing to booster mode). Of this total, it is estimated that there are approximately 2.73 million infant seats, 2.76 million convertible/toddler seats and 1.93 million combination seats. These sales estimates are based on sales in calendar year 2011.
Based on our sled test data, we estimate that approximately 80 percent of rear-facing infant seats (2.18 million) would need larger wings (padded side structure) and/or additional padding, and that similar countermeasures would be needed for 58.3 percent of the convertible/toddler seats (1.6 million) and 58.3 percent of combination seats (1.1 million). The retail cost of padding for rear-facing seats is estimated to be $0.66 per CRS. Accordingly, we estimate that the annual consumer cost for 2.18 million rear-facing CRSs that do not already comply with this test would be $1.441 million. The retail cost of padding for convertible/toddler seats that do not already comply with this test is estimated to be approximately $0.82 per CRS, so the annual consumer cost for 1.6 million convertible/toddler seats would be $1.321 million. The retail cost of padding for combination seats that do not already comply with this test is estimated to be approximately $0.82 per CRS, so the annual consumer cost for 1.1 million combination CRSs would be $0.925 million. The total annual consumer cost for the CRSs is estimated to be approximately $3.687 million. Distributing this total cost to all child restraints sold annually for children weighing up to 40 lb (7.42 million child restraints) results in an average cost of $0.50 per child restraint. Comments are requested on these calculations.
This NPRM proposes to apply the side impact protection requirements to belt-positioning seats designed for children in a weight range that includes weights up to 18 kg (40 lb) to improve the protection of children seated in such CRSs. Applying the side impact protection requirements to more children than less is consistent with MAP-21. We do not have test data that can be used to estimate the countermeasures needed on belt-positioning seats to meet the proposed side impact protection requirements. Comments are requested on the countermeasures needed by belt-positioning seats to meet side impact requirements when tested with the Q3s.
Since CRSs sold for children weighing more than 18 kg (40 lb) would be excluded from the proposed side impact protection requirements, an approach available at no additional cost to manufacturers would be to re-label the
We believe that there will be no lost sales due to the change in the booster seat label. There are no boosters on the market sold only for children from 30 to 40 lb. Boosters are sold for children with a starting weight of 30 or 40 lb, to a maximum weight of 60, 70, 80 or more pounds. Those that are sold for children with a starting weight of 30 lb will just be relabeled to have the minimum weight start at 40 lb. Children riding in harnessed toddler seats will continue using the toddler seat until they graduate to a booster seat at a minimum weight of 40 lb. Similarly, combination seats that are sold for use with younger children (with a harness) and older children (as a booster) will continue to be marketed to the same children as before the rule. The only change resulting from the new label would be that the booster seat mode would not be recommended for use until the child reaches 40 lb. Comments are requested on this issue.
We estimate that 36.7 non-fatal injuries (MAIS 1-5) to children in rear-facing child restraints annually would be prevented by the proposed requirements. In addition, 5.2 fatalities and 27.6 non-fatal injuries to children in forward-facing child restraints annually would be prevented by the proposed requirements. We have not estimated the annual benefits for children in the weight range 13.6-18 kg (30-40 lb) who are restrained in belt-positioning seats because we have not estimated the countermeasures needed. However, we believe that the benefits of belt-positioning seats with improved side impact protection for children weighing 13.6-18 kg (30-40 lb) are very small since FARS and NASS-CDS data files indicate very few injuries in side impact crashes to this population of children in belt-positioning seats.
The agency estimates that the cost of conducting the test described in the proposed rule would be approximately $1,300. We estimate that 96 CRS models comprise the 7.42 million CRSs sold annually that are subject to this NPRM. The subject CRSs are rear-facing CRSs, and convertible, toddler, and combination CRSs designed for children weighing up to 18 kg (40 lb). Of the 96 CRS models, 31 models are infant seats, 50 models are convertible seats, and 15 models are toddler and combination seats. The infant seats would involve one sled test with the 12 MO CRABI, the convertible seats would involve 3 sled tests (2 sled tests in the rear-facing mode with the 12 MO CRABI and the Q3s and 1 sled test in forward-facing mode with the Q3s), and the toddler and combination seats would involve 1 sled test with the Q3s. Therefore, we estimate that, assuming manufacturers would be conducting the dynamic test specified in the proposed rule (or a similar test) to certify their child restraints to the new side impact requirements, overall they would conduct 196 sled tests for the current 96 models available in the market, for an annual testing cost of $254,800. This testing cost, distributed among the 7.42 million CRSs sold annually, with an average model life of 5 years, is less than $0.01 per CRS.
The agency is proposing a lead time of 3 years from date of publication of the final rule. This means that CRSs manufactured on or after the date 3 years after the date of publication of the final rule must meet the side impact requirements. We propose to permit optional early compliance with the requirements beginning soon after the date of publication of the final rule.
Note that section 31501 of MAP-21 states that not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of the Act (which was July 6, 2012), the Secretary shall issue a final rule amending FMVSS No. 213 regarding side impact protection. Section 31505 of MAP-21 states that if the Secretary determines that any deadline for issuing a final rule under the Act cannot be met, the Secretary shall provide an explanation for why such deadline cannot be met and establish a new deadline for the rule.
We believe there is good cause for providing 3 years lead time. CRS manufacturers will have to gain familiarity with the new test procedures and the new Q3s dummy, assess their products' conformance to the FMVSS No. 213 side impact test, and possibly incorporate changes into their designs. We believe that 3 years lead time would give manufacturers sufficient time to design CRSs that comply with the side impact requirements.
The agency has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under E.O. 12866, E.O. 13563, and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This rulemaking is considered “significant” and was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review.”
The NPRM proposes to amend FMVSS No. 213 to adopt side impact performance requirements for child restraint systems designed to seat children in a weight range that includes weights up to 18 kg (40 lb). The proposal would specify a side impact test in which the child restraints must protect the occupant in a dynamic test simulating a vehicle-to-vehicle side impact. The side impact test would be additional to the current frontal impact tests of FMVSS No. 213.
We estimate that the annual cost of the proposed rule would be
In developing this NPRM, NHTSA has considered HIC
Of the alternatives presented for HIC
Comparing the three alternatives (at the 7 percent discount rate), we find that an 800 HIC
The 400 HIC
However, the agency's preferred alternative is 570 HIC
We also believe that another means of meeting a 400 HIC
Considering all of these factors, NHTSA has chosen 570 HIC
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996) whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions), unless the head of an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Agencies must also provide a statement of the factual basis for this certification.
I certify that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. NHTSA estimates there to be 29 manufacturers of child restraints, none of which are small businesses. Based on our fleet testing, we believe that most of the CRSs that would be subject to the proposed side impact requirements would meet the proposed requirements without a need to modify the CRS. For rear-facing infant seats and forward-facing restraints with harnesses that need to be modified, the agency estimates that the average incremental costs to each child restraint system would be only $0.50 per unit to meet the proposed rule. This incremental cost would not constitute a significant economic impact. Further, the incremental cost is not significant compared to the retail price of a child restraint system for infants and toddlers, which is in the range of $45 to $350. These incremental costs, which are very small compared to the overall price of the child restraint, can ultimately be passed on to the purchaser.
For belt-positioning seats that do not meet the proposed side impact requirements, the simplest course for a manufacturer would be to re-label the restraint so that it is marketed for children not in a weight class that would subject the CRS to the proposed requirements. That is, the CRSs could be marketed as belt-positioning seats for children weighing more than 18 kg (40 lb), instead of for children weighing above 13.6 kg (30 lb).
The agency believes that the cost of conducting the test described in the proposed rule (estimated at $1,300) spread over the number of units sold of that child restraint model would be very small, especially when compared to the
NHTSA has analyzed this proposed rule for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act and determined that it would not have any significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
NHTSA has examined today's proposed rule pursuant to Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional consultation with States, local governments or their representatives is mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded that the rulemaking would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The proposed rule would not have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”
NHTSA rules can preempt in two ways. First, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express preemption provision: When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter. 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command by Congress that preempts any non-identical State legislative and administrative law addressing the same aspect of performance.
The express preemption provision described above is subject to a savings clause under which “[c]ompliance with a motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter does not exempt a person from liability at common law.” 49 U.S.C. 30103(e) Pursuant to this provision, State common law tort causes of action against motor vehicle manufacturers that might otherwise be preempted by the express preemption provision are generally preserved. However, the Supreme Court has recognized the possibility, in some instances, of implied preemption of such State common law tort causes of action by virtue of NHTSA's rules, even if not expressly preempted. This second way that NHTSA rules can preempt is dependent upon there being an actual conflict between an FMVSS and the higher standard that would effectively be imposed on motor vehicle manufacturers if someone obtained a State common law tort judgment against the manufacturer, notwithstanding the manufacturer's compliance with the NHTSA standard. Because most NHTSA standards established by an FMVSS are minimum standards, a State common law tort cause of action that seeks to impose a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers will generally not be preempted. However, if and when such a conflict does exist—for example, when the standard at issue is both a minimum and a maximum standard—the State common law tort cause of action is impliedly preempted. See
Pursuant to Executive Order 13132 and 12988, NHTSA has considered whether this proposed rule could or should preempt State common law causes of action. The agency's ability to announce its conclusion regarding the preemptive effect of one of its rules reduces the likelihood that preemption will be an issue in any subsequent tort litigation.
To this end, the agency has examined the nature (e.g., the language and structure of the regulatory text) and objectives of today's proposed rule and finds that this proposed rule, like many NHTSA rules, would prescribe only a minimum safety standard. As such, NHTSA does not intend that this proposed rule would preempt state tort law that would effectively impose a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers than that established by today's proposed rule. Establishment of a higher standard by means of State tort law would not conflict with the minimum standard proposed here. Without any conflict, there could not be any implied preemption of a State common law tort cause of action.
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, February 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) adequately defines key terms; and (6) 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. The preemptive effect of this proposed rule is discussed above. NHTSA notes further that there is no requirement that individuals submit a petition for reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceeding before they may file suit in court.
Under the PRA of 1995, a person is not required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. In this notice of proposed rulemaking, we propose no “collections of information” (as defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(c)).
Under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA)(Public Law 104-113), all Federal agencies and departments shall use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies and departments. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when we decide not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
As explained above in this preamble, NHTSA reviewed the procedures and
NHTSA considered AS/NZS 1754 for implementation into FMVSS No. 213 but did not find it acceptable, mainly because that it does not simulate the intruding door, which we believe is an important component in the side impact environment. In addition, AS/NZS 1754 does not account for a longitudinal component, which we also believe to be an important characteristic of a side crash. (As noted above, NHTSA's 2002 ANPRM,
Germany's ADAC test procedure lacks an intruding door. While the ISO/TNO test procedure accounts for the deceleration and intrusion experienced by a car in a side impact crash, one of its limitations is that the angular velocity of the hinged door is difficult to control, which results in poor repeatability. In addition, these methods do not include a longitudinal velocity component to the intruding door, which is present in most side impacts and which, we believe, should be replicated in the FMVSS No. 213 test. NHTSA considered the EU's test procedure but decided not to pursue it, since the test is of lower severity than the crash conditions we wanted to replicate and of lower severity than the FMVSS No. 214 MDB side impact crash test of a small passenger vehicle. Moreover, the test procedure is only intended for evaluating CRSs with rigid ISOFIX attachments, which are not available on CRSs in the U.S. Further, the sliding anchors do not seem to produce a representative interaction between the door and CRS during a side impact, and may introduce variability in the test results. The NPACS consumer program is still undergoing development and the details of the sled test procedure and dummies are not available.
We note that NHTSA has based the side impact test proposal on a test procedure that was developed by Takata, a manufacturer in the restraint industry. By so doing, NHTSA has saved agency resources by making use of pertinent technical information that is already available. We believe this effort to save resources is consistent with the Act's goal of reducing when possible the agency's cost of developing its own standards.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, requires Federal agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include 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 annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). Adjusting this amount by the implicit gross domestic product price deflator for the year 2010 results in $136 million (110.993/81.606 = 1.36). This NPRM would not result in a cost of $136 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector. Thus, this NPRM is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 of the UMRA.
The policy statement in section 1 of E.O. 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 requests public comment on the “regulatory approaches taken by foreign governments” concerning the subject matter of this rulemaking. In the discussion above on the NTTAA, we have noted that we have reviewed the procedures and regulations developed globally to test child restraints dynamically in the side impact environment, and found the Takata test procedure to be the most suitable for our purposes. Comments are requested on the above policy statement and the implications it has for this rulemaking.
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 write to us with your views.
In developing this proposal, we tried to address the concerns of all our stakeholders. Your comments will help us improve this proposed rule. We welcome your views on all aspects of this proposed rule, but request comments on specific issues throughout this document. Your comments will be most effective if you follow the suggestions below:
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 (49 CFR 553.21). We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments.
Please submit your comments to the docket electronically by logging onto
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 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 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
We will consider all comments that the docket receives before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under
You may read the comments received by the docket at the address given above under
Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically check the docket for new material.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, and Tires.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR Part 571 as set forth below.
49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.
(k) * * *
(5) Drawing Package, “NHTSA Standard Seat Assembly; FMVSS No. 213—Side impact No. NHTSA-213-2011,” dated June 2012, into § 571.213a.
(l) * * *
(3) SAE Recommended Practice J211, “Instrumentation for Impact Tests,” revised June 1980, into §§ 571.213; 571.213a; 571.218.
S5 * * *
(g) Each add-on child restraint system manufactured for use in motor vehicles, that is recommended for children in a weight range that includes weights up to 18 kilograms (40 pounds), shall meet the requirements in this standard and the additional side impact protection requirements in Standard No. 213a (§ 571.213a). Excepted from Standard No. 213a are harnesses and car beds.
S1.
S2.
S3.
S4.
S5.
(a) Each child restraint system subject to this section shall meet the requirements in this section when, as specified, tested in accordance with S6 and this paragraph. Each child restraint system shall meet the requirements at each of the restraint's seat back angle adjustment positions and restraint belt routing positions, when the restraint is oriented in the forward or rearward direction recommended by the manufacturer pursuant to S5.6 of FMVSS No. 213 (§ 571.213), and tested with the test dummy specified in S7 of this section.
(b) Each child restraint system subject to this section shall also meet all applicable requirements in FMVSS No. 213 (§ 571.213).
S5.1
S5.1.1
(a) Exhibit no complete separation of any load bearing structural element and no partial separation exposing either surfaces with a radius of less than 6 mm (
(b)(1) If adjustable to different positions, remain in the same adjustment position during the testing that it was in immediately before the testing, except as otherwise specified in paragraph (b)(2).
(2)(i) Subject to paragraph (b)(2)(ii), a rear-facing child restraint system may have a means for repositioning the seating surface of the system that allows the system's occupant to move from a reclined position to an upright position and back to a reclined position during testing.
(ii) No opening that is exposed and is larger than 6 mm (
(c) If a front facing child restraint system, not allow the angle between the system's back support surfaces for the child and the system's seating surface to be less than 45 degrees at the completion of the test.
S5.1.2
When tested in accordance with S6.1 and with the test dummy specified in S7, each child restraint system that, in accordance with S5.5.2 of Standard No. 213 (§ 571.213), is recommended for use by children whose mass is more than 10 kg shall—
(a) Limit the resultant acceleration at the location of the accelerometer mounted in the test dummy head such that, for any two points in time, t1 and t2, during the event which are separated by not more than a 15 millisecond time interval and where t1 is less than t2, the maximum calculated head injury criterion (HIC) shall not exceed 570, determined using the resultant head acceleration at the center of gravity of the dummy head as expressed as a multiple of g (the acceleration of gravity), calculated using the expression:
(b) The maximum chest compression (or deflection) from the output of the thoracic InfraRed Telescoping Rod for Assessment of Chest Compression (IR-TRACC) shall not exceed 23 millimeters.
S5.1.3
S5.1.4
S5.1.5
(a) When tested in accordance with the appropriate sections of S6.2, after the dynamic test of S6.1, release when a force of not more than 71 N is applied.
(b) Not release during the testing specified in S6.1.
S6.
S6.1
The test conditions and test procedure for the dynamic side impact test are specified in S6.1.1 and S6.1.2, respectively.
S6.1.1
(a)
(1) The test device is a side impact seat assembly (SISA) consisting of a simulated vehicle bench seat, with one seating position, and a simulated door assembly as described in Drawing Package, “NHTSA Standard Seat Assembly; FMVSS No. 213—Side impact No. NHTSA-213-2011,” dated June 2012 (incorporated by reference, see § 571.5). The simulated door assembly is rigidly attached to the floor of the SISA and the simulated vehicle bench seat is mounted on rails to allow it to move relative to the floor of the SISA in the direction perpendicular to the SORL. The SISA is mounted on a dynamic test platform so that the SORL of the seat is 10 degrees from the perpendicular direction of the test platform travel. The SISA is rotated counterclockwise if the impact side is on the left of the seating position and clockwise if the impact side is on the right of the seating position.
(2) As illustrated in the SISA drawing package, attached to the SISA is a child restraint anchorage system conforming to the specifications of Standard No. 225 (§ 571.225).
(b) Accelerate the test platform to achieve a relative velocity (V
(c) The change in velocity of the bench seat is 31.3 ± 1.0 km/h and the bench seat acceleration perpendicular to
(d) Performance tests under S6.1 are conducted at any ambient temperature from 20.6 °C to 22.2 °C and at any relative humidity from 10 percent to 70 percent.
(e) The child restraint shall meet the requirements of S5 at each of its seat back angle adjustment positions and restraint belt routing positions, when the restraint is oriented in the direction recommended by the manufacturer (e.g., forward or rearward) pursuant to S5.5 of Standard No. 213 (§ 571.213), and tested with the test dummy specified in S7 of this section.
S6.1.2
(a) The child restraint centerline is positioned 300 mm from the SISA bench seat edge (impact side) and attached in any of the following manners.
(1) Install the child restraint system using the child restraint anchorage system in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions provided with the child restraint system pursuant to S5.6 of Standard No. 213 (§ 571.213), except as provided in this paragraph. For forward-facing restraints, attach the tether strap, if provided, to the tether anchorage on the SISA. No other supplemental device to attach the child restraint is used. Tighten belt systems used to attach the restraint to the SISA bench seat to a tension of not less than 53.5 N and not more than 67 N.
(2) For rear-facing restraints, install the child restraint system using only the lower anchorages of the child restraint anchorage system in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions provided with the child restraint system pursuant to S5.6 of Standard No. 213 (§ 571.213). No tether strap (or any other supplemental device) is used. Tighten belt systems used to attach the restraint to the SISA bench seat to a tension of not less than 53.5 N and not more than 67 N.
(3) For belt-positioning seats, use the lap and shoulder belt and no tether or any other supplemental device.
(b) Select any dummy specified in S7 for testing child restraint systems for use by children of the heights and weights for which the system is recommended in accordance with S5.5 of Standard No. 213 (§ 571.213). The dummy is assembled, clothed and prepared as specified in S8 and Part 572 of this chapter, as appropriate.
(c) The dummy is placed and positioned in the child restraint system as specified in S9. Attach the child restraint belts used to restrain the child within the system, if appropriate, as specified in S9.
(d)
(e) Accelerate the test platform in accordance with S6.1.1(b).
(f) All instrumentation and data reduction is in conformance with SAE J211 JUN80 (incorporated by reference, see § 571.5).
S6.2
(a) After completion of the testing specified in S6.1 and before the buckle is unlatched, tie a self-adjusting sling to each wrist and ankle of the test dummy in the manner illustrated in Figure 4 of Standard No. 213 (§ 571.213), without disturbing the belted dummy and the child restraint system.
(b) Pull the sling that is tied to the dummy restrained in the child restraint system and apply the following force: 90 N for a system tested with a 12-month-old dummy; 200 N for a system tested with a 3-year-old dummy. For an add-on child restraint, the force is applied in the manner illustrated in Figure 4 of Standard No. 213 (§ 571.213) and by pulling the sling horizontally and parallel to the SORL of the SISA.
(c) While applying the force specified in S6.2 (b), and using the device shown in Figure 8 of Standard No. 213 (§ 571.213) for pushbutton-release buckles, apply the release force in the manner and location specified in S6.2.1, for that type of buckle. Measure the force required to release the buckle.
S7
S7.1
(a) A child restraint that is recommended by its manufacturer in accordance with S5.5 of Standard No. 213 (§ 571.213) for use either by children in a specified mass range that includes any children having a mass greater than 5 kg (11 lb) but not greater than 10 kg (22 lb), or by children in a specified height range that includes any children whose height is greater than 650 mm but not greater than 850 mm, is tested with a 12-month-old test dummy (CRABI) conforming to part 572 subpart R.
(b) A child restraint that is recommended by its manufacturer in accordance with S5.5 of Standard No. 213 (§ 571.213) for use either by children in a specified mass range that includes any children having a mass greater than 10 kg (22 lb) but not greater than 18 kg (40 lb), or by children in a specified height range that includes any children whose height is greater than 850 mm but not greater than 1100 mm, is tested with a 3-year-old test dummy (Q3s) conforming to part 572 subpart W.
S8
S8.1
(a)
(b)
S8.2
S9
S9.1
(a) When testing rear-facing child restraint systems, place the 12-month-old dummy in the child restraint system so that the back of the dummy torso contacts the back support surface of the system. Attach all appropriate child
(b) When testing forward-facing child restraint systems, extend the dummy's arms vertically upwards and then rotate each arm downward toward the dummy's lower body until the arm contacts a surface of the child restraint system or the SISA. Ensure that no arm is restrained from movement in other than the downward direction, by any part of the system or the belts used to anchor the system to the SISA bench seat.
(c) When testing forward-facing child restraint systems, extend the arms of the 12-month-old test dummy as far as possible in the upward vertical direction. Extend the legs of the test dummy as far as possible in the forward horizontal direction, with the dummy feet perpendicular to the centerline of the lower legs. Using a flat square surface with an area of 2,580 square mm, apply a force of 178 N, perpendicular to the plane of the back of the standard seat assembly, first against the dummy crotch and then at the dummy thorax in the midsagittal plane of the dummy. Attach all appropriate child restraint belts used to restrain the child within the child restraint system and tighten them as specified in S6.1.2(d). Attach all appropriate belts used to attach the child restraint system to the SISA bench seat and tighten them as specified in S6.1.2.
(d) After the steps specified in paragraph (c), rotate each dummy limb downwards in the plane parallel to the dummy's midsagittal plane until the limb contacts a surface of the child restraint system or the standard seat assembly. Position the limbs, if necessary, so that limb placement does not inhibit torso or head movement in tests conducted under S6.
S9.2
(a) Holding the test dummy torso upright until it contacts the child restraint system's design seating surface, place the test dummy in the seated position within the child restraint system with the midsagittal plane of the test dummy head coincident with the center of the child restraint system.
(b) Extend the arms of the test dummy as far as possible in the upward vertical direction. Extend the legs of the dummy as far as possible in the forward horizontal direction, with the dummy feet perpendicular to the center line of the lower legs.
(c) Using a flat square surface with an area of 2580 square millimeters, apply a force of 178 N, perpendicular to the plane of the back of the SISA first against the dummy crotch and then at the dummy thorax in the midsagittal plane of the dummy. For a child restraint system with a fixed or movable surface, position each movable surface in accordance with the instructions that the manufacturer provided under S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 of Standard No. 213 (§ 571.213). For forward-facing restraints, attach all appropriate child restraint belts used to restrain the child within the child restraint system and tighten them as specified in S6.1.2(d). Attach all appropriate belts used to attach the child restraint system to the SISA or to restrain the child and tighten them as specified in S6.1.2. For belt-positioning seats, attach all appropriate vehicle belts used to restrain the child within the child restraint system and tighten them as specified in S6.1.2(d).
(c) After the steps specified in paragraph (b) of this section, rotate each of the dummy's legs downwards in the plane parallel to the dummy's midsagittal plane until the limb contacts a surface of the child restraint or the SISA. Rotate each of the dummy's arms downwards in the plane parallel to the dummy's midsagittal plane until the arm is positioned at a 25 degree angle with respect to the thorax.
S9.3
(a) Extend the arms of the test dummy as far as possible in the upward vertical direction. Extend the legs of the dummy as far as possible in the forward horizontal direction, with the dummy feet perpendicular to the center line of the lower legs.
(b) Place the Q3s dummy in the child restraint system so that the back of the dummy torso contacts the back support surface of the system. Place the test dummy in the child restraint system with the midsagittal plane of the test dummy head coincident with the center of the child restraint system. Rotate each of the dummy's legs downwards in the plane parallel to the dummy's midsagittal plane until the leg or feet of the dummy contacts the seat back of the SISA or a surface of the child restraint system.
(c) Using a flat square surface with an area of 2580 square millimeters, apply a force of 178 N, perpendicular to the plane of the back of the SISA bench seat first against the dummy crotch and then at the dummy thorax in the midsagittal plane of the dummy. For a child restraint system with a fixed or movable surface, position each movable surface in accordance with the instructions that the manufacturer provided under S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 of Standard No. 213 (§ 571.213). Attach all appropriate child restraint belts for use to restrain a child within the child restraint system and tighten them as specified in S6.1.2(d). Attach all appropriate belts used to attach the child restraint system to the SISA and tighten them as specified in S6.1.2.
(d) After the steps specified in paragraph (c) of this section, rotate each dummy arm downwards in the plane parallel to the dummy's midsagittal plane until the limb is positioned at a 25 degree angle with respect to the thorax.